Monday, July 20, 2009

Adoption is about the child, not the religious beliefs of those placing the child

From the United Kingdom comes a situation regarding gay adoption which I am sure the religious right in this country will try to exploit for its own purposes:

Dr Sheila Matthews, who has been a medical adviser to the Council’s adoption panel for five years, said she believed it would be “inappropriate” to place children in a household with same sex parents.

“Using my professional judgement and having done a lot of reading around the subject, I am satisfied that there are research findings which support my position that a same sex partnership is not the best family setting to bring up children,” she said. . . . "This conflicts with my professional, religious and personal integrity.”

Dr Matthews was told in April by the Council’s Head of Services for Children, Young People and Families, Martin Pratt, that she could no longer be on the panel and that another medical adviser would be found to replace her.

She has sought advice from the Christian Legal Centre. Its director Andrea Minichiello Williams said her case was another example of “how a well respected professional who holds conscientious views on sexual practice, informed by Christian faith, is being asked to choose between her faith and her job."

. . . “And devout Christians are suffering the consequences,” she said. “This is not the mark of a free and civilised society where freedom of speech and religion is carefully guarded.”

This isn't anything new. In 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston in Massachusetts announced that the agency would end its adoption work rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.

So this case may give the religious right more proof that the "gay agenda forces people to choose between their jobs and beliefs."

Therefore, if the lgbt community takes on the religious right in this situation without flipping the script a bit, we are walking into their trap.

You see, adoption is not about the lgbt community nor about the beliefs of those who would place these children. Ultimately, adoption is about giving children good homes.

Now I don't know what Dr. Matthews has been reading (I think I have a good idea, unfortunately), but the vast amount of research out there says no child suffers adverse affects from being placed in a same-sex household.

Regardless of how she spins it, Dr. Matthews is placing her personal beliefs above the needs of the child.

If someone on any adoption board does this, then he or she needs to be removed, point blank.

Also, how far does this "my personal beliefs won't allow it," nonsense go? Will the "personal beliefs" card be allowed when it comes placing children in households of different ethnic origins.

You see how complicated this thing gets when people on these boards start deviating from their actual mission - that mission being to find a child a good home.

Removing Dr. Matthews was the right thing to do. In the cases of adoptions, the needs of the children should always come first. Everything else, especially the personal religious beliefs (however deeply held) of those choosing the homes, is incidental.

Bookmark and Share


AdoptAuthor said...


I am a straight, but not narrow, very politically and religiously liberal woman. I have spent the past 30+ years researching and writing about adoption.

First I suggest the lgbt community check out
and “Opinion: Discrimination is Not in the Best Interest of Children,” AtMP Newsletter,
interest-of-children.html by Dr. Wright.

Unfortunately, the recent arrest of a Duke University social worker who was sexually abusing his adopted son is going to set your cause back. The fear that must be refuted is that gays are more likely to be pedophiles than straight men. There needs to be some studies of those convicted of child molestation to set this fear to rest once and for all.

Additionally, the same sex marriage issue needs ot be resolve FIRST, IMO, before the same sex adoption can be, Another recent story in the news involved a lesbian couple in Utah who had agreed to co-parent. When the relationship ended the mother who had given birth cut the other mother out of the child;s life and the courts upheld her right to sever their written agreement as they were not married, as Utah does not allow them to.

These situations happen all the time. One member of a same sex couple with children dies and the parents of the other have more right to the children than the partner. These situations are frequent and are not in the best interest of children. Yet, they involve marriage law and rights.

Same sex adoption of totally non-related children cannot come, I believe, until these other issues are resolved, and perhaps should not because children do need the legal protection that marriage rights provide them.

Mirah Riben, author "The Stork Market: America's Multi-Billion Dollar Unregulated Adoption Industry"

AdoptAuthor said...

Regarding the religious beliefs of those placing the child...

When it is a private adoption and the birthparent is making the choice, that IS her prerogative. You need to understand and distinguish between private placements and those by the state after a child is foster care.

BlackTsunami said...

Hi Mirah,

you bring up some good points. Thank you for contributing. And not to worry, many people are on the job with stopping the right from exploiting that nasty situation involving Frank Lombard.

BlackTsunami said...

About your second point,

I was speaking about state adoption, not private adoption. I think that is where the fight is.

Steven (Green Dads) said...

New reader here. Thank you for saying this. We adopted through the public foster care system and very little of it had anything to do with the "best interest of the child".

BlackTsunami said...

Hi Steve,

glad you enjoyed the post and hope you will continue to support the blog ;p

Anonymous said...

I am satisfied that there are research findings which support my position

Atleast she admits she started at this position and then started looking for something to support it.

Bornagain said...

Two men or two women cannot create a child. God made it that way. A child needs a loving home with both a mother and a father. First of all mom's and dad's parent differently, and that is good for the child. We live in a society today that is trying and unfortunately successfully bringing up a generation of children who are brainwashed from natural instincts that continue to exist in nature as a whole. For instance a mother cat naturally protects her kittens, while our society teaches young girls to kill their children. Gay and Lesbian relationships are unnatural affections and should not in any way be forced onto young children through the adoption process. It is only used to advance even further the gay agenda of perversion.

BlackTsunami said...

Well we should be happy for something because men and women together are creating enough children to last this world a million lifetimes.

But as for your other thoughts, there are merely your opinion and HIGHLY uninformed. Homosexuality is a blessing from God, not a perversion. And gay parents don't cause gay children. Heterosexual parents do. LOL.

Seriously, lgbt parents can and have provide as much love and support to children as heterosexual parents. Also, while I appreciate your concern about a child not having a home with a mother and a father, the reality is that many children do live in homes without both a mother and a father and are doing quite well.

So you are not only insulting lgbt parents, but also single parents who bend over backwards for their children. For shame.