Marriage equality referendum - "rights" to kids etc.

[Betsy Og]

I will be voting yes, presuming yes means allowing marriage equality. Not so much because I think the civil partner legislation is lacking, but more that it would be a signal of true equality.

On the Claire Byrne show, a lot of the talk was about children and associated rights. My overall view is that every child needs protection be they born of marriage, outside marriage, to gay parents (of either gender) or whatever. So, broad assumptions of quality of care or "better for the child" are not reliable IMHO.

As regards same sex parents, I'm reminded of a quote from Juno & the Paycock (O'Casey play) - this is approximate now; Woman 1: "the poor lad, he'll have to grow up without a father"
Woman 2: "sure he'll have what's better, two mothers".

However, does society have a different view re 2 fathers?, I think it does. Maybe this goes back to the "all men are useless with babies or, generally, domestically" like all the washing powder ads etc tell us. But is there a darker more unspoken fear??, two men and a small child, are people subconsciously making a jump to paedophilia? I'm sure stats say that most abuse happens between the biological father and daughter, however we're in such a frenzy off the back of clerical abuse scandals (adult men and small boys) that it permeates everything - e.g. coaching kids, I think I'd spontaneously combust if some parent didnt show up and there was a risk I'd be left alone with their child - not that I'd let it happen, at a minimum I'd have my own lads or another adult around - but you know what I mean, will that hysteria leak into this debate.

I'd welcome some expert to come forward and give us the facts and the stats (which I'd imagine are positive), that gay men are less of a risk to children, there is no link between homosexuality and paedophilia. I'd imagine gay men adopting/fathering a surrogate will have more involvement with social services than others (not saying they should, but I betcha they will/do), so I think this should not be an issue.

In one way I'm reluctant to even bring up this topic, but all the same I think if Ireland wants to move on we have to confront the darkest corners and let in the light. I will guarantee that, in the debate, there will be loads of negative inference about 2 father families, but it'll be careful and insidious.

p.s. Donal Og programme was good, shows we're some bit down the road compared to other places.

 

[Purple]

I share all of your concerns. In think it’s well established that gay men are far less likely to abuse children than straight men but I would also welcome the facts.
On the more general issue of two fathers I think the issues around that will stem from the general position that fathers are regarded as second class parents by the state and state services. There is an assumption that children should be with their mother and unless she is grossly incompetent and/or negligent she will be in the driving seat in any custody battle.
That feeds into this particular debate in the following ways;

1. Male couples seeking to adopt a child will be at the back of the queue if there are also female couples in the mix.
2. If a male/female marriage breaks up and the mother enters a same sex relationship it will have no bearing on her access or custody of the children. If the father enters a same sex relationship it most certainly will have a negative bearing on his access and custody of his children.

In our modern and progressive society where so many things have changed for the better our attitude to fatherhood seems to be based on all of the negative stereotypes from the past. Sexism towards men is rampant and acceptable. I don’t blame women in general or feminism in particular, it’s more complex than that and one group asserting their rights didn’t deliberately cause another to be disenfranchised.

 

[Leper]

I'm getting a trifle confused here and as I am not homophobic and have seen well known homosexual people state that they do not agree with gay couples being given the right to adopt children. Without clogging up the debate can anybody inform us of the full truth of what will happen in adopting children if we vote in favour of Gay Marriage. I would ask that the reasons given are kept within the boundary of not being homophobic.

 

[Purple]

I'm getting a trifle confused here and as I am not homophobic and have seen well known homosexual people state that they do not agree with gay couples being given the right to adopt children. Without clogging up the debate can anybody inform us of the full truth of what will happen in adopting children if we vote in favour of Gay Marriage. I would ask that the reasons given are kept within the boundary of not being homophobic.

There two issues will, apparently, be dealt with in separate pieces of legislation. Therefore they will not be linked legislatively.

To me people are either equal or they are not so given that I believe people should be equal I therefore cannot object to a same sex couple adopting children.

 

[Firefly]

I cannot understand anyone objecting to gay marriage to be honest - how exactly will it affect them anyway?

Regarding gay adoption, I don't believe there will be a referedum on this anytime soon on the basis of previous posts re 2 x fathers. It's a pity though as there is (I imagine) such a great supply of parents looking to adopt compared to children available for adoption - each set of potential parents should be rated on their suitability for each child, regardless of their sexual orientation. I would sooner be raised by 2 loving fathers than by a mother & father with issues.

Firefly.

 

[Betsy Og]

The jist of the argument from the Iona representative was that marriage is defined in the constitution within the article on family. So if you permit same sex marriage then automatically there is equality on family issues like adoption. Per above I dont see that as an issue were it to be the case. But assuming you might have a problem with that they are recommending a No vote on that basis - dunno it its even a genuine point or not (any constitutional lawyers hanging out here??), but chances are it is a sustainable legal view because, whether you like Iona or not, they dont seem to be incompetent in the people they put forward or the positions they take. No doubt there will be many a red herring over the next 5 or so months.

If that is a legal issue then a smart move would be to separate (if possible) marriage and family. Apart from the rights of children, now on their own legislative footing I think, I dont see why issues like adoption etc would need to be in the constitution.

 

[Purple]

I cannot understand anyone objecting to gay marriage to be honest

I'm all in favour of it; why should they be happy?

If that is a legal issue then a smart move would be to separate (if possible) marriage and family. Apart from the rights of children, now on their own legislative footing I think, I dont see why issues like adoption etc would need to be in the constitution.

I think we also need to separate religious and civil marriage more definitively. No priest or rabbi or mullah should act as an agent of the state so couples should have to go the a registry office to sign a civil register in order to constitute a civil marriage.

 

[flowerman]

Supposedly God and This post will be deleted if not edited immediately and all religions tell us all to be good human beings,yet its Religion that is screwing up society.
And thanks to the Catholic Church and "their priests" we have so many kids lives ruined in this country and all around the world.
The Catholic Church are not exactly in a position to lecture people about a matter like this,when alot of their people and "Gods Followers" destroyed kids lives.



If 2 women or 2 men want to marry then let them marry.
If they want to have kids or adopt then let them.

Some of my wifes long term male and female friends are gay.I became friends with them and they are some of the most sincere,honest and nicest people on this planet.

Let them live their life how they want to,and if that means wanting to marry and have a familt/kids then let it be.

 

[Leper]

. . . - each set of potential parents should be rated on their suitability for each child, regardless of their sexual orientation. I would sooner be raised by 2 loving fathers than by a mother & father with issues.

Firefly.

But, would you sooner be raised by a loving mother and loving father without issues than by two loving homosexual fathers (also without issues)?

 

[terrysgirl33]

But, would you sooner be raised by a loving mother and loving father without issues than by two loving homosexual fathers (also without issues)?

I think it depends on who can offer a pony. Or a swimming pool...

I'm joking, but it would be a good situation if there were two couples suitable for adoption, and you could pick which one you wanted based on shared interests or similar life goals?

 

[terrysgirl33]

I'm all in favour of it; why should they be happy?

Yep, share the misery...

 

[Vanilla]

Just yes, a million times yes. We should have equality, both for marriage and in relation to adoption etc etc.

 

[Leper]

. . . if there were two couples suitable for adoption, and you could pick which one you wanted based on shared interests or similar life goals?

You see that's part of the problem - the person being adopted does not have the choice; the choice will be made by somebody in our Health Service Exectuive (HSE).

 

[Leper]

Just yes, a million times yes. We should have equality, both for marriage and in relation to adoption etc etc.

Please expand your submission. Have you no reservations whatsoever regarding adoption? Is this your opinion only? Have you discussed the issue with people who have adopted children? Have you discussed the issue with anybody who gave a baby up for adoption?

 

[Purple]

Please expand your submission. Have you no reservations whatsoever regarding adoption? Is this your opinion only? Have you discussed the issue with people who have adopted children? Have you discussed the issue with anybody who gave a baby up for adoption?

Leper is asking good questions here.
All else being equal should a child go to a stable and loving heterosexual couple or a stable and loving homosexual couple?
I’m not sure what the answer is and if it’s an issue for anyone deciding where the child should go then there is no equality.
In practice it doesn’t work that way but is it a case of “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others”?

 

[michaelm]

I will be voting yes, presuming yes means allowing marriage equality. Not so much because I think the civil partner legislation is lacking, but more that it would be a signal of true equality.

I will be voting no because I believe that the civil partnership legislation is sufficient and that marriage is a gendered institution.

The jist of the argument from the Iona representative was that marriage is defined in the constitution within the article on family. So if you permit same sex marriage then automatically there is equality on family issues like adoption.

This is the nub of the issue. The new provision will be inserted under article 41 (The Family) of the constitution. Adoption agencies will be unable to favour placing a child with a mother & father over other configurations.

I would sooner be raised by 2 loving fathers than by a mother & father with issues.

Indeed. That's a bit of a straw man. Other than adoption by one parent or relative the choice will be between (issue-free) mother & father or same-sex couples and it will be a minefield for the adoption agency if this referendum is carried.

All else being equal should a child go to a stable and loving heterosexual couple or a stable and loving homosexual couple? . . if it’s an issue for anyone deciding where the child should go then there is no equality.

Adoption should be about the best interest of the child, not equal rights for adults to adopt children. If it's about the child then there is no inequality. The state should not deny an adoptive child the right to a mother or a father, even in our modern and progressive society.

 

[dereko1969]

I'm getting a trifle confused here and as I am not homophobic and have seen well known homosexual people state that they do not agree with gay couples being given the right to adopt children. Without clogging up the debate can anybody inform us of the full truth of what will happen in adopting children if we vote in favour of Gay Marriage. I would ask that the reasons given are kept within the boundary of not being homophobic.

Which well-known homosexuals?

But, would you sooner be raised by a loving mother and loving father without issues than by two loving homosexual fathers (also without issues)?

You see that's part of the problem - the person being adopted does not have the choice; the choice will be made by somebody in our Health Service Exectuive (HSE).

Please expand your submission. Have you no reservations whatsoever regarding adoption? Is this your opinion only? Have you discussed the issue with people who have adopted children? Have you discussed the issue with anybody who gave a baby up for adoption?

What is your opinion on Gay adoption, you're querying others stating they are in favour of it without detailing why you're against it.
How many adoptions are there in this country every year compared to the numbers seeking adoption? I don't think there's a huge surplus of those seeking kids over those seeking to be adopted, so the Sophie's Choice you're positing is unlikely to come to pass. It's just trying to muddy the waters. I wouldn't have a problem with the people who currently decide on adoptions continuing that role when the pool of potential parents is expanded by this legislative change.
Also Firefly there's no need for a referendum on "gay" adoption, it's not in the constitution.

 

[Betsy Og]

Adoption should be about the best interest of the child, not equal rights for adults to adopt children. If it's about the child then there is no inequality. The state should not deny an adoptive child the right to a mother or a father, even in our modern and progressive society.

I agree with the first 2 lines and think we should leave it at that. Let the adoption agency sort it out, that's what they're there for. If all mixed couple get the kids and the gay couples dont then, bar a judicial review for bias if necessary, I think the adoption agency must know best and their opinion should stand. The last line taps into the idea that mammy & daddy are best, maybe they are, I dont know, it all depends on the individuals concerned in a particular case, but I dont think it needs straight-jacketed by the constitution.

It is probably more likely that male couples would look to the surrogacy route - because with the struggle straight couples have to adopt, I'd say it would be more practical. Given recent cases I think the whole area of surrogacy needs to be reviewed, probably regulated, but I think writing discriminatory legislation would be a retrograde step.

Overall it would be helpful if there could be two separate debates, but I accept that it looks like, given our constitution, the whole ball of wax will need to be dealt with now. Its a kind of double of quits scenario, if current one passes (I think it will), then seems automatic equality on adoption etc., but the margin of passing could be tight due to peoples reservations re kids. If marriage was clearly on its own, then think landslide Yes. If was then a separate referendum on equality re kids/adoption, I'd say it could be very close run and I wouldnt be that confident it would pass. So maybe better to take the annoyance and risk of dealing with both issues together, as that may get both over the line.

 

[Firefly]

But, would you sooner be raised by a loving mother and loving father without issues than by two loving homosexual fathers (also without issues)?

That's a fair question. In my opinion any decision should be based soley on what's best for the child. All things being equal (i.e. both sets of potential parents being kind and suitable) then I would have to go with a m+f couple. Simply because I think it would be easier on the child on a number of fronts. Take for example the child being a girl - it would be a lot easier for her to ask her mother about things like periods etc. It would also eliminate a potential reason to be bullied.

Having said all that, this assumes a like for like comparison of would-be parents. No child should go to parents not suitable for a child regardless of their sexual orientation.

Firefly.

 

[Purple]

It is probably more likely that male couples would look to the surrogacy route - because with the struggle straight couples have to adopt, I'd say it would be more practical

That's the key issue. At the moment they can't adopt as a couple. The idea that there will be a competition between a straight couple and a gay couple is not realistic.