2nd-parent curbs driving same-sex couple from Ariz.

By Stephanie Innes
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 12.22.2005
advertisementLast week, Jeanine, Nichole and Isaac Soterwood left a home they loved, solid careers and a wide circle of friends.
The state of Arizona does not allow them to be a legal family, so the Soterwoods moved from Tucson to California, where Nichole and Jeanine will file papers to become the legal parents of Isaac, who is 22 months old.
"This is tough for us. We love Tucson. And I had a great workplace and a promising, good career," said Nichole, 35, who was a systems engineer at Raytheon Missile Systems. "I was disappointed to leave and my co-workers at Raytheon were disappointed. But they understood that family comes first."
Like most other states, Arizona law does not allow unmarried couples to do what's known as second-parent adoption — when the non-biological parent adopts a partner's child.
Stepparents in heterosexual unions can adopt the children of their spouses in Arizona. Gay couples can be foster parents. And gay people, as long as they are single, can adopt. But couples like the Soterwoods, who can't legally marry here, can't both be parents of a child.


http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/108155

Nothing in the article would indicate that this WASN'T best for the child. It seem rather neutral on that subject to me.

But this sentence in the OP:

And gay people, as long as they are single, can adopt. But couples like the Soterwoods, who can't legally marry here, can't both be parents of a child.


tells me that the child's needs are being put secondary to the societal "need" to ban gay marriage. And that is not a good thing. I believe that single most important element in a child's life is parental stability, and if one of your parents "isn't" your parent, it is very hard.

and his well-being.

Having 2 parents (as opposed to only 1) who are on the hook legally to care for, have insurance for, and provide parenting for a child is better for the child certainly from a financial and legal standpoint.

When another person (besides the current parent) is willing to sign the papers to be legally responsible for the child, that is a better situation for the child, because now there are 2 legally and financially responsible adults who have an obligation to care for him.

That should be encouraged by the state, not discouraged.

So in the case where a hetro couple where one has a child from a previous marriage (or not), the other person should be barred from adopting that child? That makes no sense at all. My own sister is in that situation. She had a child from her first husband who was abusive. She found a great love later (he had two babies from a previous marriage). They married and adopted and raised eachother's childred as their own. We (the rest of the family even call his children our neice & nephew) and vice-versa. It would be ashamed that these kids would be denied that if my sister were with a lesbian.

Its in the best interest of the child to have a stable homelife period.

each other's kids from a prior marriage (if the other parent gives up rights or has abandoned the child or died).

Not so with same-sex couples. Most states bar 2 legal parents of the same-sex. Period.

have you actually read somehow in my response that I was against this?

I sense you are arguing with me on something I agree with you on. Very odd.

I believe TG was talking about the Arizona law, not the article.

I am confused.