Gay adoptions.

I admit I was quite disturbed when I read in the News of the Family Law Section voting to support gay adoptions. The section claimed this is not a gay rights issue but a children's rights issue. I also admit my suspicions regarding it not being a gay rights issue, but let's just go on the children's rights.

I feel comfortable in starting out with the opinion that it is best for children to be reared by their parents. That obviously means a father and mother, a male and a female. Up until very recently, it has always meant that. We hear very much about the troubles that arise when we deal with single parent families. That would mean just a man or a woman. A single parent simply isn't able to give a child all of what the child needs. A child needs both male and female care, guidance, education, supervision, and love. Everybody, other than maybe gays, agrees with that. Look at all the opinion polls and medical research and opinions.

A gay couple, obviously, consists of either two males or two females. They aren't the necessary male and female couple who have been created to, among other things, rear children. You may have two adults rearing a child, but you have nothing else but a single parent relationship. Did any of your committee think of it that way? Are you really sure that the vote did not have a tinge of gay rights involved?

The article quotes Family Law Section Chair Evan Marks as saying, "All research says two loving parents is what is needed." What is the normal, usual definition of parents? A father and mother, a man and a woman.

If this is 100 percent a children's rights issue, I don't see how the vote could be one that precludes a child from having the above care, guidance, education, supervision, and love of parents, consisting of the above man and woman, father and mother. Both sexes are necessary to provide all of that. Each sex offers something different than the other.

I hope the Family Law Section's Executive Council will reconsider. Should the vote of something this important not be put to your membership?

In my opinion, it is very important from another aspect. In the same News there is an article about lawyer advertising. Oh, yes, the problems with advertising and the lawyer image that is presented to the public. We are trying to improve our image all the time.

Sorry, but going in favor of gay adoptions certainly does not improve the lawyer image.

Wm. A. Oughterson

Stuart

The question of what legislative positions the...