The Reality of Having Children for LGBTQ+ Families

For many couples, children are a big topic of conversation. Not all couples choose to have children, but when people picture “family life” and “settling down,” children are generally part of that “big picture” mental image. For same-sex couples, this conversation is a bit different. Whether they choose the route of adoption, surrogacy, in-vitro fertilization or other options, having children is harder for them than a “typical” family. It is also hard for transgender and non-binary couples, but since most laws around adoption only address sexual orientation and not gender identity, I will focus on same-sex couples specifically.

Adoption is the choice for some families, regardless of the genders of the parents, but for LGBTQ+ couples, they sometimes face unnecessary hurdles through the adoption process. In some places, same-sex couples are banned from adopting, such as in Russia. Russia’s legislation, proposed and passed in 2014, even served as a “blanket ban,” barring adoption entirely to countries that allowed same-sex marriages (1). In 2015, Colombia lifted its ban against same-sex couples adopting within the nation. When the new law went to effect in 2016, it applied to international couples as well. Brazil allows for same-sex couples to adopt, but they must be at least 25 years old, and must go to Brazil for the in-country adoption process, which can range from 34 to 45 days. In the Philippines, technically same-sex couples can’t adopt since the country itself doesn’t allow same-sex marriage, but there are ways to get around this (2).

“The U.S. Bureau of Consular Affairs does note that the country, “does not expressly forbid gay, bi-sexual, or transgendered individuals from applying to adopt individually”” (3).

So if a same-sex couple did want to adopt, one parent would have to adopt and once the child is in the US, the second parent would have to apply for stepparent adoption.

These discrepancies in adoption laws aren’t only found internationally, they can also be found here in the US. Up until the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Texas all had laws that banned same-sex couples from adopting foster children jointly, meaning that both parents legally couldn’t be considered parents. Following the ruling, States began changing their adoption policies to “align” with the new law. In states like North Dakota, singles are allowed to adopt, but couples must be “husband and wife.” In Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, and South Dakota, the laws were changed so that married same-sex couples could go through the adoption process, some of the states even changing their forms to make them more gender neutral (4). Mississippi was the only state that explicitly banned same-sex couples from adopting foster children, but this was struck down in March of 2016 by a federal judge, as reported by Mollie Reilly of the Huffington Post (5).

Map of US Adoption Laws for LGBTQ+ Couples by State

This map was put together by the Movement Advancement Program (MAP), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). In it, it shows the up to date adoption laws for same-sex couples in all 50 states. States that are colored dark green are states where parents can file for joint adoption. States that have a star are states that prevent discrimination in adoption on the basis of sexual orientation. States with a “T” also prevent discrimination in adoption on the basis of gender identity. States with “warning symbols” are states that allow agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples and LGBTQ+ people, citing that it conflicts with their own personal religious beliefs. These states include North Dakota, South Dakota, Virginia, and Michigan (6).

Adoption laws don’t apply to just adopting foster children or orphans, they also apply to cases with biological children as well. When a same-sex couples decides to have a child via sperm donor or surrogacy, the biological parent automatically gets parental rights. In order for the second parent to get parental rights, they must complete a second parent adoption, which isn’t widely allowed (7). In states like Florida, second parent adoptions are available only in certain jurisdictions, and in states like Alabama, second parent adoptions aren’t allowed at all for same-sex couples (8). This poses a problem to same-sex couples that wish to have biological children. But thanks to recent developments in fertilization techniques, same-sex couples will be able to produce children that biologically are related to both parents.

A visual representation of Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques.

New procedures called Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques (MRTs) allow for mothers with mitochondrial diseases (which are passed down maternally) to produce genetically similar offspring free of these diseases. This is able to happen because scientists take the nuclear DNA from the mother’s egg cell and transform it (or replant it) into an unfertilized egg cell with healthy mitochondria (9).

This is a photo of the first baby born from MRT and the doctor who did the procedure, John Zhang.

Recently, a Cambridge biologist was able to produce an artificial mouse embryo entirely from stem cells. Currently the science isn’t there for this artificial embryo to actually be functional and develop into an adult mouse, but it’s providing a template on how to create embryos sans sperm or egg cells (10). This would be huge in the LGBTQ+ community, we’d be able to produce children with only one type of sex cells. Combine this with MRTs and the offspring will be able to be genetically related to both parents without the need of donor sperm or a surrogate’s egg. Of course, a lot more research is needed before we get to that point, and unfortunately, embryonic research is a source of ethical conflict in the science community. Many of the arguments root in the disagreement of when life begins, at conception or the point of viability (otherwise known as the point at which a fetus could survive outside the womb). But one valid argument against embryonic research is that when “synthetic human entities with embryo-like features,” otherwise known as SHEEFs, reach 14 days after fertilization, the embryos start to develop a spine which under normal circumstances would allow them to feel pain. However, not all SHEEFs develop brains by this point, meaning that the embryos would not be able to receive or process pain signals. Because of this, many countries still allow embryonic research (up until that 14 day cut off after fertilization) (11).

We might not be at a point yet where same-sex couples can produce biological children without a third party being involved, either through surrogacy or sperm donation. But given where research is now, same-sex couples could possibly be having children in every possible way that heterosexual couples do in our lifetime.

References:

1. “Russia bans adoptions from countries that allow gay marriage.” The Telegraph, February 13, 2014. Accessed April 13, 2017.
2. Temblador, Alex. “Countries That Allow for International Adoptions by LGBT Prospective Parents.” The Next Family, August 18, 2016. Accessed April 13, 2017.
3. “Intercountry Adoption: Philippines.” Bureau of Consular Affairs - US Department of State, May 1, 2014. Accessed April 13, 2017.
4. Beitsch, Rebecca. “Despite Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, Gay Adoption Rights Uncertain in Some States.” The Pew Charitable Trusts, August 19, 2015. Accessed April 13, 2017.
5. Reilly, Mollie. “Same Sex Couples Can Now Adopt Children In All 50 States.” Huffington Post, March 31, 2016. Accessed April 13, 2017.
6. “Foster and Adoption Laws.” Movement Advancement Project, 2017. Accessed April 13, 2017.
7. “Legal Issues for Gay and Lesbian Adoption.” Findlaw, 2017. Accessed April 13, 2017.
8. “In Your State — Marriage and Relationships.” Lambda Legal, 2017. Accessed April 13, 2017.
9. Gonzalez, Cesar Palacios and Arellano, Maria De Jesus Medina. Journal of Law and Biosciences, March 24, 2017. Accessed April 13, 2017.
10. Brown, Kristen V. “Scientists Have Created the First Artificial Embryo Without Using an Egg or Sperm.” Gizmodo, March 7, 2017. Accessed April 13, 2017.
11. Borg, Julie. “Goodbye, sperm and egg.” WORLD News Service, April 7, 2017. Accessed April 13, 2017.