Does Senate Bill 68 target gay adoption? No

    On March 5, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously in favor of legislation preventing live-in sexual partners from adoptive and foster parenting. A recent poll finds 55 percent of Kentuckians agree with this move. But the Kentucky Fairness Alliance is calling the bill the “Divisive Child Welfare Shift.”
    The Alliance argues this is really an issue of non-discrimination and live-in homosexual couples who desire to adopt and are being unfairly targeted.  The truth is, homosexuals are not being targeted; they are still allowed to adopt under the proposed law. What fewer people realize is the bill also prohibits live-in heterosexual couples from adopting. But maybe this lack of awareness is because there is no organized lobby for heterosexual live-in couples.
    Somehow the debate has centered on the rights of adults – in this case, homosexual and heterosexual cohabiting adults. Shouldn’t the debate focus instead on what’s best for children? Perhaps some parts of society have acquiesced to live-in relationships, but let’s not drag kids into them. After all, there is no right to adopt.
    Social data indicates children are at greater risk for physical and sexual abuse in the homes of cohabiting adults, with the highest threat coming from live-in boyfriends who abuse their girlfriends’ children. Though this bill will affect far more cohabiting heterosexuals than homosexual couples, the gay lobby is objecting the loudest.            
    Opponents of the proposed bill say the main requirement is a “loving home” – an important factor, but not the only one. Children need stable and safe homes – something cohabitation undermines. Compared to married households, cohabiting homes are more likely to have break-ups and problems with alcohol and drug abuse. Child abuse is more prevalent and children are more likely to suffer from behavioral problems.
    State policy has always placed limits on prospective adoptive and foster homes. Financial status, criminal history, health and age are all factors considered to determine the best home for kids. Cohabitation has never been viewed as a positive for children. So what has changed? Nearly every state has laws recognizing marriage between one man and one woman. So does the federal government. Some speculate gay political activists seek to normalize their relationships through adoption law.  After all, if they can have children and parent like heterosexual couples, then why not give them all the legal rights of marriage? That’s the argument anyway.
    By nature, it takes one man and one woman to procreate. And it takes both a man and a woman – a father and a mother – to provide role models for a child’s healthy development.
    In 2006, the Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to end its 100-year history as the largest non-profit adoption provider in the state of Massachusetts because they refused to place children in cohabiting homosexual homes.
    This is not a fight that advocates of the traditional family picked. It’s one gay political activists are waging, and children have become pawns in this latest skirmish over sexual politics. In the end, adoption is about securing the best possible home for children. It shouldn’t be about finding children for people who want to further an agenda.