Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 206

increasingly diverse and non-traditional common elements that will enable us to face THE ETHICS OF GAY AND LESBIAN ADOPTIONS sources. the fiiture with confidence, secure in the knowl­ • Agencies will have to be run in a business­ edge that our organizations will thrive into the NORMAN LINZER, PH.D. like and professional manner, with a high next century. Samuel J. and Jean Sable Professor of Jewish Family Social Work, level of accountability both to flinders and Wurzweiler School of Social Work, Yeshiva University, New York consumers. REFERENCES • The staff who make our organizations The dilemma facing a Jewish family service over placing a Jewish child for adoption by a Herman, Barbara R, Nadler, Harry, Jaflfee, Ira, & gay or lesbian couple can be traced to the meaning of the best interests ofthe child. This successful, will be increasingly diverse, Moss, Lori. (1994, Summer). Developing a both professionally and in terms of ethnic concept evokes value conflicts for the social workers and the Board members that encompass counseling network: A primer. Journal of the obligation not to discriminate and not to be judgmental, traditional cmd contemporary and religious afBliation. Jewish Communal Service, 70(4), 243. • Our consumers will be drawn from the Jewish perspectives on the moraUty of the couple's lifestyle, and the agency's mission to Imber, Shirley Raphael. (1990, Summer). Serv­ strengthen the Jewish family. The ethical dilemmas proceed jrom these value conflicts. general population, depending on the eco­ ing non-Jews m the Jewish Family Agency. nomic necessities of competing for con­ Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 66(4), tracts in those areas where the organiza­ 385. tion has expertise. This special expertise here is a turbulent national debate over or unmarried, has been defined as persons of Kang, Chul Hee, & Cnaan, Ram A (1995). New Twhether lesbians and gay men are capable the opposite sex. This definition has pre­ will include our cultural sensitivity toward findings on large human service organiza­ Jews and our knowledge base regarding of being parents and whether they create cluded adoptions by couples ofthe same sex, tion Boards of trustees. Administration in homosexual children. A study by Brifish though individuals, including gays and lesbi­ their special needs. They will have a direct Social Work, 19(3), 17. stake in our agency's success through profit- researchers fiirnishes both sides with statisti­ ans, could adopt. Recently, however, a judge Kanner, Ted. (1988, January). Under pressure: cal ammunition (New York Times, 1996). found the definition of "spouses" unconstitu­ sharing and incentive plans. The changing role of the Jewish Family and • Our Boards andgovemance stmctures will In another development. New York State's tional for it denied the equality of rights Children's Agency. Presentation at the highest court has granted unmarried couples— protected in the law. Instead, he interpreted be increasingly representative ofthe con­ Westem Regional Meeting of AJFCA San stituencies we serve and will also be di­ heterosexual and homosexual—the right to "spouses" to include members ofthe same sex. Diego. adopt children. The decision involved cases verse—economically, religiously and ra­ Montreal Jewish Federation. (1992). What is brought by a heterosexual couple and a lesbian All of the apphcants are lesbian couples who cially. Jewish about Jewish social service agen­ couple. In both cases, one partner was the have been hvmg together in committed rela­ • Our organizational structures will be in­ cies? Unpubhshed manuscript. child's biological mother, and the two plain­ tionships for varying lengths of time. From the creasingly complex, enabling us to strate­ Nasatir, Steven B. (1994, Sunmier). New and tiffs sought flill legal recognition of the other evidence I have before me, I have no hesitation gically position ourselves in whatever mar­ integrated approaches to developing finan­ partner's parental role. This decision bolsters in finding as a fact that in all respects these kets we need to be in order to compete cial resources in the future. Journal of the legal standing of the state's nontraditional relationships might be termed "conjugal," in successfiilly for resources andmarket share. Jewish Communal Service, 70(4), 264. fantilies and grants the child of an unmarried that they have all the characteristics of a rela­ • We will have a clear vision of the future Rehabilitation Accreditation Commission (CARF; and be proactive, rather than reactive, an­ couple a host of rights and benefits fi-om both tionship formalized by marriage (Nevins, 1995). 1996). 1996standards manual and interpre­ parents. The law, however, does not sanction ticipating changes in fiinding trends and tative guidelines for behavioral health. Au­ market needs. We will use this informa­ adoption by third-party same-sex couples. The criterion for adoption that homosexual thor. This article analyzes the proceedings of a couples are expected to meet is the same as tion to monitor trends and plan accord­ Steinitz, Lucy, & Weidman, Arthur. (1993, Fall). ingly. senunar for the Board of Directors of the those of heterosexual couples—^to provide for A time of need and a vision of hope: Jewish Jewish Family and Child Service of Toronto the best interests of the child. The judge's continuity and the Jewish Fanuly Service. For each agency and community, the new regarding adoption requests by Jewish gay interpretation has not yet become law in the Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 70(1), paradigm may look a little different. Our and lesbian couples. Although the discussion provinces, so that adoption agencies are not 10. challenge is to work together to define those focused on the values and ethical issues in­ mandated to abide by it. volved, the legal parameters needed to be The Metro Toronto Children's Aid Society clarified. passed a resolution in 1994 that same-sex couples should have the same right to adopt as THE LEGAL ISSUES heterosexual couples. The agency recognized that parental competence is not determined by In Toronto, provincial law—the Child and sexual orientation and that gay men and lesbi­ Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990—pemuts ans are as capable of being good parents as one individual or two individuals who are anyone else. "spouses" of one another to apply to adopt a By contrast, the Metro Catholic Children's child. The term "spouses," whether married Aid Society, to which only Catholics may

WINTER/SPRING 1996/97 207 Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 208 Ethics of Gay and Lesbian Adoptions / 209 apply, distinguishes between sexual orienta­ workers have to be guided by their clinical weight of social work values as reinforced by opportunity to establish a loving and secure tion and sexual practice. Discrimination based experiences, anticipation of consequences, and the societal trend of increasing acceptance of family; hence the value conflict and ethical on sexual orientation is not allowed. A Catho­ practice wisdom in determining the suitabil­ the homosexual Iffestyle as non-pathological dilemma. lic, whatever his or her sexual orientation, ity of gay and lesbian couples as adoptive andhomosexual marriages as legitimate. The TheBoardmembers' personal beliefs about could apply to adopt as a sole parent. Sexual parents. agency's social work mission is expressed in homosexuality affect their deliberations on practice or lifestyle is the issue. The only As a Jewish family service agency, the its goals of individual, family, and community the dilemma as well. Homosexuality threat­ sexual practice that is acceptable is within a JFCS is driven by other values that derive development and in its practice, principles, ens the security of a traditional family struc­ marriage that is open to the procreation of from its auspices and mission. Even though and techniques. Most ofthe professional staff ture and touches deep-seated feelings of sexual children. Therefore, gay or lesbian Catholics most of its fiinding comes from nonsectarian have masters of social work degrees and are identity and Jewish identity. Board members are not permitted to adopt through this agency. sources, there is no doubt that the Jewish oriented toward the values and ethics of the may express their feelings of being threat­ The Jewish Family and Child Service is the community serves as the major sanctioning profession. ened, as well as their anguish for the same-sex arm of the Jewish community for adoption, body of JFCS. The Board, staff, special pro­ Social work values would not permit de­ couples who want to raise a child that they foster care, and other child and family ser­ grams andservices, andambience ofthe agency nial ofthe adoption request simply because of cannot conceive in order to establish a family. vices. The agency has not yet formulated its are Jewish. The majority of the clients are the couple's sexual orientation, ff the rela­ In its deliberations, the Board focused ex­ policy on gay and lesbian adoptions. The Jewish, and the agency's mission is to tionship is a loving one, with mutual respect, clusively on the child's well-being. As one purpose of the seminar was to help the Board strengthen the Jewish family and the Jewish maturity, financial stability, and provision of Board member said, 'The issue from the think through the value and ethical dimen­ community. a home life conducive to raising children, Jewish point of view is: Is the child well sions of the issue and to develop a policy The JFCS consults with all segments ofthe social workers may even support the adoption served by being put into a family where the consistent with the agency's mission in the Jewish religious and secular communities, enthusiastically, especially if the alternatives parents are in a gay/lesbian relationship? It's Jewish community. each of which takes a different position in are detrimental to the best interests of the never about the parent. The issue is always the controversial policy debates. There is no clear child. child, not the parent." THE BOARD'S DILEMMA mandate from any one group regarding a The dilemma surfaces for the Board of From the Jewish point of view, however, Directors, lay leaders who represent busi­ the focus is on both the parents and the child. If the family service agency were not under "Jewish" policy on homosexuality. The JFCS nesses and professions other than social work. Traditional Judaism considers homosexuality Jewish auspices, but was completely nonsec­ is therefore left to determine its own policy The Board members subscribe to the agency's immoral, so that the basis for estabhshing this tarian, an ethical dilemma may not exist. The through Board and staff deliberation, ever social work values, but their primary role is to family is morally suspect. In addition, it is agency would be guided by such social work mindfiil of the sentiments of its diverse con­ represent the interests ofthe Jewish commu­ impossible to predict the future psychological values as being nonjudgmental, nondiscrimi­ stituents. nity. As residents ofthe community, they are and social well-being ofthe child. The best nation, and self-determination. Social work­ Several forces would contribute to a policy attuned to nuances of approval and disap­ interests of the child are clouded by the moral­ ers may not pass judgment on the lifestyles of prohibiting tiieplacemen t of children for adop­ proval of agency policies. ity ofthe parents; hence the Board's hesitation their clients even though they differ from their tion with gay and lesbian couples. Traditional The Board has quietly approved the estab­ in supporting the adoption policy. own. Social workers may not discriminate in Jewish values condemn same-sex relation­ lishment of a support group, under agency their services to clients who are different in ships as they do not conduce to the perpetiia- auspices, for gay and lesbian youth who are THE STAFF'S DttEMMA religion, color, gender, and gender orienta­ tionoftiie Jewish family (Prager, 1990). Many struggling with their homosexuality. The tion. Guided by the self-determination of question the verbal or nonverbal message that Although the Board, in attempting to resolve group was originally sponsored by the local clients, social workers assist clients to decide homosexual parents convey to children re­ the dilemma, may focus on community senti­ university, but h was then taken over by JFCS. what they want to do with their lives. The garding the legitimacy of homosexual rela­ ments, personal values, and concem for the Advertising was low key, and no vehement degree of self-determination of the birth par­ tionships. While acknowledging that gays or child's best interests, the staffs resolution objections were raised by any factions in the ents and of the potential adoptive clients is an lesbians desire to provide a loving home for veers more toward social work values in wfuch community. The rationale was that Jewish important area of inquiry in the adoption their children, others question whether being the needs ofthe client take precedence. Both young people needed an outlet to deal with process. brought up in such a family is in the children's the Board and the staff are committed to the their homosexuality, and the JFCS was the Assumingthatthe potential adoptive couple best interests. Though some groups in the Jewish purpose of the agency—to strengthen most appropriate institution to meet that need. is deemed to be fit to adopt, social workers Jewish community may be more accepting of the Jewish family and community. Yet, the Apparently, the Board had fewer qualms who are guided by social work values should the homosexual Iffestyle, some Board mem­ staff, comprising mainly social workers, is about providing a support group for gay and have no difficulty approving the request. Yet, bers may not be prepared to circumvent the also committed to the implementation of so­ lesbian youth than authorizing adoptions by there may be some hesitation because this is weight of Jewish tradition for the sake of cial work values. Two of social work's most same-sex couples. Adoption is a permanent not a typical adoptive couple. The results of contemporary revisions. This value orienta­ important values are not to discriminate nor to decision that requires more deliberation and the research are inconclusive regarding the tion would result in a denial of the same-sex pass judgment (Delegate Assembly, 1996). evokes greater anguish because it threatens success of homosexual couples in raising chil­ couple's request. Social workers are cautioned not to be traditional Jewish family norms, even as it dren. Without the benefit of hard data, social Approval of the request is supported by the drawn into the discriminatory and judgmental could provide a child and adults with an

WINTER/SPRING 1996/97 WINTER/SPRING 1996/97 Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 210 Ethics of Gay and Lesbian Adoptions / 211 mode when encountering gays and lesbians in Jewish community. If these questions are not Table 1. Model for Ethical Decision Malang in the Adoption of Jewish Children by Gay and Lesbian Couples practice. Tempted as they might be to indulge raised, the social worker has been remiss in their personal feelings, they must struggle to his or her professional and ethical responsi­ Values Rules Principles Theory overcome personal and societal influences bilities. As Levy (1976) insists, although Social Work Children Aould grow up Utihty UtiUtarian and view homosexuals as people who deserve consequences do not determine whether be­ Dignity, worth. in famihes; mature adults Providing home and family respect (Dulaney & Kelly, 1982). havior is ethical, they need to be addressed. ncndiscriminaticii. should be permitted to adopt for children; enabling adults Some social workers may find it difBcult to The social workers' dilemma may be at­ nonjudgment, reqiect childroi to be parents overcome personal feelings, especially those tributed not only to a personal versus profes­ for cUent, starting stemmingfrom religious sources (Levy, 1976), sional conflict but also to dual loyalties. So­ where olimt is at. Autonomy Deontological as they discharge their professional fiinction. cial workers subscribe to the Code of Ethics, goal of self- Beneficence Respect ri^t of self- Jewish religious law condemns homosexual- which contains the essential values of the actualization detomination; provide service to all Jewish ityasanabomination(Leviticus20:13). Those profession. At the same time, they identify chents; prima facie duty who follow Halachah in their daily lives may with JFCS's mission as a Jewish agency that of justice find it difficult as Jewish social workers to seeks to strengthen Jewish family life. This accept individuals whose behavior is judged dual identity confounds social workers and Judaism Jewidi children should not be Utihty Utilitarian to be immoral by the Torah. They must work creates a formidable ethical dilemma regard­ Traditional: Orthodox raised by parents whose Cliildren may become especially hard at preventing their personal ing gay and lesbian adoptions. Dignity, created in the bdiavior is immoral. homosexual values from affecting their professional fiinc­ unage of God, behavior is immoral, capacity for Ncnmaleficaice Deontological tion. THE ETHICAL DILEMMA teshuvah—change Morally wrong according to Levy contends that personal values need An ethical dilemma is a choice between two Torah and rabbinic not be denied, but may be used in the service actions that are based on conflicting values traditions of the client. "Representing personal values (Linzer, 1996). In an ethical dilemma, the Utihty Utilitarian as an alternative is different from insisting Contemporary: Reform Jewish children ^ould be individual ought to do X and ought to do Y, and Reconstructionist raised in loving Jewidi Better to be raised in family upon them as a preference, simply because but is precluded by circumstances from doing Dignity, created in the families, even if their than in institution or they are a preference for the practitioner" both. The values behind alternatives X and Y image of God, acceptance, parents Hve altemate foster home (Levy, 1976, p. 119). "Representing personal are weighty, and neither is dominant. It is outreach, inclusiveness, hfestyles values as an alternative" is operationalized in impossible to act on both values, yet each is love for fellow Jews. Autonomy Deontological the form of questions, i.e., "Have you thought considered right and good. Beneficence Reject autonomy of couple of... ?", or "Did you consider... ?" The social Jtistice In order to resolve the dilemma and justify worker does not insist that the client try an­ the decision, one may use a model that encom­ Contemporary: Jewidi children diouldnot be Utihty Utilitarian other approach (the social worker's), but opens passes rules, principles, and theoty (Table I). Conservative raised by ncn-normative Children may become other options for the client to consider. Rules are specific and principles are general Homosexual "marriage" parents homosexual A good example of the distinction between guidelines to action. Theoty supports prin­ and family not representing values as an alternative and as a ciples and rules (Beauchamp and Childress, sanctioned by Nonmaleficence Deontological Morally wrong according to preference occurs when the social worker 1994). Jewish law considers raising the issue of the get, a reli­ Torah and rabbinic gious divorce, with a Jewish divorcing couple. traditions It is unethical for the social worker to insist SOCIAL WORK VALUES that the couple obtain a get simply because it Social work values support eligible gay and is a preference for the social worker. How­ lesbian couples becoming adoptive parents to provide services to gay and lesbian couples, JEWISH VALUES ever, the social worker is on ethical grounds and raising families. This judgment is justi­ one of which is adoption. Jewish values regarding gay andlesbian adop­ when raising issues regarding the impact of fied by the rule that mature adults are entitied Deontological theoty can be invoked in tions are not monolithic; there is a serious divorce with and without the get on the par­ to raise families and by the principles of support of the decision to adopt because the clash between traditional and contemporaty ents' remarriage, the children's fiiture, and utility, autonomy, and beneficence. The prin­ prima facie dufy of justice demands equify in perspectives and within contemporaty per­ the Jewish commurtity. ciple of utility supports adoption because it the distribution of adoption opportunities for spectives. Traditional Jewish values forbid Similarly, in the case of gay and lesbian will produce the greater good for the greater all. Utilitarian theoty supports a decision that homosexual acts and consider them anathema adoptions, it is ethical for the social worker to number of people. The principle of autonomy conduces to the greater good by providing to the Jewish people (Lamm, 1974). Bibli­ ask the couple to consider the implications of justifies the couple's request to adopt. The children with a home and by opening up more cally oitiy gay unions are prohibited due to the opportunitiesfor same-sex adults to raise them. the adoption for the Jewish identity of the principle of beneficence requires the agency spilling ofthe seed (Genesis 38:9), but the child and for the family's acceptance by the

WINTER/SPRING 1996/97 WINTER/SPRING 1996/97 Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 212 Ethics of Gay and Lesbian Adoptions / 2\3

rabbinic tradition also prohibited lesbian sexual orientation of their parents. It is justi­ giving eligibility for honors in the synagogue the group." Others have placed the expecta­ unions because they too do not lead to procre­ fied by the principles of client autonomy and are at the discretion of the individual rabbi. tions of the group over the yeariungs of the ation. justice in making adoption available to all Though some rabbis have favored greater seff, thus disenfranchising a significant sub­ Orthodox Jews, who are represented by the mature applicants. liberalization of these policies, the decisions group of Jewish men and women desirous of traditional position in Table 1, believe that the Utilitarian theory supports the adoptions ofthe Conmuttee of Laws and Standards form affiliation, Torah differentiates between the sin and the because ofthe principle of utility. It is better the extant policy of the Conservative move­ sinner. The Torah's objection is to the homo­ for chtidren to be raised in a loving family ment. JOINING THE ETHICAL DILEMMA sexual act, not to the person. 'There is no such than in a dysfunctional one or in a foster Although the Conservative movementjouis The ethical dilemma can now be joined. thing as a homosexual per se, but only a home. Deontological theory also supports the with Reform and Reconstmctionists in sup­ Agency practice is based on social work val­ person who commits a particular sin and, like adoption based on the principles of autonomy, porting the worth and dignity of homosexuals, ues that esteem gays and lesbians' worth and people who commit other sins, can and may, beneficence, and the prima facie duty of jus­ the dominant value for them is the Torah's dignity and promote their acceptance into the with work and effort, do teshuvah (Angel et tice. aversion to homosexuality. The mle that community. These values forbid discrimina­ al., 1992/93, p. 39). The authors contend that In response to the Jewish traditional ap­ children should not be brought up in non- tion and judgment of their behavior and sanc­ gays and lesbians can change their ways and proach. Matt (1978) states this rationale for a normative homes is justified by the principles tion their adoption of Jewish children. become heterosexual if they tried hard enough. different stance toward homosexuality: of utility—children may become homo­ The evidence, however, is mixed in support of sexual—and non-maleficence, doing no harm. Its practice is also based on contemporary Jewish values that are in conflict regarding this claim. We must not only consult biblical sources and Both principles can be supported by utilitar­ the morality of gays and lesbians adopting Orthodox Jews are in conflict over the subsequent halachic decisions, but must do ian theory, which seeks to prevent harm, and Jewish children. The conflict is based on the acceptance of homosexuals into the commu­ two other things as well: 1) determine, as far as by deontological theory that upholds the mo­ Jewish community's split in its preferred con­ nity. They maintain that it is wrong to have an we are able, the rationale and presuppositions rality of Torah law without the need for an ceptions of homosexuals and in its preferred umeasonable fear of homosexuals, but their of the traditional stand; and 2) inquire whether explanation. outcomes for them (Levy, 1973). A preferred behavior is not to be condoned either. It is one there are now any changed circumstances or Despite traditional Judaism's aversion to conception is a category of values that refers to thing to condemn the act, but it takes a leap to new data in the hght of wliich the Torah's stand homosexuality, we need to listen to a gay how we want to view people and how we value accept homosexuals as normative Jews in the today—^though based on the same divme and Jewish man committed to Jewish life and them for what they are. A preferred outcome community. "Homophobia is wrong but so is enduring concems and purposes—might possi­ community who offers a cogent plea for un­ is the goal we want them to achieve. Many the embrace of homosexuality as an equal bly involve changed formulations or different derstanding. Jews across denominational lines view homo­ altemative lifestyle" (Freundel, 1993, p. 45). emphasis (p. 14). sexuals as immoral, without distinguishing Can Orthodox Jews impugn homosexuality Another value \N4uch may not feel right for all between persons and actions. As their actions and still accept the person? Can parents love The biblical stance was not rejected sum­ Jewish men is marriage, family and together­ are deemed to be immoral, so are they; there­ a homosexual child, congregants respect a gay marily, but was studied to ascertain its ratio­ ness. What if a person doesn't want to marry fore, the Jewish community should not entmst rabbi, or Jewish school principals hire homo­ nale and reconcile it with modem interpreta­ or have a family? What if the kid is gay? Where its children to them. Many other Jews across sexuals as teachers? ff Orthodox Jews cannot tions. Ultimately, the decision to include do these children fit in? How canyearnings of denominational lines view homosexuals as answer these questions afBrmatively, they homosexuals in Jewish religious Iffe was based the self integrate with expectations ofthe group? human beings with dignity, created in the have not yet emotionally accepted homosexu­ on the desire of Reform andReconstmctioiust Jews must evaluate the ways values and tradi­ image of God, who happen to have a different als as authentic members of the Jewish com­ Judaism to be inclusive rather than exclusive. tions both help and hinder strivings of the sexual orientation. This group differentiates munity. If they can, they are able to differen­ The Conservative movement's policy to­ individual in his or her search for meaning between persons and actions, and though the tiate between the act and the person and love ward homosexuality is in flux. Committed to (itahcs added; Kafes, 1994). actions may or may not be deemed immoral, and respect homosexuals as they would any an ideology of tradition and change. Conser­ the persons are not. Consequently, adoption other Jew. vative Judaism has stmggled with the need to "How can yearnings of the self integrate with by moral people may be sanctioned. The contemporary Jewish values section of maintain the traditional emphasis on the fam­ the expectations of the group?" The question Table I is divided into two parts: those of (I) ily while not rejecting Jews who do not fit into is searing. Is there any room in the Jewish RESOLUTION Reform and Reconstmctionist Jews and (2) this framework.I n 1992, the Conunittee on community for individuals who are different Conservative Jews. Reform and Re­ Law and Standards ofthe Rabbinical Assem­ in this way? Is it at all possible for the commu­ In a two-case scenario, if two couples apply constmctionist Jews welcome gays and lesbi­ bly adopted several policies regarding gays nity to accept gays and lesbians for who they and one is gay and the other straight, and both ans into the rabbinate and into synagogues, and lesbians. They are welcome in the syna­ are—people stmggling to gain acceptance as are equally suitable to adopt, and only one perform commitment ceremonies for couples, gogue, but comnutment ceremonies are for­ human beings free of stigma and prejudice? child is available, social work values are not of and support same-sex adoptions. This deci­ bidden. They are not permitted to emoll in Clearly, only some segments of the religious much assistance. No objective social work sion is based on the mle that children should cantorial and rabbinical schools. Assigning Jewish commuiuty are prepared to integrate value is present to resolve the impasse. Jewish be raised in lovingfamilies, irrespective ofthe teacher positions in the religious schools and "yearnings ofthe self with the expectations of values, however, may be applied to resolve the

WINTER/SPRING 1996/97 WINTER/SPRING 1996/97 Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 214 Ethics of Gay and Lesbian Adoptions / 215 impasse because the homosexual couple may for the ethical dilemmas that will inevitably concerned with promoting a deeper sense of Freundel, B. (1993, June). Homosexuahty and be deemed less worthy due to its altemate arise. Decisions will need to be made indi­ identity and belonging to the community. JFS halachic Judaism: Two views. Moment, lifestyle. The agency can invoke its Jewish vidually, case by case, with the primary con­ agencies should incorporate these consider­ 18(2), 40-45. value orientation to help it decide to whom to sideration the best interests ofthe child. ations in their deliberations over adoption. Kafes, R. (1994, October). About searching for give the baby for adoption. There are multiple scenarios that affect the Decision making should be based on a ratio­ meaning. Arizona Jewish Post. In a single case scenario, where ordy a gay weight of the opposing values, mles, and nal process of an open exchange of ideas and Lamm, N. (1974). Judaism and the modem or lesbian couple apphes, the dilemma is more principles and, consequently, the decision feelings. Whichever way the agency decides, attitude to homosexuahty. Encyclopedia difBcult. If the state does not dictate adoption supported by the theory. Such is the case in if it is based on an ethical model of decision Judaica Yearbook, pp. 194-205. policy, the agency needs to determine its own. ethical deliberation; as newinformation arises making, the decision is ethical. Levy, C. S. (1973). The value base of social What is the agency to do? The Board ex­ andthe scenario changes, the ethical decision work. Journal of Education for Social Work, presses its desire to vouchsafe the best inter­ is affected. The case presented in this article ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 9(4). 34^2. ests ofthe child, which carmot be done with­ was "clean"—the adoptive couple and the Levy, C. S. (1976). Personal vs. professional The author wishes to thank Dr. Sheldon Gehnan, David out considering the child's needs and the child were Jewish, and the agency had no and Dorothy Shachne Dean ofthe Wurzweiler School of values: The practitioner's dilemma. Clini­ needs ofthe Jewish coirununity andthe larger conflict around the identity of the applicants Social Work; Mr. Gordon Wolfe, executive director, cal Social Work Journal, 4(2), 110-120. society. Will the child be better off in a gay or or the child. Jewish Family and Child Service of Toronto; and Dr. Linzer, N. (1996). Ethical dilemmas in Jewish Lucy Steinitz, former executive director, Jewish Family lesbian fainily than in foster care or in a Communal Service. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV. But what happens if the child is Jewish and Services of Central Maryland for their helpful dysfunctional family, and will that enhance the couple is not? What if only one of the suggestions. Matt, H. J. (1978). Sm, crime, sickness or the Jewish community and the society? partners is Jewish? What if the child's father altemate life-style: A Jewish approach to The question of best interests is utilitarian. is Jewish and the mother is not, or the reverse? REFERENCES homosexuahty. Judaism, 27, 13-24. Whether it is right according to Torah moral­ These variations can provoke serious debate Nevins, J. P. (1995, May 9). Reasons for judge­ Angel, M., Goldberg, H., & Stolper, P. (1992-93, ity is adeontological question. Both questions on how to understand the best interests ofthe ment. Toronto: Ontario Court. Wmter). Homosexuahty and the Orthodox are legitimate and formidable. Each can be chdd, since a cential component ofthe agency's Nidi, D. (1995, May). Homosexuahty. Presen­ Jewish Conmiunity. Jewish Action, 34-39. answered in the positive or negative, depend­ mission is to strengthen Jewish identity. tation at the Wurzweiler School of Social Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (1994). Prin­ ing upon where one stands on the spectmm of There are complex scenarios that do not Work, Yeshiva University, New York ciples of biomedical ethics. 4th ed. New Jewish life. pertain to religious identity. For example, a Prager, D. (1990, j^ril/June). Judaism, homo­ York: Oxford. No decision has yet been made. Whichever gay or lesbian couple arranges with a birth sexuahty, and civilization. Ultimate Issues, Delegate Assembly. (1996, May). NASW News, way the Board decides, it will leave moral mother to adopt her child when it is born. 6(2), 2-24. 16-17. traces on the decision not taken. They approach the JFS agency to do a home Rabbinical Assembly. (1992, March 25). Papers Dulaney, D. D., & Kelly, J. (1982). Improving study. In this case, the agency merely per­ on issues regarding homosexuality. New services to gay and lesbian chents. Social CONCLUSIONS forms a particular fiinction as it would for any York: The Committee on Jewish Law and Work, 178-183. What began as a case study of gay and lesbian heterosexual couple who applies for adoption. Standards. adoptions at one JFS agency evolved into a If it finds the couple eligible, does it recom­ general discussion that is applicable to other mend the adoption? Chi what basis would the JFS agencies as well. The ethical dilemma agency deny it? On moral grounds? How can persists even if states have not yet formulated the agency assume a moralistic stance when it a legal mandate permitting adoption by same- was only assigned to conduct a home study? sex couples. Though the Jewish family agency The determination of eligibility must be based is under no compulsion to accede to a couple's on professional standards. If the morality of request, it still faces value and ethical con­ the adoptive couple's lifestyle clouds the flicts between its social work orientation and agency's judgment and it declares them ineli­ its Jewish mission. gible, the decision is unethical. Homosexual adoption seems to be less In addition to the controversy over apply­ controversial than homosexual marriage. In ing traditional Jewish law to homosexuality, many states and Canada, a single gay or the Jewish community appears to be moving lesbian person is eligible to adopt. It may only toward inclusiveness, rather than exclusive­ be a matter of time before gay and lesbian ness. Witness the greater acceptance of inter­ couples are also granted permission to adopt. marriage in recent years. The Jewish commu­ Before that occurs, and in anticipation of that nity seems to be less ready to condemn any of event, JFS agencies ought to brace themselves its members for their lifestyle. It is more

WINTER/SPRING 1996/97 WINTER/SPRING 1996/97