Dr. Patrick Fagan writes:
Adoption is life-alteringly beneficial for children. Such is the general conclusion from a review of the literature.
Adoption in the first 12 months of the child’s life produces the best outcomes, but all children will benefit, regardless of their age at placement. Adopted children outperform their non-adopted peers and non-adopted siblings.
What’s so puzzling? Fagan is writing for our opponents, the Family Research Council. And this study is being promoted by The Ruth Institute — NOM’s youth outreach program.
You’ve heard of NOM, right? And its founder, Maggie Gallagher? You know, the lady who misuses research to argue that children do best when raised by both biological parents. Maggie goes on interview after interview claiming traditional marriage must be protected because it’s how children can “love and be loved by their own mother and father” — meaning their biological mother and father.
That’s kind of a shot at adoptive parents, but Maggie needs to take that shot. It’s the only way she can argue against marriage equality. If adoptive parents count as real and valuable parents, then their families deserve the protections and stabilizing effects of marriage, too — and that includes families headed up by gay or lesbian couples.
Yet here we have NOM pushing a study that says adoption is valuable. That adopted children outperform their non-adopted peers and non-adopted siblings. That the sooner kids are adopted the better.
NOM is unintentionally highlighting the danger of letting kids languish in foster care or institutions instead being adopted by loving, same-sex parents who enjoy all the family protections that marriage equality makes possible.
A commenter on the Ruth Institute’s website asked about this. I’ll be watching closely to see what they reply.