The AP reports the heavily conservative government in Ireland does not recognise lesbians as a valid family unit. So the gay man who helped them create their now three-year-old son retains rights even though he’s not a traditional father. 

And it comes despite the Supreme Court Justice, Susan Denham, admitting the two mums do provide a good, loving, home for their child. Since the constitution defines parents as a “married man and woman” and gays can’t marry, Denham says “dad” has rights.

Kudos to the biological dad for trying. Evidence has shown the connection to a child’s roots is beneficial in cases of open adoption or gamete donation. It could very well be good for this little boy to know at least something about half his genetic background beyond medical records.

But there’s something troubling about the methods used to gain access to the child. As a gay man, did Dad have to open the door to precedent that may only hinder the eventuality of a recognition of woman and woman has viable parents? Did he feel like a traitor?

Or is it simply sad that there’s discrimination written into the laws of Ireland, and there’s nothing in the foreseeable future that will change it?

Image: CyprusIVF

More by this author:

Hiker Who Cut Off Arm Says Unborn Son Saved Him

Teen Kicked Out of Yearbook For Funny Face

Neo Nazi Group Targeting High School Newspapers

Under current legislation, same sex couples can foster a child but not adopt a child. A homosexual can adopt a child, but not a couple.

The inquiry’s chairwoman, Labor MP Christine Robertson, said same sex-parents should be assessed on the same terms as anyone else – on whether they were suitable to adopt a child.

She said the committee found reforming laws to allow same-sex adoptions would “ensure the best interests of children” were met, increasing the pool of applications from which the most appropriate parents for a child were selected.

The state government is now under pressure to act on the findings. Here’s hoping they do, the current laws make no sense at all.

[Source]

Where Did I Really Come From? offers children simple, non-judgmental explanations of sexual intercourse, assisted conception (DI, IVF), pregnancy, birth, adoption and surrogacy, and is aimed at children from 2-12.

news.com.au called it a ’sex instruction book’ and claimed that it features a drawing “of two gay men holding a baby in a chapter about surrogacy.”

So?

The fact it, it is legal in Australia for gay and lesbian members of the community to become parents. And of course, it is not just gay parents who utilise assisted conception techniques, adoption and surrogacy. So why not have a book available to help explain to the children brought in to the world in ‘untraditional’ ways, how they were conceived and born?

While the book is suitable for toddlers in terms of the language used, there is no pusher handing the book out to young kids on the street. Most parents seem to address the curly question of where babies come from when prompted by their kids. Some canny children may start asking questions early – and it’s  parents prerogative how much they want to share.

While the usual ‘family advocates’ (read conservatives) claim that the book “devalues the traditional family unit”, they are speaking after the horse has bolted. Families have changed. Children continue to be loved. Not to provide them the same information that is afforded to children in nuclear families is discrimination.

Would you borrow this book from the library for your children?

The National Psychiatric Association, the Psychological Association, the Association of Mental Health Counsellors, and the National Association of Social Workers focused heavily on children’s well-being in their
statement. According to the psychologist who released the statement, “Research as shown children of same-sex couples are as likely as children of heterosexual parents to flourish…[and] same-sex parents are just as likely to provide healthy and supportive environments for children.”

The sole reason that the children of same-sex couples may suffer more than their peers in social situations is because of deeply ingrained societal discrimination—a problem that will only fade as governments grant same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Photo: National Film Board of Canada

It was fun to read about, but honestly, I'm not even sure why an arrangement like this is news any more. Quads made up of two gay men and two lesbians have been doing versions
of this for years. I knew a straight man who was not only the donor but also the active father for his queer best friends' kids. Parents who have fallen out of love/lust but are still friends raise kids together all the time.

After all, why do you need to be sleeping with someone to parent with them?

Most of the worries that are raised are so weak as to be laughable: "Some day Isabella will ask why mummy and daddy sleep in different bedrooms." Oh my. Please let all children never have to ask anything more troubling than that.

Even the idea that some day they would each find romantic partners and she might have three dads is a bit ho-hum. Like, um, umptyskillion children of divorce everywhere? Except without the breaking apart of the family first? And with a written contract that stipulates responsibilities and priorities? It would be a change, true, but its effects would all be in the handling. (It should be noted also that they are both very clear on putting the kid and their role as parents first and not intending to introduce step-parents to the mix even if they date.)

Yes, of course there will be oddities and challenges. There are in every family. Such an arrangement wouldn't be for everybody. But as far as I can tell the most abnormal thing about these two is they have a five-month-old and didn't mention sleep deprivation once.

(Hat-tip Proud Parenting.)

Gill and his partner of eight years have been raising a set of half-brothers for the past four years, ever since a child abuse investigator put the boys in the couple's "temporary" care just before Christmas. They have been the only parents the younger of the two boys, who is just four years old, has ever really known. Now they're the only dads he'll ever have to know. 

Lederman is the second Florida judge to challenge the decades-old ban this year. A judge in August dubbed it an "unveiled" expression of bigotry. Lederman agreed, stating that children should be granted the fundamental right to be raised in a loving home by two parents, even if their birth parents can't be called upon to do the job. Denying foster children of gays and lesbians that right means children's best interests are being denied.

Lederman's comments in the Miami Herald are just the sort of words we need to hear two days before Thanksgiving:

''This is the forum where we try to heal children, find permanent
families for them so they can get another chance at what every child
should know and feel from birth, and go on to lead productive lives. We pray for them
to thrive, but that is a word we rarely hear in dependency court.''

"It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's
ability to parent. Sexual orientation no more leads to psychiatric
disorders, alcohol and substance abuse, relationship instability, a
lower life expectancy or sexual disorders than race, gender,
socioeconomic class or any other demographic characteristic."

Duh! There are plenty of bad straight parents out there. And lots of good gay ones. Too bad I'm not a family court judge – I think I'd be good at this. Putting a damper on all this happy weeping, of course, is the state's attorney general's office – they've already guaranteed an appeal is headed to the third circuit court. But Frank Gill says he is happy today, and so are his sons. Yes, his sons. Because the adoption ban doesn't make more straight parents come pouring out of the woodwork. 

“It results in more children being left without any parents at all. They don't have a mom or a dad," he told the Herald.

Here's to every child one day having a mom and dad or a mom and mom or a dad and dad . . . just as long as they have someone to love and care for them.

Image: Miami Herald (Frank Gill and one of his sons)

The twenty-four-year-old actress is reportedly threatening to boycott her own brother's wedding if their mother shows (with or without her new girlfriend). A report in the Star says Mandy "always believed that her mum and dad were happy and that her mum was straight. Now she has no idea what to believe and feels as if she’s been lied to her entire life."

Taking this all with a grain of salt (it is the Star after all), I have to admit I feel bad for Mandy. Studies have shown that whether you're four, fourteen or twenty-four, watching the two people who created you fall apart is jarring – at least in the short term. Although researchers have largely discounted the theory that children of divorced families suffer major long term affects, the immediate feelings have been likened to the emotions we deal with when someone dies. Children feel abandoned when their parents divorce. They feel rejected. That their parents may finally be feeling free and happy – for the first time, perhaps, in their whole life – isn't something kids can look at in the short term.

Kids whose parents have been living life as a heterosexual and suddenly come out of the closet often feel that rejection tenfold. They question how long that parent has been aware of his or her sexuality and whether their conception was the result of a sexual relationship that one parent truly hated. They ponder whether they would have been born if their mum or dad followed their projected path from the get go.

I'm not advocating gay parents remain in the closet by any means. They have the same right to be happy as a straight parent who files for divorce. Part of parenting requires putting a piece of yourself before your kids if only to serve as an example for them of how to live. Coming out allows gay parents say to their kids, "I walk the walk, now listen to me when I tell you to be true to yourself."

Is it unfair to expect sons and daughters like Mandy to put gay rights on the table when they're watching their parents' marriage fall apart? Or do her supposed statements make her out to be a homophobe?

Image: PopCrunch.com

To give you a fair warning, both drive me nuts.

Anyone who thinks a child is a status symbol (for anyone besides a multiple-nanny-employing movie star, that is) does not have children.  Much as I'd love to dress my kids in designer clothes and parade them down main street on a boutique shopping spree, this just doesn't work in real life, where kids spew, nappies blow out, potty training takes the better part of a year and I don't have time to separate my darks from my whites from my pastels when I try to tackle the monster laundry pile in the corner of my room.

I think this kids-as-status-symbol thing is a misunderstanding of the shopping habits of new parents.  Yes, sometimes, if we are so privileged to afford it, we spend more than we should on fancy strollers, nursery furnishings, baby shoes and high chairs.  A friend of mine bought beautiful rosewood baby spoons for her only child, looking to eschew plastic.  How my heart longed for those spoons when she emailed me a link to their online supplier!  But by then, I was on my second kid and had realised that I could just use my regular teaspoons to feed the baby without buying anything new or using plastic.

New babies are exciting. We adore them, however much they vomit and their nappues blow out and we want to lavish signs of love upon them.  In our late-capitalist society, signs of love are often materialistic.  How many engaged or married women do you know who don't sport a diamond engagement ring?  This doesn't make a husband a status-symbol (well, most of the time).

Now here's Kevin Sessums, at the Daily Beast claiming that a biologically related child is the new status symbol for gay men.

Sessums go into a brief explanation at how gay men arrive at biologically related children, exploring the details of sperm-washing (for men who are HIV+) and surrogacy contracts.  And yes, all that really is expensive.  But given the opening scene of Sessums's essay &mash; a "drive back to Manhattan from our summer places in Provincetown" what of spending $150,000 to have a baby?  It's still a bargain compared to either a summer place in P'Town or a Manhattan apartment.

Mind you, I am an adoptive, lesbian mother who never gave a moment's thought to getting pregnant.  (Okay, I confess, my partner and I whimsically created a fantasy sperm-donor dream team, but we were only kidding around while googling gay-friendly adoption agencies.)  I have a strong personal prejudice in favour of adoption of existing children over laborious creation of new ones.  But even so, to each her (or his, as the case may be) own.  Everyone has a long and complicated list of reasons for parenting and how to go about it.  I'm glad the technology is available to help people go the biological route when that turns out to be the best option for them.  And given the difficulty and long waits prospective gay dads &mash; especially single ones &mash; often face when trying to adopt, biology might be a good option for those who can afford it.

But I am more bothered than anything else by Sessums's simplistic (and frequently heard) claim that seeking "the right to marry, the right to serve in the military, the right to be ordained as ministers, the right to have or adopt children, the right to be in the Boy Scouts" automatically makes queers conservative.  He posits his history "as a 52-year-old homosexual man who marched against Anita Bryant and survived the AIDS epidemic" in imagined opposition to these queer conservatives.

I don't know when this old chestnut is going to die.  I sometimes think it's just generational bitterness about "kids these days" &mash; a new possibility in a new queer world in which our elders have been out long enough to geeze about the good old days when no one wanted to marry or have kids, because they were too busy dancing the night away at 54.

And that's a blessing.  In spite of it all, I'm grateful that Sessums survived the AIDS epidemic, and I'm glad the generation to follow him has the kind of miraculous medical technology that allows them to live normal and even reproductive lives with HIV.  I'm grateful we have the luxury of these internecine squabbles because it means that our existence &mash; including our history &mash; is being acknowledged.

But don't write me off as a non-radical just because I'm raising children.  Maybe no one in Sessum's day wanted to marry or have children, or maybe no one could imagine ever having that option anyway.  In another generation, my kids will be part of the insider queer conversation, as some adult children of GLBT parents are already.  And the conversation will be richer and the movement for justice will be more powerful because of that.

Image: In the interest of full disclosure, that's my adopted daughter and her non-biologically-related but gay godfather!

I found some of the responses a bit implausible, however, such as a finding that of the kids reporting sexual activity of their own (again, less than the general population) 100% of this was opposite-sex activity.  Though the researcher says she believes the self-reporting kids are being honest, I have to wonder if they aren't also heavily influenced by the sense of responsibility Abigail Garner found when she interviewed the adult children of same-sex parents for her book, Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell it Like it Is.  Garner discovered that children with queer parents felt the need to prove to the world that they were normal and healthy and sometimes, most of all, heterosexual.  It seems the worst fear outsiders have about same-sex parenting is that we'll turn our kids gay and enough of us have enough internalised homophobia to worry about it ourselves.  Could be that a group of 17-year olds aren't ready to break away from protecting the family image enough to admit they are experimenting as much as the rest of the population?

But overall, the study's findings are encouraging.  Given all the legal and financial drawbacks to having a lesbian family, a little break during the teen years seems fair enough.

 Photo by dellafels

In news that surprises absolutely no one, the AP is reporting that yes, Virginia (or is that Mary?) Clay Aiken is a gay man. Claymates everywhere are in tears.

The story highlights from CNN?

·  "American Idol" runner-up and infant son are on new People cover
·  "I cannot raise a child to lie or hide things," Aiken says
·  Aiken made his debut on Broadway in "Spamalot"

So. The first two, OK. On the cover of People, interesting (especially since it was previously reported that no one wanted that picture because it was too "creepy"). Can't lie while raising a child, yes, right, newsworthy quote. And…he was on Broadway. This is relevant because…?

Source/image: CNN
]]> http://www.babble.com.au/2008/09/25/clay-aiken-comes-out/feed/ 0