For the past couple months, a story has been quietly raging through the web about an infamous adoption case in Scotland. In this case, as reported by the UK's Daily Mail, two children ages 4 and 5 were being raised by their grandparents, because their mother was addicted to heroin. Social workers declared the grandparents to be unfit, due to age and health, to care for the children. Subsequently, the children were placed for adoption in the home of a gay male couple. The grandparents are aged 46 and 59; one suffers from diabetes and the other suffers from angina.
I am skeptical of the generalized case that the media and bloggers are presenting here. Simply put, I doubt that the Daily Mail is giving us, or even has access to, all the facts in this case. I'm not an expert in UK family law, but I doubt that being 46 and 59 and suffering from the above conditions, in and of themselves, are sufficient to render the removal of children from the home of biological relatives. Unfortunately, with respect to stories about children, especially children in sad circumstances, reason takes a backseat to emotion and pathos. In this case, anti-gays have jumped on this case, have perpetuated it with their usual paranoia and lack of any skepticism, and are using it as further proof that the Gay Agenda and Political Correctness Have Gone Too Far (tm).
For instance, in his headline regarding this case, one anti-gay blogger recently ejaculated "We Can't Have Children!! So well [sic] Just Take Yours!! {By Force of Law}" as though, due to their incapacity to procreate with their partners, gay men are masterminding a Raising Arizona-like plot to steal the children of heterosexuals. In his bizarre and marginally-literate piece of writing, this "marriage defender" opines that, for gay couples, "Local adoption is even more difficult and arduous (do [sic] too [sic] abortion) young healthy children are an increased rarity…who’s [sic] mothers often want the children to go to good homes with a Mother & Father" (ellipses in original). If I can attempt a translation here, I think this fellow is trying to say that abortion has depleted the stock of adoptable children and so it has become quite difficult for gay couples to adopt healthy kids. He continues that this case shows how the gays have strong-armed adoption agencies into implementing a "pro-gay, anti-Christian bias."
Other bloggers and writers have breathlessly lamented that the children were "ripped" from their grandparents and given to a "homosexual couple," that the children were going to be raised in "an atmosphere of depravity," and of the children "torn from" their home to be raised by the two gay men. Presenting the case in this simple way is a very appealing, not to mention manipulative, play on the audience's emotions and pity. First you mix a wronged grandma and grandpa who just want to raise their grandchildren, add a dose of children from a broken home, stir the plot with gay villains, and you've got a recipe for mass outrage.
But, is this case really as simplistic as the media and breathless bloggers present? Wouldn't the real travesty be, assuming we know all the relevant facts here, not that the children were placed with a gay couple, but rather that they were removed from the only home they knew for somewhat wishy-washy reasons? Most importantly, do we really know all of the facts in this particular adoption case? No, we don't. Is it likely that more ingredients are at work here? Yes. After all, "Social services are legally unable to comment on the details of the case" [emphasis added].
The entirety of facts in this case, and especially more specifics as to why the grandparents were deemed unfit, are not available. There are a number of deeper possible explanations, going beyond the grandparents' age and health status, as to why these children were removed from their grandparents' home. It's likely much more complicated than anyone knows and does not fit neatly into an OMG The Gay Agenda Is Ruining Everything box. For instance, how severe are the grandparents' medical issues? Is the biological mother, and her drug habit, also residing with the grandparents? Do the grandparents have mental health issues? Do they have prior criminal offenses that would preclude them from legal adoption? Did social workers, for whatever reason, determine that the grandparents would not be able to meet the emotional, identity, health and development needs of the children? We simply don't know, and the social workers involved are not able to divulge this sort of information. Any competent attorney or journalist, knowing (a) that cases exist in shades of gray rather than black and white and (b) that details of these sorts of cases often remain confidential, would be hesitant to look at this case and make huge sweeping generalizations about any alleged trend in adoption law.
Thus, I see three tragedies in this case. The first is that the biological parents of these children have failed them. Two, the public in general, and anti-gay bloggers and writers in particular, are severely lacking a healthy dose of skepticism. The bulk of the writing surrounding this case indicates that people truly think they know all of the facts here when they do clearly do not. These assumptions have led to paranoia, anti-gay hysterics, and the expected vilification of LGBT people.
Lastly, the gay men in this case are being vilified here when, in reality, they should be applauded for stepping up to the plate when the biological parents of these children have so utterly failed them. Not only is the mother an alleged "recovering heroin addict" who has been unable or unwilling to care for her children, but "the boy's father was a schizophrenic who killed himself two months before his son was born. The girl's father is still alive but has had nothing to do with his daughter."
It's a sad situation and, if they haven't done so already, I'm sure that the anti-gay forces are busy figuring out how all of that, too, is somehow the fault of The Gays.
In their obsessive defense of traditional gender roles, I think the real sin is that so many people conflate the ability to procreate with the ability to parent.
No comments:
Post a Comment