10/03/2007

Hillary v. Adoption?

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit asks: IS HILLARY'S BABY-BOND IDEA ANTI-GAY?

He uses this question to set up the observation from 'Boi from Troy'
"I really did not think about Hillary Clinton’s $5000 Baby Bond proposal until seeing this poll by Daily Kos. . . . But if the Baby Bond is only available to families of newborns–what does that mean to gays and lesbians?"
Boy also notes later in his post:
"So, quite specifically, gay males are the only potential parents who are not eligible for the Baby Bond benefit."
Uh, Hello? What about straight adoptive parents? Under this standard, we would not be eligible either. (And yes, I am an adoptive father of a newborn) And while we are at it, lesbians couples who adopt (versus doing artificial insemination) would be in the same boat.

So, with all due respect to his overall point, I think Boi is being a little over-dramatic about the anti-gay aspect here.

Ultimately, I agree with what I think Boi's ultimate unspoken point was. If such a proposal were to be 'fair', it would include eligibility for parents in all adoptive circumstances (including those adoptions of older children) as long as no benefit has been previously established.

Adoption costs thousands of dollars up front not matter what the parent's orientation. Not allowing them to claim this benefit for their new child is discriminatory to everyone, most of all the child. Because in the end, the benefit belongs to the child, not the parents....

1 comment:

Andy said...

Gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Period.