Writing Assignment #2Contemporary Issues in Employment Law.docx

Writing Assignment #2
Contemporary Issues in Employment Law
Value 300 points
Writing assignment 2A is due end of week 7 - March 11.
The following topics are assigned to Writing Assignment 2A
Disability Discrimination
Overview
This Writing Assignment is required to provide students with
the opportunity to:
• Investigate a “subtopic” of special interest associated with any
of the major topics addressed during the course.
• Acquire in depth knowledge about a “subtopic” of choice –
expanding one’s knowledge base beyond the basic course
curriculum.
• Reflect on facts, theories, and opinions associated with the
subtopic of choice. Develop or change an opinion about the
subject.
• Communicate knowledge about chosen topic, offering learning
community members an opportunity to increase their knowledge
on a subtopic topic associated with the base course curriculum.
• Communicate one’s opinion on the subtopic, using critical
thinking skills to form the opinion and writing skills to
communicate one’s thoughts.

Instructions
1. Research the topic that you have chosen or have been
assigned.
Listing for spring 2017 (listing will be available after week 3)
IMPORTANT: If using Internet based resources, ensure that
resources are of high quality, such as websites that end in .gov
or .edu.
Do not use the following as resources:
Law firm web sites
Law firms are trying to solicit clients. In Employment law, law
firms usually represent either employers or workers - few
represent both. As such, their web sites are designed to attract
the clients they seek to represent. Therefore, the information
contained therein may not be completely accurate as the
information provided may be skewed to either a management or
employee perspective.
Websites such as Wikipedia or ehow
Information found on those sites may not be reliable.
2. Organize and develop your writing assignment
Use the following format: Overview, Opinion Statements,
Resource Citations.
Use the headings to divide your work into the 3 required areas
in your paper.
Overview
Provide an overview of your topic using at least two resources.
Highlight the most important concepts.

The overview should be no more than 500 words. That’s about 7
– 8 average length paragraphs.
Do not place your opinions in the overview. This is an
academically oriented portion of the assignment. Your opinions
are welcome in the next portion of the paper.Your overview
MUST include citation of sources within the text of the
document. You are not the originator of the information being
presented. The authors must be identified. Failing to provide
citations within the content of your overview is considered
plagiarism.
Example: (Last name of author, title of resource, page if
available)
Opinion Statements
Given the material you’ve organized and presented in the
overview, offer your thoughts on specific aspects of the topic or
the topic in general. Use higher order critical or creative
thought!
Your opinion statement should be approximately 150 words in
length.
Resource Citations
Offer a full citation of the material used in this section of the
paper.
Citations must be in MLA or APA format.
Use guides to guarantee that citations are correct.
MLA Citation Guide
APA citation Guide
NOTE: A minimum of 30 points will be deducted from content

score when proper citations are not provided.
3. Title your work.
Title your writing assignment by choosing a creative and
informative name. Compel your learning community to read
your writing assignment! Then add your full name.
The title of your paper and your name should be the FIRST
material available on the page.
Some Examples of Captivating Writing Assignment Titles:
“Short-Hand Definition of Employment-at-Will: “Workers are
Screwed:” Full Name
“Hi, I am Your Employer and I Can Break Any Promise I Make
to You in the Employee Handbook”: Full Name
Expectations
Content (210 points – 70%)
Indication of excellence:
• Content in overview section is conceptually sophisticated and
accurate.
• Appropriate materials are selected as resources for the
overview section.
• Citations both inside the body of the overview as well as in
the resource section are provided and are technically accurate. (
-30 points deducted if not accurate)
• Content is communicated so that a depth of understanding and
engagement with concepts is evident.
• Content is not a reiteration of course materials. At least 2
resources are used to develop overview section of assignment.

Ideas & Opinions (60 points - 20%)
Indication of Excellence:
• Critical thinking produces a sophisticated presentation of
ideas and opinions.
• Ideas and opinions are expressed only in the appropriate area.
• Ideas and opinions are clear and well organized.
Mechanics & Organization (30 points - 10%)
Indication of Excellence:
• Overall, content is well communicated and organized.
• Content is presented using appropriate grammar, sentence
structure, and spelling.
• Opinions and ideas are stated only in reflection section of
assignment.
• Content is appropriate for an academic assignment.
• Instructions are followed when completing questions.
Grading Rubric – 1301 Research Paper
8 10 PTS – Introduction + Claim /Thesis
Introduction clearly explains the topic and the writer’s views; is
clear and engaging; last sentence of the first paragraph (the
thesis) makes a strong, specific, debatable, persuasive claim
about an ethical issue – The introduction includes an important
inaccuracy; you state that homosexual adoption is “illegal” in
some states in the US, but the Supreme Court ruled years ago
that it cannot be made illegal in any state, that same sex couples
must be considered by the same standards as heterosexual
couples. You also did not include a source citation for that,
probably because there is not one; but information presented as
factual must be documented. And arguing based on inaccurate
facts is problematic. There are private adoption organizations
that may or may not be bound by those laws; that would have
been a more appropriate argument to focus on because the
argument here has already been established as not-debatable and

resolved (like same sex marriage).
13 15 PTS – Organization, Focus, + Rhetorical Strategies
Topic is explained and argued in a cohesive order with smooth
transitions; essay is focused; information in paragraphs is
relevant to the argument; examples and appeals are used
effectively –
6 10 PTS – Counterargument
Counterargument is explained and refuted; opposition’s views
are used to establish expertise and understanding but do not
diminish the argumentative claim and position; consequences of
choosing the positions are discussed – if there is a
counterargument, it should be looked at in-depth and with
consideration for those who oppose the main idea; if there is not
a counterargument that is reasonable, then the argument is not
debatable. Always refer to calling those who oppose your
position “ignorant” since that is not an effective way to
persuade readers who hold different values than what you or I
may hold.
10 15 PTS – Overall Impact + Conclusion
Overall the essay is persuasive, shows knowledge of topic,
examines the topic in-depth, and answers the “so what”
question; concludes effectively and leaves readers a strong
point of view to consider – the essay is somewhat vague and is
based on some information that may not be accurate. In addition
to the problem noted above, there are things like a mention on
Page 2 of something “studies prove” that is not substantiated or
cited, and there is a good bit of information about how
homosexual parents are superior to heterosexual parents based
on a logical fallacy and a “surface” examination of the issue
rather than an in-depth exploration of the complexities of the
situations. While I 100% agree with most of your comments in
this essay, the argument should be built to persuade people who
disagree with you.

4 10 PTS – Research
Source information is presented both as direct quotes and
paraphrases; all direct quotes are integrated; good balance of
research information and personal voice – Several of the direct
quotations are not integrated (explained on the source
summaries feedback among other places); the essay needs more
source support
8 10 PTS – In-Text Citations
Source information is clearly credited to the correct source;
essay has NO missing in-text citations; citations match the
FIRST word of the Works Cited entry; information such as page
numbers and multiple authors’ last names are included; sources
cited by title are written correctly; correct punctuation is used
with citations and direct quotes – In-text citations should have
page numbers instead of paragraph numbers, but one source is
cited by paragraph instead
10 15 PTS – Required Sources + Works Cited
Includes at least 3 credible sources (at least 1 in print and 1
from database); sources are documented in correct 8th edition
MLA style with all required information for the source type;
entries have correct punctuation, spelling, italics/quotation
marks; etc.; sources listed in ABC order with hanging indents,
correct font, and no lines skipped b/w entries – source entries
are missing date of access (pointed out on the source summaries
assignment)
12 15 PTS – Proofreading and Editing; Quality of prose
Language is clear and concise; correct grammar, punctuation,
and word choice used throughout the essay (including no use of
2nd person “you”); no misspelled words, incomplete or run-on
sentences; apostrophes are used correctly; pronouns and verbs
agree with subjects; etc. – good job with punctuation and
grammar, but there are several word choice errors and some of

the writing should be edited to be more concise and avoid
repetition
ADDITIONAL DEDUCTIONS APPLIED FOR ANY OF
THE FOLLOWING REASONS, IF HIGHLIGHTED:
Does not meet min. length of 4 full pgs. Automatic
zero for papers less than 3 full pages
Missing source credits for source facts or information
Automatic zero for plagiarism
Does not follow all MLA format guidelines Works
Cited page entries are not in 8the ed. MLA style
Use of 2nd person “you” or “your” Has
excessive errors that show lack of proofreading
GRADE: 63 OF 100 = D
POINTS: 90 OF 150 POSSIBLE
Sources for Discussion on LGBT Adoption
Source 1:
A lesbian couple from Colorado named, Cheryl Clark and Elsey
Maxwell, adopted a baby from China. However, both the law of
Colorado and China doesn’t provide joint adoption. They had to
list one of them as a legal parent. The judge granted joint
custody appeal where the couple split after Clark converted
herself into conservative type of Christianity. The split reason
was the consideration of not teaching their child that was
considered homophobic.
I can use religious conflict for the ongoing discussion of
adoption for LGBT.

Wright, Ellen. “Colorado Lesbian Custody Case Goes Back to
Lower Court.” Lesbian News, vol. 30, no. 1, Aug. 2004, p.
15. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN
=14182904&site=ehost-live.
Source 2:
This article talks about social work experts who have an
obligation to challenge issues that have been socially endorsed
and made. Attempting to guarantee the eventual benefits of the
children may require joining the battle against gay and lesbian
bias. This article has suggested that one stage toward that
objective is a basic re-assessment at the intrapersonal,
relational, and hierarchical degrees of the manners by which the
wellbeing of the children’s standard is characterized and
applied.
Ryan, Scott D., et al. “Coming Out of the Closet: Opening
Agencies to Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents.” Social Work,
vol. 49, no. 1, Jan. 2004, pp. 85–95. EBSCOhost,
doi:10.1093/sw/49.1.85.
Source 3:
The article focuses on gay parenting. The advancement in same-
sex marriage rights is followed featuring the prominent legal
disputes, state and government laws, and national discussion.
The improvements relating to same-sex child rearing are talked
in the article. The priority exuding from the lawful principle,
"the eventual benefits of the kid," is introduced in a case of
1973 situation when an Oregon court was in a favor of a gay
dad.
Gash, Alison. “Under the Gaydar.” Washington Monthly, vol.
45, no. 5/6, May 2013, pp. 23–26. EBSCOhost,
dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com
/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a 9h&AN=88163555&site=ehost-
live.

Under the Gaydar
H o w GAYS WON THE RIGHT TO RAISE CHILDREN
WITHOUT CONSERVATIVES EVEN NOTICING.
By Alison Gash
N
o one knows for sure how the Supreme Court will rule
on the two high-profile gay marriage cases it is now
considering. The hetting, however, is that, regard-
less of the outcome, progress toward marriage equality will
persist. A majority of the puhlic now believe gays and leshi-
ans should have the right to wed. Nine states and the District
of Columbia have laws on the hooks conferring such rights.
A stampede of Democratic elected of&cials have announced
support for same-sex marriage, and in its March "autopsy" re-
port the Republican National Committee hinted its members
should do the same.
Although progress has been unusually swift, this sto-
ry of same-sex marriage rights has followed a familiar path,
one blazed by women and African Americans in their strug-
gles for equality. Members of an out-group, advocating for
their rights, demand a fundamental change in the legal inter-
pretation of the Constitution, which causes a series of high-
profile court cases, state and federal laws, and counter-laws,
all of it accompanied hy a broadly held national conversa-
tion that leads to a change in public attitudes, laws, and legal
interpretations.

But this isn't the only way that civil rights advance. A few
decades ago, openly gay and lesbian Americans did not have
the legal right to raise their own biological children, much
less adopt. Today, more than twenty-five states recognize the
same legal benefits and responsibilities of parenthood regard-
less of sexual orientation. It is now routine for gays and les-
bians to jointly adopt, to be recognized as co-parents, and to
Washington Monthly 23
collect child support or demand custody or visitation rights—
even without a biological connection to the child in question.
All this has happened without the hallmarks of a traditional
rights campaign. There were very few high-profile court cas-
es, few legislative battles, and little public debate. In sharp
contrast to marriage equality—where between 1993 and
2003 two pro-marriage rulings incited more than thirty-five
state bans—parenting litigation has provoked minimal pub-
lic backlash.
At first blush, this would seem improbable. Gay mar-
riage, after all, is between consenting adults, whereas gay
adoption involves children; one would think society would be
at least as skittish about the latter as about the former. Even
countries that pioneered marriage equality, such at Denmark,
have been slower to extend full parenting rights to same-sex
couples. And yet, paradoxically, in the United States we've
seen the opposite: we've had a contentious, two-decades-long
national debate about same-sex marriage—one that has re-
Gay marriage is between
consenting adults, whereas

gay adoption involves
children; one would think
society would he at least as
skittish ahout the latter as
ahout the former. And yet
we've seen the opposite. Why?
peatedly featured in battles for the presidency—but have al-
lowed same-sex couples to quietly begin legally adopting and
co-parenting with hardly any national discussion at all. Why
the difference?
The answer is that same-sex parenting rights have suc-
cessfully advanced precisely because the legal wrangling over
them has remained largely below the radar—a fact high-
lighted by Justice Antonin Scalia's confusion about whether
California even permits same-sex adoption during Supreme
Court hearings on that state's Proposition 8 law. Where mar-
riage-equality advocates have had little choice but to engage
in open political battles and bring high-profile constitutional
court cases on behalf of their fundamental rights, the fight
for same-sex parental rights has mostly played out in ob-
scure family courts, vnth few reporters present and with ad-
vocates consciously delaying or avoiding high court review.
This below-the-radar strategy created a foundation of "facts
on the ground"—tens of thousands of intact gay- and lesbian-
headed families with children—well before most conservative
activists were even aware the phenomenon existed, making
their subsequent efforts to block same-sex parenting an up-
hiU fight.
T
he legal struggle over same-sex parenting began in

the 1950s and '60s. As divorce laws loosened, a growing
number of closeted gays and lesbians came out to their
heterosexual spouses, leading to legal disputes about custody
and visitation rights with regard to the couples' children. These
cases were handled in local family courts, where records tend
to be sealed. Few were ever covered in the newspapers. Fewer
still resulted in victories for the gay spouses. Judges typically
ruled that simply being homosexual made a parent unfit.
In one such case, in 1967, a lesbian woman named El-
len Doreen Nadler lost custody of her daughter to the child's
heterosexual father. Nadler petitioned the California appel-
late court, which found that the previous court was wrong to
base its decision solely on Nadler's homosexuality. Instead, the
court wrote, the "primary consideration must be given to the
welfare of the chud." In a retrial, Nadler stiU didn't regain cus-
tody of her daughter, but the case set a key precedent: in cus-
tody cases, "the best interests of the child," a legal doctrine dat-
ing back to the mid-i8oos, and not the sexual orientation of
the parent, should be the deciding factor.
That precedent proved decisive in 1973, when an Oregon
court ruled in favor of a gay father when the mother—who
had not seen her children in over ten years—challenged cus-
tody because of the father's sexual orientation. The court de-
termined that it was not necessarily in the "best interests of
the child" to alter the custody arrangement, despite the fa-
ther's homosexuality. Similarly, in two companion cases in
1978, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that withdraw-
ing custody from two lesbian mothers who were raising chil-
dren together from both of their previous marriages would
not serve the children's best interests. Although the court
expressed some trepidation about the mothers' relationship,
it determined that a change in custody would be more harm-
ful to the children than maintaining the status quo.

While ground-breaking in many ways, these unorthodox
rulings attracted little public interest, largely because they
were focused on the particulars of the cases and not framed
in terms of broader homosexual rights. This was in sharp con-
trast to the budding gay rights movement, which at that time
was starting to push for statutory changes in the law. In 1977,
for instance, gay rights activists convinced Miami-Dade Coun-
ty to amend its anti-discrimination ordinance to include gays
and lesbians. In response, an anti-gay rights coalition called
Save Our Children was formed, with country singer and Flor-
ida orange juice spokeswoman Anita Bryant as its leader. "As
a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically repro-
duce children," she proclaimed, "therefore, they must recruit
our children." Yet despite her rhetoric and the group's name,
Bryant and her allies didn't focus on gay parenting. Instead
they went after higher-profile anti-discrimination ordinances
that included sexual orientation and, in some instances, tried
to remove gay and lesbian teachers from public schools. The
24 May/June 2013
Florida legislature did subsequently pass a law barring single
gays and lesbians, as well as same-sex couples, from adopt-
ing children, but only one otber state. New Hampshire, fol-
lowed suit.
In the 1980s, the same-sex parenting movement contin-
ued to move quietly forward. Family courts began to see cas-
es where gay and lesbian couples with children were petition-
ing for parental rights for the non-biological partner. Because
these "other" parents were essentially not legally connected to
the children they were raising, they were often barred from en-
gaging in the most routine—and important—parenting func-

tions: picking up their kids at school, visiting them in the hos-
pital, or listing them as dependents on health or life insurance
policies. During that decade, family or lower courts in Oregon,
Alaska, California, and Washington granted co-parent adop-
tions to same-sex couples, with relatively little reaction from
gay rights opponents.
Again, the secret to this progress was that gay parents
and couples—who were by then aided by newly formed gay
rights advocacy groups—fought these cases in family court,
where judges had wide discretion and public scrutiny was
minimal. Aware of the perils of drawing public attention to
these cases, advocates from national gay rights groups worked
hard to camouflage their efforts. They removed their names
from briefs, provided behind-the-scenes support, and avoided
appealing losses to appellate courts, out of fear that higher-
level court approval would awaken the sleeping giant of pub-
lic opposition.
Some even developed strategies to educate judges who
were likely to hear same-sex parenting cases through semi-
nars and bench books. They quietly met with judges to reas-
sure them that their rulings would not be politicized. Says one
advocate, "You have to take steps to keep it under the radar. I
make sure to tell these judges that this is not a test case. We
are not going to put you on the spot. I appreciate that you are
an elected judge and I am not going to do something that will
hurt you."
Eventually, same-sex parenting cases did make their way
to higher courts in two states—ironically, in the same year,
1993, that gay marriage hit the supreme court docket in Ha-
waii (the case that launched a nationwide debate). But rather
than rally opposition to both issues, conservatives chose to fo-
cus their attention only on same-sex marriage. Why?

For one, the co-parenting cases received relatively lit-
tle attention from the mainstream press—again, because
they were not being argued as matters of "gay rights." Also,
many pro-family activists also assumed, or at least hoped,
that anti-marriage efforts would limit both gay marriage and
parenting progress. They theorized that same-sex marriage
bans would, like anti-sodomy statutes, impose a chilling ef-
fect on judges. So while conservatives were busy getting the
1996 Defense of Marriage Act through Congress and initiat-
ing state-level bans on same-sex marriage, gay parents and
their advocates continued to quietly amass significant court
victories in Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, In-
diana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Vermont.
Meanwhile, by the end of 2004 anti-gay rights forces had
won measures banning gay marriage in forty states. Hoping
to leverage these gains, pro-family advocates finally turned
their attention to parenting. Between 2004 and 2006 the pro-
family movement initiated more than thirty-five attempts to
limit same-sex parenting. In 2006 alone, sixteen states were
poised to initiate bans on same-sex parenting legislatively or
through the ballot process.
But—happily for gay rights advocates—the anti-gay forc-
es were too late. Despite dire predictions, almost none of these
measures against same-sex parenting went anywhere. Legisla-
tion died in committee, and proposed initiatives never made it
to the ballot. All the while—on the strength of decades of prec-
edents and facts on the ground—family, appellate, and state
supreme courts continued to recognize the parental rights of
and grant adoptions to gay and lesbian parents.
Advocates from national gay
rights groups worked hard to

camouflage their efforts. They
removed their names from
briefs, provided behind-the-
scenes support, and avoided
appealing cases, careful
not to awaken the sleeping
giant of public opposition.
W hy did the backlash against same-sex parentingfail? It
certainly wasn't public opinion. The hand-ful of poUs from
2006 that questioned participants
about both same-sex marriage and adoption rights showed
that average Americans were no more comfortable with gay
parenthood than they were with gay marriage. In fact, they op-
posed both by well over 50 percent. And if we take their argu-
ments seriously, it is precisely concern about gay parenthood
that drives opposition efforts against marriage equality.
Rather, the main problem for conservatives was that they
were trying to roll back gay parenting rights that had, in ef-
fect, already been granted. This proved a tough sell. The media
didn't much cover the conservative campaign against same-
sex parenting, and what few stories did run typically featured
heartwarming narratives of gay and lesbian couples raising
weU-adjusted kids. Such families existed in the thousands pre-
cisely because the under-the-radar strategy had allowed them
to flourish over the previous twenty years. Whereas gay mar-
Washington Monthly 25
riage was stul an abstraction that opponents could rally the
public to prevent, gay families were a reality that the public
would have to tear asunder to stop.

Also, by the niid-2ooos social scientists had conducted
studies on same-sex families. In general, this research demon-
strated that children of same-sex couples were not appreciably
different from kids raised by straight couples—including their
propensity to identify as gay or lesbian. These studies were
wide-
ly quoted in the media and used to foster support among child
welfare experts.
All this made it a tough fight for anti-gay rights advocates.
As an official at Focus on the Famñy, a conservative Christian
ad-
vocacy group, concedes, the issue was low on the "radar for
pro-
family conservatives" because of the "confusing rhetoric of
same-sex adoption, the media bombarding the public with im-
ages of happy gay couples taking in disadvantaged kids," and
the argument that "this kind of famñy is better than no family."
Adds another opponent, "Trying to take the kids away ... it's a
ridiculous battle to fight."
That doesn't mean the fight is completely over. Taking a
page from the playbook of parenting advocates, opponents of
gay parenting have begun engaging at the level of family courts
as well. They are now advocating on behalf of gay biological
par-
ents who are in custody battles with their estranged gay part-
ners who are not the chfldren's biological parents. Stul, apart
from such skirmishes, the right of same-sex parents to raise
their kids seems well on its way to being secured.
Same-sex parenting advocates weren't the first to use an
under-the-radar strategy to advance their cause, and probably
won't be the last. John F. Kennedy employed low-visibility tac-
tics both to attract black voters during his presidential campaign

and to encourage voter registration after he was elected. Some
disability advocates, in their attempt to secure group housing
for their disabled clients, circumvent public notification proce-
dures when looking for appropriate housing and instead procure
the property, move the clients in, and wait to be discovered.
And
groups like the Nature Conservancy long ago figured out that
in-
stead of engaging in contentious pubUc campaigns to get
elected
officials to protect environmentally sensitive parcels of land, it
is
often easier to raise money and quietly buy the land themselves.
History books suggest that our society has made its great-
est leaps on the shoulders of high-profile campaigns. But
change
can also be the result of quiet battles that play out in court-
rooms, boardrooms, and bedrooms all across the country. And
it is often these hidden battles that most effectively propel our
society forward. WM
Alison Gash is an assistant professor of poiitical science at the
University
of Oregon. She is currently compieting a nrianuscript entitied
Below the
Radar: How Silence Can Save Civil Rights, which wiii be
pubiished in 2014.
Reject Dirty Energy:
natural gas (tracking),
oil-based electricity,
filthy coal,

unsafe nuclear reactors,
greenhouse gas emissions,
and our debilitating
dependence on imported oil and
foreign entanglements!
Energy
Switch Today!
Pear-Energy.com
26 May/June 2013
Copyright of Washington Monthly is the property of
Washington Monthly and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.
Coming Out of the Closet: Opening Agencies
to Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents
Scott D. Ryan, Sue Pearlmutter, and Victor Groza
Cay men and lesbians often encounter barriers when they pursue
adoption.
Adoption workers are expected to make decisions regarding

child placement
using the best interest standard. However, this decision-making
model does
not adequately consider intrapersonal, interpersonal, and
organizational
factors that affect the use of the standard. This article examines
the best
interest standard and makes practice recommendations to
increase the
accessibility of adoptions for gay and lesbian applicants.
Key words: adoption; child welfare organizations;
gay men and lesbians; parents
E
mpirical and clinical knowledge of adoption
policy and practice has increased greatly in
recent years. However, a crisis remains in this
arena, as many more children are available for
adoption than there are families to adopt them.
As a result of the 1997 enactment of the Adoption
and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105-89), which re-
quires more expedient termination of birth parent
rights than had previously existed, the number of
children available for adoption continues to grow.
The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Re-
porting System (AFCARS), established as part of
the act, estimated that as of September 30, 2001,
126,000 children were waiting to be adopted.
These were children for whom the public child
welfare agency had a goal of adoption, for whom
parental rights had been terminated, or both.
During the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001,
AFCARS reported that an estimated 46,668 chil-

dren were adopted through the public child wel-
fare system (AFCARS, 2002).
Defining Suitable Adoptive Families
Child welfare agencies most often seek adoptive
families from among traditional heterosexual
two-parent or single-parent families. In doing
this, they follow state adoption statutes, many
dating to the mid-1900s that favor those families
(Appell, 2001; HoUinger, 1999), even though a
great deal of evidence exists that family constella-
tions have changed significantly in the past three
decades. Fields and Casper (cited in the U.S. Cen-
sus Bureau, 2001) reported that the traditional
two-parent nuclear family (that is, married house-
holds with one or more children under the age of
18) constituted 24 percent of all U.S. households
in 2000—down from 40 percent in 1970. Al-
though the total number of households in the
United States is estimated to increase 15.5 percent
from 1995 to 2010, the number of traditional
families is projected to decline 6.4 percent from
24.6 million to 23.1 million. Such families would
then constitute only 20.1 percent of total house-
holds (U.S. Census Bureau, 1996).
Creater flexibility in the conceptualization and
interpretation of the word "family" (Ricketts &
Achtenberg, 1989) would benefit children await-
ing adoptive families. The effect of excluding
nontraditional placement resources through an
overly narrow definition of family is that some
children will languish longer in foster care with-
out permanence. Brooks and colleagues (1999)

have discussed recent federal legislation intended
to increase the pool of multiethnic foster and
CCC Code: 0037-8046/04 $3.00 O 2004
National Association of Social Workers, Inc.
85
adoptive families. Their principles for recruitment
and adoption placement practice show that com-
mitment to considering gay and lesbian singles
and couples as potential adoptive families would
expand the possibilities for permanent child
placement.
Currently there are no uniform standards
across states regarding adoption by gay men and
lesbians. Florida is the only state that explicitly
prohibits single and coupled gay men and lesbians
from becoming adoptive parents. Although 49
states allow consideration of a gay or lesbian per-
son as an adoptive parent, only four states—Cali-
fornia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Ver-
mont—and the District of Columbia explicitly
permit joint adoption by lesbian or gay couples
(LetHimStay, 2002). All other
jurisdictions determine who ^ ^ ^ ^
can and cannot adopt on a case-
by-case basis, using local and
state statutes (Ricketts &
Achtenberg, 1989). Thus, pub-
lic child welfare agencies in most
states could consider gay men
and lesbians as potential adop-

tive parents. However, Utah and ^ ^ ^ ^
Arkansas have instituted exclu-
sionary administrative policies
effectively prohibiting gay men and lesbians from
adopting children in either state's custody (Riggs,
1999). Similar measures have been considered in
Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Okla-
homa, and Texas (Appell, 2001; Ferrero, Freker,
& Foster, 2002; Riggs). These policies and legisla-
tive measures ignore evidence that family form
does little to ensure success in adoption. Rather,
adoption successes depend on the balance of re-
sources and stressors that affect the family (Groze,
1996).
Gay men and lesbians have adopted children
for many years, despite fear and discrimination.
They have adopted as single parents through pub-
lic child welfare agencies, private sources, and in-
ternational organizations. They have sought older
children from various racial and ethnic groups, as
well as sibling groups and children with disabili-
ties. And, although international adoptions have
permitted more fiexibility, they too have become
more restrictive, as countries such as China, Thai-
land, and Guatemala have prohibited gay and les-
bian adoption applications (Brodzinsky, 2002;
Chibbaro, 2002).
Adoption successes depend
on the balance of resources
and stressors that affect
the family.
Homophobia and Heterosexism

Prejudice against gay men and lesbians has been
socially sanctioned for hundreds of years and, ar-
guably, continues today. The mental health com-
munity in this country classified homosexuality as
a mental disorder until the early 1970s. At ap-
proximately the same time, Weinberg (1972) first
described homophobia as "the fear by heterosexu-
als when in near proximity to homosexuals, and
the self-hatred felt by gays because of their homo-
sexuality" (p. 4). Others describe homophobia as
an "irrational fear and hatred of those who love
... [persons] of the same sex" (Pharr, 1988, p. 1),
connected to racism, sexism, and other "isms"
(Pharr; Plummer, 1992). Calhoun (2000) viewed
it as subordination, a totally sanctioned and sepa-
rate type of oppression.
^ ^ ^ ^ Homophobia is most often
accompanied by heterosex-
ism, bias that favors hetero-
sexual people as the norm and
heterosexual families as supe-
rior to other family forms.
According to Plummer (1992)
and Calhoun (2000), hetero-
^ ^ • ^ ^ sexism is dangerous and per-
vasive. It effectively silences
gay men and lesbians, placing
them "at the outside of civil society" (Calhoun, p.
76) and privileges heterosexual men and women.
It displaces gay men and lesbians from both the
public and private spheres, particularly the "sphere
of marriage and the family" (Calhoun, p. 76).

Attempts to promote inclusion of gay men and
lesbians as part of a pluralistic culture often meet
with overt and subtle resistance. This battle is not
new, and it is not confined to gay men and lesbi-
ans. Farley (2000) claimed, for instance, "much of
what is true about relations between African-
Americans and Whites, for example, is also true
about relations between males and females, gays
and straights, and people with and without dis-
abilities" (p. 12). Staff in social services organiza-
tions routinely struggle with acceptance of differ-
ence, particularly difference with regard to the
composition of families. In the recent past, inter-
est in adoption by single individuals, men, inter-
racial and transracial families, and gay men and
lesbians has pushed agencies and social workers to
weigh their commitment to multiculturalism
(Brooks, Goldberg, Berrick, 8c Austin, 1996;
Murray, 1996; Rodriguez & Meyer, 1990).
Sociai Worii I Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004
8 6
Laws and regulations, narrow definitions of
family, homophobia, and heterosexism limit the
possibility that lesbians and gay men will be con-
sidered as adoptive parents. The cumulative ef-
fect of actions by states, local jurisdictions, agen-
cies, and individual staff members is to prevent or
discourage consideration of their availability and
interest. Even if child welfare staff members
overcome these initial barriers, the decision-mak-

ing tool most often available to them may further
limit the inclusion of gay and lesbian families as
placement candidates. This standard, the "best
interest of the child," is used as a measure to guide
placement of children in the custody of the child
welfare system.
The Best Interest Decision-Mal<ing Standard
AH states allow social workers, judges, and profes-
sionals involved in the placement of children with
prospective adoptive families to apply the best
interest of the child standard for decision making
(Ricketts, 1991). This standard requires that child
welfare workers base their recommendations and
decisions on what is best for the child, not what is
best for the potential adoptive parents or the
agency and not the worker's personal opinion.
Workers must assess the match between short-
and long-term needs of the child or children
awaiting placement and the resources, strengths,
and vulnerabilities of a particular family.
However, the capacity of social workers to fully
and objectively assess parenting ability among a
range of family types may be limited. Berkman
and Zinberg (1997) found that heterosexism is
prevalent among social workers. Establishing a
preference for specific types of families in the
adoption arena, such as those formed by hetero-
sexual partners, is not new. Wolins (1959) found,
for example, that staff in child placement agencies
often used a subjective model of goodness, which
he compared to an unwritten continuum, to
evaluate the desirability of families. Depending on
the need for adoptive homes, specific applicant

families might be seen as desirable, merely accept-
able, or not at all worthy. Bradley (1967) indicated
that adoption workers in her study used a "psy-
chosocial appraisal... related to the positive qual-
ity of the couple's interaction in their marriage,
flexible and outgoing characteristics of both the
wife's and husband's personalities, the couple's
openness,... motivation for adoption,... marital
role performance, and acceptance of their infertil-
ity" (p. 122). Rather than applying objective deci-
sion-making criteria, a social worker's values, pre-
vious experience, and subjective judgment of par-
ticular families appear to drive approval and
placement decisions. Such subjective models and
unwritten criteria fail to acknowledge the viability
of gay and lesbian people and families as place-
ments or even accept them as a resource.
Literature suggests that considerations surround-
ing gay men and lesbians' suitability as adoptive
parents focus first on the applicants themselves.
These concerns include the mental health of the
applicant (Falk, 1989; Green, Mandel, Hotvedt,
Gray, & Smith, 1986), parenting skills (Cramer,
1986; Patterson, 2000a), and his or her relationship
quality and stability (Flaks, Ficher, Masterpasqua,
& Joseph, 1995; Koepke, Hare, & Moran, 1992).
Next, consideration focuses on the effect of gay or
lesbian adoption on the child's psychological and
psychosexual development (Allen & Burrell, 1996;
Falk, 1989; Gibbs, 1988; Green et al.; Knight &
Garcia, 1994; Patterson, 1992, 2000a), sexual safety
(Cramer, 1986; Falk, 1989; Knight & Garcia), and
social stigmatization (Donaldson, 2000). In addi-
tion, studies have examined permutations of these

subthemes among gay and lesbian biological and
adoptive families (Sullivan, 1995). Currently, no
empirical evidence demonstrates that living with a
gay or lesbian parent has any significant negative
effects on children (for an overview of the avail-
able research, see Patterson, 2000b).
In using the best interest standard, social work-
ers may be infiuenced by peers, supervisors, their
organizational context, and the larger sociocul-
tural arena, and this may restrict their decision
making. To more fully understand these infiu-
ences, we use systems theory focusing on the in-
trapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational lev-
els in our analysis.
Systems Theory: Intrapersonal,
Interpersonal, and Organizational Levels
Hall and Fagan (1956), in discussing the interac-
tion of people, social issues, and social phenomena,
defined a system as "a set of objects together with
relationships between the objects and between
their attributes... the [systemic] environment is
the set of all objects, a change in whose attributes
affect the system and also those objects whose at-
tributes are changed by the behavior of the sys-
tem" (pp. 18-21). A social worker's interpersonal
infiuences, such as peers and supervisors, as well
Ryan, Pearlmutter, and Croza / Coming Out of the Closet:
Opening Agencies to Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents
87

as other factors, including agency policies and
leadership, have an effect on the decision-making
process within a larger social and political context
(Figure 1). There are also confounding effects
from the interaction of these factors. Although the
proportional influence of each factor on an
individual's decision remains unclear, each factor
affects the decision-making process to varying
degrees (Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canda, 1998).
Each area possesses distinctive boundaries and
patterns. At the same time, there is interconnect-
edness among the factors. Through the permeable
boundaries, positive or negative effects can flow in
either direction. For instance, an individual can
sway a group and change agency policy and vice
versa (Robbins et al.).
Environmental and Societal Forces
Although adoption had been viewed for many
years as a service available to white middle- and
upper-income families, it has come to target a
much broader audience. Single-parent families,
people of various racial and ethnic groups, and
other nontraditional families are recruited to ob-
tain permanent placement for an increasing num-
ber of children waiting in the child welfare system
(Mallon, 2000).
Intrapersonal Influences
Two empirical studies have explored homophobia
among child welfare workers and its effect on
adoption placement recommendations (Ryan,

2000; Taylor, 1998). Taylor reported that his
sample of 50 child welfare workers in California
generally favored allowing adoptions by gay men
and lesbians. However, approximately one-third
of respondents thought that gay and lesbian adop-
tion applicants should not be able to adopt a child
younger than five years, and 25 percent believed
the child should be older than 15.
Ryan (2000), in a sample of 80 social workers,
found that attitudes toward gay men and lesbians
Figurel
Interactions between Systems in Decision Making about Cay
and Lesbian Adoptive Families
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
t .y
Organizational
Social Wort / Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004
8 8
as adoptive parents derive from childhood and
familial experiences as well as professional indoc-
trination. African American workers in his study
were more likely to exhibit heterosexist views
than workers from other racial or ethnic groups.
He reported that these views appear to be re-
lated to family and socialization experiences.

However, the receipt of special training was
highly effective in the formation of positive atti-
tudes and behaviors toward deciding the place-
ment of children with gay men or lesbians.
Ryan's research underscores that values and
morals developed through primary socialization
provide an important framework within which
individuals initially evaluate issues. To the extent
that child welfare workers use their own stan-
dards for decision-making pur-
poses, the best interest of the • • • •
child is often clouded in the
process. Brooks and Goldberg
(2001) noted that biased work-
ers can affect placements in a
number of ways: by question-
ing the parenting abilities of gay
and lesbian applicants, leaking
information to birth parents,
and not seeking out lesbian and
gay families.
Social workers who
advocate the placement of
a child with a gay man or
lesbian may be subjected to
ridicule, ostracism, and
other career-limiting
reactions.
Supervisor and Peer
Influences
In practice, a team, supervisory
group, or committee often participates in indi-

vidual adoption placement recommendations.
Although there is no research examining the in-
fluence among group members on the placement
recommendation, peer and supervisor influences
have been studied in other contexts. That research
suggests that the infiuence of groups can often
promote positive behavior through the use of so-
cial control and social learning methods. How-
ever, several studies have also demonstrated that
negative acts, including child abuse, aggression,
and antisocial behavior, can be shaped through
the group process (Bandura, 1973; Miller, Handal,
Gilner, & Cross, 1991; Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly,
1998). Thus, group infiuence on individual deci-
sion making can occur as social workers see the
actions of others in the group and the resulting
consequences; view the vicarious reinforcements,
which may be positive or negative, that serve to
infiuence the social worker's future behavior; and
integrate these observational infiuences into their
previous experiences.
In addition, when responsibility for action,
such as a placement recommendation, is spread
throughout a group, workers' attitudes and be-
havior may be affected. A social worker might
then disengage his or her personal system of
moral control and make decisions based on per-
ceptions of group reinforcement (Bandura, 1990;
Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli,
1996). Social workers may also be likely to imitate
the actions of individuals whom they perceive as
prestigious or similar to themselves, including a
supervisor, other respected professionals, col-
leagues, or peers (Bandura, 1986; Bandura &

Walters, 1963).
Such findings suggest that
^ ^ ^ ^ peers or supervisors with
whom an individual social
worker associates may have an
effect on the placement rec-
ommendation. Social workers
who advocate the placement
of a child with a gay man or
lesbian may be subjected to
ridicule, ostracism, and other
career-limiting reactions. One
social worker reported that
"[t]here still exists the reality
^ ^ • ^ ^ that a homophobic supervisor
will link prospective gay and
lesbian parents with a ho-
mophobic worker" (Brooks et al., 1996, p. 28). An
unbiased worker may initially recommend place-
ment to a lesbian or gay man, only to reconsider
his or her decision because of infiuence exerted by
a homophobic supervisor or other unit members
(Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). However, the
reverse may also be true. Peers and supervisors
can exert positive infiuences and reinforce the use
of the best interest standard. Well-informed
workers can guide gay men and lesbians through
the recruitment and placement processes (Brooks
& Goldberg, 2001).
Organizational Influences

Whereas "an agency's attitude toward placement
with gay men and lesbians can have profound im-
plications for recruitment and placement prac-
tices" (Brooks 8c Goldberg, 2001, p. 152) that in-
clude gay men and lesbians, organizational
practice has been slow to change. Many child
Opening Agencies to Cay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents
89
welfare agencies prefer couples to single parents,
middle-class to working-class or poorer families,
and nonkin to kin. However, such exclusions have
worked against the placement of special needs
children, including African American children,
older children, sibling groups, or gay and lesbian
youths. Such special needs children are precisely
those whom nontraditional, single-parent, or
working-class families and racial and ethnic group
families—rather than traditional, white, two-par-
ent, middle-class families—are more willing to
adopt (Rodriguez & Meyer, 1990).
Agency policy regarding adoptions by gay men
and lesbians can also be covert, with no explicitly
written guidelines (Reilly, 1996). As a result,
adoption workers may erroneously assume that
gay or lesbian adoptions are not legal in their
state. Ryan (1996) found that 14 percent of the
social workers he surveyed would not place a child
with a gay man or lesbian because they believed
these placements were either against the law or in

opposition to agency policy, neither of which was
true. Covert exclusion may avoid confrontation
with community stakeholders. However, hidden
policies provide no uniform guidance to staff and
encourage individual interpretations of laws and
regulations (Pandukht, 1998; Reilly). In addition,
ambiguous policies create misinformation among
workers. Many agencies, in an indirect attempt to
be inclusive, have instituted a "don't ask, don't
tell" approach to avoid conflicts with those in
their communities who are opposed to adoptions
by gay men and lesbians. Yet, policies to guide
professional behavior are obstructed by such se-
crecy and informality (Sullivan, 1995). Reilly as-
serted that "[t]he failure of... agencies to provide
written direction or regulation on the placement
of children in gay and lesbian homes is a disser-
vice to children" (p. 112).
Child welfare agency managers are often
caught in a dilemma when staff members make a
determination to place children with gay men or
lesbians. Influential stakeholders from outside the
agency, as well as within, may hold negative views
of gay and lesbian adoptive parents. Although
some agency representatives covertly allow adop-
tions by gay men and lesbians to occur, such se-
crecy helps to maintain the status quo of worker
confusion, gay and lesbian exclusion, and waiting
children.
Policy statements from professional organiza-
tions that include child welfare staff and adminis-
trators could positively influence organizational
and individual social worker behavior. The

American Psychiatric Association, the American
Psychological Association, the American Academy
of Pediatrics, and NASW have all adopted official
policy statements that explicitly address the place-
ment of children with gay men or lesbians
(American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002; Ricketts,
1991). The American Psychiatric Association's
(1986) policy on adoptions by gay men or lesbians
states that "single factors such as homosexuality
should not necessarily or automatically rule out
the selection of a potential adoptive parent" (p.
1506). The American Psychological Association,
in 1974, after removing homosexuality from its
list of mental disorders, adopted the following
resolution: "Homosexuality per se implies no im-
pairment of judgment, stability, reliability, or gen-
eral social and vocational capabilities" (1975, p.
1). The organization later adopted the following
resolution: "Sex, gender identity, or sexual orien-
tation of prospective adoptive parents should not
be the sole or primary variable considered in
placement" (1976, p. 1). The NASW Code of Ethics
(2000) states, "Social workers should not practice,
condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form
of discrimination on the basis of... sexual orien-
tation" (Section 4.02).
The Child Welfare League of America, the
nation's oldest and largest child advocacy group,
is more explicit in its assertion that lesbians and
gay men seeking to adopt shall be judged by the
same standards that apply to heterosexuals: "All
applicants should have an equal opportunity to
apply for the adoption of children and receive
fair and equal treatment and consideration of
their qualifications as adoptive parents ... [and

that] sexual preference should not be the sole
criterion on which the suitability of adoptive ap-
plicants is based" (2000, pp. 47-50). However,
even with these official policies in place, the ef-
fect on individual agencies and their staff is not
clear.
Practice Implications
The characteristics and definitions of family
change with the realities of demographic shifts in
this country. However, application of the best in-
terest standard can become more inclusive only if
workers, their supervisors, and child welfare orga-
nizations begin to consciously accept gay and les-
bian people as potential adoptive parents.
Social Wort/Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004
90
Aligning Personal Attitudes, Beliefs, and
Behaviors with Professional Guidelines
A primary intervention tool for changing behav-
ior is the use of training. Ryan (2000) found that
training focused specifically on adoptions by gay
men and lesbians was the most significant predic-
tor of social worker placement recommendation.
Others have also noted the positive effects of gen-
eral training on attitudes held toward gay men
and lesbians (Ben-Ari, 1998; Christensen &
Sorensen, 1994; Serdahely & Ziemba, 1984; Wells,
1991). Trainers should begin this work by helping
social workers define their beliefs and attitudes

about gay men and lesbians, including attitudes
about them as parents. Identifying individual val-
ues and beliefs regarding this issue is essential to
the growth process (Taylor, 1998).
A strong association exists between Western
Judeo-Christian theology and negative attitudes
toward gay men and lesbians (Crawford &
SoUiday, 1996). Training for individual workers
might include information about current inter-
pretations of biblical references to help modify
attitudes (Boswell, 1980). Finally, training should
focus on communication and problem solving
around workers' concerns or discomfort in assess-
ing and working with gay and lesbian applicants.
Research suggests that interventions directly
addressing stereotypes and unfounded beliefs
may be most effective in countering negative atti-
tudes toward gay men and lesbians as parents
(Crawford & SoUiday, 1996). Adoption workers
could meet v«th gay and lesbian applicants, birth
families, and adoptive families (Berkman &
Zinberg, 1997; Herek, 1988; Herek & Glunt,
1993), thereby enlisting collective support. Other
strategies for changing attitudes have been sug-
gested. For instance, special committees focused
on gay and lesbian issues within an agency "in-
creased the visibility of gay/lesbian employees and
have led to a more tolerant attitude [among
staff]" (Brooks et al., 1996, p. 26). Providing social
workers with information from relevant research
may further help to Uluminate and broaden their
perceptions of family. For example, the majority
of students in one study attributed their attitude
changes to meeting with a gay man and his

mother and obtaining additional theoretical and
empirical information about gay men and lesbians
(Ben-Ari, 1998).
Child welfare workers also need to understand
how to apply the best interest standard in ways
that are inclusive. In training, they should be en-
couraged to examine applicant information and
materials with an awareness of the child's needs
and interests, recognizing that their own values
may impede that process. Definitions of family
could be discussed and broadened in a training or
educational setting so that workers begin their
consideration of applicants from a larger pool of
adoptive candidates.
Conversely, some academics suggest that the
long-term effect of training on gay and lesbian
issues is negligible (Berkman & Zinberg, 1997).
More research is needed to ascertain the veracity
of this claim and the potential source of such ero-
sion. Continued vigilance appears crucial to
maintaining an open dialogue among workers on
the issue of gay and lesbian adoption.
Moderating Supervisor and Peer Influences
As noted earlier, homophobic peers or supervisors
might negatively infiuence an accepting social
worker. Most training focuses on the individual
social worker. In this instance, training could ad-
dress the effects of agency policy and other em-
ployees, providing workers with tools and strate-
gies to implement new policies and deal vnth
other system constraints. To counter any negative

effects of supervisors, peers, or other groups.
Brooks and colleagues (1996) described one
agency's practice of having representatives of the
gay and lesbian community present at the meeting
at which placements are considered. This practice
humanizes the victims of prejudicial behavior
(Bandura, 1990) and reminds decision makers of
their responsibility to consider the best interest of
the child rather than the sexual orientation of the
applicants.
The inclusion of a gay or lesbian community
representative, the hiring of gay and lesbian social
workers, or both, could shift the power balance
within the group, providing more support for
consideration of placements with gay and lesbian
applicants. Bandura (1977) indicated that because
behavior is learned, it can be unlearned as well.
Thus, interacting with gay and lesbian coworkers
and community members can help social workers
become comfortable working with gay and lesbian
applicants.
Given that compliance is also possible despite
individual personal attitudes, supervisors can
serve as positive role models for social workers
through their inclusion of diverse family forms in
91
the placement process. The supervisory process

can also help social work staff address overt and
covert discrimination through reminders that gay
or lesbian people can be considered as adoptive
parents (in all states except Florida, Mississippi,
and Utah [which prohibit adoption by all unmar-
ried couples]), discussion of professional stan-
dards and ethics, and creation of a system for
monitoring placement recommendations. Last,
supervisors can support development of clear,
inclusive organizational policies that recognize
and incorporate family diversity. Such policies
would permit many types of families to be consid-
ered as adoptive parents using the best interest
standard. These policies would encourage deci-
sions "based on the strengths and needs of the
child and the perceived ability of the prospective
adoptive family to meet those needs and develop
those strengths" (Mallon, 2000, p. 14).
Organizational Changes
Only a few laws or policies explicitly require child
welfare organizations to consider gay and lesbian
applicants equally with heterosexual individuals in
child placement decisions. This double standard
for placement decisions seems antithetical to a
mission of social justice and runs counter to the
ethical guidelines of NASW and recommenda-
tions from the Child Welfare League of America,
the American Psychiatric Association, the Ameri-
can Psychological Association, and other organi-
zations. The clear positions these professional or-
ganizations have taken can provide an agency
with support to implement inclusive policies, pro-
cedures, and practices.

Although decision makers' lack of guidance
may encourage ambiguity and homophobia, these
position statements can provide legitimacy for an
organization's positive actions in the larger pro-
fessional community. In addition, agencies can
engage community activists knowledgeable on
adoption by gay and lesbian individuals to assist
in developing clear policies that help remove this
veil of ambiguity.
One important step in presenting an agency's
position to the public and potential opposition
groups is preparation for public discussions and
questions. Such preparation is paramount for two
key reasons. First, gay and lesbian issues routinely
evoke heated debate, particularly as they relate to
family formation. Second, it is impossible to edu-
cate through argument without each side becom-
ing further entrenched and polarized in its respec-
tive position. To assist in the preparatory process,
various scenarios should be role-played by identi-
fying and rehearsing potential responses to public
and media questions about gay and lesbian adop-
tions (Reardon, 1981).
Professionals should begin by emphasizing
those things on which all parties agree (Reardon,
1981), including the need for and desire to pro-
vide permanent, loving homes for children in fos-
ter care. Focusing on this idea would encourage
decisions using the best interest standard. Another
point to emphasize in the discussion is the cost-
benefit of permanency, using data on the costs
and effects of keeping children in nonpermanent
placements.

When engaging those who criticize recruitment
of gay and lesbian adoptive families, social work-
ers might impress on them the great need for
adoptive homes and seek their assistance in locat-
ing families through their churches, neighbor-
hoods, organizations, or extended family mem-
bers. However, the critics should not define the
discussion. Opponents may argue against an
agency's actions in biblical terms, accusing the
agency, commissioners, council members, and
others of condoning homosexuality. Answers to
inquiries can instead reframe the focus on areas of
agreement, such as the best interest of the child
and permanency or constitutionality and civil
rights. Forming coalitions around the reframed
issue may increase organizational strength
(Reardon, 1981; Schneider, 1985).
When organizational staff members engage
individuals and groups in a discussion of gay and
lesbian adoption, they should identify the affective
or cognitive source of the concern first. Affective
needs, such as feelings of fear and disgust, should
be addressed before other information is given.
This provision of empathy lets the other party
know that he or she is being heard without neces-
sarily acknowledging agreement or acquiescence.
The empathic connection should then make room
for cognitive information, such as why the fear is
not warranted, to be better received and processed
(Rogers, 1951).
"Message senders" influence the ways in which
an audience receives intended messages (Reardon,
1981). Thus, establishing a cadre of researchers

and experts to whom the agency could direct the
media for independent comments that support
the agency's position or practice would help to
Social Wort/Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004
92
reframe the question and educate the community.
Organizations should project a unified position
through all written and verbal correspondence on
this issue. Consensus between key internal stake-
holders can be achieved through reframing as out-
lined earlier—focusing on the waiting children
and their need for permanency and away from
applicants' sexual orientation.
At the organizational level too, leaders must
emerge to create and implement clear and inclu-
sive adoption policies that positively influence
staffs' decision making and perceptions. They can
begin to ensure that the best interest standard is
uniformly applied and that it considers both het-
erosexual and gay and lesbian families as prospec-
tive adoptive families.
Conclusion
Social work professionals have a responsibility to
challenge problems that have been socially sanc-
tioned and created. Leadership requires doing
what is right, not necessarily what is popular or
consistent with expressed community standards
and values. Working to ensure the best interests of

children may require joining the fight against gay
and lesbian prejudice. A recognition of struggles
in the civil rights movement and the women's
movement can help us understand how such nor-
mative prejudice has denied large segments of the
population full participation in society. These
struggles also help identify the significance of any
change in values, attitudes, and behaviors that
were once perceived as acceptable.
No one has the right to adopt; children do have
a right to loving, permanent homes. This article
has proposed that one step toward that goal is a
critical re-evaluation at the intrapersonal, inter-
personal, and organizational levels of the ways in
which the best interest of the child standard is de-
fmed and applied. •
References
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, P.L. 105-89,
111 Stat. 2115. See also http://www.abanet.org/ftp/
pub/child/pl 105-89.txt
AFCARS. (2002). Adoption and foster care analysis and
reporting system. Retrieved November 4, 2003, from
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/
afcars/report8.pdf
Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (1996). Comparing the impact
of homosexual and heterosexual parents on chil-
dren: Meta-analysis of existing research. Journal of
Homosexuality, 32(2), 19-35.
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2002). Coparent or
second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Re-

trieved February 27, 2003, from http://www.aap.
org/policy/020008.html
American Psychiatric Association. (1986). Position
statement on discrimination in selection of foster
parents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 1506.
American Psychological Association. (1975). Policy
statements on lesbian, gay, and bisexual concerns:
Discrimination against homosexuals. Retrieved June
2000, from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbpolicy/
child.html
American Psychological Association. (1976). Policy
statements on lesbian, gay, and bisexual concerns:
Child custody or placement. Retrieved June 2000,
from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbpolicy/against.html
Appell, A. R. (2001). Lesbian and gay adoption. Adop-
tion Quarterly, 4, 75-86.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analy-
sis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and
action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1990). Selective activation and disengage-
ment of moral control. Journal of Social Issues, 46,
27-46.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C , Caprara, G., & Pastorelli,

C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in
the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71, 364-374.
Bandura, A., & Walter, R. (1963). Social learning and
personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Ben-Ari, A. (1998). An experiential attitude change:
Social work students and homosexuality. Journal of
Homosexuality, 36(2), 59-71.
Berkman, C , & Zinberg, G. (1997). Homophobia and
heterosexism in social workers. Social Work, 42,
319-332.
Boswell, J. (1980). Christianity, social tolerance, and
homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bradley, T. (1967). An exploration of caseworkers' per-
ceptions of adoptive applicants. New York: Child
Welfare League of America.
Brodzinsky, D. (2002). Adoption agency perspectives
on lesbian and gay prospective parents: A national
study. Adoption Quarterly, 5(3), 5-23.
Brooks, D., Barth, R., Bussiere, A., & Patterson, G.
(1999). Adoption and race: Implementing the Mul-
tiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) and the Interethnic
Adoption Provisions. Social Work, 44, 167-178.
Brooks, D., & Goldberg, S. (2001). Gay and lesbian
adoptive and foster care placements: Can they meet
the needs of waiting children? Social Work, 46, 147-
157.

93
Brooks, D., Goldberg, S., Berrick, J., & Austin, M.
(1996). Considerations relating to the placement of
children in gay/lesbian foster and adoptive homes.
Berkeley, CA: Bay Area Social Services Consortium.
Calhoun, C. (2000). Feminism, the family, and the poli-
tics of the closet: Lesbian and gay displacement. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Chibbaro, L., Jr. (2002). Most agencies OK gay adop-
tions. Retrieved February 27, 2003, from http://
www.hrc.org/familynet/newsstand.asp?ID= 1866
Child Welfare League of America. (2000). Standards for
adoption service (rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Christensen, S., & Sorensen, L. (1994). Effects of a
multi-factor education program on the attitude of
child and youth worker students towards gays and
lesbians. Child and Youth Care Forum, 23, 119-133.
Cramer, D. (1986). Gay parents and their children: A
review of research and practical implications. Jour-
nal of Counseling and Development, 64, 504-507.
Crawford, 1., & SoUiday, E. (1996). The attitudes of
undergraduate college students toward gay
parenting. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(4), 63-77.

Donaldson, C. (2000). Midlife lesbian parenting. Jour-
nal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services: Issues in Prac-
tice, Policy, &Research, 11,119-138.
Falk, P. (1989). Lesbian mothers: Psychological as-
sumptions in family law. American Psychologist, 44,
941-947.
Farley, J. (2000). Majority-minority relations (4th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ferrero, E., Freker, J., & Foster, T., with Coles, M.,
Cooper, L , & Esseks, J. (2002). Too high a price: The
case against restricting gay parenting. New York:
American Civil Liberties Union.
Flaks, D. K., Ficher, 1., Masterpasqua, F., & Joseph, G.
(1995). Lesbians choosing motherhood: A compara-
tive study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and
their children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 105-
114.
Gibbs, E. D. (1988). Psychosocial development of chil-
dren raised by lesbian mothers: A review of re-
search. Women and Therapy, 8, 65-75.
Green, R., Mandel, J., Hotvedt, M., Gray, J., & Smith,
L. (1986). Lesbian mothers and their children: A
comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers
and their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15,
167-184.
Groze, V. (1996). Successful adoptive families: A longitu-
dinal study of special needs adoption. New York:
Praeger.

Hall, A., & Fagan, R. (1956). Definition of system. Gen-
eral Systems, 1, 18-28.
Herek, G. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward les-
bians and gay men: Correlates and gender differ-
ences. Journal of Sex Research, 25,451—477.
Herek, G., & Glunt, E. (1993). Interpersonal contact
and heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men: Re-
sults from a national survey. Journal of Sex Research,
30, 239-244.
HoUinger, J. H. (Ed.). (1999). Adoption law and prac-
tice. New York: Matthew Bender.
Knight, R., & Garcia, D. (1994). Homosexual parenting:
Bad for children, bad for society. Washington, DC:
Family Research Council.
Koepke, L., Hare, J., & Moran, P. B. (1992). Relation-
ship quality in a sample of lesbian couples with chil-
dren and child-free lesbian couples. Family Rela-
tions, 41, 224-229.
LetHimStay. (2002). The big picture: Gay parenting and
the law. Retrieved September 20, 2002, from http://
www.lethimstay.com/bigpicture_parenting.html
Mallon, G. P. (2000). Gay men and lesbians as adoptive
parents. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services,
ii(4), 1-22.
Miller, T., Handal, P., Gilner, F., & Cross, J. (1991).
The relationship of abuse and witnessing violence

on the Child Abuse Potential Inventory with black
adolescents. Journal of Family Violence, 6, 351-363.
Murray, S. (1996). "We all love Charles": Men in child
care and the social construction of gender. Gender
and Society, 10, 368-385.
National Association of Social Workers. (2000). Code of
ethics of the National Association of Social Workers
(Section 4.02). Retrieved October 30, 2002, from
http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/default.htm
Pandukht, K. (1998, October). Adoption in the gay and
lesbian community: Legal, policy and social issues.
Unpublished master's thesis. University of Califor-
nia, Irvine. (UMI No. 1390134., MAI 35/05, p. 1275)
Patterson, C. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay par-
ents. Child Development, 63,1025-1042.
Patterson, C. (2000a). Family relationships of lesbians
and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
62, 1052-1069.
Patterson, C. (2000b, February 23). Lesbian and gay
parenting: A resource for psychologists. Retrieved Oc-
tober 2002, from http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
Pharr, S. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism.
Inverness, CA: Chardon Press.
Plummer, K. (1992). Speaking its name: Inventing les-
bian and gay studies. In K. Plummer (Ed.), Modern
homosexualities: Fragments of lesbian and gay experi-
ences (pp. 3-26). London: Routledge.

Reardon, K. (1981). Persuasion: Theory and context.
Beverly HUls, CA: Sage Publications.
Reilly, T. (1996). Gay and lesbian adoptions: A theo-
retical examination of policy-making and organiza-
tional decision making. Journal of Sociology and So-
cial Welfare, 4,99-115.
Ricketts, W. (1991). Lesbians and gay men as foster par-
ents. Portland, ME: National Child Welfare Re-
source Center for Child and Family Policy.
Ricketts, W., & Achtenberg, R. (1989). Adoption and
foster parenting for lesbians and gay men: Creating
Social Work / Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004
94
Scott D. Ryan, PhD, RPT-S, is assistant professor,
School of Social Work, Florida State University,
Tallahassee, FL 32306-2570; e-mail: [email protected]
fsu.edu. Sue Pearlmutter, PhD, is assistant profes-
sor, and Victor Groza, PhD, is professor, Mandel
School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Re-
serve University, Cleveland.
Original manuscript received February 4, 2002
Final revision received November 11, 2002
Accepted February 3, 2003
new traditions in family. Marriage and Family Re-
view, i4, 8 3 - n 6 .

Riggs, D. (1999, Summer). Two steps forward, one step
back: Single and gay adoption in North America.
Adoptalk [Online]. Retrieved November 4, 2003,
from http://www.nacac.org/adoptalk articles/two
steps.html
Robbins, S., Chatterjee, P., & Canda, E. (1998). Con-
temporary human behavior theory: A critical perspec-
tive for social work. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Robinson, S., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. (1998). Monkey see,
monkey do: The influence of work groups on the
antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 41, 658-672.
Rodriguez, P., & Meyer, A. (1990). Minority adoptions
and agency practices. Social Work, 35, 528-531.
Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Practice,
implications, and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Ryan, S. (1996). Adoption workers' attitudes toward ho-
mosexuals as adoptive parents. tJnpublished manu-
script.
Ryan, S. (2000). Examining social workers' placement
recommendations of children with gay and lesbian
adoptive parents. Families in Society, 81, 517-528.
Schneider, J. (1985). Social problems theory: The con-
structionist view. Annual Review of Sociology, 11,
209-229.
Serdahely, W., & Ziemba, G. (1984). Changing ho-
mophobic attitudes through college sexuality educa-
tion. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 109-116.

Sullivan, A. (1995). Policy issues. In A. Sullivan (Ed.),
Issues of gay and lesbian adoption: Proceedings of the
Fourth Annual Pierce-Warwick Adoption Symposium
(pp. 1-9). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League
of America.
Taylor, M. (1998, October). Attitudes of social workers
toward gay and lesbian adoption. Unpublished
master's thesis, California State University, Long
Beach. (UMI No. 1390139, MAI 36/05, p. 1276)
U.S. Census Bureau. (1996, May). National households
and families projections. Retrieved June 2000, from
http://www.census.gov/population/www/projec-
tions/nathh.ktml
U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). America's families and
living arrangements: March 2000. In J. Fields & L.
M. Casper (Eds.), Current population reports (Series
P-20, No. 537). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homo-
sexual. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Wells, J. (1991). What makes a difference? Various
teaching strategies to reduce homophobia in univer-
sity students. Annals of Sex Research, 3, 229-238.
Wolins, M. (1959). The problem of choice in foster
home finding. Social Work, 4, 40-48.

The Department of Veterans Affairs' INTERPROFESSIONAL
PALUATIVE CARE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM in Academic
Year
2004-20Q5 for Social Woriiers. The goai of the largest
intefprofessional
fellowship program is to develop clinicians with the vision,
knowledge,
and commitment to lead palliative care into the 21st century.
You wiil be
part of a Medical Center interdisciplinary palliative care team
making an
impact in a hospice, geriatric, or end-of-iife/pain management
setting.
Your training will involve hands^n clinical work integrated with
quality
small-group academic instruction and didactics. Your
fellowship can be
personally tailored to fit your educationai needs with eiective
experiences at participating local medical facilities and
university
medical school programs to include: Stanford Univ., Mt. SInal,
UCLA,
Oregon HSU, Univ. of Texas HSC, Univ. of Wisconsin-
Madison, Marquette Univ, etc. There are 6 Fellowship Sites:
Bronx,
NY; Los Angeles. CA; Milwaukee, Wl; Palo Alto, CA; Portland,
OR; &
San Antonio, TX. All fellowships last for 12 months unless
othenwise
noted and begin in July, August or September depending on the
site
and discipline. Ail fellows must have graduated from accredited
educationai programs in their respective professions, be a U.S.
citizen,
have active, unrestricted licenses (depending on the discipline)
to

practice in the U.S., & show a career interest in palliative care.
The
Bronx, Los Angeles (two 6-month slots), Milwaukee, San
Antonio, &
Paio Alto sites accept Master's, post-master's. & doctoral level
social
work fellow applications. Stipends & Benefits - As a VA
Fellow, you are
a VA Employee and paid a stipend (depending on your
discipline and
credentials). Only 1-year fellows are eligible for VA health and
life
insurance benefits. Opportunities after the Fellowship - We
make every
effort to support you in your next career step. Fellows are under
no
obligation to work for the VA after completion of the program.
For more
information, please contact Mike Ellis at (650) 493-5000, ext.
63631 or
Mlchael.Elli82 @ med.va.gov
Please visit us on the worldwide web at: www.hosplce.va.gov
95
Final draft Research Paper
Style:
____ MLA Style is used for the entire essay, including in-text
citation parentheticals and the Works Cited page
____ One-inch margins are used for top, bottom, right, and left

margins
____ 12-point font (Times New Roman)
____ Double-spacing on entire text, including the works cited
list
____ Heading on the first page only. A header (last name and
page number) appears on all pages
____ Quotations of five or more lines are written as block
quotations. (This means indenting them one inch from the one-
inch margin and keeping every line indented until the end of the
quote.)
____ NO lines skipped/extra spaces between paragraphs
____ Second person “you” and “your” is not used anywhere in
the essay
Sources:
____ 1 print source included
____ at least 1 source from online database (be sure the
database title is included in the Works Cited page entry)
____ List of Works Cited includes no fewer than4 sources and
no more than 6
____ Every source listed on the Works Cited page is used
somewhere in the essay, and every source used somewhere in
the essay is listed in the Works Cited
____Works Cited is in ABC order and entries are written with
hanging indents
____ All quotations are integrated with your own words (use
signal phrases/framing words)
____ BOTH direct quotes AND indirect quotes/paraphrasing
from sources are included
____ All in-text citations lead readers directly to the first
word(s) of the correlating Works Cited page entry; in other
words, the in-text citations and works cited page entries match
____ No in-text citation is written as a web address (There is
NEVER a time when this is the correct information for the
parenthetical.)
____ All information that comes from a source is cited; there is
NO possibility of plagiarism anywhere in the essay

Content:
___ Topic is debatable and shows an in-depth exploration of an
ethical issue
___ Essay speaks to a general audience, has a clear purpose (to
persuade), and establishes context of the issue
___ Introduction has a strong, specific, and debatable
thesis/claim that shows your stance on the debate
___ Your position on the ethical issue is clear; logic and
reasons are explained thoroughly
___ Opposing viewpoints to your position are discussed and
reasons are given to explain why your position is the strongest
one to argue
___ Assumptions and consequences for each position are
explained
___ Content is persuasive and clearly chooses a side to get
readers to agree with
___There is a good balance of personal voice and research
information
___ Conclusion is strong and sums up your views about the
issue
___ Paper has good organization and is cohesive
___ Paper has been proofread and edited to the best of your
abilities
2

Writing Assignment #2Contemporary Issues in Employment Law.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Writing Assignment #2Contemporary Issues in Employment Law.docx

Similar to Writing Assignment #2Contemporary Issues in Employment Law.docx (14)

More from odiliagilby

More from odiliagilby (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Writing Assignment #2Contemporary Issues in Employment Law.docx