LGBT adoption

French Senate approves gay adoption

The cheese eating surrender monkeys are set for a whole lot of protest after the French Senate moved to?approve?gay adoption:

The French Senate has approved adoption for same-sex couples.

On the evening of 10 April, the second article of the ?Marriage for All? bill was adopted by the upper level of French parliament.

The vote came just one day after the Senate approved Article 1, the provision allowing gay couples to marry.

The Senate must now complete a review of the legislation in its entirety, although passage of both articles almost guarantees gay couples will soon be able to marry and adopt in France.? Read more »

Missing the point

? NZ Herald

John Roughan writes about same-sex couple adopting, and mises the point completely:

Gay adoption has always seemed to me to be a step too far.

Marriage, sure. A couple’s genuine commitment is worthy of legal recognition. But adoption puts a child in the front line of a social challenge. I’m not sure that is fair.

It is not clear what sort of parentage was envisaged when the National Party’s northern conference voted last weekend for gay couples in a civil union to be legally entitled to adopt, or precisely what is in a bill that Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye says she has been working on with the Greens’ Kevin Hague.

It might go no further than to let a woman be a legal parent of a child born to her partner, which would be a fine thing to do. But in the name of gender equality it probably would allow a male couple to be legal parents too.

The Prime Minister was enthused by the conference vote. He said it showed the party was modern. His Government might even sponsor the bill, ensuring it gets on Parliament’s agenda, though MPs would have an independent “conscience” vote on any application to same sex couples.

The Prime Minister has every right to be enthused that the Young Nats are showing some initiative. But it is the next part of Roughan’s article that shows his grasp on the?intricacies?of the topic is tenuous.

Key must be encouraged by the public response so far. In the little discussion I’ve heard a consensus seems to agree with Kaye that the suitability of adoptive parents has nothing to do with their sexuality. As long as a child has a safe and loving home, nothing else matters.

But I can’t help wondering what happens when the child goes to school. Other children might not be as modern as the northern region of the National Party.

When the child goes to school I dare say a new entrants’ teacher will get the class seated on the mat and talk to them happily about all the different kinds of parents people can have, and mention, by the way, that Billy has two fathers.

I don’t think this would help Billy one bit, especially when the kids later innocently ask him whether he has two mothers too, or just one mother, or what? And things will only get harder when the class enters puberty and the kids are becoming much more intrigued by Billy’s household than they used to be.

This is specious argument. If the best argument he can come up with against same-sex couples being able to adopt is that the kids might get teased then the argument is over and he lost. The same reasoning could be used to set up a Commission of names to approve children’s names, given some of the sillynames out there this could have some merit.

And then John Roughan misses the point completely.

Adoption generally has become rare since the advent of the pill, easy abortion and benefits for sole parents. Gays applying to adoption agencies these days would join a sad waiting room of young heterosexual couples who have also been penalised by nature.

If the Kaye-Hague bill is going to ask agencies to disregard the sexual orientation of applicants when they assess their suitability, I think it would be asking too much. Since it mainly aims to update the law on surrogacy and other reproductive variants it might concentrate on adoptions that same-sex couples arrange for themselves.

The proposed bill and the remit of the Young Nats is not about Closed Adoptions, of which there are precious few, it is about open adoption, and about legacy. Basically the little known fact of civil unions is that the people in civil unions do not enjoy the same rights as married people whether or not they are heteroe-sexual couples of same-sex couples….adoption is just on area of this that needs addressing.

How about Gay Marriage before Gay Adoption?

? Dominion Post

Andrea Vance discusses three subjects in her column about conscious issues. They are the normal taboo subject because they make people squeamish to even raise them. Abortion on Demand, Euthanasia, and Gay Adoption.

We already have Abortion on Demand, it’s just that there are 1000s of mentally ill, apparently, in need of them. Since we already have abortion I fail to see what the squeamishness is all about. I personally don’t agree with abortion, given the advances in medicine the line is becoming very very thin in what constitutes a baby and what does not, and when it is survivable.

In so far as Euthanasia goes I believe in death with dignity, and if someone is terminally ill and not willing to suffer for years on end in pain and agony then they should be able to choose to have some assistance in shuffling off.

The last topic is same-sex adoption. I would have thought that firstly having same-sex marriage would be the priority. It is already very difficult for anyone to adopt children, I believe the numbers are something like about 80 per annum. Even then the state agencies like to see people in stable, official relationships before approving the adoption.

Family First as usual is completely off base…they obviously believe that same-sex couple with children aren’t families, and that only their kind of families deserve legislative protection.

Lobby group Family First welcomes a debate – but argues same-sex adoption is an “adult- centred” policy which “harms children because it intentionally creates motherless and fatherless families . . . it is dangerous ground”.

They need to open their eyes…there are already plenty of “fatherless and motherless families” in the community. If Family First was truly a family first organisation they would welcome ALL families…but they don;t because they are blinkered bigots.

Gay couple find out they are going to be grand-dads

via Boing Boing

This is why it is ridiculous to die in a ditch opposing gay marriage and gay adoption. Family First should be embracing families not opposing them. These are certainly not type pf person about to put their kids in a dryer or thrown them on the roof or beat them to death.

As one commenter said on Reddit

“Those pesky gays, ruining the family structure what with all the genuine, unconditional love and affection they shower on their kids/grandkids.”

Majority back gay adoption

A new poll shows majority support for gay adoption:

More than half – 54.3 per cent – of the poll respondents said the law should be changed to allow gay couples to adopt children, 38 per cent disagreed, and 7.7 per cent did not know or refused to answer.

The result is the reverse of an online poll on the?Herald?website in 2009, when 41 per cent of 7000 voters were in favour of gay adoption, and 59 per cent were against it.

Looks like New Zealand has matured?sufficiently?where we can now entertain everyone having the same rights and everyone else instead of laws that create a kind of sexuality apartheid.

Labour in 2011 & National in 2002, Ctd

Yesterday I released Labour?s ICT policy, after mocking their Gay policy for not being able to say ?Gay Marriage? or ?Gay Adoption? last week.

Labour may not have noticed but National don?t actually have any policies released yet, let alone policies on Gays or ICT. All they have at the moment is seven hoardings with slogans. They have nothing about Gays or ICT on the slogans. Maybe National will release policies but going on the past two elections they wont be releasing policies on Gay or ICT or anything like that.

In 2002 National had 72 policies, mostly not released by the leader, and we all know Bill lead National to its lowest poll result ever. Labour are doing the same as Bill, releasing policies that voters don?t care about, and not having Phil front the launch.