Government panders to noisy anti-marriage minority on gay adoption

It’s time they stopped using children in their war on marriage:

While gay couples can adopt in some Australian states, the NSW Government says the issue is too complex and sensitive and it will not be changing the law, at least for now.

But the decision has renewed calls for a national approach to adoption.

The NSW Government made that trendy political decision despite the best evidence being that it would hurt children:

A six-month parliamentary inquiry found allowing same-sex couples to adopt would be in the best interests of children.

I guess the NSW government thinks pandering to a noisy, anti-marriage minority that believes the rest of us should be forced to live under their “lifestyle choice” (hardcore religious fundamentalism), is more important than the rights of children.

Call me a bigotphobe, but this is getting ridiculous.

Advertisements

17 responses to “Government panders to noisy anti-marriage minority on gay adoption

  1. Remember, this is the same state that introduce ‘Police Bibles’.

  2. I’m sorry, reviewing and amending laws is too complex for government?

    Isn’t that, you know, their job?

  3. Despite many children being cared for by same sex couples, the state Minister for Community Services, Linda Burney, says there is not enough community support to change the law.

    Contrast this with Conroy’s dog of an internet filter. There is almost no community support for that (which I can determine) and the filter will mostly be ineffective. But because it panders to religious extremists posing as “acting in the intersts of family” it’s okay. Whereas actual children and their actual interests being protected by the scope of actual law…forget it.

  4. Dotty Daphon

    I wonder how much community support there is for the new mobile radar guns about to be introduced by the NSW govt (to be operated by the Roads & Traffic Authority not the police ‘who now’ll able to be released for more important duties’ lol ).

    The opposition will be even worse. Where’s the choice?

  5. I’m sure its better to keep orphaned or ward-of-the-state children in abusive state institutions than to let them be adopted by loving parents of (shock! horror!) the same gender.

  6. It seems to me that you are making a great deal of noise about what is essentially a non issue. There are very few children offered for adoption in Australia these days so it makes sense that the ones that are available should got to the couples who have, in the first instance, been waiting the longest and secondly who will provide the best environment to raise and nurture those children.

  7. “Best environments” Iain?

    That’s some soothsaying ability you’ve got.

  8. Confessions,
    It is not me that has to make that call but those that do are bound to be very conservative when making placement decisons , especially when there are so many couples who want to adopt and so few children who are available for adoption.

  9. Iain,

    OK, so lets ignore other irrelevant issues such as whether the couple is gay or straight.

  10. It is not me that has to make that call

    Exactly. So why raise the notion of “best environment” in relation to same sex households?

  11. Same-sex couples have been able to foster (in South Australia at least) for long enough for the powers that be to have been able to take a really good squizz at “gay parenting” and the effects of it on children.

    Given the sensitivities in the child protection system, I would have thought if there was so much of a sniff of a problem, they would no longer be offering foster care to gay parents.

    So because they still are, let’s assume that gays parent children as well as straights. Why then do we still have these ridiculous, archaic laws on our books?

    I can’t for the life of me understand how our pollies can bang on about outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexuality because there is nothing wrong with being gay, but then be totally obvious to the fact that allowing *some* discrimination in *some* areas totally undermines that message.

    Either being gay is okay or it isn’t. If it is okay then ALL discrimination should be outlawed. End of story.

    I don’t get why that’s so difficult to understand.

  12. I read one news article that projected the judiciary’s non-consensus onto the rest of society, not based on any real studies about community attitudes.

    This decision also forgets that adoption isn’t just about couples adopting unrelated strangers — it isn’t just orphans or victims of abuse who need adopting.

    Take the example of a lesbian couple who have a child who is, obviously, biologically related to only one of them. Even if the child spends their entire life raised by both and has no father on the birth certificate, the non-biological mother will have no rights to make decisions (medical or otherwise), attend school functions, or even to raise the child if the biological mother dies.

    If it was a straight couple, the mother’s new partner has the option to adopt the child (so long as the biological father is willing to give up his rights as a father). If there is no father listed on the birth-certificate, he would get automatic rights to adopt her child to become a co-parent. But gay couples don’t get that right across most of the country, despite the fact that the children are likely living in the situation regardless of whether the government legally recognises the non-biological parent as a parent.

    There is no reason at all to deny the non-biolical parent full parental rights since the children are likely to be living in the situation anyway (and the government can’t stop THAT).

    Except they are or like to pander to religious nutbags who deny reality in favour of some idea of family that even they can’t live up to.

  13. Skepticus Autartikus

    While there should be no bar to the gay partners of biological parents adopting their partners children, male/female couples should be given preference when non-biologically related children are up for adoption.

  14. Why, Skepticus?

    Give us one good reason why heterosexual couples should be given preferential treatment over homosexual couples …

  15. Skepticus Autartikus

    Because it is part of the whole male/female thang and because children deserve to placed in an environment that replicates that male/female thang they have so cruelly denied by the circumstances that led to their mother/parents having to adopt them out.

    If lezzies want to have a baby, fine. They need to do what all mothers have done. Put on some lippy, some subtle perfume, a nice – not too short – skirt and seduce a potential father to provide the seed.

  16. Skepticus Autartikus

    chinda

    Oh, and I must emphasize I mean ceteris paribus male/female couples should be given preference. I do not support the state passing legislation banning gays from adopting; there are no doubt many occasions when a gay couple would be best.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s