By Diogenes (articles ) | Mar 22, 2007

The NCR's Chuck Colbert "reports" (if I may abuse the word) on Gregory Maguire and Andy Newman, a gay couple raising a family in Concord, Massachusetts. It turns out -- don't be shocked -- that everything is just fine.

All three children -- two boys and a girl, ages 5, 6 and 9 -- were adopted from countries in Latin America and Southeast Asia. They are by Maguireā€™s account "noisy, smart and obedient within a range," having settled comfortably into an all-American way of life, with interests varying from ballet and piano to soccer and computer games. They are well-liked by their friends, Maguire said, adding, "We have yet to hear or face in nine years living in Concord any resistance to us as a gay couple with a family."

OK, suppose that at some point along the way one of the kiddies should say, "I want a mother," and makes the wish known outside the family -- say, to a rather contra-Concordian schoolteacher who rephrases the child's desire as "I have the right to a mother," and finds a lawyer. What counts as the age of reason? When can the prerogative of leaving home for another family be exercised? How would the state (adept at using individual rights to permit same-sex unions and no-fault divorce) justify the refusal to let a minor citizen pursue licit individual interest -- and that in a way congruent with its pro-mother preference in cases of contested child custody?

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 5 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Mar. 23, 2007 8:40 AM ET USA

    Novus744 asked which kids were doing ballet and which kids were doing soccer. Does it matter? Which activity is inappropriate for which sex?

  • Posted by: - Mar. 22, 2007 1:23 PM ET USA

    Which kids were doing ballet, and which kids were doing soccer?

  • Posted by: - Mar. 22, 2007 11:17 AM ET USA

    That's not life in the Land of Upside Down. If the child expressed desire to leave the household, it would be viewed as evidence of a need for therapy (to deal with society's hostility or whatever). No adult advocate could intervene. Courts invented gay marriage; undermining it is a slap at their power. The advocating teacher or lawyer would be outcasts, labelled as hateful. (And "mother" is legally meaningless even outside MA; nearly all states forbid custody preference based on gender.)

  • Posted by: - Mar. 22, 2007 10:21 AM ET USA

    Funny, I read the article. If I did not know they were talking about children I would have assumed it was about their pets. Then again, maybe it was.

  • Posted by: - Mar. 22, 2007 6:19 AM ET USA

    The conclusion here is problematic: it suggests that children have a "right" to divorce their parents. This is not the law, and it is bad policy. If a child is abused, the child, or anyone else, can report it and, if the abuse is substantiated, child protective proceedings will probably be initiated. Adoption by a homosexual couple is generally bad for the child. That doesn't mean that, once an adoption has occurred, by heterosexual or homosexual couples, the child has the right to cancel it.