No law planned for same-sex adoption

who is this

For anyone who missed this is the Times (I personally can't even figure out where I found the link on the site!). Don't see anyone else having posted it.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0211/1224311625287.html

I can't say I'm surprised (disappointed though). That whole "constitutional convention" BS made it very clear Labour had allowed FG to win in any significant LGBT-related areas.

(I say BS, because you'll notice, we didn't need a convention to decide how to write the Lisbon Treaty amendment, or divorce referendum etc. Funny coincidence)

James W

Well I think it's important to get same sex marriage firmly established before the adoption of children by these couples can be considered - the former is a necessary predicate of the latter.

paddyandy

Father and Mother are natural .

James W

paddyandy wrote: »

Father and Mother are natural .

So are fresh air and water - what's your point?

who is this

James W wrote: »

the former is a necessary predicate of the latter.

But it's not. Single people are already able to do so. I would agree only I don't see the current government enacting anything of the sort, and it is an issue for people already. I also see a referendum on the issue being far more difficult to win if adoption isn't already dealt with (i.e. many genuinely good-hearted non-bigoted people would be hesitant being asked to approve same-sex marriage if they think they may also be approving adoption. Not because they reject the latter, but because they'd be more unsure about it.)

paddyandy wrote: »

Father and Mother are natural .

You haven't made any point.

By your logic the children of paedophiles should be left with their natural parents. Without the inherently artificial institutions of police and state, this is likely what would happen.

James W

who is this wrote: »

But it's not. Single people are already able to do so. I would agree only I don't see the current government enacting anything of the sort, and it is an issue for people already. I also see a referendum on the issue being far more difficult to win if adoption isn't already dealt with (i.e. many genuinely good-hearted non-bigoted people would be hesitant being asked to approve same-sex marriage if they think they may also be approving adoption. Not because they reject the latter, but because they'd be more unsure about it.)

It is. Either you adopt as a single person or as a couple, same or opposite sex. Until same sex marriage is legal and established, there is no point in talking about adoption for same sex couples.

cgcsb

paddyandy wrote: »

Father and Mother are natural .

Not really though. In the majority of primitive cultures remaining on earth, child rearing is a communal effort usually seen to my the women of the community. A monogomous male-female pairing(marriage) and the subsequent nuclear family are a social construct and came about as a convenient method of sorting out inheritance issues.

Besides we are talking about adoption here, a wholey un-natural process. I'd also like to remind you that you are posting on an internet forum.

Annasopra

I actually think that tactical and politically it's probably much more important to get a children's rights referendum out of the way first and then it might be politically much easier to bring in laws allowing same sex couples to adopt.

Annasopra

James W wrote: »

It is. Either you adopt as a single person or as a couple, same or opposite sex. Until same sex marriage is legal and established, there is no point in talking about adoption for same sex couples.

It's important to note that only married couples can adopt jointly.

James W

mango salsa wrote: »

It's important to note that only married couples can adopt jointly.

That is my point - either that or a single person. Until gay marriage is legalised, there is little point in looking at the issue of same sex couples adopting.

glic71rods46t0

mango salsa wrote: »

I actually think that tactical and politically it's probably much more important to get a children's rights referendum out of the way first and then it might be politically much easier to bring in laws allowing same sex couples to adopt.

I think it would be better all round for the LGBT community to engage in transparent political debate to achieve their aims of having society decide whether such things are desirable or welcome in society rather than trying to have such rights brought in by the back door against the (current) wishes of wider society

peter barrins

This post has been deleted.

wonderfulname

peter barrins wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Obviously not, I believe there has been an even more recent poll as well, with even better results.

I don't really see this as news, nothing at all constructive is being done in government at the moment, randomly naming something that isn't happening doesn't mean much...

By the way OP the constitutional convention was promised by labour prior to the election (I remember that "BS" was a key reason in me voting for them...) and would bear no relevance to a specific adoption law, rather it would review the constitutional definitions of family and marriage, which could result in same-sex marriage rights, which would have the knock on effect of allowing gay adoption, given that gay adoption is not specifically illegal, just any two unmarried people adopting jointly. The convention is not specifically interested in LGBT rights, it is interested in reviewing our grossly outdated and biased constitution as a whole, same-sex couples are only one group affected by this, at this stage the majority of the country would find there are areas of the constitution which do not represent them, and could potentially work against them.

I personally have great reservations about the concept of a gay adoption law, just like I was uncomfortable with the idea of civil partnership, it enshrines an entire structure in law that sets out same-sex couples as second class. I would much prefer to see marriage equality than a civil partnership equal to marriage in all but name, and by the looks of it so would most of the country, so what's the problem?

floggg

I believe that the most recent poll found that circa 73% of the population supported marriage equality.

In any event I certainly don't believe that providing for marriage equality through legislation would be doing it through the back door. Firstly, our political system is set up so that our elected representatives are our voice in the Dail.

More importantly though if you look at marriage equality as an equality and human rights issue it's not in the gift of the majority to give these things by referendum - they should flow automatically from the fact that we are citizens in an equal society.

Personally I'd prefer to see the Supreme Court rule for marriage equality as it would send a clear statement that LGB people were fully equal in the eyes of the law.

It was the courts who mandated integration and desegregation in America, not politicians or the people, as they found that equality was a basic human right that wasn't subject to the whims of the majority.

As for gay adoption I can't rightly say whether it is best achieved as part of or independently from the marriage equality issue, or indeed the rights of the child referendum. I think the constitutional convention will be important though as it is certainly likely to remove the outdated provisions relating to the family and the role of women which would have significant legal consequences I think.

Regardless of how it's achieved however, I think anybody here who would like to see it become a reality should do something to try and force the issue more politically.

Politicians will act if they feel there is some political capital to be gained from this. Unfortunately they will only do this if the voices of those in favour a being heard.

For example Marriage Equality have a campaign at the minute encouraging supporters of marriage equality to visit their local TDs to speak to them on the issue.

I'm sure there are plenty of other campaigns or ways of getting engaged out there as well.

It's an interesting time at the minute politically, with the constitutional convention coming up, a pro-marriage equality party in government (albeit in the minority role) and a relatively pro-LGBT party as the second largest party in opposition in SF.

Fianna Fail are also desperately trying to reinvent themselves and move away from their old ways and engage a newer, younger and more modern platform and electorate so this is an issue they can't come out too strongly against either.

I think there is a great opportunity to make progress on these issues but only if we all make a push for it.

MOSSAD

James W wrote: »

So are fresh air and water - what's your point?

Reminds me of the gay marriage wars of the 1990s in the US where the anti-gay crowd warned of the dire consequences, physically, morally and spiritually of any child that might be unfortunate enough to be placed with a gay couple.
The exception was those parentless kids with AIDS-the fags could have them. No worries there.

gaa131

wonderfulname wrote: »

Obviously not, I believe there has been an even more recent poll as well, with even better results.

I don't really see this as news, nothing at all constructive is being done in government at the moment, randomly naming something that isn't happening doesn't mean much...

By the way OP the constitutional convention was promised by labour prior to the election (I remember that "BS" was a key reason in me voting for them...) and would bear no relevance to a specific adoption law, rather it would review the constitutional definitions of family and marriage, which could result in same-sex marriage rights, which would have the knock on effect of allowing gay adoption, given that gay adoption is not specifically illegal, just any two unmarried people adopting jointly. The convention is not specifically interested in LGBT rights, it is interested in reviewing our grossly outdated and biased constitution as a whole, same-sex couples are only one group affected by this, at this stage the majority of the country would find there are areas of the constitution which do not represent them, and could potentially work against them.

I personally have great reservations about the concept of a gay adoption law, just like I was uncomfortable with the idea of civil partnership, it enshrines an entire structure in law that sets out same-sex couples as second class. I would much prefer to see marriage equality than a civil partnership equal to marriage in all but name, and by the looks of it so would most of the country, so what's the problem?

That's a really clear and excellent summary. However, the prospect of a referendum on this is slim at this point in time. I agree that there should be a single universal set of parameters rather than piecemeal bits of legislation which afford legal rights but fail to provide for same sex marriage.

Articles 41 & 42 of The Constitution were clearly influenced by Catholicism and it's definition of a family i.e. one based in marriage. It does not specify what marriage constitutes, though one can be sure it referred to marriage in its conventional context. It seems that this simply requires an addition to provide a definition of marriage that includes same sex marriages - could it be that simple?

floggg

Im sure Mango can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but isn't a commitment to hold a referendum on gay marriage in the program for government?

This may or may not be made redundant by the constitutional convention.

The Constitution is a living document so generally speaking it is to be interpreted not at the time of its enactment but at the time at which the case is being heard.

So a constitutional amendment isn't actually necessary to allow for marriage equality.

I think in the High Court case, it was thought that marriage equality hadn't been widely accepted internationally enough at the time to justify interpreting the constitutional provision as including same sex marriage.

But with every day that passes as marriage equality gains more equality that's changing.

Thankfully the drafters of thr constitution probably never foresaw this being an issue so never specifically precluded it.

Annasopra

floggg wrote: »

Im sure Mango can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but isn't a commitment to hold a referendum on gay marriage in the program for government?

This may or may not be made redundant by the constitutional convention.

This is the relevant part of the programme for government

Broader constitutional review
We will establish a Constitutional Convention to consider comprehensive constitutional reform, with a brief to consider, as a whole or in sub-groups, and report within 12 months on the following:
• Review of our Dáil electoral system.
• Reducing the presidential term to 5 years and aligning it with the local and European elections
• Provision for same-sex marriage.
• Amending the clause on women in the home and encourage greater participation of women in public life.
• Removing blasphemy from the Constitution
• Possible reduction of the voting age.
• Other relevant constitutional amendments that may be recommended by the Convention.

Nyan Cat

I think it may be unlikely that the current gov will deal with it or gay marriage. There are certain topics every gov seems reluctant to touch, such as abortion. Because regardless of what is best for the country, it affects votes. They might lose the right wing vote or the elderly vote (or whatever section of society they feel voted for them)

The difference here is labour is in coalition because of a more left and younger vote. And they have expectations too. But it seems like - with past coalitions- the bigger party rules the roost. So because of that I still think its an issue they're unlikely to tackle.