Hello,

I have decided that I would like to address the issue of gay adoptees - namely, the unique challenges faced by gay adoptees. For starters I have a longish quote...then I have a message that I sent to my adoptive mother last night (a message concerning the Canadian 'same-sex' marriage proposal. Even if you are not a gya person, I do believe that you will be engaged byt the note that I wrote to my adoptive mom. Thanks for reading this and I do look forward to replies about this often ignored aspect of 'adoptee rights'.

So, here are twos comments to think about -- the letter to my adoptive mother is item #3.

#1 -- I would like to share this quote from Eve Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet (1990) pg. 75. Dr. Sedgwick is remarking on how homophobia is quite distinct from other oppressions. In doing so, though, she also touches upon - to me anyway - the dilemna of an adopted person (perhaps even especially one who was adopted under a 'sealed-records' policy). The quote reads:
"Vibrantly resonant as the image of the closet is for many modern oppressions, it is indicative for homophobia in a way that it cannot be for any other oppressions. Racism, for instance, is based on a stigma that is visible in all but exceptional cases...; so are the oppressions based on gender, age, size, physical handicap. Ethnic/cultural/religious oppressions such as anti-Semitism are more analogous in that the stigmatized individual has at least notionally some discretion -- although, importantly it is never to be taken for granted how much -- over other people's knowledge of her or his memebership in the group; one could "come out as" a Jew or Gypsy, in an heterogeneous urbanized society, much more intelligibly than one could typically "come out as" say, female, Black, old, a wheelchair user, or fat. A Jewish or Gypsy identity, and hence a Jewish or Gypsy secrecy or closet, would nonetheless differ again from the distinctive gay versions of these things in its clear ancestral linearity, in the roots (however tortuous and ambivalent) of cultural identification through each individuals originary culture of (at a minimum) the family.
Epistemology of the Closet (1990)
E. K. Sedgwick

#2 - Now, although you will most likely see the connections, I have added/suggested the word "adoptee" - along with some other stuff I thought relevanti - in square "[ ]' brackets. Dr. Sedgwick is specifically, however, referring to the plight of a homosexual person. Imagine being BOTH gay and adopted ?! I am...My annotated version reads:
"Vibrantly resonant as the image of the closet is for many modern oppressions, it is indicative for homophobia [ or adoptees?] in a way that it cannot be for any other oppressions [(sic)]. Racism, for instance, is based on a stigma that is visible in all but exceptional cases...; so are the oppressions based on gender, age, size, physical handicap.
Ethnic/cultural/religious oppressions such as anti-Semitism are more analogous in that the stigmatized individual has at least notionally some discretion -- although, importantly it is never to be taken for granted how much -- over other people's knowledge of her or his memebership in the group [ and perhaps adoptees here too?].
One could "come out as" a Jew or Gypsy, in an heterogeneous urbanized society, much more intelligibly than one could typically "come out as" say, female, Black, old, a wheelchair user, or fat.
A Jewish or Gypsy identity, and hence a Jewish or Gypsy secrecy or closet, would nonetheless differ again from the distinctive gay [or adoptee?] versions of these things in its clear ancestral linearity [often adoptees too have no access to their ancestry, or birth parent lineage...], in the roots - however tortuous and ambivalent - of cultural identification [do adoptees necessarily feel a cultural identification with their adoptive families?] through each individuals originary culture of (at a minimum) the family [ again, are adoptees secure in their "originary culture of their adoptive families?].


FINALLY #3 (the note that I sent to my mom yesterday...)

...from a press release by 'REAL women of Canada' --
entitled "MARTIN CAUCHON - A SPIN DOCTOR ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ISSUE"
(issued July 17, 2003):
"The marriage bond between opposite-sex couples is the
foundation of our society and is the relationship,
according to former Supreme Court of Canada judge,
Gerard LaForest that is firmly anchored in the
biological and social realities that heterosexual
couples have the unique ability to procreate, that
most children are the product of these relationships,
and that they are generally cared for and nurtured
by those who live in that relationship. In this sense,
marriage is by nature heterosexual."
---Okay, well the inconsistencies evidenced herein are obvious. Namely, given the fact that you were unable to produce biological children - along with the fact that should I choose to do so I could (my physiology would not prevent it) - then therefore, how can marriage 'be' for the "unique ability to procreate." Given that you did not procreate...does that make your marriage equivalent to the (ill-informed) definition of a 'gay' marriage?

...from a press release by 'REAL women of Canada' --
entitled "CANADA'S PRO-HOMOSEXUAL POLICIES QUESTIONED
YESTERDAY AT THE UNITED NATIONS"
(issued from Geneva, Switzerland, on June 11, 2003):
"A 1996 Statistics Canada longitudinal study, disclosed
that children thrive best in an environment consisting
of their biological mother and father. Children who do
not have this advantage are far more likely to experience
out-of-wedlock pregnancy, poor school performance,
early school drop-out and difficulties with the law, etc.
Children have the right to the best chance in life."
---Once again, the biological aspect is emphasized. Do you think that I would have been better off with my birth parents?? Moreso have I ever evidenced anything, to cite an example from the above, that was less than exemplary school performance...let alone out-of-wedlock pregnancy??!

...from an article in the Ottawa Citizen -- entitled
"Religious leaders divided over same-sex marriage:
Coalition warns PM of dangers of legalizing homosexual
unions" (written by Bob Harvey, for The Ottawa Citizen
dated Saturday, July 19, 2003):
"But they should leave marriage. It needs special treatment,
because children come from a male and a female, and marriage
is an institution meant and geared for that," said Archbishop
Gervais."
---I must admit that indeed children obviously DO come from a man and a woman. Yet, what people are forgetting in this particular social debate is that gay men (and gay women) have been getting married (and have produced offspring) for thousands of years. The question of "gays being able to marry" is moot -- gays have been marrying ...they have just been marrying (for whatever reasons) members of the opposite sex.
Furthermore, as a Protestant, one should be wary of accepting any edict issued from the Bishop of Rome -- let alone one from one of his less than intelligent minions (i.e. the Archbishop Gervais...)

[bajohnson]

connor,
I'm not really sure what you are looking for. Are you looking for someone to tell you that the letter to your A Mom was a good thing? Are you looking for a fight? Are you looking for validation?

I'm guessing that from the semi-harsh words to your Mom, that she is against, or less than enthusiastic about your being gay. Are you trying to hurt her back?
I'm only asking, because you asked for comments, and I'm not quite sure what you want comments on.
Good luck to you, I hope you find what you are looking for.
B

[nicolebrooks]

I don't think the letter was written in a hurtful manner, rather an analictical response based on the "facts" used as justification why homosexuals should not marry or be parents.

When seeing this post, while I would love to respond, I do not want to stray from the intended subject matter. That being said, could you (Connor-) tell me how you feel and what you feel is unjust or invalidated?

As an aside, I have often thought about the recognition of marriage and the formalities that usually follow. I'm 28, live in SF CA with my boyfriend, have 3 fathers and several married friends. I believe in spirituality however claim no religion.

Miracles happen often, by nature, they are often unrecognized. This does not make them unreal.

THe marriage of sperm and egg is an embryo.

[Missy M]

Well Dang...what can I say? What exactly are you saying? Please clue me.....Missy

[ballet_slippers]

I believe she is trying to say that her mother is homophobic. At least this is what I am getting from it, are you gay?
No words are truer written than the ones you have stated. I dont believe allot of people would get what you are trying to say unless of course they are gay rights activists or gay themselves.
Adoption is put in a box (or closet if you must) just the same as being gay is. Being gay and adopted...yes that is two fold..twice shamed in society. She is talking about gay rights and activism being the same as adopted, there are several simularities, adoption is still a no no word at the dinner table...for most families anyway, just as gay is a big no no to talk about. I would like clarification too, right now I am assuming you are gay and your adoptive mother is having a hard time coming to terms with it. Either that or you are using the activism part in the same way???
What promted you to write this to your mother....my curiousity is speaking to me.