Lawyers consider gay adoption rights
Lawyers consider gay adoption rights
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 11, 2003
72 Marietta Street NW, Atlanta, GA, 30303
(Fax: 404-526-5746 ) (E-Mail: journal@ajc.com )
( http://www.accessatlanta.com )
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/11gayadopt.html
Lawyers consider gay adoption rights
By Bill Rankin, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
SAN FRANCISCO - While national debate simmers over the issue of
same-sex marriage, the nation's largest legal group today will consider the
rights of gay and lesbian couples to adopt children.
In a vote scheduled for today, the American Bar Association's
governing body will vote on a resolution that applies to unmarried couples
who are either heterosexual or gay. It calls on the 410,000-member lawyer
group to support state laws and court rulings that permit joint adoptions
and second-parent adoptions by unmarried people.
"Recognizing these relationships is an essential means of protecting
the core rights of children," said Washington lawyer Mark Agrast, chairman
of an ABA individual rights committee. "Every child should have a legally
recognized relationship to each parent."
The issue is before the lawyer group only weeks after the U.S.
Supreme Court decriminalized gay sex. In that ruling, the high court held
that homosexuals' "dignity as free persons" barred prosecution of their
private sexual conduct.
Atlanta lawyer Paula Frederick, a member of the House of Delegates,
said she supports the resolution.
"There are too many unwanted children out there who need loving
parents," she said.
"I think it's a wonderful thing for children to find two people
who'll love them and are willing to adopt them," she said.
An ABA task force report on the issue notes that many same-sex
parents try to protect their relationships with their children through legal
documents such as wills and guardian agreements. "But they do not create a
legally recognized parental relationship, and they are vastly inferior to
the security and legal protection that adoption provides for children."
Financial needs
Without adoption, the report noted, a child of one parent cannot
claim financial support or inheritance rights from the second parent; is not
entitled to Social Security, retirement or workers' compensation benefits
from the second parent; and is ineligible for health insurance benefits from
the second parent's employer.
Nationwide, eight states and the District of Columbia have either
passed laws or had appellate court rulings allowing a second gay parent to
join with an adoptive parent. Georgia is not among those states.
On Aug. 4, the California Supreme Court became the latest court to
guarantee the rights of gay couples to adopt children. Second-parent
adoption, the court said, can secure the benefits of "legally recognized
parentage for a child. . .who otherwise must remain a legal stranger."
The next key ruling is expected soon from the federal appeals court
in Atlanta, which is considering a challenge to a Florida law banning
adoption by any gay person.
The case hinges on whether the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals can
determine there was a reasonable rationale behind the Florida statute.
In court filings, the state of Florida said it prefers to place
children in homes with both mothers and fathers and which are stabilized by
long-term marriage.
"In such homes, children have the best chance to develop optimally,
due to the vital role dual-gender parenting plays in shaping sexual and
gender identity and in providing heterosexual role modeling," the state
said.
It is also preferable to place a child in an adoptive home "which
minimizes social stigmatization to the extent possible," the state said.
"It is reasonably related to these interests to discourage adoption into
homosexual environments."
But the American Civil Liberties Union lawyers, which represents two
gay couples and a lesbian couple in the case, said Florida has allowed
couples with drug and alcohol problems or histories of domestic violence to
adopt children. Florida judges allow some gay couples to become permanent
legal guardians.
"Given the state's frank acknowledgement that lesbians and gay men
pose no risk of harm to children, and its willingness to place children with
lesbians and gay men permanently, it is impossible to credit the idea that
the ban was adopted to promote child welfare," the ACLU said.
"The only purpose the ban could possibly serve is the forbidden one:
expressing the state's disapproval of lesbians and gay men."