The Social Injustice of Same-Sex Couple Adoption Discrimination in The United States
June 26, 2005 is known as “Love Day”, because it is when the US Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage. This was a big step toward equality for the LGTBQ+ community; however, queer-identifying individuals are still systemically oppressed across the country. Same-sex couples experience the social injustice of adoption discrimination due to the heteronormative construction of parenthood, and due to tax-payer funded religious organizations claiming same-sex discrimination is freedom of religion. This injustice does more than deny gay and lesbian couples the same privileges that heterosexual couples experience; it also prohibits orphaned children from finding stable homes. In order to end same-sex couple adoption discrimination the United States Supreme Court needs to uphold that no tax-funded religious organization is above federal anti-discrimination laws; our country also needs to begin dismantling the outdated and sexiest ideal that the heteronormative nuclear family (HNF) is superior to any alternative family in order to protect homosexual couples in “best interest” testimonials.
On the day after election day in November of 2020 the Supreme Court will determine if tax-payer funded adoption organizations are allowed to discriminate against homosexual couples in the Fulton v. City of Philadelphia hearing. The city of Philadelphia is being sued because they stopped referring foster children to Catholic Social Services after the organization confirmed that they would not certify same-sex couples as foster parents. The decision will conclude if the government violates the first amendment rights of religious organizations by requiring compliance with anti-discrimination legislation. The Catholic Church has a long history of advocating against homosexuality and refusing to adhere to laws that protect same-sex couples’ right to parentage. For example, in 2006 before Fulton V. City of Philadelphia, Catholic Charities of Boston decided to completely shut down adoption services when Mitt Romney refused to waive anti-discrimination laws for their organization. The on-going debate of whether or not it is a right of religious organizations to discriminate against same-sex couples is arguably the most pressing today, especially considering the newly empty Supreme Court Justice seat under the Trump administration.
Our country is still mourning the passing of Supreme Court Justice and long time champion of LGBTQ+ rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The queer community is left fearing a more conservative supreme court justice replacement rushed in by the Trump administration, because the court already has a conservative majority. Trump recently appointed Amy Coney Barett, who has a long history of openly speaking out against homosexuality. Furthermore, Barett was formerly the law clerk and protege to Antonin Scalia, a well-known opponent to LGBTQ+ rights. The Human Rights Campaign, American’s largest LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, recently published a statement opposing this appointment and launched a dissent campaign.
“The President has dramatically altered the judiciary to try to dismantle hard-fought rights and progress secured over decades – LGBTQ rights, voting rights, reproductive rights and more…If she is nominated and confirmed, Coney Barrett would work to dismantle all that Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought for during her extraordinary career. An appointment of this magnitude must be made by the president inaugurated in January. The Human Rights Campaign fervently opposes Coney Barrett’s nomination, and this sham process,”
–Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign.
The haste David describes is no exaggeration. No justice has ever been confirmed so close to an election and Barrett’s confirmation hearings are considerably faster than recent Supreme Court nominations, as they are set to take place October 12th. We must stand with the HRC and dissent Barrett for the future of LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination protections. We must be loud in continuing to advocate for same-sex couples’ rights to adoption. While the debate of whether or not it is a right of religious organizations to discriminate against same-sex couples is seemingly the most timely issue today, there are still many other societal causes for adoption discrimination across the country.
The heteronormative nuclear family (HNF) was built on sexist ideals and continues to haunt the United State’s construction of the ideal family by stigmatizing homosexual parents. The idea of the HNF became firmly established and accepted as the only normal by the mid-20th century after World War II. This HNF model is based entirely on a gender binary. In the essay ‘Heteronormativity and the Ideal Family’ Snider clearly breaks down what this sexist gender binary is, “The idea that children need one parent of each sex, as in the HNF, to be raised properly or naturally assumes that a particular part of that child’s needs can only be met by members of certain sex”. This assumption described by Snider is one of the core arguments, outside of the religious beliefs, that is often used to discriminate against non-heterosexual couples and their right to parentage when used in “best interest” standard testimonials.
The state of Texas, along with other Southern States, has a particularly hostile history with the LGBTQ+ community on the issue of adoption discrimination. The US District Court overturned same-sex couple adoption discrimination arguments that Texas made to promote procreation and child welfare. However, the subjective nature of the legal “best interests” standard allows for requirement of testimony concerning a parent’s sexuality in court actions to terminate parental custody. According to familyequality.org, a Texas appellate court has allowed evidence of sexual orientation or activity with the same-sex as a factor for the lower court to consider what is the “best interest” of the child. The best interest argument will continue to promote social injustice by preventing homosexual couples from adoption and keeping children from loving homes until the sexist ideal of the HNF model is replaced by a more inclusive definition of family.
The legalization of gay marriage progressed the LGBTQ+ community, but we need to continue fighting just as hard to end the social injustice of same-sex couple adoption discrimination. First, we must make sure our voices stay loud and clear. Next, we must follow the Human Rights Campaign’s lead and dissent the confirmation of conservative justice Barrett before the landmark case that will determine if same-sex couple discrimination is legal for religious reasons. We also need to fight to end the subjective nature of the “best interests” standards until the widely accepted notion that HNF model is superior is dismantled. Lastly, we need to start educating American society to re-define the meaning of family to a more inclusive one that recognizes same-sex parented households as just as valid. There is a lot of work to be done for queer rights, but we can’t stop here.
