While I agree with the sentiments of Judge Tolmay and Dan, what on Earth would be the legal standard for "uncloseted"?

@1 - A starting place might be willingness to have their real name on the adoption paperwork.

I'm in agreement. If two people can't openly admit to society that they're in a relationship together, then that same society shouldn't be in the business of providing them with a child. I'll assume that South Africa is less accepting of gay couples than we are in America, but that's the reality that these two and their perspective child would be living in.

I think it's worth pointing out that straight men have been having illegitimate children with their mistresses/maids for millennia. These children have grown up in the margins - not officially sanctioned by dad, stealing time here and there when it's discrete, unable to have his name. So let's not pretend that the only closet is the one this gay guy is in.

The only difference here is that the state would have to sanction them having a child because they lack the genitalia to produce one on their own. I get that's a problem but if South Africa is anything like the US, there are hundreds of kids in foster care with little to no chance of being adopted. Is it really so awful for one of them to have one loving parent and one closeted parent? Wouldn't that be better than being in a group home setting? Couldn't one of those kids choose this life?

Maybe this isn't an ideal home but it's a home. Shame on the judge for not thinking outside the box.

larrystone007 @4 is a wise person.

Closeted gay people have always had / raised children. Sometimes with current/former opposite sex partners, sometimes b/c family/life circumstances arose that put them in a position to adopt and/or raise their own non-biological children. Just like plenty of straight people have had children from affairs, raised other people's children, had secret children, etc. The scenarios under which people arrange their families are as varied as people in society.

That's not the question here. The question is about legal adoption, and as everyone knows, the standards for legal adoption of unrelated children is way stricter than biological reproduction or even family arrangements (when people end up with custody of family members' children for whatever reason). The fact that straight men have children with their mistresses is totally irrelevant, as is the fact that throughout time, loads of closeted gay men have had children with their wives. Both probably manage to be fathers to the best of their abilities, just like anyone with good intentions parenting in any circumstances. Likewise, poor people experiencing homelessness and all that goes along with it have children. Young teenagers have children. Etc- they all parent to the best of their abilities under those circumstances with differing results. Doesn't mean that they would be able to legally adopt unrelated children under the same circumstances, gay or straight. It's harder to adopt unrelated children than most people realize, and even if you meet the financial obligations, the courts will consider your home life circumstances from various points of view, and one person who is publicly pretending to not be in his own family is unlikely to be considered fit to be a parent in that family. Just like a married straight man with a secret mistress who tried to adopt a child with that mistress. How much any of these people might love their children isn't the legal question here.

As for group homes, etc- you don't know the circumstances around the adoption or what children they are seeking to adopt. (Or maybe you do and I don't- it wasn't covered in this article anyway.) Also I'm not some expert on adoption and I'm sure things are different in different countries, but I have been through the process of taking custody of family members' kids. From what I know of adoption, it's far less strict when you are adopting a known or related child who is in this situation. If they were trying to adopt one of their nieces/nephews out of either a sudden death or an abusive situation, they'd be considered for custody (the related one) with no consideration of their relationship or sexual orientation. Likewise, if one or the other wanted to foster an older child (one in a group home as you suggest) then there are processes in place to consider their prospective foster parent's home that are not supposed to take sexual orientation or marital status into consideration. Then after a period of fostering, they could move on to adoption. But these two are not seeking to do that from what we know in this article. They are seeking to adopt a child (probably a baby as that is most common but we don't know for sure) as a COUPLE- they want to be equal custodial parents. This would be really hard to do when they are pretending not to be a couple. I don't think it's about them being gay (from the court's pov)- if a straight couple were pretending not to be a couple, they'd have a similar problem adopting as a couple. I'm sympathetic to the fact that a straight couple would never have a reason to pretend this way and a gay couple might, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.

And finally, as for the idea that it's always better for a child to be adopted out of a foster home or group home- the answer is not necessarily. While there is a HUGE problem with many aspects of foster systems in the US (so I assume abroad as well), not all are bad. And raising/adopting a foster child is no walk in the park. They are not pets and do not simply respond to adoption by a loving family by adapting in a perfectly healthy way. In reality, many have plenty of problems associated with the trauma of their early circumstances that don't disappear just because a well-meaning person attempts to be a good adoptive parent. You have no idea whether or not these two men could provide a better home for a foster child than he/she already has. This is all entirely hypothetical, and I assume the judge- who does this for a living and has all the facts of the case- is more capable than any of us of thinking "out of the box" in this situation.