A very odd lawmaking exercise is underway in the Colorado General Assembly. The lawmakers are considering a bill that would authorize homosexual adoption, but the word “homosexual” doesn’t appear in the document, nor do any of the other labels like “gays” or “lesbians.”
The reason for this caution, this legislative sensitivity, is not hard to locate.
House Bill 1330 was one of the last bills to be introduced, and for a very good reason. The delay was intended to allow the bill to be whisked through the legislative process without a lot of public attention. In fact, it was approved by a House committee barely hours after the ink was dry.
The bill is suspect for two major reasons. First, voters last year firmly rejected Referendum I, a measure that would have authorized domestic partnerships. The opposition to that proposal prominently featured the argument that it would allow homosexual adoption. In explaining why the public should be so quickly ignored, sponsors claim the opposition to Referendum I wasn’t based on the adoption issue. That is palpable nonsense.
The current bill is very careful to stay away from any reference to homosexuality, and on the surface, its provisions might apply to other groups. This is plainly dishonest in that it is most unlikely that heterosexual persons would want to be adoptive parents outside the union of marriage, and in fact current law doesn’t allow for that result.
No, the benefits conferred by this measure will fall almost exclusively upon homosexual couples. It says something about the sponsors that they want to make this happen through a bill with the title “Concerning the second-parent adoption of a child of a sole legal parent.”
The second and more crucial basis for opposition is this: HB 1330 is nothing more than a casual social experiment with children as the subjects.
The measure stands in sharp contrast with the state’s detailed adoption statute, which runs to dozens of pages. Spelled out in these pages are the procedures to be used to determine parentage, to provide for relinquishment of parental rights, to assure the quality of the prospective parents, the economic stability of the new home, the treatment of the new birth certificate, and so on and on.
Compare that set of procedures with this description of the bill by the Colorado Legislative Council: “The bill allows a child to be adopted by a second parent with the sole legal parent upon written and verified consent by that parent.”
The bill virtually invites two kinds of adoption by homosexuals. The first is where the child is the biological offspring of one of the partners and where the other parent is out of the picture. This could be because the child is the product of artificial insemination or because the mother simply refused to disclose the name of the father. In this situation, simply showing that the child has only one legal parent would make that child available for a “second parent” adoption.
The second type of adoption is more complex. First, one member of a homosexual couple would apply to adopt a child. Once that were approved, the second person could apply for the second-parent adoption.
A home study report would still have to be done to determine eligibility, just as in a heterosexual adoption, but the proposed bill requires less attention be given the second adoptive parent. If the second parent filed for adoption within six months of the approval of the first parent, the home study report for the first parent would also be used for the second parent with the proviso that he or she was “included in” the first home study report.
The bill, as introduced, actually said he or she only needed to be “present” in the home.
There may be a case for homosexual adoption, but this three-page measure reeks of dishonesty and a casualness which invites its defeat. Let’s see if the new Democratic majorities and the Democratic governor respected last year’s election results, which not only put them in office but defeated Referendum I.
Given the short history of this bill, the prospects aren’t good.
Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post’s editorial-page staff. His column appears on Wednesdays.
