Originally published in Bay Windows, December 20, 2007 (online); December 27, 2007 (print).
Was 2007 a good year for LGBT parents and our children? Politically, it was a mixed bag. Here are some highlights.
In Massachusetts, we stopped marriage equality from going to the ballot. New Hampshire and Oregon approved relationship-recognition measures to give same-sex couples all the rights of marriage except the name. Washington approved a more limited set of relationship benefits. These laws, among other things, should make it easier for couples with children to be recognized as parents — though they should consult their attorneys, as GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) recommends, to ensure other states will honor their parenthood as well. Progress of a sort; but also a strong reminder of the difficulties our families still face across state lines. On the negative side, the Maryland Court of Appeals used the historical link between marriage and procreation as the primary reason for upholding the state ban on same-sex marriage.
The year did see progress specific to adoption rights. Colorado and Maine legalized second-parent adoptions, by legislation and judicial ruling, respectively, and Tennessee’s Attorney General issued an opinion that neither the state constitution nor laws prevents same-sex couples from adopting. A US Circuit Court ruled that an Oklahoma law preventing same-sex couples from getting birth certificates for children adopted in other states violates the US Constitution. On the other hand, the Arkansas Attorney General approved an initiative to ban unmarried couples from adopting or fostering. Supporters must now gather enough signatures to put the initiative on the November 2008 ballot.
LGBT parents also fought for custody with the state, donors and each other. Two gay men in Utah are battling to continue fostering four siblings, per the biological mother’s wishes. The state wants to take them away (which could result in splitting them among new homes) because of the law forbidding unmarried, cohabitating people from fostering or adopting. In Minnesota, the Supreme Court granted visitation to a woman who had raised two adoptive children from China with her former partner. The partner was the only legal parent because China forbids same-sex couples from adopting. An Ohio court ruled that a custody arrangement between two lesbian parents is binding, despite one mother claiming the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage invalidated it. A good ruling, though the mother’s attempted use of the ban is depressing.
A slew of other rulings involved “ex-gay” parents. In a case that bounced between the jurisdictions of Vermont and Virginia, a Vermont judge awarded Lisa Miller custody of her biological daughter, Isabella, though he mandated visitation for the non-biological mother, Janet Jenkins. Miller had declared herself straight, kept Isabella from seeing Jenkins for two years, and enlisted the aid of an ultra-conservative legal organization. In Georgia, the state Supreme Court threw out the case of an “ex-lesbian” mother who asked them to declare second-parent adoptions illegal, and to invalidate the adoption of her biological child by her former partner. On an even more frightening note, the Utah Supreme Court heard a case instigated by an “ex-lesbian” mom represented by an anti-gay legal organization, and ruled that non-legal parents (which under state law means all unmarried, non-biological parents) have no right to visitation.
Sometimes, however, there are happy endings. In Georgia, the ACLU helped Elizabeth Hadaway regain custody of a girl who had fostered happily with her for a year (per the biological mother’s wishes), until a judge discovered Hadaway was a lesbian, and ordered the girl into a group home.
Donors were also a source of conflict. A lesbian mom in Texas is fighting for custody with her ex-partner’s uncle, the former couple’s known sperm donor. The woman says she had let her son spend every other week with him, but the boy’s growing reluctance made her stop. On the flip side, a New York court ruled that a lesbian couple’s sperm donor is liable for child support. This particular case is complicated by the fact that the moms let him put his name on the child’s birth certificate and send the child gifts and letters signed “Dad” or “Daddy.” The donor and child only spoke by phone about seven times over the past 15 years, however.
Homophobic reactions to LGBT-inclusive children’s media continued apace. A federal panel heard the appeal of two couples from Lexington, Mass., who objected to the reading of King & King, a children’s book about a gay prince, in their child’s class. Certain parents in Lower Macungie, Penn. are likewise up in arms about the inclusion of this book in their public library. In Evesham, NJ, the school board voted to uphold the removal of the film That’s a Family! from its elementary curriculum, after some parents protested the documentary’s inclusion of same-sex families.
It’s hard to see a clear line of progress in all of this. The failures of the Hate Crimes and Employment Non-Discrimination Acts add to the negative column for all LGBT citizens, with or without children. Yet books and media for and about LGBT families continue to appear, as I’ve documented in previous columns. More schools are instituting LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying measures. Our children continue to grow and thrive. We are visible and active in our communities. That’s progress beyond the political, and a sign of hope for 2008.
Great summary. Thanks for putting it together.