Walli 1

Morgan Walli

Professor Walz

ENG 102

13 May 2016

Love is Love: Foster Homes within the LGBT Community

The issue of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights is one that is

historically notable for its complexity, its controversy, and, significantly, the degree to which

individual beliefs and ideals impact one’s resulting stance on the issue. Consequently, reaching a

decision based on empirical evidence is difficult – a dynamic compounded by a surprisingly

small amount of research on the topic. It is not, however, impossible. Despite the weaknesses of

affirmative research, the vast majority of empirical evidence supports the idea that gay and

lesbian parents can be, and are, equally capable of parenting foster and adoptive children as their

heterosexual counterparts, indicating that the disproportionate difficulties faced by such parents

are unjustified and that increased involvement by the LGBT community would in fact be highly

beneficial to children in need.

The relevancy of the gay and lesbian parenting debate can only be understood in the

context of broader policy issues. Although efforts began many decades prior, the LGBT

community gained new ground in 2015 with the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling to legalize gay and

lesbian marriage in the United States. Prior to this landmark ruling, the LGBT community had

struggled with a variety of issues stemming from a lack of government validation for long-term

relationships, a dynamic that heavily influenced – and continues to influence – their ability to

foster and adopt. As Kate Burns put it in her 2005 book, Gay and Lesbian Families, “[t]he way a

word like family is defined can affect social policies and practices in a community. Being

included in the definition often conveys important rights and privileges while being excluded
 Walli 2

bars people from these advantages. Clearly, much is at stake in the meaning of words that

classify and identify people” (1). Even after the 2015 ruling, which extended the legal “family”

classification to the LGBT community, gay and lesbian prospective couples continue to face

additional evaluations and barriers in the adoption and foster processes compared to their

heterosexual counterparts. Not only are such parents subjected to additional screening, and

sometimes simply turned away due to their sexuality, but they are also required to justify the

meaning and impact of their sexuality in the face of parenting. Such justification, as Damien

Riggs expressed, can take one of multiple forms. The first of these forms involves the common

perception of the heterosexual nuclear family as the most desirable childhood environment:

“[L]esbians and gay men who wish to become foster carers are expected to conform to a

particular model of parenting that is primarily based upon the norm of the heterosexual nuclear

family” (133). This “just like” form of justification, Riggs believes, reflects the heterosexism that

governs much of the foster systems’ view on family, parenting, and placement, causing the

potentially beneficial differences that gay and lesbian couples bring to the table to be ignored.

Alternatively, gay and lesbian prospective parents are pressed to “completely refuse (or at the

very least privatize) their sexuality,” effectively “re-closet[ing]” their sexuality (Riggs 141). In

addition to the all too common justification requirement, the laws governing gay and lesbian

adoption vary greatly, with much of the decision as to allowing a foster or adoption placement

resting on informal policy. Joanne Smith seconded this frustration in an information packet

written for prospective parents, stating: “Federal and state laws govern adoption, but practices

within states often vary from region to region-and even from agency to agency and judge to

judge” (10). She notes, however, that the policies (formal and informal) regarding gay and

lesbian adoption and foster parenting are becoming increasingly accommodating. Yet, at the end
 Walli 3

of the day, the lack of formal, consistent policy overemphasizes the power – and biases – of the

individual agency and even the individual social worker assigned to a case. Sean Cahill and

Sarah Tobias summarized the problems faced by prospective LGBT families, stating:

The lack of equal access to marriage and adoption forces many gay couples to

spend thousands of dollars on legal documents to protect their families—

documents that are not always upheld in court or respected by hospitals, banks,

and other institutions. Those who cannot afford such legal fees can find their

families without even minimal protections in times of crisis. Gay individuals and

families in need of social services may experience hostility, discrimination, and

even proselytizing at the hands of social service providers under the faith-based

initiative. (18)

The situation is not, however, as bleak as it may initially seem. In 2014, there were

around 415,129 children in foster care. Over twenty-five percent of these children were living

with relatives, and almost fifty percent were placed in a non-family foster home (Children’s

Bureau 1). Of these children, around 14,100, making up three percent of foster children in the

United States, were living with gay and lesbian foster parents in 2007, along with 65,500 adopted

children. California has the highest rate of LGBT parenting, with more than 16,000 adopted

children in LGBT homes (Gates et al.1). These numbers are likely substantially higher today due

to increased involvement of the LGBT community in the foster system since 2007 (Burns 2).

Overall, as of 2014, “[m]ore than 125,000 same-sex couple households (19%) include nearly

220,000 children under age 18. Among those under age 50 who are living alone or with a spouse

or partner, nearly half of LGBT women (48%) are raising a child under age 18 along with a fifth

of LGBT men (20%)”(Gates 1). Contrary to much of public perception, gay adoption is quite
 Walli 4

commonly accepted, especially in public, international, Jewish, and Lutheran agencies. However,

LGBT parents were more likely to be placed with special needs children and faced additional

evaluation compared to heterosexual parents. Some states and agencies do not accept gay and

lesbian applications (Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute 4). The struggle, in other words,

continues and the question as to whether or not gays and lesbians should be allowed to parent at

all proliferates.

On the affirmative side of the debate is the argument that children are not impacted

negatively by having gay or lesbian parents. This position is backed by an array of research that,

while limited in certain regards, has a consistently positive outcome. The consensus of this

research is clearly expressed by Charlotte Patterson, who concludes that, “[w]hatever

correlations between child outcomes and parental sexual orientation may exist, they are less

important than those between child outcomes and the qualities of family relationships” (243).

Such correlations, she notes, have been noticeably absent in research. Children raised by gay and

lesbian parents demonstrate no difference in social adjustment, self-esteem, academic outcome,

sexual activity, sexual preference, psychological health, or any other factor compared to those

raised by heterosexual parents, with children raised by lesbian mothers actually showing a lesser

affinity for psychiatric problems. Those children who experience prejudice, teasing, or other

forms of harassment from peers because of their parent’s sexuality report long term impacts

comparable to those reported by children raised by heterosexual parents. These children also

report no difference in quality of peer relationships and may even be better equipped to deal with

teasing due to parental guidance (Brooks and Goldberg 149). In contest with the somewhat

common notion that gay and lesbian parents are more likely to abuse children placed in their

care, the affirmative argument is quick to note that there is no connection between sexual abuse
 Walli 5

and gay or lesbian parents. In fact, around ninety percent of those who abuse children are

heterosexual males (Brooks et al. 8). In response to the growing body of research, many social

service agencies have released statements in support of gay and lesbian parenting. Among these

is the American Psychological Association, which stated:

“Research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-

being of children is [sic] unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that children

of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to

flourish.” The American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the

American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and other

mainstream professional groups have issued similar statements. (Patterson 243)

The affirmative stance goes on to press that gay and lesbian parenting may actually be

preferable for some children. One study notes that:

Gay/lesbian foster and adoptive parents in the focus group commented that the

critical medical, psychological, and behavioral needs of their children take

precedence over the issue of sexual orientation. One focus group couple stated

that… they felt that they had the life experience to help these [LGBT] children

with identity issues and social stigma. (Brooks et al. 8)

While the conclusions of the affirmative side and supporting research may seem conclusive, even

proponents of gay and lesbian parenting openly recognize the need for more research.

Particularly problematic is the issue of sampling. Many of the studies done to date rely on

convenience sampling, making the possibilities of having a biased sample and similarly faulty

results very real. In response to this issue, further research and revised policies are almost

unanimously advocated for in the continued support of gay and lesbian parents, with a formal
 Walli 6

“case-by-case” procedure, as well as non-discrimination policies, presenting the “most judicious

and socially responsible approach for determining the appropriateness of such placements”

(Brooks et al. 11).

Although many prominent public and private organizations have come forth in support of

gay and lesbian parenting, the negative position is still prominent. This position maintains that,

contrary to an “incorrect” body of research, children parented by gay and lesbian parents are at

risk. The negative position presses that the homosexual lifestyle has a detrimental impact on

children in many of its aspects, including earlier mortality rate, increased dependence on and

abuse of alcohol and drugs, multiple partners, short term relationships, unhealthy sex acts,

domestic abuse, and so on. Peter Sprigg, writing for the Family Research Council (a proponent

of traditional family values and an opponent of the LGBT movement), cites two research studies

that work to the advantage of the negative standpoint, stating:

The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field

for debates about homosexual parents, “gay families,” and same-sex “marriage.”

The myths that children of homosexual parents are “no different” from other

children and suffer “no harm” from being raised by homosexual parents have

been shattered forever.

Sprigg extrapolates that, according to these studies, children raised by gay or lesbian parents

were more likely to be less educated, be unemployed, have received welfare, suffer sexual abuse

by a parent, report less “safety and security” and a greater “negative impact” in their family of

origin, suffer from depression, have been arrested, have more sexual partners, have (partial or

complete) homosexual preferences, and smoke marijuana.

Sprigg, as well as others who oppose gay and lesbian parenting, press that information
 Walli 7

and research suggesting that children raised by gay and lesbian parents is too limited in context

and ignores substantial evidence in order to be politically correct. The research they cite,

however, shares this weakness, generally misrepresenting the LGBT community in its

conclusions. Of special importance is the fact that the studies cited by Sprigg – two studies in a

very limited body of research that works to the negative perspective – fail to prove gay and

lesbian parenting as the cause of any of their findings. For instance, the studies Sprigg cites

report that a significantly higher percentage of children who were raised by gay and lesbian

parents have been sexually molested by a parent or guardian. The studies do not, however, take

note as to whether or not the abuser was actually a gay or lesbian parent. The studies also state

that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are more likely to report a greater negative

experience with their “families of origin,” failing to note if this family was, in fact, with the gay

or lesbian parent (Sprigg). Gay and lesbian couples are far more likely to foster or adopt a child

than their heterosexual counterparts. Additionally, it stands to reason that foster and adoptive

children are more likely to have had a damaging experience with their family of origin and have

been molested by a parent; these children are in foster and adoptive care for exactly this (or a

similar) reason. So too are such children more likely to suffer from depression, have more

challenged relationships, abuse substances, and engage in a variety of other behavior as a result

of their experience, perhaps going between multiple, possibly unqualified, foster homes and

suffering continued feelings of loss and lack of belonging. Furthermore, there is evidence that

gay and lesbian foster parents are more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to be placed

with a hard-to-place child because they are either more willing to face the challenge or, perhaps,

because they do not think they will be placed with a different child due to discrimination (Riggs

6). In either case, the combination of these factors renders inconsequential much of the evidence
 Walli 8

that gay and lesbian parenting is a threat to children. The findings of the studies Sprigg cites

could easily be explained by the possibility that gay and lesbian couples are disproportionately

fostering children who have had a traumatic experience with or been abused by their biological

family as compared to heterosexual foster parents; the fact that the children being raised by gay

and lesbian parents have had more traumatic childhood experiences does not prove that the gay

and lesbian parents are to blame. In fact, these statistics may be misrepresenting gay and lesbian

parents to the extent that the seemingly erroneous conclusions drawn from them punish the group

for a good deed: providing families to children who have had a particularly challenging past.

When the entirety of the evidence presented by both the opponents and proponents of gay

and lesbian parenting is considered and weighed – noting the weakness of affirmative sampling

and, on the other hand, the misrepresentation of facts by the negative – the continued support of

gay and lesbian parenting arises as the only logical course of action. The vast majority of

research, despite its limitations, supports the conclusions that “lesbians and gay men can and do

make good parents” and after all, in the context of the foster system, “the goal of adoption is to

make sure that the child has a permanent home with people who have the skills to be good

parents” (Smith 3). Even assuming children with gay and lesbian parents to be a disadvantaged

in some minor way – an idea that is wholly unsupported – a stark reality must be faced:

Children without homes do not have the option of choosing between a married

mother and father or some other type of parent(s). These children have neither a

mother nor a father, married or unmarried. There simply are not enough married

mothers and fathers who are interested in adoption and foster care. Last year

[2001] only 20,000 of the 100,000 foster children in need of adoption were

adopted, including children adopted by single people as well as married couples.

 Walli 9

Our adoption and foster care policies must deal with reality, or these children will

never have stable and loving homes. (Smith 4)

In light of this reality, Smith, among others, has put forth a series of measures to be taken to

reduce difficulties faced by gay and lesbian parents and, in doing so, better provide for children

in need. While “[t]he issue of adoption is best decided by parents and professionals on a case-by-

case basis, not by politicians or the government,” formal policy, education, and support are

desperately needed (Smith 3). Not only is the creation of formal policy helpful in reducing the

barriers faced by prospective gay and lesbian parents, but such formal support carries numerous

other advantages for children. Cahill and Smith outlined these benefits, stating:

Legal recognition enhances their [LGBT couples’ and families’] ability to care

for one another, particularly in the event of a health emergency or other crisis;

formal recognition of same-sex partners and parent-child relationships enhances

emotional and physical health as well as economic security of all family

members; children of LGBT parents benefit from increased social acceptance and

familial support. (57)

While such formal support is important, the individuality of foster and adoption cases can only

be maintained with the personal involvement of a social worker or team, who will have a large

influence on the outcome of the situation. As a result, education is critical and “there is a great

need for workers to be accountable for both their own heterosexism, and for the impact it may

have upon lesbian and gay applicants” (Riggs 139). Indeed, while such heterosexism and

prejudice do exist, the horizon seems to be growing brighter. In a study by Brooks and Goldberg,

a parent in the focus group declared that “‘[t]he system is becoming more educated’ and that she

‘had one worker who could not use the 'L' word (referring to “lesbian”) but was trying to
 Walli 10

understand and be sympathetic’”(153).

Yet, while formal policy and education would be tremendously helpful in both supporting

gay and lesbian parents and in finding families for foster children, outreach efforts must also be

put in place to take advantage of the full promise of gays and lesbians as foster and adoptive

parents. Such promise, in the context of the current body of empirical evidence, is well worth the

effort. In fact, gay and lesbian families may actually have certain strengths compared to

heterosexual couples. These strengths could greatly benefit certain children. Children, for

instance, who have experienced trauma at the hands of a family with very traditional gender roles

may benefit from having a gay or lesbian parent, with whom they would experience a broader

perspective of gender. Riggs expressed this sentiment, stating:

This may be a particularly useful approach for some foster carers working with

children whose experiences of violence have resulted from the behaviors of birth

parents who rigidly reinforce particular gender norms. While there is the potential

that challenging gender norms may be experienced as threatening to a child's own

beliefs around gender, it is nonetheless the case that living in a lesbian- or gay-

headed household may help children who have experienced these forms of

domestic violence to recognize alternate ways of understanding gender norms. So,

for example, a boy who has grown up with a violent father who derided women

and punished the child for engaging in behaviors considered feminine may gain a

lot by living with a lesbian parent. (144)

So too might gay and lesbian parents be better suited to parent LGBT children, many of whom

have a difficult time in a traditional family foster setting. Yet, even in cases where such an added

advantage is absent, there can be no question that placing children in a loving home, regardless
 Walli 11

of the parents’ sexual orientation, is better than leaving them without one.

The efforts of the gay and lesbian community have made a tremendous difference in

overcoming prejudice at both a social and legislative level in the last hundred years, but the

struggle is not over. The debate over whether gay and lesbian parents should be allowed to foster

and adopt children is evidence of such continued tribulation. While much of the research on the

issue is weak in regards to sampling methods, this weakness is not significant enough to render

the negative side – relying largely on faulty conclusions, misrepresented evidence, and personal

beliefs – logically preferable. The additional difficulties faced by many homosexual prospective

parents are wholly unjustified. The vast majority of empirical evidence has spoken in support of

the fact that gay and lesbian individuals can – and do – make good parents, equally capable of

parenting foster and adoptive children as their heterosexual counterparts and, in some cases, even

preferable. There can thus be only one logical conclusion: “In the best interests of children

waiting to be adopted or placed in foster care, efforts by gay men and lesbians to become

adoptive and foster parents should be explicitly supported in both policy and practice” (Brooks

and Goldberg 155).

Works Cited
 Walli 12

Brooks, Devon, et al. “Considerations Relating to the Placement of Children in Gay/Lesbian

Foster and Adoptive Home.” Cite Seer X. Penn State University. Apr. 1996. Web. 8 April

2016.

Brooks, Devon, and Sheryl Goldberg. “Gay and Lesbian Adoptive and Foster Care Placements:

Can They Meet the Needs of Waiting Children?” Social Work 46.2 (2001): 147–157.

JSTOR. Web. 26 April 2016.

Burns, Kate, ed. Gay and Lesbian Families. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2005.

Web. 28 April 2016.

Cahill, Sean, and Sarah Tobias. Policy Issues Affecting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender

Families. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007. Web. 8 April 2016.

Children’s Bureau. “Foster Care Statistics 2014.” U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services. 2016. PDF file.

Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. "Gay Adoption Is Commonly Accepted." Gay and

Lesbian Families. Ed. Kate Burns. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Rpt.

from "Adoption by Lesbians and Gays: A National Survey of Adoption Agency Policies,

Practices, and Attitudes." Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 26 April 2016.

Gates, Gary. “LGBT Parenting in the United States”. The Williams Institute. Feb. 2013. PDF file.

Gates, Gary, et al. “Adoption and Foster Care by Gay and Lesbian Parents in the United States.”

The Williams Institute (2007): 1-43.UCLA. Web. 26 April 2016.

Riggs, Damien. “Reassessing the Foster-care System: Examining the Impact of Heterosexism on

Lesbian and Gay Applicants”. Hypatia 22.1 (2007): 132–148. JSTOR. Web. 26 April

2016.

Patterson, Charlotte. “Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents”. Child Development 63.5 (1992):
 Walli 13

1025–1042. JSTOR. Web. 26 April 2016.

Smith, Joanne. “Information Packet: Gay and Lesbian Foster Care and Adoption.” National

Resource Center for Foster Care and Permanency Planning. Children’s Bureau and

Hunter College. May 2002. Web. 8 April 2016.

Sprigg, Peter. “New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research.” Family

Research Council. Family Research Council. n.d. Web. 8 April 2016.