Cheerios Commercial: Gay dads adopt and sell cereal

Lorraine

Cringe making: A new feel-good Cherrios on-line commercial for the Canadian audience as two white gay dads talk about how they met, fell in love and decided to be a family by adopting a little black girl during a three-minute video. No doubt that Raphaelle she is being treated well, and that these two dads love her. 

We are supposed to feel all gooey-gooey about the fact that these two handsome, appealing men with charming French accents have been allowed to adopt. Problem Number One. We are all for gay acceptance, gay rights, gay marriage, but indisputable is the reality that gay and lesbian adoption will increase the number of people looking to adoption to build families. The unwitting result is more pressure on the adoption industry to find more babies from a dwindling market so that gay and lesbian couples can adopt somebody else's child. 

Even in 'modern families' the need to know biological heritage

Jane

Opponents of gay marriage often raise the specter of gays raising children they adopt or create through "modern fertility techniques" claiming that gays raising children would lead to the breakdown of the family, which would lead to the disintegration of civilization. Well, of course gays have been raising children long before recorded history. Those Greeks doing it in bath houses were often married with children. And gays like my late sister Helen married members of the opposite sex, had children, divorced, and taken up with a same-sex partner.

 Since the 1970's gays have adopted children both from foster care and as newborn infants. They have also created children through sperm and egg donations, IVF and surrogacy. With courts striking down gay marriage bans, it's likely that more gays will marry and acquire children. The critical question

Is it a 'Birth' Certificate or Certificate of Title?

Jane

Birth certificates have become legal instruments, reflecting ownership of children rather than parentage. In surrogacy-friendly California, birth certificates of children created in vitro with “donated” eggs and sperm, born to surrogates identify those who paid for the creation as the parents. In the Brave New World of “assisted reproduction” these children depend on the kindness of their legal parents and surrogacy clinic policies to learn whose DNA they carry.

Want to "star" in reality TV? Sign up to give your baby up

Lorraine

Decry the adoption culture all day long, but from the Adoption Option (see sidebar) to a casual comment the other evening about adopting a child instead of raising a chimp in one's home (who later goes berserk and chews up a neighbor's face), it's with us everywhere. Today's New York Times has a story about gay adoption and how it is on the rise. That story featured Matt and Ray Lees of Worthington, Ohio, who adopted eight

Who's the IVF Daddy? Opps, I only have a 'second parent'

Rarely does FirstMother find ourselves in agreement with the religious right, but a law change in England brings us into rare, but direct, connect. As of April 6th, 2009, fathers will no longer be necessary in England, according to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. Read about it at the UK's Sunday Times.

Well, of course some of that male sperm will be necessary, but men--not even "anonymous" men--do not have to be listed on the birth certificate. Single women undergoing fertility treatment will be able to name almost any other adult as their child's second parent on the OriginalBC. The individual so indicated as the "second parent" does not have to be a male or biologically related to the offspring. Now we are all for gay and lesbian rights, but come on! This falls into the theater of the absurd.

The Act excludes "close blood relations" from being so named on the OBC. I suppose this means that a woman's brother or father can not be a "second parent" (this sounds incestuous, just writing it), but what this ridiculous piece of legislation does is subsume the needs of the offspring to the preferences of the biological mother. And that offspring will then have an even harder time finding out whom he or she is descended from, when the day comes that curiosity springs in the heart, and come it will. Sound a bit like any other adoption legislation that was not written with the "best interests" of the child/adult in mind? I can think of one.

Critics claim family values are being further devalued, and though I am not a fan of what "family values" has come to mean, let's have some common sense and consideration of an individual's right to have a family tree--and the ability to find that tree--like the rest of us. For it is a given that this weird birth certificate will make it even harder for some individuals to one day figure out where their DNA came from, unless the "first parents" are willing to spill the beans about the true "second parents," ie, the fathers or sperm donors. This law is no more than a legal codification of a bad practice. It further strips the kids born at IVF clinics of a legal route to learn their complete and true ancestry. It is the legal obfuscation of truth in conception.

We do know--from many sources, including sister blogs--that some women/mothers are not willing to impart this vital information, and even go so far as to hide it. This weird legislation undoubtedly came about at the behest of the gay and lesbian community; we have pretty much stayed out of the fracas over such adoptions, since we at FirstMother are not fans of adoption per se, gay or straight, international or domestic. In fact, since allowing gay adoption further increases the number of all adoptions, we are against it in most cases.

England has some good rules in place--no more than two embryos can be implanted at a time (no octo-moms from implanted zygotes), sperm can not be a salable commodity or given anonymity (which has led to a huge decrease in the availability of anonymous sperm, figure that)--but this one oversteps the boundary of decency and common sense--lorraine

And here's a PS from Jane:

The only relevant Origins USA position is in a draft paper regarding gay adoption. The paper says that gays should not be denied the opportunity to adopt a relatives' child just because they are gay. So it's a pro-family preservation paper, not a gay rights paper as such.

Gay adoption of newborns puts increasing pressure on the adoption industry to supply babies which in turn increases pressure on women to surrender. For the same reason, Firstmother is opposed to women over 40 adopting.

This Heather Has Two Mommies nonsense is bad in another way. It re-enforces in the public's mind that genetics is irrelevant; that the legal system and medical technology can wave a magic wand and nullify the laws of nature. This can lead, and perhaps is leading, to the re-distribution of children from the have nots to the haves, from the undeserving to the government-sanctioned deserving. It bolsters the arguments of adoption promoters and social workers who want to terminate parents' rights at the drop of a hat.

Who's the IVF Daddy? Opps, I only have a 'second parent'

Rarely does FirstMother find ourselves in agreement with the religious right, but a law change in England brings us into rare, but direct, connect. As of April 6th, 2009, fathers will no longer be necessary in England, according to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. Read about it at the UK's Sunday Times.

Well, of course some of that male sperm will be necessary, but men--not even "anonymous" men--do not have to be listed on the birth certificate. Single women undergoing fertility treatment will be able to name almost any other adult as their child's second parent on the OriginalBC. The individual so indicated as the "second parent" does not have to be a male or biologically related to the offspring. Now we are all for gay and lesbian rights, but come on! This falls into the theater of the absurd.

The Act excludes "close blood relations" from being so named on the OBC. I suppose this means that a woman's brother or father can not be a "second parent" (this sounds incestuous, just writing it), but what this ridiculous piece of legislation does is subsume the needs of the offspring to the preferences of the biological mother. And that offspring will then have an even harder time finding out whom he or she is descended from, when the day comes that curiosity springs in the heart, and come it will. Sound a bit like any other adoption legislation that was not written with the "best interests" of the child/adult in mind? I can think of one.

Critics claim family values are being further devalued, and though I am not a fan of what "family values" has come to mean, let's have some common sense and consideration of an individual's right to have a family tree--and the ability to find that tree--like the rest of us. For it is a given that this weird birth certificate will make it even harder for some individuals to one day figure out where their DNA came from, unless the "first parents" are willing to spill the beans about the true "second parents," ie, the fathers or sperm donors. This law is no more than a legal codification of a bad practice. It further strips the kids born at IVF clinics of a legal route to learn their complete and true ancestry. It is the legal obfuscation of truth in conception.

We do know--from many sources, including sister blogs--that some women/mothers are not willing to impart this vital information, and even go so far as to hide it. This weird legislation undoubtedly came about at the behest of the gay and lesbian community; we have pretty much stayed out of the fracas over such adoptions, since we at FirstMother are not fans of adoption per se, gay or straight, international or domestic. In fact, since allowing gay adoption further increases the number of all adoptions, we are against it in most cases.

England has some good rules in place--no more than two embryos can be implanted at a time (no octo-moms from implanted zygotes), sperm can not be a salable commodity (which has led to a huge decrease in the availability of anonymous sperm, figure that)--but this one oversteps the boundary of decency and common sense--lorraine

Birth Certificate or Certificate of Title?

The state attorney general of Louisiana is planning to appeal a federal court order to put the names of two adoptive fathers on their son's birth certificate. This comes from a suit brought by Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith, who adopted a Louisiana-born boy in New York State, where same-sex couples can be listed as parents. They now live in San Diego. So the kid was born in one state, adopted in another, and goes to live in a third with a falsified birth certificate that obliterates the names of his real, biological parents. Nothing new here.

Louisiana contends that the state is being forced to grant more legal recognition to the couple than required under the U.S. Constitution. It would be nice if at the same time, the state recognized that it was stripping an individual of his right to have access the identity he had at birth.

While I am against most adoptions per se, it does seem that if two guys, or two gals, are going to adopt they ought to be able to be listed as parents on the birth certificate, the same as heterosexual couples.

This case does pinpoint the folly of attempting to erase biological facts through governmental machinations. Messers. Adar and Smith may feel more secure because their adopted son has a new birth certificate. The new birth certificate, however, will likely do the very thing that amended birth certificates were attempting to avoid: cause little Adar-Smith “unnecessary embarrassment, pain, and disgrace” as he explains to strangers why his birth certificate shows the biological impossibility that he has two fathers and no mother.

It is time to repeal laws mandating or allowing the creation of amended birth certificates. When a child is adopted, states should issue an identification card showing the LEGAL parents of the child as well as the date and place of birth. The birth certificate should record the physical facts surrounding the birth -- listing the names of his biological parents, et cetera -- and be available to the child and his birth parents.

I admit I have another reservation about the case. I don't like adoption per se but if it is to happen, let it at least be with a mother and father, unless the couple is adopting a child that would otherwise be in foster care. I have no problem with gays adopting relatives or children with whom they developed a relationship such as their partner’s children. I know that many gays provide much needed help to struggling families through programs such as Big Brother and YMCA Camps.

However, I don't like to see male couples adopting newborns. Having a mother, at least a woman acting like a mother, is important to babies and young children. A gay man, Dan Savage, wrote about how he and his partner adopted a newborn boy in an open adoption in a 1999 book The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Get Pregnant. Several years later in an interview, Savage stated that the mother stopped visiting and they lost touch with her. The boy cried for her.

If nature had intended for men to nurture infants, it would have given them breasts. In the animal world, the males of some species are primarily responsible for raising the young but human males are not designed for the task. The one thing women can do that men cannot do is have babies. By adopting infants and claiming that having two fathers is as good as having a mother and a father, these men are trying to nullify women's special, natural role. As the public accepts this, we move one step closer to the re-distribution of children.

Another problem is that gays and other groups who were deterred in the past from adopting have increased the demand for infants. These groups include women over 40, single people, and couples who have their own children. The increased demand raises the cost of adoption which increases the adoption industry’s profits which increases the pressure on women to surrender their babies. It’s a vicious circle.