by frog
It’s understandable but disappointing that Labour has, as the Herald puts it:
Stripped its gay and lesbian policy of controversy, leaving it silent on emotive issues such as same-sex adoption even though that remains on the table. Its apparently cautious policy this election is in stark contrast to its 2002 paper, which detailed backing for both same-sex adoption and civil unions.
I had hoped that, while National had a self-proclaimed “social liberal” as a leader, Labour would not be reluctant to push to extend rights enjoyed by heterosexual Kiwis to gay and lesbian New Zealanders, because it wouldn’t be vulnerable politically to do so. But Dr Brash’s flip-flop on civil unions changed all that – and, ever since, the clamouring about Labour’s social engineering (as if prostitution and gay couples didn’t exist before 1999, but Labour had engineered them through the passage of social legislation) has only got louder. (Though, to give Dr Brash credit where it’s due, he has said recently that he will not attempt to repeal the Civil Union Act, though Judith Collins seems to want to limit it to gay couples.)
One of the more laughable accusations in the Win attack leaflet was that the Greens will seek to “create ‘rainbow’ communities”. This came in the same breath as saying that the Greens would legalise adoption for same-sex couples. Jeanette‘s rebuttal of the “create rainbow communities” point was:
“Rainbow” communities – that is, communities of gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual Kiwis – already exist. The Greens will not be “creating” them, or forcing anybody to be gay, or any other sexual orientation. We believe that all Kiwis, regardless of their sexual orientation, deserve respect, and we affirm and celebrate New Zealand as a diverse, tolerant country, and reject bigotry in all its forms. We believe that a couple’s parenting skills should be the primary factor when considering eligibility for adoption, not their sexual orientation.
Published in Campaign | Society & Culture by frog on Sat, September 3rd, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
You have it all wrong, it is the child’s rights that come first. Often there is a stigma associated with being adopted which is why Maori kids are ideally placed with Maori parents, Caucasian kids with Caucasian parents etc. Placing children with Gay couples is obviously going to increase the likely hood of them being identified as adopted and increase the likely hood of the child being stigmatised as they grow up (primarily from other children). Do you really believe that you are looking after the rights of the child by endorsing gay adoption?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toa:
So you’d change the law to ban inter-racial adoption? Call me naive, but I think the “rights” of Olympia Jetson, Delicia Witika, James Whakaruru etc. would have been better served by being in the cutstody of people who didn’t rape and/or beat them to death – and the sexual orientation or race of the people concerned should be utterly irrelevant.
Oh, and I don’t actually think being adopted is a cause to “stigmatise” any child, and perhaps society needs to look at itself rather than allow prejudice to become its own justification. My father is my father, full stop – and that didn’t change the day the found out he wasn’t my biological father and adopted me when he married my mother.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Craig:
“So you’d change the law to ban inter-racial adoption?”
-Nope
“Call me naive, but I think the “rights? of Olympia Jetson, Delicia Witika, James Whakaruru etc. would have been better served by being in the cutstody of people who didn’t rape and/or beat them to death”
-Agreed
“Oh, and I don’t actually think being adopted is a cause to “stigmatise? any child”
-Agreed
“perhaps society needs to look at itself rather than allow prejudice to become its own justification”
-The question is how many children will it take to change societies prejudice? Is it the states responsibility to make these changes to society with its wards? Or is it the states responsibility to ensure its wards are placed in environments free from the prejudices of society?
I am just curious when did you find out you were adopted? Also was your adopted father of the same race? Was it obvious to other children that you were adopted and did you face any stigma regarding it?
The reality is that children do get stigmatised for various reasons and usually the worst offenders are other children. Lets remove race and sexual orientation from the equation and just think about what is best for the children. I think you will find that “ideally” the agencies try to place children with the same race and some reasons would be the stigma of adoption, society acceptance, a cultural aspect etc. In my opinion the state has the responsibility to ensure that children’s rights are top priority and this ideally means its wards are placed in environments free from the prejudices of society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bullying is a problem, but it should not be a knock down blow against adoption by same-sex couples.
Children have their values implanted in them before they arrive at school by their parents and other family members. If kids have a problem with same-sex adoption, it’s because their parents have a problem. The difference between kids and their parents however, is that kids are explicit about their values and will bully.
There are a couple of weaknesses with Toa’s argument. Firstly it moves the goals way too far away from the real issue. If we could find a situation, such as a school with a very good anti-bulling policy, then this would be enough to allow same-sex couples to adopt. If social stigma from fellow children is the only thing holding adoption back, then once this has been removed, problem solved.
Also, if Toa’s argument were correct, it would have pretty severe consequences for other reproductive policy. Obese parents tend to produce obese families, because of both environmental and genetic causes. Obese children tend to have stigma attached to them. Therefore, because there is a high chance of bullying, those parents should not be permitted to have a family. Toa only needs a high probability of stigma attachment, as does mine. My argument also assumes that the rights of the child as the prime concern (which is not the case in normal reproduction), as does Toa.
There is also the really good point that Craig made, and that many proponents make. Parents’ love and parental ability will presumeably have a much greater impact on a child’s wellbeing than bullying. Of course bullying tends to haunt our memories of school, but we do tend to get over them. On the otherhand, the love of our parents tends to stay with us for good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Edit: My argument also assumes that the rights of the child as the prime concern, as does Toa. Note this is probably not the case for normal reproduction, so my example is slightly artifical.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toa et al:
I agree that it is the child’s rights that come first.
I think that the lack of babies available for “childless” adoptive parents, has turned those available into a “prized comodity” thus removing the stigma of adoption.
Adoption is not only of the very young. It can be to give legal (and thus emotional) certainty to an under-age child should something happen to (for example) to his/her birth mother.
Many of our ideas about adoption come from a time when divorce was frowned upon. The father-headed nuclear family was the model. Virgin marriage was assumed (and was the norm.)
“For the sake of the child” an unmarried mother would be “sent away” before her pregnancy “showed”, to bear and deliver the baby and sign it over for adoption, often “sight unseen”. These babies were (in some respects a comodity) to be “matched” with parents most likely to look similar. Many children were never told of their adoptions, even in adulthood … all this in the name of “normal” nuclear families of Dad, Mum and their kids. This “nuclear family” system applied to young Maori mothers as well.
From my generation (of “war babies” who grew up in the dreaded 50′s) I know birth mothers (and adopted kids) who have been scarred for life by this experience.
In the contrast of today’s more liberal and flexible, blended and re blended family situations, I know children who live happily in two different households. Children who live at least some of the time with “two mothers”, or with “two fathers”… or with a “grandmother” who is not a blood relation etc. These children surely should have a legal right to ensure that they can remain in their home situation should their birth parent(s) die or be unable to parent adequately.
We cannot provide certainty for our children. My own, now adult, kids, both conceived and born into a “normal heterosexual marriage” have been without a father for most of their lives. Grandfather and family friends provided role models and support for them.
If anything had happened to me I would have liked to know that my children would go to the best home for them, regardless of the sexual orientation of the adoptive parent or parents.
Adoption is about providing love, security and stability for children, and the laws, although having improved, should recognise and reflect the much broader definition of “family” now evident and acknowledged in Aotearoa by giving children appropriate legal security within that definition. This security will in some cases involve same sex parents (often a second parent who is the partner of the birth parent.)
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)