Quote:
Originally Posted by sugar and spice
The difference between your comparison of adoption and abortion doesn't work because of the economics behind it. If you're interested in adoption, you have to have some extra cash on hand. The same just isn't true (to the same extent) of abortion. An adoption is going to cost you an absolute minimum of around $5000-7000 (unless you're going through the foster care system, which, needless to say, most people don't), but probably closer to $20,000-30,000, and potentially all the way on up to $45,000. The extra $1000 or so that you might have to spend to arrange an out-of-state adoption is probably not going to seem like that much. (The extra $1000 you'd have to spend on going out of state for an abortion, however, probably is significant to a lot of women.) A couple that's just barely scraping by in the first place just wouldn't be looking into adoption. They wouldn't be able to afford it.
I'm not trying to be dismissive here, I just tend to take a big picture, long-range view of things. The big picture shows that, even for straight couples, the American adoption system discriminates against fully capable, loving prospective parents on a number of criteria that have nothing to do with their ability to be parents -- being single, their age, their financial status (requiring them to have far more money than, say, a young couple about to have their first biological kid would need). Or even in states where gay marriage is legal, the biological mother will request that their child have straight adoptive parents. This is why many couples, both straight and gay, or single people have chosen overseas adoption for years -- it's just easier and faster than the extremely restrictive American adoption process. The bottom line is that adoption is just very expensive and very difficult for most Americans, regardless of sexuality, so going out of state to complete an adoption seems like, well, not that big of a deal compared to a lot of the other things they might have to go through during the adoption process. I don't like the law for what it stands for, this idea of codifying into law a completely screwed-up form of discrimination, this idea that gay parents will somehow magically mess up their children more than abusive or neglectful straight ones . . . but in terms of its practical applications, I don't think it will prevent many, if any, gay parents who really want to adopt from adopting in the long term.
|
OK, well, I still think that for gay parents who can't afford adoption (and already have bio kids), and thus probably also can't afford a lawyer to draw up all kinds of legal instruments for them, the ban on adoption, which prevents them from doing second-parent adoption, will be a serious problem.
I don't think my comparison to abortion is so bad, either. My point is not really about parents who can afford adoption - my point is that in practice this is going to affect gay couples parenting bio kids and foster kids the most, and they are going to be less likely in many cases to afford to move out of state or whatever. You're correct insofar as gay couples seeking to adopt a brand new child and not do second-parent adoption can probably afford whatever. And of course it's extremely financially difficult for hetero couples to afford that kind of adoption too...
Makes me wonder if Arkansas already restricts gay couples from having foster kids.
I accept your general long-term view, but I do think we have a pretty significant disagreement about this law and who it will affect in the short term. I really do believe you're underestimating the full significance of second-parent adoption in cases where there is a biological kid. THOSE are the people who are most affected by this law, and there are a lot of those people out there. In fact they constitute the majority of such families (I thought so, but I had to find the citation to back myself up):
http://family.findlaw.com/adoption/s...ion-intro.html