Australia writes marriage into constitution

The day after the California decision, Australia codified normative marriage. By a 39-7 vote, the Australian Senate inserted the following in the nation’s 1961 Marriage Act: “Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”

A further provision stated that same-sex unions contracted elsewhere would not be legally recognized in Australia.

The bill, which had passed Australia’s lower chamber in June, was preemptive, as two of the nation’s seven-person High Court had announced their support for homosexual marriage. It was sponsored by the ruling conservative coalition, but was backed by the major opposition party as well.

Carlson observed: “The institution of marriage is too important to the future of civilization to allow judges to have the final say here. The fight to preserve marriage is a worldwide phenomenon. That’s because marriage is as important in the Australian outback as it is in the streets of San Francisco.”

The Howard Center is the chief US sponsor of the World Congress of Families. At World Congress of Families III in Mexico City (March 29-31, 2004), more than 3,300 delegates from over 70 countries approved a statement defining the family as “the fundamental social unit, inscribed in human nature, centered on the union of a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.”

For more information on The World Congress of Families and its parent group, the Howard Center For Family, Religion and Society, visit www.worldcongress.org and www.profam.org.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

34 thoughts on “Australia writes marriage into constitution”

  1. Something to consider … and I’m going to argue from the other side of the fence this time:

    Does every person have the right to marry? Likewise, does every person have the right to have a child? Right now, the only criteria for marrying is that you’re breathing and that your spouse is the opposite gender. We may suggest that marriage and childrearing are bound by moral tradition, but it would appear that the government does little to uphold this belief.

    As someone in a film once said, “You need a license to fish, but any [person] can have a kid.” He didn’t use the word “person”. Canada in 1928 passed the Sterilization Act, which declared certain people as “unfit” to bear children. The more I think of it, perhaps they were correct. What “right” does anyone have to bring a child into the world when that person is bringing them into an environment filled with drug abuse or possible physical or emotional abuse? Florida has banned ALL gays from adopting. why should this not extend to single parents as well?

    Perhaps I’m suggesting that we should first determine whether a person has the moral capacity to sustain a marriage before issuing a license. Then we should sterilize those who by a certain age have been unable to demonstrate an ability to uphold the laws of society or have a history of violence or substance abuse.

    If we disagree, what Constitutional “right” of an individual trumps the rights of the children who may be involved? I’m not aware of a “right to procreate” in the Constitution.

  2. James,

    I think one should not allow the belief that government has a responsibility to make sure that adoptive parents are good parents to segue into the notion that regulation of the creation of new life is a proper governmental function. Nobody, really, has the “right” to a child. The bringing forth of a child in the world is done by the power of God, with the cooperation of the human parents. It is God who deputises a particular couple with the responsibility of rearing the child. Obviously, since all authority on earth comes from God, the government may have a role in this as well, but inasmuch as parenthood is temporally and ontologically prior to government, it should be clear that the government’s place is to intervene only when the parents’ dischare of their parental duty has become so negligent (or malevolent) that it would be unconscionable to not intervene.

    If we take God’s creation of new life as the starting point, I think it should be obvious why sterilisation programmes are seriously immoral. Such programmes suggest that the decision as to when and through whom new life should be created belongs to the secular state, not to God. It is a statement that man is (or should be) his own creator. Furthermore, it is based upon a flawed anthropology. The dignity of the human person is inherent to the human person because every human being is made in the image and likeness of God. A programme of sterilisation, on the other hand, is necessarily premised on the false notion that the worth of a human person is a function of that person’s utility to society. At first, this is argued by negative formulation: “Bad parents do not properly socialise their children and so these children become a threat to society, and therefore we should pre-empt this by not allowing potential bad parents to have children” It moves on to a more sinister formulation “bad parenting results in people who are either harmful to society or a burden on soceity, and therefore we should allow only good parents to have children.” The conclusion is that people are the property of the state, whose existence (or continued existence) is their utility for the society. This is an anthropology of slavery at best, and can lead (and has led) to real, murderous, totalitarian evil.

    In short, negligent parenting is bad. Bad parenting, in the sense that the parents believe the child belongs to them and not the other way around is worse. But worst of all is the idea that we are all the property of the state, and our existence (or continued existence) is dependant on governmental fiat.

  3. Han, how do you explain to a gay couple that has lived in a loving, committed relationship for years that their relationship cannnot be recognized under the law, but thousands of hasty marriages that take place in Las Vegas wedding chapels between heterosexuals who barely know each other or comprehend the responsibilities of marriage, will be recognized? Brittany Spears can have her Vegas wedding that lasted a few weeks recognized under law, but the Lesbian couple I know who have been partners for 20 years cannot.

    James’s point may be that those who so strenuously oppose gay marriage can appear as raving hypocrites to others when they fail demonstrate the same strenuous indignation towards adultery, domestic violence, and loveless marriages of convenience, all activities that do serious damage to the institution of marriage, that they exhibit towards gay people who are only guilty of loving each other.

    That is not to say gay marriage is the right solution. Only that one’s priorities can appear to be skewed when real and actual threats to the institution of marriage are ignored and chimerical and speculative threats become the object of hysterical national attention.

  4. The hysteria is coming mostly from Protestant evangelical groups, with a somewhat less emotional response coming from the Orthodox (with a few exceptions here and there).

    However, I have yet to see an Orthodox perspective on how to strengthen marriages using civil measures. There are certainly things that can be done within the Church, but what is a proper government response to marriage? Right now, it grants licenses willy-nilly to just about anyone. In some places you don’t even have to be 18 if you have a waiver and parental consent.

    Certainly, a couple who had met but three hours before their arrival at an Orthodox Church would not be permitted to marry (I would think). Yet, I don’t hear any criticism of the government’s complete disregard for the ability or maturity of the participants to enter into this very serious contract.

    This is why I am somewhat skeptical when various religious denominations suggest there is a moral element to civil marriage. This argument is somewhat hollow considering the current state of affairs.

  5. As an aside, there is an interesting move towards promoting “Covenant Marriage”, which places several criteria upon a couple which must be met before they may obtain a civil marriage license. It makes marriage more difficult to enter into as well as escape from via divorce. It will be interesting to see how effective this is, as well as how many “pro-family” spokespersons decide to enter into this type of contract.

    There are negative aspects to this, such as the fact that some who find themselves in abusive situations may be unable to get out of them if their partner doesn’t consent to a separation. However, if it at least inspires some to take a long sober look at their relationship before marrying it would do some good.

  6. Let’s see if I’m reading the posts here correctly: James seems to be arguing for government issued licenses to have children since we have government issued licenses for marriage between a man & a woman. And Dean seems to be arguing that if one accepts a quicky marriage and the possiblity of quicky divorce between a man & a woman, then we have to accept same-sex “marriage”.

    Yeah, there’s some real clear thinking going on here.

  7. No Daniel.
    The point is that there is little interest from any religious organization in tightening the restrictions on heterosexual marriage, which makes their arguments against SSM void of substance and just a tad hypocritical.

    And yes, I actually do think there are instances where certain people should be discouraged in a legal sense from having children. In fact, this has been done. Check out http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/08/conception.banned.ap/

    It describes an instance where a judge has ordered a couple not to conceive any more children until the ones they already have are no longer in foster homes. Good for him.

    I do not buy “the more children the better” ethos.

  8. Daniel writes: “Let’s see if I’m reading the posts here correctly: James seems to be arguing for government issued licenses to have children since we have government issued licenses for marriage between a man & a woman. And Dean seems to be arguing that if one accepts a quicky marriage and the possiblity of quicky divorce between a man & a woman, then we have to accept same-sex ‘marriage’.”

    I think the anti-gay marriage arguments would carry more weight were heterosexual relationships more strictly controlled. It’s a little difficult to believe that homosexual marriage would be the end of civilization as we know it when almost nothing is in place to curb the problems caused by heterosexual sex and marriage.

    Also, the arguments used against homosexual marriage and sex should also be applied to heterosexual marriage and sex. For example, we keep hearing about how homosexuals are just out of luck. Sorry no sex for them, no marriage, life is hard, just be ascetic. Homosexual sex should be criminalized (even though it doesn’t result in either abortion or childbirth).

    So let’s add in a few laws governing heterosexual relationships and see what that would look like:

    1) any and all heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage would be considered felony criminal activity. No hand-holding, kissing, or “petting” outside of marriage would be allowed, as these may lead to sex. (In a reasonable concession to human nature, these would be considered misdemeanors, not felonies.)

    2) marriage would be for life; no divorce under *any* circumstances; physical abuse, rape, attempted murder, adultery — none of these would be considered grounds for divorce. No remarriage of any kind would be allowed, ever, even in the event of the death of a spouse.

    3) marriage licenses require a background check. People with criminal records, history of substance abuse, and insufficient income will not be allowed to marry.

    4) no abortion of any kind, even to save the life of the mother. No artificial birth control of any kind for any reason.

    5) All “non-standard” heterosexual sex of any kind is forbidden and considered criminal activity.

    Think these are too hard? Unfair? Well, life is hard, be ascetic. Don’t like the government telling you not to hold hands? Too bad, government has a compelling interest in your procreative activities and in those activities that may lead to procreation. Husband beats you? Unfortunate, but the marriage bond is sacred and cannot be broken; you should have married someone else. Life is hard, tough luck. Already have four children and don’t want a fifth? Great, no birth control for you. Just don’t have sex again. Life is hard, suck it up, be ascetic. Last pregnancy almost killed you? Too bad, no birth control, just don’t have sex. Wanted your wife to give you a “hand job?” Forget about it, non-standard sex is punishable by a year in prison, up to ten years for the third offense.

    So add in a few laws such as the above, and then the anti-gay marriage arguments will be so much easier to accept.

    “For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.” — Matt. 23:4

  9. So my summary of James was incorrect, but then he goes on to write that the state should create more laws governing marriage and procreation, and that sex “outside of marriage would be considered felony criminal activity”. Oooooo-kay. That gives a whole new spin to the phrase “shotgun wedding.”

  10. Daniel,
    You’re confusing Jim H and James (me).

    If the state can regulate private consensual conduct (as in Lawrence v. Texas where many conservatives criticized the ruling of the Supreme Court), why should they not be able to regulate extra-marital conduct under the same umbrella of “morality”?

    You cannot allow carte blanche for all heterosexual conduct and restrict homosexual conduct in its entirety. Again, if you are truly interested in morality, then you would side with the judge in http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/08/conception.banned.ap. Realize, however, that this may set up interesting legal precedents in regards to civil action against reproductive choices (and I’m not talking about abortion).

  11. James writes: “You cannot allow carte blanche for all heterosexual conduct and restrict homosexual conduct in its entirety.”

    Quite right, especially if the argument is that homosexual marriage and sex has a detrimental effect on society.

    Heterosexual sex actually has a far greater potential for damaging society because of the procreative aspect. These detrimental effects include

    1) use of birth control (Catholics don’t approve of it anyway. This issue seems to be one of their “end of civiliation as we know it” issues, so I include it here.)

    2) abortion of unwanted or unexpected pregnancy

    3) heterosexual pornography

    4) venereal disease, including AIDS

    5) parents failing to pay child support

    6) children growing up in single-parent households

    7) multiple children fathered among multiple women

    8) children being reared in poverty

    9) child abuse

    10) divorce, even multiple divorces

    So if you’re heterosexual, go for it. Screw all you want, in or out of marriage, marry as many times as you want, have all the children you want even if you can’t support them. The law permits your efforts. But if you’re homosexual, we must have constitutional amendments eliminating even the possibility of marriage! We must have laws bannning homosexual sex!

    As James suggests, if we’re going to legislate morality, then by golly let’s legislate morality, and legislate it for everyone. If we desire draconian laws, then let’s make the law draconian for everyone.

  12. Comment 10:

    Jim, the histrionics are unnecessary.
    As noted earlier, State legislatures were dropping the criminal penalties for homosexual conduct well before the Massachusetts Court staged its judicial coup. Sodomy laws would have been a ting of the past by the end of this decade.

    There is a middle position which most Americans feel comfortable with, that is, de-criminalization. People who are addicted to homosexual acts could live without fear of criminal prosecution. There would be no laws on the books which penalize the conduct or prohibit people who dote on this form of sexual gratification from living together for life.

    Jim, you need to remember that essential teaching of the 1960’s from the cultural Left: “Marriage is just a piece of paper.” Why do you need the approval of the state to give your “love” meaning? Certainly homosexual love exists on such a lofty plane that it would be sullied by the approval of the crass and vulgar State. Sign some powers of attorney (medical and financial), write a will and buy a house together. You can do this under existing law, no problem.

    I think you should be honest and admit that you don’t simply wish that people who engage in homosexual conduct should be free from criminal penalites, what you really want is to engage the power of the State to force everyone, everywhere to honor your favorite form of sexual gratification. It may only affect 3% of the population, it may disrupt 250 years of American legal history; it may generate untold social turmoil; it may disrupt the lives of straight children condemned to being raised by… excuse my use of the oxymoronic term “gay parents.” None of these things really count, Jim, when compared to the sexual gratification of the 3% of the adults who exclusively practice homosexual sex. Sexual gratification trumps it all and the gay forms must be celebrated by all. There is no room for deference to the religious or moral sensibilities of others. All must conform or be relegated to the fringe. No conformity is as brutal as that generated by the Left.

    I would describe the motivation as driven by the ideas that adult sexual gratification is the supreme value in life and that political associations based on sexual preferences will give individual persons who practice this form of sexual gratification more power in society. This power will take the form of legal blackmail against anyone who demonstrates an aversion to homosexual conduct. Endless possibilities for quotas, and lawsuits against schools, employers and the government.

  13. Dan: I never said we had to accept Gay marriage, but was addressing the hypocrisy of the situation. I think there are good reasons not to rush forward and legalize gay marriage, but to take our time and think carefully about what rights need to be conferred to gay couples. A valid specific objection to Gay marriage is what happens after we start changing the rules regarding who is allowed to be married, and where do we stop? Is the legalization polygamy, or marriage between cousins or adolescents next?

    It just seems to me that all the sound and fury devoted to the gay marriage issue is so disproportionate to its importance among all the behaviors that impact marriage. Where are the impassioned sermons condemning spousal abuse? The police blotter of my local newspaper carries domestic disturbance stories almost weekly. Where is the outrage concerning the new TV show scheduled for this fall called “Wifeswap”, a reality show that titilates the audience with suggestions of adultery? Where is the outrage over the sudden increase in state-sponsored casino gambling? There is an activity that drains away family savings creating all sorts of economic pressures that destroy marriages.

    Opponents of gay marriage will enjoy more credibility when they demonstrate their concern for institution of marriage in a more even handed manner.

  14. Missourian, you assume so much!
    Jim is a former fundamentalist and has given no indication of his proclivities.

    I’m beginning to wonder where this apparent anger, sarcasm and hostility is coming from regarding an issue which does not even concern you in a direct way. Did you have a bad experience you’d like to share?

    I’m not advocating a blind rush towards gay marriage. However, you’re saying heterosexuality = LOVE while homosexuality is only about SEX always and forever. I don’t know how more simply to put it than you’re flat wrong. I’m going by my own experiences with the people I have met and have known. The generalizations that you spout forth and that are put out from groups like the FRC and the TVC have no resemblance to the gay people I know through work or friends.

    Besides, how is something that affects only “3%” of the population going to generate “untold social turmoil” for the other 97%? WOW! What an influence gays must have!

  15. Missourian writes: “There is a middle position which most Americans feel comfortable with, that is, de-criminalization.”

    As I recall, Fr. Hans favors criminalization of sodomy.

    Missourian: “Certainly homosexual love exists on such a lofty plane that it would be sullied by the approval of the crass and vulgar State. Sign some powers of attorney (medical and financial), write a will and buy a house together. You can do this under existing law, no problem.”

    There are probably hundreds or thousands of laws that deal with married couples differently from single people or domestic partners. Many benefits are only available to married people.

    Missourian: “I think you should be honest and admit that you don’t simply wish that people who engage in homosexual conduct should be free from criminal penalites, what you really want is to engage the power of the State to force everyone, everywhere to honor your favorite form of sexual gratification.”

    All I’m saying is that were the same concerns, laws, restrictions, and recommendations that we apply to homosexuals applied also to heterosexuals, the heterosexual community, of which I am a member, would find those intolerable.

    Even though homosexual sex doesn’t end up producing abortion or addicted or unwanted children, Fr. Hans and others would have it outlawed. Meanwhile, heterosexuals jump in an out of bed with impunity. Many favor actual constitutional amendments against gay marriage in the name of protecting the sanctity of marriage. Meanwhile heterosexuals celebrate the sanctity of marriage through virtually unlimited numbers of marriages and divorces, leaving a trail of shattered families, damaged children, and poverty.

    The whole effort to restrict homosexual activity has support only because the same standards are not applied to heterosexuals, even though the consequence of heterosexual sex is potentially far more negative.

  16. Response to Note 15:

    POINT ONE:
    Missourian writes: “There is a middle position which most Americans feel comfortable with, that is, de-criminalization.”

    As I recall, Fr. Hans favors criminalization of sodomy.

    RESPONSE TO POINT ONE:

    I was making an observation about the state of political opinion in America today. I backed it up with the observation that State legislatures had begun to de-criminalize sodomy. De-criminalization DOES represent a middle position between criminalization and endorsement. This point is frequently overlooked by gay rights activists who want to assert that we have only two choices, when we have three. Fr. Hans was not making an observation about WHAT IS, he was making an observation about WHAT SHOULD BE.

    POINT TWO: Missourian: “I think you should be honest and admit that you don’t simply wish that people who engage in homosexual conduct should be free from criminal penalites, what you really want is to engage the power of the State to force everyone, everywhere to honor your favorite form of sexual gratification.”

    All I’m saying is that were the same concerns, laws, restrictions, and recommendations that we apply to homosexuals applied also to heterosexuals, the heterosexual community, of which I am a member, would find those intolerable.

    RESPONSE TO POINT TWO:

    Discrimination is a neutral term. It means treating one class of people or things differently than another. An art dealer who has “discriminating” taste, is someone who is very learned and who can make wise choices in the field of art. In American law, the only type of discrimination which is illegal (either under the Constitution or under federal and state statutes) is “invidious discrimination.” “Invidious discrimination” is a practice which injures one party without “good reason.”

    Here are some example of lawful discrimination. Veterans receive many benefits under federal law which are not available to non-veterans. This is lawful discrimination in favor of veterans. Felons are subject to penalties for their behavior which are not assessed against non-felons. This is lawful discrimination. Law enforcement agencies may lawfully refuse to hire felons.
    Felons may lawfully be excluded from a licensed occupations, such as medicine and fire-fighting.

    It is not unjust or immoral to treat two groups of people differently, IF there is good reason to do so. As I demonstrated we treat veterans better than non-veterans and we treat felon worse then non-felons. Both of these forms of disparate treatment are JUST and GOOD. THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER WE TREAT HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY DIFFERENTLY THAN HETEROSEXUAL ACTIVITY, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE IS A GOOD REASON FOR DOING SO.

    I submit there are good reasons to treat sodomy differently than heterosexual sex. I don’t want to restate all of those reasons, I have done so here at some length in the past. I believe that one can make a good secular case for limiting formal, legal approval to heterosexual sex over sodomy.

    POINT THREE:
    Even though homosexual sex doesn’t end up producing abortion or addicted or unwanted children, Fr. Hans and others would have it outlawed. Meanwhile, heterosexuals jump in an out of bed with impunity. Many favor actual constitutional amendments against gay marriage in the name of protecting the sanctity of marriage. Meanwhile heterosexuals celebrate the sanctity of marriage through virtually unlimited numbers of marriages and divorces, leaving a trail of shattered families, damaged children, and poverty.

    The whole effort to restrict homosexual activity has support only because the same standards are not applied to heterosexuals, even though the consequence of heterosexual sex is potentially far more negative.

    RESPONSE TO POINT THREE:

    It is a very common debating tactic of the gay rights group to point to either A)legal inconsistencies in the law of marriage of B) hypocritical behavior on the part of individual heterosexuals.
    Remember it was the Cultural Left, specifically I would add, the ALI ( the American Law Institute), who argued in favor of easy divorce. The traditionalists argued against easy divorce on the grounds that it would trivialize the marriage committment. The tradtionlists were right. Easy divorce has trivialized the marriage committment. Secondly, it is easy to find heterosexuals whose behavior is less than exemplary. They may divorce easily, they may abuse their spouses or their children. However, this is mere human failing. The issue is WHAT DOES SOCIETY ENDORSES and APPROVE through its family laws and related laws covering inheritance, insurance, and taxation to name a few.

    It was the ALI and its allies on the cultural left that eviscerated social support for marriage. Not the traditionalists.

  17. Why this Matters:

    Children cannot care for themselves. Our society cannot punt on the question of the legal responsibility for children. Given that, our society, MUST enact legislation that provides for the care of children. We, as a society, do not have the option of
    simply stating that family arrangements are a private matter.

    For eons, the family was an institution which cared for children, plus the disabled,the unemployable and the elderly. Adults bonded for life and gave up some of their individual freedom for a greater good. This ethos had certainly not dissappeared in America but it is under relentless attack.

    Whatever the failings of these families, government has not done better: look at the track record of the foster care system; look at the state of government regulated nursing homes.

    People of my parents generation considered it disgraceful for a family to fail to take care of a needy member of the family, even beyond the children. The needy member of the family could be a low IQ person who could not hold down a job; it could be a disabled person, or even a mentally ill person. Granted there were circumstances in which it was beyond the capacity of the family to care for a needy person, some people need institutionalized care, however, the norm was family care whenever possible.

    The definition of family frequently extended beyond the nuclear family to include cousins, nephews, grandchildren and others. In addition to personal care, family members often took steps to ensure that debts incurred by family members were paid. If a member of the family were profligate and ran up large debts in the community, older family members would frequently take charge of the situation and ensure that outstanding debts were paid.

  18. Just checking in. I’ve never argued for the criminalization of sodomy. I argue against homosexual marriage.

    Further, the failure of heterosexual marriages is hardly a reason to weaken the institution even further by allowing homosexuals to marry.

    I’m glad to see the implicit support of traditional morality however, even though you are using it to weaken those institutions that rely on it. That’s my definition of secularism btw: the borrowing of moral precepts from Christianity to attack the moral base from which those precepts are drawn. This is why secularism will ultimately consume itself.

  19. Missourian, I actually agree with every one of your points in your last post. The exception being that I don’t think family members should be requested to bail out a family member who is fiscally irresponsible on a continual basis.

    As far as what legislation should be enacted to protect children, I’m curious as to what your propose.

  20. (continued from last)…
    Should single mothers or fathers be barred from adopting in some or all circumstances?

    Foster care is certainly not ideal, but unfortunately it is a reflection of the fact that the parents in question may either be abusive, neglectful or under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol and the child must be removed from potentially damaging and even life threatening circumstances.

  21. Fr. Hans writes: “I’ve never argued for the criminalization of sodomy. I argue against homosexual marriage.”

    Ok, I was going off of this:

    “With the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision striking down the Texas law criminalizing sodomy, the Court has entered a battle of the culture war and fired off a dreadful shot.”

    I interpreted that as implying support for the criminalization of sodomy. Perhaps what you meant by the “dreadful shot” was the legal reasoning behind the decision, rather than the striking down of the law. Is that a fair interpretation?

  22. You’re right James I did confuse your statements with those by Jim Holman. For that I apologize.

  23. Response to Note 20:

    Basis of my opinions on child care:
    During part of my career as an attorney, I worked in the field of Child Protection as an attorney for a State social services department. During this time, I became familiar with the laws designed to protect children from abuse.

    Thesis:
    We have rejected the orphanage system and embraced foster care. I predict that within 20 years we will try orphanages again, because of the greater ease of monitoring the quality of care.
    Foster care is a near total failure. It rarely protects children adequately and it is very difficult to monitor since children are scattered across the landscapte in hundreds of different places, with hundreds of different caregivers of wildly varying skill and ability.

    Nearly every state uses a “foster care” system. In this system, volunteers from the public, care for children who cannot be cared for by their biological parents or their legal custodians.
    The difficulty is that it takes unusual parenting skills to take care of these vulnerable childlren who have nearly always been emotionally traumatized, if not sexually or physically abused.
    The State pays the foster parents stipend to help care for the children. There are many wonderful foster parents, but, there are also many foster parents that actually take the children into their home solely for the money. Hard to believe that anyone could be so callous, but, it happens. The State Department of Social Services is desparate for help. Parents can easily answer screening questions in such a way as to pass the qualification test. What happens when the child actually gets to the foster home may well be another matter. Yes, social workers are required to visit the children periodically, but their workloads are Herculean. A single social worker can have 400 cases.

    Orphanages can be havens for abused or neglected children.

    Orphanages are often thought of as a vestige of Dicken’s London. However, there is no reason that they have to be a terrible place. A small group of professionals can care for many children. All the children in the facility have the same status. They are all in the same boat together. In a foster home, there is a differentiation between the “real children” who are permanent and the “foster children” who are temporary.
    Many children are housed together in a place where there welfare can be easily checked. Professionals with training in child psycholog can be hired. They have skills to deal with traumatized children. Traumatized children can be terrific discipline problems for inexperienced parents.

  24. Note 20 reply REDUX

    Should single mothers or fathers be barred from adopting in some or all circumstances?

    No, I think the foster care system should be abandoned except for very short-term emergency care AND the states should seriously invest in high-quality orphanage care. Adoption should be limited to highly-qualified couples. The key is the pre-existing, significant social investment in quality orphanages providing professional and committed care to children in need of care.

  25. I’m unsure about the orphanage concept. I would think young children would need more individual attention and that a group setting would make them feel like a “student” in a classroom.

    I honestly feel that for a child to be placed with a highly stable and qualified single person is preferable to being one of over a hundred children being raised by a dozen or so employees and/or volunteers.

    However, if the intention is to reduce the overall risk of abuse, then perhaps a case can be made.

  26. Reply to Note 25.

    James. Try thinking of it, not as an orphanage, but as a “group home.”

    For example, my husband has a cousin who is an adult with a I.Q. of about 85. He is healthy and functions well in many areas, but, he can’t manage his own affairs. He lives in a group home with other adults who have comparable mental ability. There are 25 residents in a large home that looks just like a normal residence from the outside. Each resident has his or her own room. There is a bathroom for every two residents. Lunch and evening meals are prepared by a cook. The group home is run by a couple who lives with the residents. Placement is for the long-term. Meals are taken together. There are many activities and there are long-term connections between the residents that are comparable to sibling attachments.

    Think past Dickens. Think small group homes with no more than
    20 or 30 children. Think resident professional caregivers who are there for the long run for the children. I am aware of a group home for children in my community that provides a home for 100 children. It is built on an estate. The home is privately funded by a philanthropic trust. The home has a swimming pool and a horse barn. Group homes do not have to be deary.

    Most people have no idea what a shambles the foster care system really is. Obviously in an emergency, a reputable single adult is better than nothing or an abusive parent. I don’t think that is the best long-term solution however.

    By the way, there is not an abundance of single adults offering their services. One of the problems with single adults is that they work, given that, who is caring for small children? What the foster care system does then is A)take a small child from abusive parents b) give to single adult c) single adult then farms out caregiving to someone else while the single adult works.

    No easy answers.

  27. Missouri: It sounds like a good idea, but who pays the bill for 24/7 full-time care for orphans? It sounds like the states and their Medicaid programs would have to pick up the tab, just as they do for Foster Children. The fact is most states right now are under severe budget pressure and it doesn’t seem likely they would want to pay for an expensive new entitlement.

    The Bush administration is currently pressuring states to accept Block Grants for the federal funded portion of their Medicaid programs. These Block Grants would be fixed in dollar amount and would never increase regardless of whether there is an increase in people needing Medicaid coverage, or new programs, like the one you propose that would require additional funding.

    These are the sacrifices we have to make to pay for the Bush tax cuts for the rich, so you better get used to it.

  28. Reply to Note 27:

    Money is always an issue, with any policy approach. At this point we are discussing a non-political issue of public administration since I would hope that everyone would agree that the goal is the best care of needy children.

    The Foster Care system is more expensive than it first appears. There are considerable diseconomies of scale which result from placing many individual children in many different individual homes. Foster parents get cash stipends as well as allowances for other expenses. After thousands of foster homes are established, the State then needs to hire 100’s of social workers to periodically visit the individual foster homes. The foster parents have to be periodically vetted and qualified for continued participation.

    If a moderate number of children could be gathered together and fully supervised by trained professionals the entire structure of supervising social workers could be eliminated. Economies of scale could be achieved in the purcase of food, clothing and other necessities.

    The foster care system is an abysmal shambles. The most terrible shame is the fact that an abused child might be removed from the home of a biological parent only to be placed with foster parents who abuse them in turn.

    Although I have some knowledge of the foster care system, I am not up to date on issues concerning health care in general. I would have to do a great deal of reading before I commented on it.

  29. I recently went to a local website on adoption. There were literally hundreds of kids waiting to be taken in by someone. Many are in therapy or are on medication because of the abuse they endured with their birth parents.

    So … yeah … definitely government subsidized sterilization if you screw up that badly. Can’t see why someone should be given the opportunity to traumatize more than one kid.

  30. Missourian, did you say single people should or should NOT be able to adopt? Being a single person myself, I’ve given this some thought lately, butI’m actually unsure as to what the laws are regarding this. Those of us who are single but financially well-off and capable of providing a loving and supportive home for a child might even have a responsibility to care for those who are without parents and living in foster care or orphanages.

    I know people say that there are many couples waiting to adopt but by the look of things, the supply far exceeds the demand, to use a crude expression.

    Is it ideal? No. However, I really think these things need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Some single peoples’ work lives are too hectic; others may not be. Some couples are in a situation where both work or one works and the other travels frequently. I’m at a loss as to why there should be a hard and fast rule as far as saying that “only couples can adopt.”

Comments are closed.