NEW YORK, January 4, 2011 — A funny thing happened on the way to the Presidency. The Iowa Caucus delivered an unexpected duo, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.
For those interested in child welfare, specifically those children who are eligible for adoption but may not find permanent families unless the rights of all American citizens are protected, the results of the Republican showdown matter a great deal.
As those of us in the adoption community know, loving parents who are willing and able to adopt are critical to children all over the country who are waiting for homes.
For Santorum, adoption is a privilege the government bestows on citizens, whilst Romney embraces the flip-flop, unable to articulate where he stands.
Santorum
Santorum may be the most vociferous of the Republican candidates in the race with regards to his opposition to gay adoption. Although he has repeatedly claimed he is pro adoption (usually in reference to abortion), he draws the line with gay adoption, claiming it “against nature.”
A few months ago on an interview at CNS news, Santorum stated that same-sex adoption is a violation of natural law.
“The state is not doing a service to the child and to society by not putting that child in a home where there is a mother and a father,” he said. “This is common sense. This is nature,” he told CNS news early last year.
See video here:
Never mind that research demonstrates that children raised by two same-gender parents fare as well as children raised by two different-gender parents. As we know, science hasn’t been one of Santorum’s strong suits. Witness his doubts about evolution and his faith in creationism.
When Santorum was confronted about his stance on gay adoption, he remained unshaken. “A lesbian woman came up to me and said, ‘why are you denying me my right?’ I said, ‘well, because it’s not a right.’ It’s a privilege that society recognizes because society sees intrinsic value to that relationship over any other relationship,” he recalls.
As for children already living in homes with same-sex parents who are married, Santorum proposes to use the strength of the federal government to topple that family bond.
Last month in an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd , Santorum explained that not only would he support a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but that he also supports invalidating all currently legal same-sex unions:
TODD: What would you do with same-sex couples that got married? Would you make them get divorced?
SANTORUM: Well, their marriage would be invalid. I think if the constitution says “marriage is this,” then people whose marriage is not consistent with the constitution….
Yes, he is actually proposing that the federal government strip families of their marriages.
When CNN’s Piers Morgan recently suggested that some might think him a bigot for his anti-gay views, Santorum pointed to the Bible, asking how 2,000 years of moral theology could be considered bigotry. He claimed he is concerned about the implications of allowing gays to parent.
“This has profound consequence to the entire ecology, moral ecology, of America. It will undermine the family. It will destroy faith in America,” Santorum said.
The scary part of this is that Santorum actually believes that America will be destroyed if the home of the free extends liberties to all citizens and not just those he declares fit for parenthood.
Romney
On the issue of gay adoption, Romney has done what Romney has become famous for: flip-flopped.
Because Romney is a shape-shifter it’s hard to know just what he believes or would do. The proponderence of information we have, however, suggests a kinder, gentlter approach to gay adoption than his rival’s.
In 2006, as governor of Massachusetts, Romney told the Boston Globe that same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest in being able to receive adoptive services.”
Yet on Feb. 18, 2007, Romney, then running for the Republican presidential nomination, basically retreated from that matter-of-fact statement on ABC’s “This Week.”
“At the national level we should define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. And this isn’t about adult rights. A lot of people get confused that gay marriage is about treating gay people the same as treating heterosexual people. And that’s not the issue involved here. This is about the development and nurturing of children. Marriage is primarily an institution to help develop children and children’s development; I believe is greatly enhanced by access to a mom and a dad. I think every child deserves a mom and a dad. And that’s why I’m so consistent and vehement in my view that we should have a federal amendment which defines marriage in that way.”
OK — so this sounds like Romney changed his stance and is now against gays adopting and for a national definition of marriage as between a man and a woman because that “help[s] develop children.”
But then the waters got muddied again when this past October his spokesman Ryan Williams sent CNSNews.com an email stating, “Gov. Romney has consistently said that gay adoption should be assessed on a state-by-state basis—not at the federal level.”
So, now Romney’s position appears to have morphed again. Now the federal government should stay out of the issue altogether.
The problem with Romney on this issue of same-sex parents adopting may be the problem with Romney on all issues: It’s hard to know what he believes or what he will do since he appears willing to change his positions—even on fundamental issues like who has the right to parent—to suit the mood of the moment.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
