The Fall of Rome, Reality Based History – and Gay Adoption

The vocal opponents of family equality are fond of making sweeping statements (in flagrant disregard of the evidence) about how marriage has "always" been between one man and on woman, how the proponents of equality are "redefining" evidence, quite ignoring the ways in marriage has been constantly redefined in the past - not least by the Christian churches. A variation on the theme has been that homosexuality has destroyed great civilizations, such as that of Rome. Illinois state Rep. Ronald Stephens has repeated this claim, blaming "open homosexuality" for the fall of Rome.

In a fun, sane response in the Chicago Sun-Times, Neill Steinberg dismisses the claim, basing his response on, well, historical fact, not what he calls Stephens' talking points. His most important observation is that the best known extensive study of the fall of Rome, Edward Gibbons "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", concluded that Roman civilization collapsed not because of homosexuality, but because of - guess what? Christianity.

Would that be a argument to ban Christianity today, for fear that it could cause the collapse of modern Western civilization?

The point I want to make is not that Gibbons was either right or wrong, but to heartily endorse Steinberg's larger point, that grand claims about the lessons of history really ought to be checked against the facts. This is certainly true in the secular sphere, but also in religious discourse. The often -repeated Vatican claims of Catholic "constant and unchanging tradition" are a smokescreen, often used to used to hide the importance of recently introduced changes, as Martin Pendergast noted recently, writing about gradualism in Benedict's theology.

But today, I do not want to explore this theme of the Church's constantly changing tradition. Let's just enjoy, instead, Steinberg's thoroughly delightful response to rep Stephens' ignorance. Here are some extracts:

What Constitutes a “Family”? Empirical Study Finds A Wider View

Religious conservatives are regularly referring to the “traditional family” as a foundation for their beliefs, but there is no such thing. The conservative interpretation of the so-called traditional family is  a relatively modern invention, created to fit the conditions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Western Europe and North America. In earlier times, and other parts of the world. family structures varied enormously from  this particular model.

Family history, like all other history, is constantly changing to fit new circumstances, so it should be no surprise that conceptions of family in the twenty first century are continuing to evolve, to fit a world that is no longer what it was in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Some of these changes are obvious, but like so much that is familiar, can easily be “hidden in plain sight.” A new study by sociologist  Brian Powell brings this into plain view. (His study is specifically of American views, but with the emergence of a shared world culture, many of his findings will also have relevance across a much wider geographic region.)

The central finding is that people no longer define “family” as mom pop and kids, but also include   same-sex couples with children (Children seem to be central: childless couples, gay or straight, are not seen as “families”, but just as couples). However, there is an increasing movement towards acceptance. An important finding, familiar from previous studies on the subject, is that people who know gay people (more accurately, who recognize that people they know are gay), are more supportive than those who are not aware that family members or acquaintances are gay. This simply reinforces the necessity for the wider political struggle, that wherever possible, gay men and lesbians should come out openly, in as many contexts as possible. Coming out personally will improve acceptance in our circles of friends and family. Politicians and other public figures who come out   do so indirectly for the wider community.

I particularly liked an argument on gay adoption that I have been using regularly: framing arguments in terms of the “the best interests of the child” can work to our advantage, not those opposed to gay adoption. (In adoption considerations, the best interests of the child require placement with the best parents available. Sometimes, they will be gay).  Indeed, the claim made (but not elaborated on in the reports I have seen), is that the interests of children may well be a more effective argument than others in making the case for more general equality of same-sex couples.

From the New York Times

A majority of Americans now say their definition of family includes same-sex couples with children, as well as married gay and lesbian couples.

At the same time, most Americans do not consider unmarried cohabiting couples, either heterosexual or same-sex, to be a family — unless they have children.

The findings — part of a survey conducted this year as well as in 2003 and 2006 by Brian Powell, a sociology professor at Indiana University, Bloomington — are reported in a new book, “Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family,” to be published on Wednesday by the Russell Sage Foundation. Since the surveys began, the proportion of people who reported having a gay friend or relative rose 10 percentage points, said Professor Powell, the book’s lead author.

“This is not because more people are gay now than in 2003,” he said. “This indicates a more open social environment in which individuals now feel more comfortable discussing and acknowledging sexuality. Ironically with all the antigay initiatives, all of a sudden people were saying the word ‘gay’ out loud. Just the discussion about it made people more comfortable.”

The book concludes that framing the equality of same-sex couples in terms of “the best interests of the child” might prove to be a more successful political argument than others.

Related articles at Queering the Church

• The Gospels' Queer Values
• Traditional "Family Values"; "Traditional Family" Values.
• Church Marriage: Required Only For Priests?
• LGBT community: The Real Defenders of Traditional Marriage.
• "Traditional Marriage Is Between Men": US Bishop.
• An Ignorant Mexican Cardinal, vs  Authentic History of Marriage
• Natural Law, Natural Sex, Natural Families.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Now I Know Who All These People Running Around My House Are (bilerico.com)
• Who's a family? New study tracks shifting US views (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Israeli Gay adoption policy undergoes reform

The fundamental principle of "the best interests of the child" in adoption procedures demands that the child be placed with the best possible parents available. Israel is yet another country now recognising that the best available parents just might be a same-sex couple. Adoption regulations have already been modified to allow women to adopt the biological children of their female partners, so becoming recognized as co-parents. The regulations will now be modified further, to allow  men likewise to adopt the children of their male partners born to surrogate mothers.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="450" caption="Israeli Dads, with twins"][/caption]

Gay Adoption Passes Final Hurdle in NSW

After the original narrow passage in the lower house of the New South Wales Parliament, it's been somewhat of a to and fro struggle, but the bill has now finally passed. New South Wales has joined ACT (Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia) in providing for adoption by same sex couples.

Typically, the difficulties concerned attempts to deal with religious objections. The original bill passed in the lower house only after an amendment to provide for some exemptions for religious bodies. In the Upper House, a conflicting amendment was passed to narrow the scope of those amendments, requiring that the bill return to the Lower House - then back to the upper house again.

A BILL giving same-sex couples the right to adopt has been passed by the NSW parliament, after the Legislative Council voted in support of a last-minute amendment to the legislation.

The bill passed its final hurdle in the upper house just after 6.30pm (AEST) today, after MPs backed the lower house amendment.

The amendment, made by Planning Minister Frank Sartor, frees up adoption agencies to act on the wishes of parents regarding where their children are adopted. It was made to temper changes made in the upper house on Wednesday night, which narrowed an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act for faith-based adoption agencies. MPs have been allowed a conscience vote on the historic legislation, leading to heated debate in both houses of the NSW parliament. NSW is now the third state or territory to allow same-sex adoption, after the ACT and Western Australia.

-Read more

Oz State Premier Stands Up To Cardinal Pell, Secures Gay Adoption for NSW.

Breaking news today is that the New South Wales state assembly has narrowly approved a bill to put LGBT and heterosexual couples on an equal footing for adoption procedures. There are still a few hurdles to clear before this becomes final, but (as far as I can tell), with this one, the biggest has now been cleared. This is big news for queer Catholics. The formidable Cardinal Pell made clear his strong opposition - but the equally strong support of the Catholic NSW Premier, Kristina Keneally, appears to have been decisive in providing just enough resistance.

Kristina Kenneally, Catholic and Advocate for Adoption Equality

The Turning (Conservative) Tide for Family Equality

One of the tragedies of the struggle for marriage equality has been the way the rightwing opposition has been able to portray this as a contest between the supporters of "marriage", and those bent on destroying the institution. This is clearly not so - the advocates for marriage and family equality are not wanting to destroy it, but to enlarge and strengthen it by bringing more couples and families under its legal protections. The opponents, on the other hand, who have insisted on a narrow and rigid, relatively modern interpretation which they insist on terming "traditional" marriage in total contradiction of all historical evidence, who who have re-interpreted and distorted it - and largely destroyed it themselves, with high rates of divorce and teen pregnancy. (Both of these rates are highest in the states most strongly opposed to marriage and family equality.)

Times, however, are changing. For some time, there have been signs that opposition to gay marriage is no longer the magic GOP vote winner that it once was. Earlier this year, the NOM poured big money into Republican Iowa primary races in support of state level candidates who promised to overturn last year's court judgement in favour of marriage - and they lost heavily. (In the same primaries, tea party candidates who steered clear of the marriage issue did well). More recently, in the wake of Judge Walker's judgement overturning the Prop 8 win against marriage, it was notable how Republican politicians were carefully avoiding notable comment.

The stance of the tea party is instructive, as it highlights one of the reasons conservative voices are now starting to speak up in favour of same sex marriage (or, more accurately, against laws to prevent it.) This is the libertarian belief that good government is limited government - and one of the areas where government should be just about entirely absent, is in the privacy of our bedrooms and families, especially at a time when there are urgent matters of jobs and the economy requiring attention. This was explicitly the argument used by Glen Beck last month, when he said

Adoption, UK: “Catholic Care” Agency Denied Equalities Exemption.

p style="text-align: justify;">Here in the UK,  equality under the law for the queer community is taken seriously. Although we do not yet have full gay marriage, the legal status of civil partnerships is virtually identical to that of civil marriage in all but name.  Adoption regulations are also explicit in prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Ever since the sexual orientation regulations affecting adoption were promulgated, the Catholic Church has sought to avoid their legal responsibilities in the agencies it operates -  mostly unsuccessfully.  One by one, most of the agencies have cut their formal ties with the church, so as to avoid embarrassing it while continuing to provide services within the framework of the law. One agency in Leeds, Catholic Care, has attempted to get around the regulations by changing the terms of its "charitable aims", to state explicitly that it exists to serve only heterosexual couples. In news released overnight, the Charities Commission has rejected this application. The agency laments that it will now have to close, and that the children will lose out.

This is nonsense. All it needs to do, is to follow the example of eleven other Catholic adoption agencies before it, and recognise that the interests of the child are more important than slavish obedience to the decrees of bishops. The interests of a child are to be placed with the best parents available. Sometimes, the best available parents will happen to be gay or lesbian. There are numerous scientific studies demonstrate this - even in the animal kingdom, sometimes same sex couples make better parents. Ordinary Catholics know it too - mot Catholics approve of gay adoption, just as most Catholics in many countries approve of gay marriage.

It really is time that the Catholic bishops, and the organizations associated with them, began to consider the evidence before pronouncing for the entire church on matters which they clearly do not understand.

This is the press release from the Roman Catholic Caucus of the LGCM:

Catholic Care: Charity Commissioners' Decision

The Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement is delighted at the news that the Charity Commissioners have refused to consent to a change in the charitable objects of the Roman Catholic adoption agency Catholic Care which would have provided that the charity's adoption services were to be provided to "heterosexuals only".


Celia Gardiner, Convenor of the Caucus, said:


"The proposed amendments were deeply offensive to many Catholics. Catholic values dictate that the agency should do its utmost to find loving homes for the children it exists to serve. These objects would have compromised the agency's ability to do so.


Eleven Catholic adoption agencies have successfully adapted so as to comply with the Sexual Orientation Regulations and do so with active support from practising Catholics. We hope that Catholic Care will do the same."

See also:

The Fallacy of the Church Push Against Gay Adoption

Family Equality and the Question of Evidence

Catholics Support Gay Adoption

The Fallacy of the Church Push Against Gay Adoption

In Australia, the NSW parliament has a bill before it which would legalise gay adoption. The churches are outraged, and pushing hard against the measure, or asking for special treatment. One Australian church agency is asking for exemption  from the non-discrimination clause. Anglicare argues that adoption should not be about politics and the "rights" of gay couples, but about the best interests of the child.

In Mexico, the Supreme Court this week will follow last’s week’s decision on gay marriage in Mexico City with a consideration of gay adoption (and also gay marriage nationally). In the US, GOP candidates for the governorships of Nevada and Georgia are proposing to follow Florida and outlaw gay adoption. In the UK, where the issue is supposedly settled in law, the church is continuing to fight a rearguard action to have its own agencies exempted. What do all these have in common?

A total absence of evidence.

In California's extended trial over gay marriage, the opponents argued that gay marriage was injurious to children, because kids need "one mom and one dad" - but their own supposed expert witness conceded there was no evidence to support his case. But the “expert” was entirely lacking in academic credentials, and the judge ruled that his evidence was no more than opinion.

In Florida, Bill McCollum then the AG, hired “expert witness” George Rekers at vast expense to argue the case in court. He too is entirely lacking in credentials, and has since become a laughing-stock for his travels with a hired male prostitute. (I am pleased to note that ever sine the Rekers story broke, McCollum’s candidacy for state governor has been going rapidly down the toilet.)   

In Georgia, when Karen Handel was asked by an Atlanta TV reporter why she thought gay parents aren’t legitimate, she replied, “Because I don’t.”

In the UK last year, bishops reacted angrily when Terry Prendergast, a child care professional with strong links to the church, stated that there was no evidence that children are harmed by having same sex parents.

Now, here’s the thing.

I absolutely agree with Anglicare that adoption decisions should be based entirely on the best interests of children, placing them with the best parents available. They should not be based on the supposed rights of gay couples - but nor should they be based on religious dogma. Don't they get it? Sometimes, the best available parents are gay.

Abundant scientific research has shown that.

In the California trial,  Judge Walker carefully considered a mass of scientific evidence, and found that same sex couples are at least as capable as any others of making good parents as any other - and in some cases, are even better. (Even in the animal world, research has shown in some species, same -sex couples make better parents.)

That’s at the global level, for couples in general – but in ability as parents, not all couples are equal. Some opposite sex parents are dramatically less able than the ideal, which  is why some kids come into care in the first place. Some gay couples are better than others.  Nobody is asking that all gay couples be given a “right” to adopt, any more than straight couples have such a right.  All we ask is that we be considered along with other couples, so that children may be placed with the best parents available.

Gay adoption – it’s in the best interests of the child.

Catholics Support Gay Adoption.

In the US, the struggle over adoption by lesbian or gay families concerns those states which prohibit it, either by state law, or (in Florida) by a complete constitutional ban. In the UK, where discrimination against gay or lesbian prospective parents is prohibited by law, the battle is entirely different. Here, the Catholic Church is seeking an exemption from the terms of the law for one of its agencies.

My friend Celia Gardiner, who as a lawyer and as chair of the Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, is heavily involved in correspondence with the Charities Commission on the Church's application. I fear I have become totally lost in trying to follow the legal niceties - so don't ask. However, I have undertaken to assist with passing on links to empirical evidence to contradict the claims on which the bishops base their case, so that I can happily share with you.

I have previously pointed out that in claiming that "Catholics" or "the Catholic Church" oppose gay marriage, the bishops (American or British) are being somewhat economical with the truth. It may be what the bishops oppose, it may be what they want the rest of us to oppose - but we do not simply mould our beliefs to episcopal diktat. Contrary to the Vatican line, most American Catholics do not believe that same sex relationships are morally unacceptable, and overall, are in favour or recognizing same sex marriage (that's full civil marriage, not just civil unions).

I have now tracked down similar information specifically on adoption, and guess what? the bishops may oppose it, but Catholics as a whole are in favour. Now note, please, that the data are two years old, from 2oo8 (prior to the US election). All the evidence is that attitudes have moved on since then. For the case of the UK, which prompted my investigation, public attitudes are generally more supportive. Any claim by the bishops that "the Catholic Church" opposes same sex adoption is almost certainly not factually correct. ?

Source: Pew Research, 2008

Scottish Adoption Agency WANTS Gay Parents

The Scottish Adoption Association has told gay couples not to be put off by the "very negative publicity" surrounding the issue of same-sex couples adopting children. The publicity in question is believed to relate to the complaints of the grandparents of two Edinburgh-based children who were adopted by a gay couple.

According to Margaret Moyes, Chief Executive of SAA, many disillusioned couples have withdrawn from the process because of the negative messages abounding in the Scots media. One couple, Ms Moyes claimed, actually withdrew for that very reason. She said, "I am really keen to make sure we get the message out that there are lots of children waiting for adoption, and we need to find parents from as wide a group of people as possible."

(Full Report At Pink News)

Adoption Vote in New South Wales

Marriage and adoption equality have not yet become big political issues in Australia as they have in the US, but that is beginning to change, with increasing public pressure and clear support from the small Green party. On adoption however, their could soon be progress in the state of New South Wales.Independent MP Clover Moore has introduced a bill approving adoption, and Premier Kristina Keneally has specified that she will permit legislators a vote on"conscience", removing the issue from control by party whips. Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell is also allowing a conscience vote for the same reason.

The prospects for success look good:

In a parliamentary inquiry conducted last year, a majority found that the Adoption Act should be amended to allow gay couples to adopt. Faith-based adoption agencies would still have the right to exclude prospective parents who are gay, so long as they refer them to an agency which will assist.

This follows the lead of Western Australia and the ACT which already give gay couples equal access to the adoption process. Even in Tasmania gay couples can adopt a child related to one of them. In every state gay couples can foster.

The bill will be debated in late August. Watch this space.

What is interesting to me in this is that in addition to support from the two party leaders, children's charity Barnardo's is also supporting the move, and for the same reason, "the interests of the child". (In this, they are following numerous other children's charities in the US and UK, who have also argued that children's interests are best served by opening adoption to applications from gay men and lesbians.

In their commentary on the move, the Sydney Morning Herald has the headline, "Thinking men and women need clear conscience on gay adoption". More than clear consciences are required - clear thinking is also wanted.

In all the struggles for adoption rights, nobody has ever argued for the "right" of all gay men and lesbians to adopt: only for a right to be considered as eligible. In every adoption, prospective parents are carefully vetted for their personal suitability, both in general, and each particular child. To argue that all gay men and lesbians are unsuitable purely on the grounds of orientation is as ludicrous as it is to argue that all heterosexual couples are suitable merely because they include both a Mom and a Dad. It is self-evident that at least some heterosexual couples are not suitable - which is why many of the children are up for adoption in the first case. It is reasonable to assume that at least some same sex couples are eminently suitable, on the basis of the quality of the love and he care that they are able to provide. Research based evidence, in study after study, has shown much more: that as a group, same sex couples are able to provide care at least as good as opposite sex couples. In some respects, some studies have even suggested that they do better. This is why Barnardo's, and several other agencies, are clear that they support applications from gay and lesbian families.

The "interests of the child" demand that to provide the best possible parents, the pool of eligible applicants should be selected as widely as possible. Then let the personal characteristics of the applicants be the deciding factor, not an arbitrary demographic.

In arguing that the interests of the child demands two opposite sex parents, the Catholic church, and church adoption agencies, are ignoring the evidence of research, of the demands of reason, and even of their own practice - many church agencies will approve single parents. They are not in fact arguing for the interests of the child, but only the interest of defending their own misguided doctrines.

In Wisconsin, Not All Parents Are Equal

In Wisconsin, adoption by same sex couples is not recognised. Gay men and lesbians may adopt, but only as individuals. So when lesbian couple "Liz" and "Wendy" adopted two Guatemalan children, only one of them could be legally recognised. The couple decided that Liz, who went out to work as the breadwinner, would be named as legal parent, while Wendy stayed at home to provide child care. Years later, when the couple split up, Wendy wanted to have her status as parent legally recognised.

Now, she is the one who stayed at home, and provided the bulk of day to day care. In most divorces, judges are more likely to grant child custody to the mother, on the reasonable grounds that she is the one (usually) who has provided greater day to day care, and is likely to have a stronger emotional bond with the kids. Other things being equal, similar reasoning in this case would have led to a preference for custody going to Wendy. Other things though. are not equal in queer families, and an appeals court in Wisconsin has rejected Wendy's claim. Not only does she not get legal custody, in Wisconsin, she has no legal status as parent at all.

The high profile political battles for equality are over marriage equality (and in the US,  DADT, and ENDA). It is important that state by state in the US, and country by country elsewhere, we continue to push also for legal recognition of adoption rights, as single people or as couples.

From Examiner.com:

A Wisconsin appeals court has ruled that despite being a stay at home mom for years a wisconsin woman is not considered a parent to the two adopted children she has been raising for years.

The court ruled that only the woman's former partner is their parent since the adoption was done in her name. Court records only refer to the women as Wendy and Liz. Wendy and Liz had been together for 7 years when they decided to adopt their first child. They adopted a second in 2004. Wendy quit her job to stay at home with the children. Liz was named as their legal parent so the children would be covered under her health care plan. Under Wisconsin law same-sex couple cannot adopt children together.

The couple ended their relationship in 2008 and agreed  to an informal co-parenting agreement. Wendy petitioned for legal guardianship to protect her rights to make legal and medical decisions for the children. After originally agreeing to the guardianship, Liz changed her mind and objected.

Argentina Lower House Approves Equality Bill.

The LGBT equality bill which was postponed last week, has now been passed by the Lower House. It must still go through the Senate. If it passes there, Argentina will become the first South American country to introduce same -sex marriage, country-wide. (Marriage is also possible in Mexico, but only in Mexico City.) Also included in the bill is approval for adoption by same sex couples.

If passed, it will put an end to the current legal ping-pong, whereby  several couples have secured approval for licences, married, and then have had the marriages invalidated after legal challenges initiated by the Catholic Church. Last week in quick succession two marriages were ruled invalid by judges. This week, a fifth couple were married. Without passage of this bill, there is no doubt that this too would meet a challenge in the courts - and if overturned, would then wind through a lengthy appeals process, just like the others. ( After Alex Freyre and Jose Maria De Bello, the first male couple married in Argentina, have promised to pursue the appeals process right up to international courts if necessary.)

From Reuters India:

 Argentina's lower house passes gay marriage bill

BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) - Argentina's lower house passed on Wednesday a gay marriage bill that, if also approved by senators, will put the South American country among a handful in the world that allow homosexual couples to marry.

"Love isn't owned by heterosexuals," said Deputy Felipe Sola, who backed the bill. "If we're all equal before the law, why do we want to give a different name to unions between same-sex couples?"

The bill permits gay couples to adopt children for the first time, one of its most controversial provisions.

If the law is passed in the upper house, Argentina would be the first country in predominantly Roman Catholic Latin America to allow same-sex marriages. Neighbouring Uruguay grants extensive rights, including adoptions, to gay couples in civil unions but does not allow them to marry.

Mexico City is the only other place in Latin America where gays have the same marriage and adoption rights as heterosexual couples.

(Read the full report)

Louisana State Rep Proposes a Path to Gay Adoption.

In Louisiana, as in many other states, adoption by same sex couples is not possible, but is not prohibited by state constitutional ban.  Rather, the regulations simply prohibit adoption by any couples not legally married - which thereby excludes gay and lesbian couples as prospective parents, but also excludes unmarried heterosexual couples. (Single people oddly may adopt  -so a gay man qualifies, as long as he applies as a single person). Now, a state rep, Juan La Fonta, has proposed relaxing this restriction.  This will open up a path to gay adoption, but also open up opportunities for other prospective parents. Mr    hopes that by refusing to couch this move purely in terms of "gay" adoption, he will avoid the emotional excesses that have surrounded other moves around marriage and adoption equality. I have no idea what are his chances of success - we can but wait and see.  

  From Nola.com:

Gay couples, others could adopt under Rep. Juan LaFonta's proposed changes

Rep. Juan LaFonta, D-New Orleans, is proposing to expand Louisiana adoption laws with language to recognize as parents both persons in a gay couple. 

But LaFonta is not going directly after the provision of Louisiana law that restricts adoption to married couples or single individuals but not unmarried couples. Instead, House Bill 738 would expand the list of eligible persons to petition for "intrafamily" adoptions, those that involve a second adult becoming a legal parent to a child who already has a legal parent in the same family or household.

He plans to bring the bill to the House Civil Law & Procedure Committee next week.

Current law already allows a step-parent, step-grandparent, great-grandparent, grandparent, aunt, great aunt, uncle, great uncle, sibling, or first, second or third cousin to adopt a child under certain circumstances. LaFonta would add "second parent" to that list, provided "the petitioner is the sole legal parent and agrees to the adoption of the child by a second parent."

As with the rest of Louisiana adoption law, the bill does not mention sexual orientation. Gay residents in Louisiana already adopt, but a gay couple -- or an unmarried heterosexual couple -- must choose just one of the pair to become the legal parent, with the second adult having no legal relationship with the child.

 (Read the full report)

Adoption ban overturned

Arkansas gay couples are now free to adopt - ban overturned.

In November 2008, in the same election that saw California and Florida voters reject marriage equality, Arkansas voters approved a proposal to ban adoption by gay and lesbian couples.  That ban has now been overturned by a state court.

From the Advocate:

A circuit court judge in Arkansas’s Pulaski County has overturned the statewide ban on unmarried couples living together—including same-sex couples — adopting or fostering children.

Act 1, which was approved by voters in 2008, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of several families.

“As of now, gay and unmarried couples are able to apply to adopt or foster children [in Arkansas],” says Christine Sun, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs and member of the ACLU’s LGBT project. “We’re encouraging the plaintiffs to begin that process.”

-(Read the full report)

Equality in Argentina

Argentina Lower House to Debate Equality Bill

While the courts of Argentina continue to bat back and forth the legality of same sex marriage, the question of adoption and marriage equality is about to be taken seriously in the Argentinian parliament. A rather confusing report from Buenoe Aires Herald has a headline that refers to a gay "adoption" bill, while the text refers to a "marriage" bill. I suspect the truth is that this is best thought of as an equality bill, which will guarantee both marriage and adoption rights, and by providing for legal protection of our families, will directly protect the children.  

(UPDATE: It is now clear from brief references in other reports that the bill which has been proposed covers both marriage and adoption. The proposed bill has been cleared by the relevant judicial committee for introduction to the parliamentary lower house.)

From Buenos Aires Herald:

Lawmaker Vilma Ibarra said the Lower House is ready to "debate equality" and prove "there's no sense in stripping certain citizens of their rights because of their sexual orientation." She also stressed that "there's gay couples who are currently already adopting."

"The Gay Marriage bill doesn't intend to debate homosexuality, but equality, since Argentina is a constitutional state in which everyone is equal under the law," she explained.

Ibarra said that "we live in a plural society. Everyone gets to choose how to live and who to share their lives with, their religion and the state must inject plurality into the Argentine society and makes all equal."

The lawmaker explained that the current Adoption Bill allows for heterosexual couples and single parents to adopt, hence there's already many gay men and women who have adopted children.

"Homosexual people adopt children all the time, we're not changing anything, only regulating something that already exists. When gay parents decide to adopt, only one person signs up as foster parent, but both of them raise their child," she stressed.

-(Read the full report)