This story fits in with the general idea of restricting access to parenthood that I’ve been discussing, but it also more directly ties back to the occasional pieces I’ve had on adoption restrictions.
Tennessee is currently considering legislation to limit adoptive parents to married couples. It’s worth noting the history of the legislation recounted in the article. Originally, legislators sought to bar lesbians and gay men (single or coupled) from adoption. But apparently that wasn’t seen to be plausible and the current legislation replaced the earlier legislation. Of course, it does bar lesbians and gay men from becoming adoptive parents, since lesbian and gay couples cannot marry in Tennessee. At the same time, though, it eliminates unmarried heterosexual couples.
The shift from an overtly anti-lesbian/gay statute to an anti-unmarried statute raises interesting issues. Presumably the rationale for the first statute has something to do with children needing a mother and a father. Same-sex couples don’t provide that, even though they do provide two parents. But you cannot continue to use the children need mother/father argument if you shift to also bar unmarried heterosexual couples. Heterosexual couples do include a man and a woman.
Of course, what you can say about unmarried couples is that they are unmarried. You can try to equate unmarried to unstable. Kids need stability, hence unmarried couples, being unstable, are less suitable. But here you run into a different problem. That might be a plausible argument (I’m not saying I actually buy it) for heterosexual couples who choose to remain unmarried. But it also leads to an argument in favor of allowing same-sex couples to have access to marriage. After all, some same-sex couples would choose to marry (and hence become stable) so it hardly seems fair to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying and then say that because they are unmarried they cannot adopt.
I have no idea if anyone in Tennessee is really thinking about the tensions between the various arguments. Given the statistics about foster children awaiting placement, one could wonder whether the sponsors of the legislation cannot find somthing more constructive to do with their time. In this context, I find the discussion of the legislators reasons for promoting this bill rather startling. It’s on the fourth page. It says:
“DeBerry said there were aspects of his reasons for sponsoring the bill that he was unwilling to discuss with a reporter. DeBerry was also unwilling to say what sort of family structure he believes is best for children.
“If a member of the public would like to know my reasons, they can contact me, come into my office,” he said. “We will shut the door, and I would be happy to share my reasons.”
I find this truly remarkable. I’ve never seen a legislature decline to discuss his reasons for proposing legislation. It’s a secret? I can only hope that some constituent takes him up on his offer, goes in and closes the door, and then lets the rest of us in on his secret.
Related Topics 