|
DALE CARPENTER
Friday, August 15, 2008
THE
CONVENTIONAL
VIEW
about
John
McCain
is
that,
on
many
domestic
issues,
he
tries
to
appeal
both
to
religious
conservatives
and
to
independents.
I
think
the
truth
is
often
less
calculated
than
that:
he
has
good
instincts
but
simply
hasn’t
given
many
cutting-edge
domestic
issues
much
deep
thought.
In
recent
comments
about
gay
adoption,
for
example,
he
began
badly
but
ended
up
in
a
pretty
sensible
position.
It
started
when
the
New
York
Times
asked
McCain
whether
he
supported
allowing
gay
couples
to
adopt
children.
“I
think
that
we’ve
proven
that
both
parents
are
important
in
the
success
of
a
family,”
McCain
responded,
“so,
no,
I
don’t
believe
in
gay
adoption.”
The
interviewer,
apparently
dumbfounded,
asked
whether
McCain
would
maintain
that
view
even
if
it
meant
the
child
would
be
placed
in
an
orphanage.
McCain,
suddenly
sensing
a
culture-war
minefield,
avoided
the
question
and
simply
said
that
he
believed
adoption
should
be
encouraged.
Lots
of
gay
activists
jumped
on
this
exchange
as
if
it
proved
that
McCain
hates
gays
or,
at
the
very
least,
proved
that
he
has
capitulated
to
the
religious
right.
It
proves
neither.
I
don’t
think
McCain
has
given
even
a
moment
of
thought
to
adoption
policy.
The
second
half
of
the
quote
is
a
non
sequitur.
Adoption
is
necessarily
a
context
in
which
“both
parents”
are
unavailable,
so
it
makes
no
sense
to
cite
the
superiority
of
biological
parents
as
a
reason
to
prohibit
adoption
by
gays.
In
the
context
of
the
culture
wars,
I
think
McCain
hears
a
question
like,
“Do
you
favor
letting
gay
couples
adopt?”
as,
“Do
you
think
gay
parents
are
as
good
for
a
child
as
a
mother
and
father?”
I
don’t
think
he
hears
it
as,
“Do
you
think
that,
once
a
child
is
up
for
adoption
because
his
mother
and
father
are
out
of
the
picture,
gay
people
should
be
allowed
to
adopt
that
child?”
THERE
IS
CONSIDERABLE
debate
about
whether
children
do
just
as
well
with
same-sex
parents
as
with
opposite-sex
ones.
Studies
comparing
children
of
gay
and
straight
parents,
while
supportive
of
gay
parenting,
are
not
yet
conclusive.
Reasonable
people
who
don’t
blindly
hate
gays
can
believe
that
opposite-sex
couples
would
be
better
for
children
on
average
than
same-sex
couples.
But
McCain’s
answer
created
enough
doubt,
and
generated
enough
criticism
in
the
blogosphere
(including
by
me),
that
his
campaign
was
obliged
to
explain
what
he
meant:
“McCain
expressed
his
personal
preference
for
children
to
be
raised
by
a
mother
and
a
father
wherever
possible.
However,
as
an
adoptive
father
himself,
McCain
believes
children
deserve
loving
and
caring
home
environments,
and
he
recognizes
that
there
are
many
abandoned
children
who
have
yet
to
find
homes.
McCain
believes
that
in
those
situations
that
caring
parental
figures
are
better
for
the
child
than
the
alternative.”
What
to
make
of
all
this?
By
itself,
the
clarification
was
unobjectionable.
Few
doubt
that
children
should
be
raised
by
their
own
mother
and
father
“wherever
possible.”
But
where
the
biological
parents
aren’t
available
or
are
incompetent,
children
should
be
raised
by
caring
adoptive
parents.
For
McCain,
does
that
include
a
same-sex
couple?
While
some
gay
writers
and
activists
complained
that
McCain
didn’t
go
far
enough
in
repudiating
his
earlier
opposition
to
gay
adoption,
it’s
instructive
to
consider
the
reaction
of
anti-gay
groups
like
the
Family
Research
Council.
The
FRC
fumed
that
McCain’s
clarification
had
“muddied
the
waters”
of
his
earlier
opposition.
And
while
McCain
could
have
been
clearer
in
his
clarification,
it
does
establish
a
couple
of
important
things
that
all
but
the
most
zealous
supporters
of
Barack
Obama
should
appreciate.
Whereas
McCain
had
suggested
to
the
New
York
Times
that
it’s
“always”
best
for
children
to
be
raised
by
mothers
and
fathers,
he
now
acknowledges
this
often
won’t
be
possible
since
“there
are
many
abandoned
children
who
have
yet
to
find
homes.”
Also,
his
seeming
insistence
on
allowing
adoptions
only
by
opposite-sex
couples
has
been
replaced
by
supporting
adoptions
into
“loving
and
caring
home
environments”
where
there
are
“caring
parental
figures.”
Taking
his
statements
together,
I
think
McCain’s
view
is
roughly
this:
when
it
comes
to
adoption,
opposite-sex
couples
are
preferable,
but
same-sex
couples
are
acceptable.
That’s
not
a
crazy
or
necessarily
anti-gay
view. In
fact,
if
that’s
his
view
he
is
near
the
forefront
of
adoption
policy,
since
such
“second-parent”
adoptions
by
unmarried
gay
couples
are
now
permitted
in
only
some
jurisdictions
in
only
about
half
the
states.
|
 |
