MEDIA RELEASE
For release: June 25, 2010
The gay and lesbian rights lobby must prove that children already living in same-sex families are disadvantaged before denying a child the human right to both a mother and father is entrenched in NSW adoption law, the Australian Christian Lobby said today.
ACL’s NSW Director David Hutt said children born to a parent who was now in a same sex relationship should have any real or perceived disadvantage remedied without the need to change adoption laws.
“ACL does not wish to see any child disadvantaged. A raft of changes to Federal and State laws in recent years had dealt with discrimination affecting children in same sex families and if there were any remaining areas these should be looked at separately from adoption laws.
“However, it is important that where the State must intervene on behalf of babies and children that it ensures the human right to at least begin life with both a mother and a father is not expunged from our legal system and our culture,” Mr Hutt said.
“The rights of a child must always come before the lifestyle choices of adults,” Mr Hutt said.
“Despite all of the law reform of the past couple of years to assist same sex couples and their children from previous heterosexual relationships, it seems the selfish political agenda of the gay and lesbian rights lobby will not be satisfied until two men or two women are allowed to acquire babies or young children by adoption,” Mr Hutt said.
Mr Hutt said many people in NSW would be disappointed by Premier Kristina Keneally’s support for the bill.
“NSW politicians must show courage on behalf of our most vulnerable and ensure that every child in which the State has an interest has the human right to a mother and a father.”
Yesterday the independent member for Sydney, Clover Moore introduced a bill to legalise gay adoption. NSW Premier Kristina Keneally has granted Government MPs a conscience vote on the issue and has indicated her personal support for the bill. Opposition MPs have also been granted a conscience vote on the bill.
Media Contact: Glynis Quinlan 0408 875 979
Children have a right to both a mother and father!
They should not be denied this right because of the un-christian choices of their “parents”.
A “Mother & Father” are as capable of making “un-Christian” choices as a same sex couple. Even if you are straight and Christian and married, you are not perfect and can’t guarantee that you will not succumb to temptation.
If a child has a Muslim mother and Father, should we save them from “un-Christian” choices?
Your logic is flawed and happenstance and you do your cause no favors.
The point is still that a child has the basic right to a mother and father.
I will pray for you.
The ACL’s argument would be a lot more convincing if not for society’s huge number of single-parent families (apparently ~15% of families in Australia). Surely your organisation should be fighting single-parent families before attacking same-sex parents. Clearly the ACL has a problem with homosexual couples because of their sexual orientation and a conflict with their moral code – that’s fine, but please have the courage to say it plainly.
Jawed and Paul are missing the point.
The biological fact is every child has a mother and father – the combination of two genetic halves to create a new life. This is indisputable.
Issue 1 – Not every parent is a ‘good parent’.
Well duh, we’re human, we make mistakes. However… while there are no guarantees of good parenting, hopefully good ones will raise their children to be successful, resilient, happy adults. Christians believe (and secular research supports) that children raised by their parents who conceived them, with a demonstrable commitment to domestic stability (marriage) in a household with sensible frameworks and strong moral guidance (for which we believe Christianity is the most stable, consistent, loving and fair) will reach adulthood with better interpersonal relationships between the sexes, have a strong sense of purpose and self-worth.
Issue 2 – Not every child needs a father
This is a fallacious argument. While it is true that not every child is raised by their own parents with a high number of these having no relationship with their father (my husband and I were both raised by solo mums), it does not negate the fact that the positive imprinting and role modelling of both genders (as parents) is vital for psychological health.
While issues of successfully raising healthy children following divorce are problematic enough, evidence abounds that children conceived by sperm donations also experience psychological trauma.
From a recent article published in Buffalo, New York: “Researchers assembled a representative sample of 485 adults, ages 18-45, whose mothers conceived them with donated sperm. They compared their attitudes and sense of self to a group of 562 young adults who were adopted as infants and 563 young adults who were raised by their biological parents.
By large percentages, the sperm-donor children suffered more depression, delinquency and substance abuse than children who were adopted or raised in a home with their two natural parents. Almost two-thirds agreed that “My sperm donor is half of who I am.” Half were concerned that money was involved in their creation.”
And this is before we get to the issues of the struggles children of same sex parents face in establishing identity.
The bottomline is only the traditional view of marriage and child rearing offers the best outcomes for children. Children who are unfortunate enough not to be raised in these ideal circumstances need extra support and their primary parent made aware of their additional responsibilities in this regard.
Dear Jawed,
ACL is not judgemental about single parent families. These parents do a great job. Raising kids is hard enough with two parents and very few people deliberately set out to raise kids on their own. This happens usually because of death or relationship breakdown. The State shouldn’t deliberately put kids in a fatherless or motherless circumstance.Furthermore, the State should incentivise marriage because this is the optimal environment for a child.
Lyle Shelton, ACL Chief of Staff
Thank you Lyle.
One mother and one father is ideal. In fact one mother, one father, two grandmothers, two grandfathers is even better.
One mother or one father arising out of the death of the other (or more frequently alas these days due to divorce) is unfortunate, but things at least started out the right way — and with luck there are still the grandparent(s).
Single mothers who just decide to start a family on their own is very wrong, but they and their children deserve our support if they seek it.
Two mothers or two fathers is simply an abomination that cannot be seen to be better (or even approaching equal) than even a single parent. (What are these people thinking?) And I can’t imagine these children seeing their grandparents either.
Yours in Christ
Bob
Summed it up nicely. Thanks Lyle.
When this issue is examined from the angle of the child’s welfare ,all the evidence supports both a mother and a father as the optimum family unit.
Jacqui puts it very well. I support all she says above. I would like to add, contrary to what the Gay and Lesbian Lobby often say, REAL Christians are not in the business of hating homosexuals or lesbians. We disagree totally with the lifestyle as sited in the Bible, but we wish and pray a better life for them.
It is understandable that same sex couples parenting the biological child of one of the couple should want equal legal responsibility for the child. It does not follow that adoption legislation should be changed. The impacts of such change are far reaching
1. Adoption Law must be guided by the BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, not be driven by the desires of the parents around their status as parents.
1. In order for an Adoption Order to be made, the parental consent of both the mother and father is required, or the consent must be dispensed with, for specific legally mandated reasons. This means that under law, after an Adoption Order is made, the child is legally cut off from one parent. Is it in the best interests of the child to be legally cut off from either birth parent?
2. The biblical model for a family is one mother and one father, and this is still the dominant model in families in NSW. A change to the Adoption Law to enable same sex couples to adopt the biological child of one of the couple would then enable same sex couples to be assessed to adopted children voluntarily placed for adoption by their birth parents.
There is no shortage of heterosexual couples wanting to adopt, so why should babies and toddlers be deliberatley placed in families where they are being denied their right to be parented by a mother and a father?
3. The desire of same sex couples to share legal responsibility for the child can be achieved through legislation that already exisits. There is no need to change Adoption Law.
I guess that means I have been morally wrong, Bob. After all, I CHOSE to be a single parent. There hasn’t been a father around since conception. I do think that two parents are better than one(assuming those two parents have a decent relationship). I just don’t happen to think that those two parents have to be of opposing genders. As long as a child is raised in a loving environment by people that truly care for their wellbeing, I think that is enough. And I think it is surely better than having children in state care, or children dealing with abuse, neglect, or violent relationships between their parents.
Shouldn’t we be dealing with helping children who really need it? Those who are born into poverty, or are living in countries where their basic human rights are not acknowledged?