McMillan on Adoption

Susan Carpenter McMillan once again gives us her view of the perfect world in her column “Neither Gays Nor Singles Should Adopt” (Column Right, April 3).

Single people should not be allowed to become adoptive parents, even if emotionally and financially secure; same sex couples should not be allowed to become adoptive parents, even if in loving, stable relationships; children should only grow up on homes where they are loved and will be raised to “further the good of society.”

It sounds great.

But who will meet her standards and be available to adopt the millions of children who will be born into homes where they are not loved or wanted if McMillan has her way and bans abortion?

How many will she be willing to take?

SANDRA WRIGHT

Balboa

*

I am a gay male who is currently adopting two teen-age boys. Both of my sons would have spend the remainder of their youth in state or private institutions. They were by all counts, classically “unadoptable.” Instead, they now have a loving home with a father who loves them more than they have ever been loved before. A man who helps them with their homework, makes sure they attend school and study, takes them to the doctor, brings them to family reunions, teaches them how to be responsible for their actions and guides them to becoming productive members of society. I am proud of what I have done with my children and honored by the love they have given me in return.

I did not become a father to fulfill some selfish need, further a political agenda, legitimize a God-given sexual orientation, or any other of the reasons Carpenter delineates. I resent the idea that I would use my children as pawns or allow anymore else to. I became a father because I knew I had something to give and that there were children out there who needed what I could offer. As a prospective foster and adoptive father, I have had to adhere to rules and standards set by California’s Community Care Licensing Agency (rules that no birth parent would put up with), I have had background checks and psychological evaluations, been queried by attorneys and judges in placement hearings and scrutinized by social workers. All of these trained professional have stated that my home is the best home for my children. The fact is that a single person or a couple, gay or straight, who has the capability and means to love and nurture a child is the best place for a child to be. And that means changing the narrow, close-minded, right-wing definition of the word “family.” A family is a group of people who love and support one another, sometimes there are two parents of two different sexes, sometimes there are two parents of the same sex. Sometimes, there is one parent, maybe heterosexual, maybe homosexual. The key words are love and support.

HAMP SIMMONS

West Hollywood

*

I concur wholeheartedly with McMillan regarding her sentiments on children being adopted by gays or singles. The normal phenomenon of male/female relationships leading to heterosexual marriage is nature’s way of propagating the human race. It is neither in the best interest of the child nor of the country to raise our children in divergent homosexual environments where the setting will probably adversely affect the child’s libido.

I fully support the gay and lesbian community on the issues concerning employment, military service, and even “marriage.” I draw the line, however, in their rearing of our next generation. Despite their best interests and intentions, the complete psychological development of these children will somehow be thwarted.

Concerning adoption by single parents, there are indeed exceptions where single parents perform laudably, but unfortunately the great majority of our problems with youth today begins with the partial family. There is no substitute for the traditional two-parent, heterosexual family, where both mother and father take active roles in rearing the children.

MARVIN S. EHRENBERG

Claremont