Government announce major policy contradiction just to please LGBT

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

blueshade wrote: »

Where are the rights of the child in this? A birth cert should list the names of birth parents, in the case of a donor then a different arrangement should be made. All parents should have equal rights with their children but makey uppey nonsense on birth certs is not in the interests of the child, it's nothing more than pandering to ''feelz''. The child is getting lost in this while the couples make it all about themselves.

Can you elaborate what you mean by "makey uppey nonsense"?

Won't all three names appear on the birth cert (honestly open to correction on this)?

blueshade

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Can you elaborate what you mean by "makey uppey nonsense"?

Won't all three names appear on the birth cert (honestly open to correction on this)?

I think you know exactly what I mean by makey uppey nonsense. A baby comes out of only one vagina, if one of the parents gave birth then she is the mother and the partner, if they have no biological contribution to the child, is not the birth parent. Legally both partners in any parenting arrangement should have equal legal rights, regardless of gender or marital status. That's fairly self evident, anything else is nothing but pandering. The child is being lost in all this PC nonsense.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

blueshade wrote: »

I think you know exactly what I mean by makey uppey nonsense. A baby comes out of only one vagina, if one of the parents gave birth then she is the mother and the partner, if they have no biological contribution to the child, is not the birth parent. Legally both partners in any parenting arrangement should have equal legal rights, regardless of gender or marital status. That's fairly self evident, anything else is nothing but pandering. The child is being lost in all this PC nonsense.

I asked you to "elaborate" not "explain".

The bit in bold is appearently not happening and rights are being denied to one "parent" because they aren't on the birth cert. Specifically, the right to bequeath.

Honestly don't see that the fuss is: nothing is being withheld from the child (as long as the birth mother's name is recorded and will be accessable to the child at some point of its life, of course), nothing is being withheld from society. People are just whinging because someone else now has the same right they have and spouting "PC nonsense" to cover the fact.

hatrickpatrick

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Can you elaborate what you mean by "makey uppey nonsense"?

Won't all three names appear on the birth cert (honestly open to correction on this)?

Recording anyone other than the people from whose genetic material a child was created as biological parents is "makey uppey nonsense". Kids should have a right to know where they came from genetically speaking.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Recording anyone other than the people from whose genetic material a child was created as biological parents is "makey uppey nonsense". Kids should have a right to know where they came from genetically speaking.

Again:

I asked the poster to "elaborate" not "explain". (I know what "makep-uppey" actually means)

Honestly don't see that the fuss is: nothing is being withheld from the child (as long as the birth mother's name is recorded and will be accessable to the child at some point of its life, of course), nothing is being withheld from society. People are just whinging because someone else now has the same right they have and spouting "PC nonsense" to cover the fact.
(Kid still has said right)

----

You've basically said exactly what the poster I was replying to said, and as such, I've replied saying exactly what I said before.

Feisar

Right, what does it mean to be a person on a child's birth cert? Define that and then lets have a discussion.

Bobblehats

I honestly don’t know where I stand amidst all of this. One one hand it is often better a child doesn’t know who their parents really are particularly when the question becomes a more of a ‘quest’ further on into their teens yet on the other I still think LGBT is some form of BLT with garnish on so who knows.

Rodin

Rule book got thrown out of the window a long time ago.
Just one big mess remains.

donaghs

RiseToMe wrote: »

A birth cert has never been a record of genetics and never will be. In order to claim this they would require genetic testing prior to issuing a birth cert.

Proof of this is the current legislation whereby if the mother is married to a man at the time of birth, he may be put on the birthcert as the father even if there is no biological relationship to the child. This is written in our legislation.

Again, this is the current legislation as it stands. Birthcerts in this country are nothing to do with biology and never have been based on the legislation in place.

Disingenuous. Birth certs pre-date genetics. But they still wanted to know who gave birth to the child, and the assumption was that it was the “mother”.

donaghs

I theory there’s no big issue here, but the devils in the detail. Every child should still have a right to know who their biological parents are. Does anyone know what happens in all the potential scenarios with surrogate mothers, two fathers, etc?

Iodine1

Bobblehats wrote: »

I honestly don’t know where I stand amidst all of this. One one hand it is often better a child doesn’t know who their parents really are particularly when the question becomes a more of a ‘quest’ further on into their teens yet on the other I still think LGBT is some form of BLT with garnish on so who knows.

When, in what circumstances is it better for the child not to know?

Ten of Swords

donaghs wrote: »

Does anyone know what happens in all the potential scenarios with surrogate mothers, two fathers, etc?

Doesn't apply here. The policy described in the op is relevant only to birth mother (which automatically rules out two male parents) and spouse, where the child was conceived through DAHR (donor assisted human reproduction) in an Irish clinic, where the donor is known, and the child is born in Ireland.

Any variation of the above criteria and these new rules don't apply (overseas clinic, born outside Ireland, anonymous donor etc)



Here is the act. Parts 2 and 3 come into effect on May 5th 2020

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/9/enacted/en/html

Section 5 deals with parentage
Section 35 deals with the right to information about the donor

Bobblehats

Iodine1 wrote: »

When, in what circumstances is it better for the child not to know?

When your father turns out to be an alcoholic paraplegic in a corpo flat with what appears to be a trophy cabinet full of piss jugs behind him. Stuff like that

Batty Boy

Batty Boy wrote: »

Having the father’s name on the child’s birth certificate helps to establish the child’s sense of identity as s/he grows up.

it does? I am not sure I ever even _saw_ my own birth cert growing up. With the possible exception of needing it to apply for my first passport. I know my kids have not seen theirs either - and the fact we live in a three person relationship their identify would not be represented on it anyway given they have three parents in their life and the cert only registers two.

I really struggle to think of anyone I personally know who has linked their identity growing up to their birth cert in any way at all in my life - let alone what names happen to be on it. In fact children generally seem to have no interest at all in the documents adults rule their world with as they grow up.

Whatever issues I can think of as to why it is a bad idea to mess with the contents of our nations certifications of birth - the sense of identity it gives a growing child is not something I would include on the list. That idea seems as ludicrous to me as the tripe nonsense a few people trot out around here that a kids parents need to be one man and one woman because kids need a male and female "role model". Guess what? They can not support that bull either.

Iodine1

Bobblehats wrote: »

When your father turns out to be an alcoholic paraplegic in a corpo flat with what appears to be a trophy cabinet full of piss jugs behind him. Stuff like that

So many people have alcoholic fathers and don't see it as a reason to deny them?
Likewise all those good people who live in corpo flats, don't deny it either?
Perhaps you could give me a civil and sensible answer to a reasonable question I asked you based on your post?

Huntergonzo

Have to be careful what I say here because I recently got a lifetime ban off the LGBT forum on boards for saying that I believed in only 2 genders (male & female) and that you couldn't change genders.

Anyway, I think this legislation is a bad idea if the birth cert does not also contain the names of the biological parents when known.

It panders to the feelings of grown adults rather then the best interests of the child. Now this is of course not to say that the biological parents are always the best for the child, far from it. Adoptive parents can be much better, and I have no issue with same sex couples or same sex marriage or anything like that, infact I support those things.

But a child should have the right to know who both their biological parents are for obvious reasons, not least for medical reasons and it seems very contrived and downright wrong to put 1 or 2 people down on a birthcert who had no involvement in creating the child.

But alas we live in crazy times folks.

Bobblehats

Iodine1 wrote: »

So many people have alcoholic fathers and don't see it as a reason to deny them?
Likewise all those good people who live in corpo flats, don't deny it either?
Perhaps you could give me a civil and sensible answer to a reasonable question I asked you based on your post?

It’s one thing if they were born into it, but the impact of discovering this and that it was all self inflicted due to alcoholism (and possibly womanising) can have a detrimental effect on a teenager’s esteem. Whilst their friends may have admiration for their parents, even going on to follow in their footsteps but then I do think knowledge of some dna history might well be beneficial. In case of any hereditary disease

TheValeyard

Child may need medical information down the road. Knowing your biological parents is essential to protect you and any potential children you may have.

Balf

TheValeyard wrote: »

Child may need medical information down the road. Knowing your biological parents is essential to protect you and any potential children you may have.

And its notable that this issue is being raised as a marriage equality issue, not a rights of the child issue. Despite the very clear understanding that the marriage equality referendum had nothing to do with children.

We've already voted to protect the rights of the child. And the rights of the child are not necessarily served by allowing men to arbitrarily deny their responsibilities as fathers, saying "I was just helping out a couple of lesbians".

And that's pretty much what's being looked for, with this pathetic argument that effectively anyone should be allowed to be included on the cert as a parent because we don't carry out a genetic test every time a married woman says her husband is the father of her child, or every time an unmarried man consents to being named as father.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Balf wrote: »

And its notable that this issue is being raised as a marriage equality issue, not a rights of the child issue. Despite the very clear understanding that the marriage equality referendum had nothing to do with children.

We've already voted to protect the rights of the child. And the rights of the child are not necessarily served by allowing men to arbitrarily deny their responsibilities as fathers, saying "I was just helping out a couple of lesbians".

And that's pretty much what's being looked for, with this pathetic argument that effectively anyone should be allowed to be included on the cert as a parent because we don't carry out a genetic test every time a married woman says her husband is the father of her child, or every time an unmarried man consents to being named as father.

A few people have harped on about the "rights of the child" but then shimmed off when asked a very simple question, perhaps you'll have better luck, so here goes:

Exactly what specific right is being taken away from a child under the law change?

Iodine1

Bobblehats wrote: »

It’s one thing if they were born into it, but the impact of discovering this and that it was all self inflicted due to alcoholism (and possibly womanising) can have a detrimental effect on a teenager’s esteem. Whilst their friends may have admiration for their parents, even going on to follow in their footsteps but then I do think knowledge of some dna history might well be beneficial. In case of any hereditary disease

Lots of reasons for low self esteem in teenagers, not least among them, not knowing your background, as evidenced by the trauma suffered by those from whom it was withheld in the past. Alcoholism is not self inflicted, no one chooses to become one, and there is evidence of genetic predisposition also.
In any case, I believe the possibility of any hereditary disease or issue is reason enough for everyone to be able to access their genetic history, easily and most importantly accurately.

Balf

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Exactly what specific right is being taken away from a child under the law change?

You are looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope, and missing the point that campaigners are seeking more change.

And the question to ask is what right of the child is being upheld, and why is the marriage equality referendum being cited instead of the children's referendum?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Balf wrote: »

You are looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope, and missing the point that campaigners are seeking more change.

And the question to ask is what right of the child is being upheld, and why is the marriage equality referendum being cited instead of the children's referendum?

So, no you can't answer me and your entire reference to "children's rights" was hyperbole.

Couldn't care less what referendum is being cited. It makes no difference to you, makes no difference to the child, and no difference to society.

One eyed Jack

Balf wrote: »

You are looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope, and missing the point that campaigners are seeking more change.

And the question to ask is what right of the child is being upheld, and why is the marriage equality referendum being cited instead of the children's referendum?

It’s a fair question, because it wasn’t discussed all that much around the time of the marriage equality referendum, that the Irish Constitution regards the institution of the Family through the institution of Marriage. Basically, children whose parents are unmarried do not have the same recognition and protection in Irish law as the children of parents who are married, as they do not constitute a Family according to how the Family is recognised in the Irish Constitution.

It was hoped at the time of the Children and Family Relationships Bill that this would be addressed before the Act was passed into law, but it wasn’t, and still hasn’t been. It would require a referendum to redefine the Family in Irish law to include children and their parents who are unmarried. It presents something of a conundrum how this could be achieved though when Article 41 is written as -


1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as


3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.


It’s an issue for one-parent families also, that the children do not enjoy the same protection and care of the State as the children whose parents are married. That’s how the marriage equality referendum affected the children of gay and lesbian couples who previously were unable to marry and become legally recognised as a family in Irish law.

There have been a couple of interesting cases regarding this issue -

Ruling stresses no such thing as 'de facto family' in law

Zird

[Deleted User] wrote: »

it does? I am not sure I ever even _saw_ my own birth cert growing up. With the possible exception of needing it to apply for my first passport. I know my kids have not seen theirs either - and the fact we live in a three person relationship their identify would not be represented on it anyway given they have three parents in their life and the cert only registers two.

I really struggle to think of anyone I personally know who has linked their identity growing up to their birth cert in any way at all in my life - let alone what names happen to be on it. In fact children generally seem to have no interest at all in the documents adults rule their world with as they grow up.

Whatever issues I can think of as to why it is a bad idea to mess with the contents of our nations certifications of birth - the sense of identity it gives a growing child is not something I would include on the list. That idea seems as ludicrous to me as the tripe nonsense a few people trot out around here that a kids parents need to be one man and one woman because kids need a male and female "role model". Guess what? They can not support that bull either.

The poster was quoting the official births, deaths and marriages website.

Balf

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would require a referendum to redefine the Family in Irish law to include children and their parents who are unmarried. It presents something of a conundrum how this could be achieved ....

And i'd say, in the strict political sense, Government has always wanted to present that they are doing nothing that impacts on traditional marriages or families. I'm not sure that's actually feasible - but it absolutely leads to the situation you describe, where we define extra protection for the rights of children without specifying how that reduces (as it must) the perogatives of parents.

There's even a degree of (IMHO) confusion - same sex couples expecting to be able to randomly pull down the perogatives of parents, even as we limit those perogatives. I find that in the way parental medical consent is raised as one of the things they want the unconnected partner to acquire. That has little to do with the rights of the child - doctors routinely overturn the objections of Jehohvah's Witnesses if the parents attempt to obstruct their child's necessary medical care. There's no problem in children getting access to emergency medical care. Are same sex couples looking for the right to obstruct medical care? What is it they want?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There have been a couple of interesting cases regarding this issue -

Ruling stresses no such thing as 'de facto family' in law

Interesting - thanks for the link. It shows the kind of practical situation that can arise, which cannot just be steamrolled over. If a biological father wants access, and there's nothing about him that presents a danger to the child - if his presence is actually good from the child's point of view - how could he be excluded?

The issue of the “de facto family” previously arose in relation to a lesbian couple who had a baby with the sperm of a male friend. He later sought access to the child, and the couple opposed it, asserting their rights as a “de facto” family. This argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in December 2009, which ruled that such did not exist in Irish law, and that the child had the right to know his biological father.

You can see there's a kind of rosy afterglow from the marriage referendum that make people reluctant to go beyond vague generalities, and actually consider the kinds of awkward situations that life contains.

Anyway, we won't sort it all out today!

One eyed Jack

Balf wrote: »

And i'd say, in the strict political sense, Government has always wanted to present that they are doing nothing that impacts on traditional marriages or families. I'm not sure that's actually feasible - but it absolutely leads to the situation you describe, where we define extra protection for the rights of children without specifying how that reduces (as it must) the perogatives of parents.

Well, the children’s referendum as it was called, while it didn’t decrease the rights of parents, it increased the ability of the State to protect children, note the changes in the text -

Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland


But that still did not offer children of unmarried parents the same protection in Irish law as the children of married parents. For a Government that you suggest wants to present that they are doing nothing that impacts on traditional marriages and families, I would say quite the opposite, with my point being that they are still falling well short of treating all people as equal before the law - a human right declared in Article 7 of the UDHR -


https://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/articles-01-10.html

As was noted by the Judge in the case I linked to earlier though, Ireland’s Constutional law with regards to the family takes precedence over international law, so the State can effectively continue to drag it’s heels on the matter.

Balf wrote: »

There's even a degree of (IMHO) confusion - same sex couples expecting to be able to randomly pull down the perogatives of parents, even as we limit those perogatives. I find that in the way parental medical consent is raised as one of the things they want the unconnected partner to acquire. That has little to do with the rights of the child - doctors routinely overturn the objections of Jehohvah's Witnesses if the parents attempt to obstruct their child's necessary medical care. There's no problem in children getting access to emergency medical care. Are same sex couples looking for the right to obstruct medical care? What is it they want?

I don’t think you’re correct about the medical professions authority to over-ride the will of parents in regards to the welfare of their children without the intervention of the Courts, but that aside, what they want is to enjoy the same regard in law as parents who are legally recognised as their children’s parents already enjoy. To be recognised as a Family without all the unnecessary ‘de facto’ stuff which isn’t recognised in Irish law, but has precedent in international law.

Balf wrote: »

Interesting - thanks for the link. It shows the kind of practical situation that can arise, which cannot just be steamrolled over. If a biological father wants access, and there's nothing about him that presents a danger to the child - if his presence is actually good from the child's point of view - how could he be excluded?

Well he can be excluded (married or not) if the Courts determine that it serves the best interests of the child. The same judgement can be made though regardless of the persons relationship to the child, because decisions are based upon as you say acting in the best interests of the child. In most cases the child’s point of view is taken into account, and in some cases they will have someone acting on behalf of their interests - a guardian ad litem is appointed by the Courts. In some cases the child was made a ward of Court before it was even born, but there hasn’t been a case testing that since the referendum on abortion.

There are precedents in Irish law which address some of the issues around AHR and DAHR, but as yet there is no law regulating surrogacy for example, other than it’s unlawful in Ireland, and the person who gives birth is regarded as the child’s mother in Irish law, regardless of the source of the egg donation. It’s the partner in a female same sex relationship relationship who previously was not recognised in law as the child’s parent, is the issue the latest legislation being brought into law attempts to address.

Balf wrote: »

You can see there's a kind of rosy afterglow from the marriage referendum that make people reluctant to go beyond vague generalities, and actually consider the kinds of awkward situations that life contains.

Anyway, we won't sort it all out today!

Oh absolutely, and that was one of my main issues with the’Yes’ campaign in the marriage equality referendum, and we’ve even seen it happening in this thread - attempts to avoid any discussion as to the importance of the referendum with regard to children’s welfare and child rights, rather than demonstrating and expressing the positive impact it would have on children whose parents are of the same sex, and were unable to be recognised as a family in Irish law. The Children and Family Relationships Act went some of the way towards addressing that, the introduction of marriage equality into law went a little bit further, but still there is a ways to go and so far the current Government are patting themselves on the back and being held in high esteem for doing all the easy lifting and not making any real effort to protect children and treat all children as equal before the law.

Balf

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, the children’s referendum as it was called, while it didn’t decrease the rights of parents, it increased the ability of the State to protect children,

Just to quibble, I actually don't think its possible to increase the ability to intervene without diminishing parental rights.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think you’re correct about the medical professions authority to over-ride the will of parents in regards to the welfare of their children without the intervention of the Courts

Just to be clear, what I mean isn't that a doctor can independently override parental authority, its that the Courts do grant applications by doctors that overrule parents in those situations. And that even predates the Children's Referendum.

As you probably know, the Courts even gave doctors permission to force a blood transfusion on an adult Jehovah's Witness, on grounds that if she died her child would be orphaned.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well he can be excluded (married or not) if the Courts determine that it serves the best interests of the child.

Indeed, as I said the issue is where the Courts feel there isn't a problem, and contact is beneficial.

Which seems to be the situation in that case.

blueshade

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

A few people have harped on about the "rights of the child" but then shimmed off when asked a very simple question, perhaps you'll have better luck, so here goes:

Exactly what specific right is being taken away from a child under the law change?

Perhaps it's not so much people ''shimmying off'' as people having a life that doesn't involve being online trying to sell manure to people with more common sense and less time than they have. I don't care about the feelings of adults on these matters. All parents should have equal rights, in an ideal world a child would have the names of both biological parents on their birth cert doing otherwise to pander to the moaning of same sex parents is silly. Feelings should have nothing to do with birth certificates. Don't even get me started on this bollocks of changing sex on birth certs, certainly not on kids changing their birth certs.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

blueshade wrote: »

Perhaps it's not so much people ''shimmying off'' as people having a life that doesn't involve being online....

... and yet here you are...

trying to sell manure to people with more common sense and less time than they have. I don't care about the feelings of adults on these matters. All parents should have equal rights, in an ideal world a child would have the names of both biological parents on their birth cert doing otherwise to pander to the moaning of same sex parents is silly.

Ah, the pandering defense. In the same way giving women the vote was "pandering"? And allowing black people enter universities is "pandering"? And allowing gay people to legally marry the person the love is "pandering"?

Feelings should have nothing to do with birth certificates. Don't even get me started on this bollocks of changing sex on birth certs, certainly not on kids changing their birth certs.

Feelings like getting frustrated at the idea of other people you feel are don't like sharing the same level as you, and feeling like you have to create a smokescreen to hide the level of discomfort you feel about it?

Because - as I have pointed out and you have not disagreed with - it makes no difference to you, to the child or to society.