Writing

Candelas, Roberto ENGL 1302 Essay 2 Final Draft December 6, 2018

Every Child Deserves a Family

As we enter the holiday season, take a moment and reflect on what it is you remember

most about seasons past—the memories made, the moments shared. For many of us what

makes the holidays so sentimental and so memorable is the time spent with family, celebrating,

reminiscing, and creating new memories. These special moments are not afforded to all

though—many children living in the foster care system would like nothing more than to be

placed with a family of their own and have the opportunity to begin building some of these

memories for themselves. To this end, it is imperative that every loving family that is willing and

able to adopt and foster children is permitted to, without regard to whether that family

happens to be constituted of a same-sex couple. Passage of the Every Child Deserves a Family

Act (ECDFA) seeks to ensure that same-sex couples have uniform and equal access to the

adoption and foster care system, replacing the existing state-by-state patchwork of laws that at

times discriminate against these couples and deny them the opportunity to create families and

provide those children waiting for a loving home with one and the lasting memories that come

along with having a family to call their own.

In 2015 the landmark Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex

marriage in all 50 states, acknowledging that same-sex couples should be afforded the same

rights as their heterosexual counterparts. Much of the reasoning in the decision focused on the

importance of marriage as the foundation for family creation, as Justice Kennedy stated in the

Candelas 2

ruling “Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the

stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser” (Khimm). While the rights of same-sex

couples to marry were affirmed under the decision, and their equal footing was acknowledged,

there was left unanswered several questions regarding the rights of these couples to creating

families—specifically through surrogates and adoption. In the absence of explicit guidance from

the Supreme Court states and localities took varying tracks on the matter.

Between 2011 and 2013, bills were passed in Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan,

and Virginia that included specific language that allowed faith-based adoption agencies the

right to refuse service to same-gender couples or to give preference to heterosexual couples

(Montero). As recently as February 12, 2014, Kansas House Bill 2453 was passed prohibiting

sanctions on religious groups that refused services to gays and lesbians (Montero). The bill

would allow religiously affiliated adoption agencies the right not to place children with same-

gender couples. Texas House Bill 3959 was passed in 2017 and signed into law, permits this

type of discrimination not only against same-sex couples, but also those of other faiths and

single-parents—using the pretext of religious freedom (Reynolds). Same-sex adoption is

currently legal in all 50 states as of 2016, when Mississippi’s ban was struck down. However,

there exists no federal legislation mandating that foster-care and adoption agencies receiving

federal funding extend their services to same-sex couples. This state-by-state uncertainty is the

most urgent reason that federal legislation should be passed to ensure that all citizens are

treated equally in the eyes of the law. Opponents of same-sex adoption have seized on this gap

to attempt to pass several pieces of discriminatory legislation that would allow foster-care and

adoption agencies that are faith-based to deny their services to same-sex couples—as well as

Candelas 3

single parents and those of other faiths. In order to ensure that the number of children waiting

for families are placed is maximized, and to ensure that the spirit of Obergefell is fully realized

passage of the ECDFA is imperative.

Imagine that you just celebrated your first wedding anniversary and you find out the

same day that your spouse received the promotion they’d been waiting for at work. Along with

this you’d both discussed starting a family and decided that as adopted children yourself, you

wanted to adopt to build your family and pay all of the love and kindness you received forward.

With your partner’s new job, you will finally be able to afford a bigger home and the hefty costs

associated with the adoption process. Your spouse’s promotion is moving you all from

California to the company headquarters in St Louis—you make the move and begin the

adoption process, only to find that all of the local adoption agencies refuse to work with you

because you are a same-sex couple. You consult your attorney friend only to have him tell you

that, under Missouri law and recently passed legislation, faith-based adoption agencies have

the right to deny service to you based solely on your sexual orientation. Living in a conservative

state and with the near monopoly that Catholic-affiliated agencies have in your area you are

little with no recourse. This is the potential reality for many same-sex couples seeking to access

adoption services in conservative states that have passed so-called religious liberty laws.

In considering how impactful having a family is for the well-being of children it is

important to remember that numerous studies have found that there is no significant

difference in life outcomes between children that are raised by same-sex couples compared to

those raised by heterosexual ones. In his New York Times article Daniel Victor cites research

from Columbia University showing that “75 of 79 scholarly studies that met their criteria

Candelas 4

concluded that the children faced no disadvantages” (Victor). Children are inarguably better off

when they are placed in a loving family—regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.

Public sentiment would seem to echo academic research, as more and more of the population

believes that same-sex individuals and couples deserve equal treatment under the law. Darrel

Montero’s “America’s Progress in Achieving the Legalization of Same-Gender Adoption:

Analysis of Public Opinion, 1994 to 2012” illustrates how public sentiment has changed, with

only 28% of respondents in 1994 supporting same-sex adoption, to 61% of respondents

expressing approval in 2012. This growing public support for extending equal treatment to LGBT

citizens in the adoption and foster care system does not always seem to be mirrored at the

state legislative level. Americans understand inherently what some of their elected

representatives do not—that a family that is willing and able to shelter and provide for children

in a loving environment should have the opportunity to do so, without regard to sexual

orientation. Without evidence that children are harmed by allowing equal access to LGBT

couples to the adoption process, there is no reason for state legislative officials to try and

create a system that is biased and exclusionary and there does exist a moral and ethical

imperative to extend equal treatment to all citizens by taxpayer-funded government entities.

There are those whose will contend that compelling adoption and foster-care agencies

receiving government funding to extend their services with no regard to sexual orientation,

causes a dilemma for those groups with an expressly religious founding or charter. Namely,

some will say that by doing so and granting equal rights to the LGBT community that we

trample the religious rights of these faith-based groups by compelling them to make decisions

contrary to their beliefs or risk losing government funding. The title of Jamie Dean’s article in

Candelas 5

The World says it all: “Adoption Defense: A Wave of New Laws Provides Vital Protection for

Faith-based Adoption Agencies—but LGBT Advocates are Putting Up a Fight.” In her view, if

faith-based agencies are compelled to extend their services to LGBT couples many will instead

choose to withdraw from the system completely, resulting in fewer placements. Dean envisions

individuals making choices based on their Christian faith and seeking out agencies that are able

to place their children in Christian homes and being unable to find such entities as equal

treatment legislation is passed and enforced. Even though civil rights groups who have brought

forward litigation to challenge discriminatory practices have explicitly said they are only

targeting those groups receiving public funding and not private agencies, Dean and those who

feel as she does think that there is something far more nefarious at work and see their religious

convictions as being assailed. In response, faith-based groups have advocated federal

legislation of their own in the form of the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act that would

ensure that faith-based agencies could discriminate against any group they choose, based solely

on their religious convictions.

What those on the other side of the argument fail to realize is that federal funding has

always come with strings attached—and there is no one compelling them to accept funding—

but if they choose to, they must accept the restrictions placed on them. The government has an

imperative to treat all of its citizens equally under the law, and in the history of our country,

extending rights and freedoms to previously discriminated classes of people has never led to

negative outcomes. These agencies are free to practice their faith and make choices in keeping

with said faith; I would contend that this does not preclude them from being able to extend

their services without regard whether those seeking their services share their convictions. The

Candelas 6

diversity of America is reflected in its religious communities as well, and whether they are

aware of it or not it is almost certain that these agencies have worked with individuals whose

beliefs have not aligned with their own. In order to do the most good, by way of having the

most number of children possible placed in loving homes, I think it is possible for faith-based

groups to extend their services to those of a different mindset, belief system or sexual

orientation without explicitly endorsing those contrarian beliefs.

Throughout the course of American history there have been times when our collective

moral consciousness has compelled us to realize when the time has come to extend freedoms

that were once restricted to disenfranchised classes of citizens. Civil rights issues of the 20th

century including women’s suffrage, segregation, and same-sex marriage have all called upon

us at various points to acknowledge when we as a people have been wrong and wake up to the

new reality present to us. That time has come for the same-sex adoption movement. When

there is so much at stake that is so impactful and emotionally compelling with an issue like

creating families, I think it is paramount for us to acknowledge the occasion and rise to it by

swiftly passing the ECDFA.

Candelas 7

Works Cited

Beitsch, Rebecca. “Despite Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, Gay Adoption Rights Uncertain in Some

States.” Stateline.Org, 19 Aug. 2015, Newspaper Source Plus, www.ebscohost.com.

Accessed 31 Oct. 2018.

Dean, Jamie. “Adoption Defense: A Wave of New Laws Provides Vital Protection for Faith-Based

Adoption and Foster Agencies--but LGBT Advocates Are Putting up a Fight.” World

Magazine, June 2018, pp. 40–43. Academic Search Complet, www.ebscohost.com.

Accessed 29 Oct. 2018.

Khimm, Suzy. “The New Nuclear Family.” New Republic, Fall 2015, p. 8. MasterFILE Complete,

www.ebscohost.com. Accessed 4 Nov. 2018.

Montero, Darrel M. “America’s Progress in Achieving the Legalization of Same-Gender

Adoption: Analysis of Public Opinion, 1994 to 2012.” Social Work, vol. 59, no. 4, Oct.

2014, pp. 321–328. Social Sciences Full Text, www.ebscohost.com. Accessed 2 Nov.

2018.

Reynolds, Daniel. “Are LGBT’s Under Attack in Texas?: The State Guts Rights and Endangers Kids

under the Guise of Religious Freedom.” Advocate, Aug. 2017, p. 10. MasterFILE

Complete, www.ebscohost.com. Accessed 5 Nov. 2018.

Victor, Daniel. “Kentucky Judge, Citing Conscience, Declines to Hear Same-Sex Adoption Cases.”

The New York Times, 1 May 2017, Newspaper Source Plus, www.ebscohost.com.

Accessed 5 Nov. 2018