Well, the Concerned Women for America are very concerned about Gillibrand's new bill, stating that it is a risky experiment (Nice use of quotes around the terms gay and LGBT marriages, BTW):
Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America (CWA) tells OneNewsNow... "(s)omething around 65,000 adopted children and 14,000 foster children live in homes that are headed by non-heterosexuals, and yet the data very overwhelmingly says these homes are not as good for children," Crouse notes. "They don't even come close to being as good for children as a married couple -- mom and dad -- family."Of course, Crouse is lying and misdirecting with her assertions about GLBT families. In the hierarchy of family types, kids tend to do statistically best when living with their married biological mom and dad. And that's in comparison to single parent households and step-families and don't take into account gay and lesbian households.
And she suggests the measure is not so much about the children as it is about advancing the homosexual agenda. "That agenda is being advanced at the expense of our children and at the expense of the future of our country," the CWA spokesperson laments. "When you have children who are being used as guinea pigs like this, it's totally unwarranted."
So, she finds it unfortunate that conservatives are not speaking loudly enough about the issue. Meanwhile, Gillibrand is gaining support for the "great opportunity to place children without families into happy homes" by increasing LGBT "marriages."
Plus, we're talking about adoption here. It's not the ideal, but I don't hear Crouse arguing that adoption and foster care be outlawed. Despite assertions that kids do best with a mom and a dad, experience shows that some kids available for adoption don't. There are usually reasons why kids are placed for adoption, including abuse and neglect. Some kids were so traumatized by or because of their birth families, for example, that they actually will not succeed unless they are placed with a single mom or a single dad. That's not hypothetical conjecture. That is actual kids that I have met over the course of my career. We're not talking about the ideal situation. We're talking about meeting the kids' needs and they don't all need that "ideal" bio mom and dad (otherwise, they wouldn't have been removed from those folks in the first place).
Beyond that, kids have been raised by gay and lesbian individuals and households for many, many years now and our families have been studied by various sources over and over and over. We're hardly the social experiments that groups like CWA like to assert. Increasingly, it is found that our kids are doing just as well as other kids. Some parents are great. Some are terrible. Most fall in the realm of good parents. Some of our kids do great. Some of them struggle and make terrible mistakes. Most of our kids do just fine.
I am not saying that every GLBT person should be handed a baby and I don't believe that Gillibrand is either. However, the ECDFA would ensure that prospective adoptive and/or foster parents who are GLBT will have equal opportunities to go through the home study and licensing process irregardless if they're living here in Iowa or if they are living over in Utah. Not all will or should get their license. But they should have the opportunity to try.
Gay Dads: A Celebration of Fatherhood. It's a great book and tells the stories of gay men across this country who have become dads. Some are single dads and some are coupled. Some are adoptive families. Some of those families were private adoptions and some came from foster care. Some used surrogates. Others come from failed heterosexual marriages. I believe that one couple co-parented with a lesbian couple. Not all of the stories are totally fluffy, but it is a great example of what families of gay dads look like.