Click here to watch the video.

?In April 2010, a national network of advocates, community members, researchers and service providers identified the following three priorities for reform and resources at a federal level:

• Marriage equality

• Removal of discrimination in adoption law, and

• Ensuring that federally-funded services are inclusive of children with same-sex parents and their families.

Rainbow Families Council is the Victorian community organisation representing same-sex parented children and their families. We urge all parties and independents running in the federal election to consider these issues.

"The big spike you see in 2008 is California recognizing gay marriage through the courts, and then un-recognizing it through the passage of Proposition 8. Right now, it’s possible to marry your same-sex partner in Buenos Aires, in Mexico City, in Ames, Iowa, and in Pretoria, South Africa, but not in San Francisco. With countries like Argentina and Portugal now recognizing same-sex marriages, however, the global trajectory has returned to its slow-but-steady upward pace."

[Source: Original Article]

In New South Wales same-sex couples are not allowed to adopt, but a private member’s bill is seeking to change that.

Independent MP Clover Moore recently introduced the bill, which will be debated when parliament returns from its winter break in late August.
Adoption by same-sex couples can be an emotive issue, inciting a broad range of opinions in the community.

Laws governing adoption by same-sex couples vary from state to state with little uniformity.
The policy coordinator with the New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, Senthorn Raj, says the country’s same-sex adoption laws range widely.

There are very few states and territories in Australia that permit same-sex-couple adoption.
Western Australia and the ACT permit same-sex couples eligibility to adopt.

Tasmania permits a second-parent adoption mechanism for same-sex couples, which applies to step-parents.

Other states and territories currently do not have any mechanism permitting same-sex couples eligibility to adopt.

Raj says there is a misconception in the community that same-sex couples are primarily seeking to adopt unknown children.

He points out very few children are adopted domestically in Australia or overseas.
Instead, he argues, the real issue is about children already living with same-sex parents.
Across Australia there are over 4,300 children who live in same-sex families, but those children are being denied the legal recognition of both their parents.

This compromises the legal entitlements and rights a child is able to access around superannuation, workers compensation, custody and contact with their parent after a relationship breakdown.

Jenni Millbank, of the Faculty of Law at the University of Technology in Sydney, also argues law reform is primarily about children in existing relationships.

For same-sex couples the major issue with adoption is that if they foster or look after a child or children over a long period of time, as a couple they are not then eligible to adopt those children and give them a more secure environment.

They are also excluded from step-parent adoptions.

This means that a same-sex couple where one biological parent has died or there is no other legal parent, in the case of a lesbian couple who have had a child or in the case of assisted conception, for example, the family cannot formalise a parenting arrangement that is already in place.

Millbank says law-reform processes and parliamentary committees are important in letting everyone have a say on issues like same-sex adoption.

She says that generally they show you cannot make an absolute finding, based on sexual orientation or family structure, about what is good or bad for children.

Instead, Millbank argues, you need to look at individual people and couples and their parenting styles and the way they interact with children and make a finding about whether those specific adults are right for that specific child.

Political party Family First opposes adoption by same-sex couples, saying the number of children already living with same-sex parents does not justify law reform in the area.

Dennis Hood, a member in the upper house of the South Australian parliament for Family First, is opposed to legalising same-sex adoption.

Hood argues that the very small number affected by the arguments Millbank outlines does not justify a change in legislation.

He says one of the implications of a change parenting laws that allows homosexual couples to adopt children is that it would mean a change in the whole terminology of what parenting is.
Hood says parents may no longer be referred to as mother and father. They would become co-parents because, in some cases, the actual biological parent of the child is no longer included on the birth certificate.

Different groups have called on the Federal Government to take over adoption laws so they are more consistent.

But Hood claims legal reform would set a precedent he does not think Australia needs.
He argues that children have been brought up, where possible, by a mother and father for thousands of years. To change that role may be beneficial for the small minority of parents, but questions whether it is beneficial for the children themselves.

When it comes to fostering children, many agencies, especially, with religious affiliations, can reject some carers based on exemptions granted by the Anti-Discrimination Act.

While exemptions vary from state to state, it is not unusual for faith-affiliated groups to reject same-sex couples’ applications based on those exemptions.

Barnardos Australia is a foster-care agency based in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory that openly recruits same-sex couples.

Chief Executive Officer Louise Voigt says the main priority for Barnardos is not the carers’ sexuality, but their ability to take care of traumatised children.

She says that with same-sex couples it can be difficult because they are not approved as adoptive families. They have a number of (same-sex) carers who are highly successful and they do not want to move those children, who have strong attachments but still need the security of adoption.

Voigt says she would like to see legal reform because it would allow many of Barnardos carers to permanently adopt the children they care for.

She says that, with around one in three children eventually adopted, permanency is always in the child’s best interests.

[Source: Original Article]

Argentina on Thursday became the first country in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage, following a landmark Senate vote carried live on national television.

The law, backed by the center-left government of President Cristina Kirchner, was adopted in a 33-27 vote after 15 hours of debate. In this majority Roman Catholic country, some had reservations, but the law passed. "It is a historic day," said ruling party leader Miguel Pichetto.

Opposition Radical senator Gerardo Morales said Argentine society has changed, stressing that the bill was aimed at guaranteeing the rights of minorities.

The law tweaks the legal code which no longer will refer to husband and wife, but rather to "the marrying parties".

Same-sex couples will have the same rights as heterosexuals in terms of adoptions, social security and family time.

Argentina became the first country in Latin America to give a green light to same-sex marriage nationwide. It followed, around the world, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal and Iceland.

[Source: Original Article]

Becoming parents was hard work for gay couple, Pete and Mark but they’d do it all over again if they had to.

A shiny child’s bike lies on its side on the front lawn of an immaculate garden.

Around the back gay dads Pete and Mark chase their son’s pet chickens around, trying to catch them.

Drake, 5, exclaims that the little birds are too fast for him.

It’s a happy, relaxed family scene. But it wasn’t an easy road to get there. After many hurdles Drake was born by surrogacy in Russia.

"We decided that we would have a child, that it was time for us to have a family. We wanted to experience the joys of fatherhood and we started our surrogacy over in the United States back in 2002," Pete said.

At the time, Pete and Mark were living and working in the US.

"Surrogacy rules and laws are much easier in the United States," Mark said.

While not everybody was comfortable with the idea of surrogacy, Mark said the couple felt their options were limited.

"We knew that there were certainly plenty of women willing to do it so if it OK with them, then I guess it was OK with us," he said.

Mark and Pete used the internet to find prospective mothers for the child they longed to have. Apart from the woman’s health, Pete said one of the big concerns was how genuine the candidates were.

"We have heard about a lot of scams and certain people who represent themselves as so-called surrogate mothers who are really out there just to make money," he said.

Pete said the couple also wanted to make sure that any woman they employed as a surrogate fully understood the commitment she was making.

There was also the issue of whether the mother would actually give up her baby, Mark added.

After many failed attempts in the US, the cost was becoming prohibitive. The pair decided to try Russia as cheaper alternative.

That decision presented its own problems. Language was the main one. The couple took on a private Russian tutor and Pete gave up his job in Australia to oversee the process.

"We were very dedicated to making this work….we decided that at some point we didn’t have a budget. Our budget was anything that we had earned, anything that we had saved, anything that we could borrow to make this happen," Pete said.

In the end Pete said they found a woman who they ‘clicked with personality-wise’.

"She was very quiet. She didn’t have a lot of demands or conditions that some of the other woman that we had met had. She seemed like somebody we could work with," he said.

At the first attempt, Drake was conceived via artificial insemination using Mark’s sperm.

When asked why it was Mark’s sperm and not Pete’s, Mark laughed.

"A flip of the coin I think," he said.

During the pregnancy the couple stayed in limited contact with the mother via a translator. Mostly they were in touch just when there were practical things to care of such as visiting a doctor or getting an ultrasound.

"We made it clear to her that we wanted her to take vitamins, that we wanted her to eat well. We provided the money to do that and we just had to hope that she would do it," Mark said.

Neither man was at Drake’s birth because they felt it was important to protect the mother’s privacy.

When their son was five days old, Mark and Pete were handed their child. To their surprise, Drake’s mother gave them the baby and walked away.

"I think she had resigned herself to this much earlier on and was trying not to let emotions get in the way," Mark said.

In fact, it wasn’t the mother who got in the way of Drake coming back to Australia with his two Dads. What followed was two and a half years of bureaucracy before the child received permanent Australian residency and another year before he got citizenship.

On arrival in Australia customs quizzed Mark and Pete for hours. Police were also sent around to their house on a Sunday morning to investigate.

"When people see two guys together, you know it’s like, ‘Where’s his mother?’ We’ve had a lot of people ask that," Pete said.

"I think that even if one of us was a woman, we wouldn’t have had the same suspicions and problems that we went through."

Thinking back to the police visit, Pete said the police seemed to want reassurance that the situation was ‘right’.

They checked if the couple had equipment to raise a child like a bed, clothes and bottles.

Mark said he’s sure that they were under suspicion of paedophilia. But despite the difficulties, he said the couple would do it again with no hesitation.

"We’re a family just like any other family," he said with pride.

[Source: Original Article]

[Source: Original MP3]

The final and full report of the Australian national NOT SO PRIVATE LIVES survey is now available online.

The 2,032 participants were 18-82 years of age, from each state and territory, and from metropolitan and rural Australia. Results are presented based on gender identity (male, female, and gender different), six age groups (18-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-82) and three age cohorts (<25 yrs, 25-34 yrs, 35+ yrs). Additional findings are provided for transgender/transsexual and intersex participants.

[Source: Original Document]

[Source: Original Video]

The conference will be covering topics for gay dads in surrogacy, co-parenting, gay dads from a straight relationship, fostering and adoption, step gay dads (partners) and of course gay guys wanting to be dads. More information from Drummond Street Services on 03 9663 6733 or download flyer.

Single men, women and even gays and lesbians could soon get the legal sanction to have children using surrogate mothers.

The draft Bill legalising surrogacy in India — the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) [Regulation] Bill 2010 — has provided for single parenthood by allowing “unmarried couples” and “single persons” from India and abroad to have children using ART procedure and surrogate mothers.
The Bill, with potential to rewrite the social landscape, may be tabled in the monsoon session of Parliament if the Union Cabinet clears it. By conferring the right to have children on unmarried couples and single persons, the Bill attempts to achieve several historic feats — legalising commercial surrogacy, single parenthood, live-in relationships and entitling even gays and lesbians to start families using surrogate mothers — at one go.
“Along with the term single persons, the path is open for gays and lesbians to use ART procedure,” said senior advocate Rajiv Dhavan, who played a crucial role in drafting the Bill along with his colleagues at Public Interest Legal Support and Research Centre. “The expression ‘unmarried couples’ generally suggests heterosexual relationships. But its interpretation has been left open.”

By conferring the right to have children on unmarried couples and single persons, the Bill attempts to achieve several historic feats — legalising commercial surrogacy, single parenthood, live-in relationships and entitling even gays and lesbians to start families using surrogate mothers — at one go.

Asked if such a legislation would conform to traditional Indian values, Dhavan said, “This Bill does not provoke a moral attack on the institution of family. Married persons will mostly use it. But the option to create family will also be available to all others.”
Renting of womb is legal in India but there is no law to regulate surrogacy.

A 2009 Law Commission report had described ART industry as “a Rs 25,000-crore pot of gold”. “Wombs in India are on rent which translates into babies for foreigners and dollars for Indian surrogate mothers,” the report had stated.

The commission had recommended legalising only altruistic surrogacy arrangements and not commercial ones. But the draft Bill legalises commercial surrogacy as well.

Clause 34(3) of the draft Bill specifically says that apart from all expenses involved, “the  surrogate mother may also receive monetary compensation from the couple or individual, as the case may be, for agreeing to act as such surrogate.”
She will have to relinquish all parental rights over the child in favour of commissioning parent/s. Only a woman in the age-group of 21-35 can become a surrogate mother but she can not bear more than five children including her own.

In view of the recent controversy involving a German couple’s child born to a surrogate mother in India, the Bill makes it mandatory for foreigners to submit certificates on their country’s policy on surrogacy and that the child born to an Indian surrogate mother will get entry into the commissioning parent/s’ country.

The Bill proposes to set up a mechanism to regulate and supervise surrogacy in India.

[Source: Original Article]

• Gay Dads Australia – Australia – This blog is run by Gay Dads Australia and provide lots of information on Surrogacy together with an extensive media archive relating to all things Australian and GLBTI parenting.
• From India With Love….  – Australia – This is a blog by Johnny and Darren “Just your happily ‘unmarried’ couple who this year celebrate 13 years together. We live in the picturesque Blue Mountains, west of Sydney in NSW Australia & have become parents via commercial surrogacy in India. This is our story…”
• Orea-Zoi – Australia – George K’s blog about his surrogacy journey and his twins Electra and Eros “Lives life to the fullest, consumed by the world around him, delights in his family and friends…….. OH! and has just became a DAD! …… TWINS!” 
• Lucas – Australia – “Single man, though not by choice, but I just have extremely high standards. Have wanted kids for nearly 13 years, so now’s the time to stop making excuses and bite the bullet. If I’m going to wait for Mr Right, then considering my past experience, I’ll always be waiting for a very long time. Will it be easy? Hell no! Fun? Mostly! Fulfilling? Always! If you wanna get to know me better, drop me a line and say hi”.
• Our Surrogacy Story – Australia – Will and Michael  “have been in a committed relationship for nine years. We are now attempting to have a child through surrogacy to complete our family”.
• Fatherhood: Life with Addison – USA – Greg and Rob’s blog on their Indian Surrogacy journey. ”We are two guys who had a precious baby girl born via Surrogacy India. This is our Story…”
• Looking for Baby… – USA – Doug and Bill’s Egg-cellent Adventure into Surrogacy. "My partner, Bill, and I live in Hawaii and have been together since February 1996. This is a blog of our journey to become parents”.
• Becoming Dads – Canada – Todd (Canadian) and Matt (Aussie) blog – “A gay couple consider expanding their non-traditional family; anyway but the olde fashioned way”.
• Stalking the Stork – USA – Jason and Adrian blog. “We’re a Spanish-American binational gay couple living in Los Angeles and exploring becoming dads via surrogacy in India”.
• Christmas Eve Boys – Terry and Steve from the US charting their journey.
• Here we go again – Europe – Robert and Fredrik’s blog on their journey to become parents through surrogacy in India.
• John and Steve are Having a Baby – John and Steve’s blog on their journey. “We’re really just two strapping, young (shut up) homosexuals who are at the stage in our relationship where having a child just seems…well right”.
• The Allton Nee Three – UK/HK – Adam and Michael blog “Well this is our blog! We have been together 11 years and just embarked upon our first surrogacy attempt. We decided to use Thailand for our surrogacy and hopefully 2010 will be our year! We live and work in Hong Kong but are from the UK. We are updating this blog regularly and hoping for good news soon!!”
• Chiang-Cruise – Australia – Jeff and Rodney Chiang-Cruise’s blog on their family and all things GLBTI parenting in Australia.
• BT JR – The Becoming Tour – Australia – Chronicles of Geoff & Naigel’s Adventure to Become Parents.
• Introspective – Australia – Michael “shares his life with a loving man, beautiful twin girls, 2 dogs and 2 rainbow lorikeets”.
• 2 Dads and a Baby – Australia – Paul and Chris “Follow us on our journey to becoming a family”.
• 2 Dad Family – Australia – Two guys in Melbourne and the “ragdoll cat Frankie” on the surrogacy journey.

If you know of any more (I am sure there are many, many others please share them.

Victorian activists plan to make same-sex adoption an election issue in the lead-up to the state poll.

With NSW expected to vote in favour of same-sex adoption in August, Rainbow Families Council convenor Felicity Marlowe said a Victorian campaign would be ramped up in the coming weeks.

“Adoption is the main thing we’re campaigning on during the election, but it’s not just adoption, we want the remaining recommendations in the Law Reform Commission report to be implemented,” she told Southern Star.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission recommended same-sex adoption in its 2002 Assisted Reproductive Technology and Adoption report.

The Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) Bill passed in 2008 as a result of that report.

While allowing lesbians access to IVF and the inclusion of non-biological lesbian mothers on birth certificates was seen as a significant step forward, same-sex adoption failed to gain traction in the suite of reforms.

The Rainbow Families Council will talk to its membership and other rainbow family organisations including Gay Dads Victoria before structuring a campaign.

Marlowe said it was likely the campaign would also push for more inclusive policies and practices for diverse families in the early childhood development sector.

Rainbow Families Council member and gay dad Rodney Chiang-Cruise said allowing known parent adoption for same-sex couples would have a huge impact on gay dads, often left in legal limbo.

“If we look at what our ultimate aim is, it is to be recognised as legal parents and the best way to do that is known or second-parent adoption,” he said.

“That would make a huge practical difference and a very important symbolic difference to those children on a day-to-day basis.”

Chiang-Cruise said the issue for gay surrogate fathers was complicated as they are in the difficult legal position of only being classified as donors to their children.

“There was a sense that gay dads got nothing out of [the ART reforms], but there was little to offer us in a sense, because lesbians were coming from a position of carrying the child which makes her a mother, whereas gay men are always donors, whether they have a child through surrogacy or they co-parent,” he said.

“The real issue for surrogate dads comes down to getting something better than a parenting order or a consent order from the Family Court which gives you parenting rights, but doesn’t make you technically a parent.”

The Rainbow Families Council is seeking help from the Public Interest Law Clearing House to prepare a research paper on the current legal standing of gay parents.

[Source: Original Article]

Twilight Seminar 2: Surrogacy in Victoria – Issues to Consider.

The next seminar in the Authority’s Twilight Seminar Series focuses on Surrogacy in Victoria – Issues to Consider and will be held on Wednesday 8 September 2010 from 5.30pm at Russell Kennedy in La Trobe Street, Melbourne.

It promises to be an interesting and informative evening. We will hear about the surrogacy journey from two different personal perspectives and an experienced family lawyer will discuss the legal implications of pursuing surrogacy in Victoria. The psychological aspects of surrogacy including essential ingredients for success and pitfalls to avoid will also be presented.

More information about the seminar including a registration form is available on the Authority’s website at www.varta.org.au.

I think the forms are not yet up on the website, but I am sure you can register if you give them a call.

In 2007 the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) released a report called "Assisted Reproductive Technology – Adoption: Final Report". The Report stated:

“Adoption of babies is now rare. Same-sex couples are currently unable to adopt children in Victoria. The commission believes that it is important that the widest possible pool of people is available to help these children. Research shows that a parent’s sexuality is not a predictor of harm to children”.

The summary report is available here and as you will note of all the recommendations, Adoption was the only one that was not acted on by the State Government of Victoria.  Adoption is important to Same Sex couples in Victoria.  Whether you have done surrogacy overseas and want access to second parent or known adoption or whether you want to be able to adopt an unknown child, this reform is important to you.

A State Election is fast approaching in Victoria and the Rainbow Families Council is looking at stepping at lobbying on this issue.  People who are interested in assisting in helping out the lobbying campaign are encouraged to contact Rainbow Families Council to lend a hand.

Same-sex couples may have the right to adopt in NSW before year’s end.

The ALP, Liberals and Nationals have all granted their members a conscience vote on MP Clover Moore’s Adoption Amendment (Same-Sex Couples) Bill, which is likely to be debated in August.

The bill has the support of the Greens in the Legislative Council.

“Both the NSW Liberals and the Nationals will have a conscience vote on this Bill,” a spokesman for Opposition leader Barry O’Farrell said.

“This is a matter for individual MPs to determine their own position and to vote according to their view. In our party’s tradition such votes are seen as a strength that reflect the different opinions that exist in the community on these issues.”

Premier Kristina Keneally told Southern Star the bill had her in-principle support and that she would take part in debate over it.

“I know of … same-sex couples who successfully foster children but are unable to adopt them,” Keneally said. “I also personally know same-sex couples who are raising children together. Like all good parents, they love their children and want the very best for them.”

Keneally said her faith was no barrier to supporting the bill, though she expected there would be some critics.

“What I know as a Christian, as a Catholic, is that Jesus himself was about love.

“Jesus loved all and he accepted all and for me that is the strongest message that comes out of the gospels. When I see gay and lesbian people giving that unselfish love to a child, that’s something that I … want to support.

“However, I am aware that there are very deeply held, divergent views on this issue and adoption by same-sex couples is a sensitive issue for the [wider] community.”

NSW GLRL co-convenor Kellie McDonald welcomed Moore’s bill.

“These amendments will enable same-sex couples to apply to become legal parents of children in their care, giving their children access to rights and entitlements such as a parent’s superannuation or worker’s compensation if their parent is injured at work,” McDonald said.

“Same-sex couples, like all other prospective adoptive parents, should be judged on their individual merits and their capacity to provide a loving and stable home for a child. Sexual orientation is not a meaningful indicator of parenting ability.”

“There is no evidence to suggest that a person’s sexual orientation has any bearing on their suitability to be an adoptive parent, therefore there is no reason to legislate to exclude someone from being able to adopt on the basis of their homosexual orientation or family arrangements,” Clover Moore told Parliament in presenting her bill on Thursday.

[Source: Original Article]

Dale Elliott and Daniel Brighton don’t fit the profile of ‘traditional’ foster parents. For one thing, they’re very young — 22 and 21 respectively. For another, they’re gay.

The couple, who’ve been together for more than three years have been approved as foster carers as part of the Benevolent Society’s foster care program and are currently awaiting ‘the call’ telling them a child needs to go into their care.

When it comes, it will be the culmination of a yearning the pair have shared since the start of their relationship.

“We couldn’t go and adopt, surrogacy is extremely hard, and a lot of fostering organisations have their ideals of the perfect family, with a mother staying home and not working,” Elliott told Southern Star.

“So many options were closed to us. Then we saw the Benevolent Society’s stand at [Mardi Gras] Fair Day earlier this year. We went to an information session, had our first in-home meeting, and then applied.”

The application process is exhaustive. Applicants are assigned a case worker and must attend training sessions, in-home assessments and safety checks before a final decision is made by an approval panel.

“It is very thorough, but for us, it all happened quite quickly, because we’d been ready and wanting to do it for two years. On average, the process takes six months, but we managed to do it in two and a half months,” Elliott said.

While he said their parents and friends had been supportive of their decision, he conceded that they had faced some resistance — more so because of their age than their sexuality.

“We definitely felt like we had to prove ourselves. Everyone else in the training sessions already had kids, whether they were lesbian couples or straight couples. But we’re very stable — we own our own home, we’re not going out partying every weekend.

“The approval panel never made a judgement against us based on our ages. They just needed us to prove that we could handle having a foster child, that we could nurture and care for them the same way an older carer would.”

info: Visit www.fosterachild.org.au

[Source: Original Article]

Title: Different Families – The experiences of children with lesbian and gay parents

Press Release: Stonewall today publishes groundbreaking research examining the experiences of children with gay parents. ‘Different Families’ is based on interviews conducted by the University of Cambridge with over 80 children and young people from the age of four, all of whom have lesbian and gay parents. The research also provides shocking insights into the prevalence of homophobia in Britain’s schools, including primary schools. The children who experience this, although not gay themselves, identify that many schools still don’t address it.

‘We still do things together, and we’re still a big family and we’re still happy … and we still care for each other and we’re still there when someone needs someone.’ Jasmin, 8

‘I just feel there’s some difference between the other families and us. The way we all work together … We all link up like a puzzle.’ Eleanor, 8

Ben Summerskill, Stonewall Chief Executive said; ‘For the children of lesbian and gay parents their families look remarkably like everyone else’s. This research highlights how it’s the prejudices of others which often causes them far more distress than their own personal or family characteristics – and is further evidence of the urgent need to tackle homophobia in our schools.’

Among the report’s recommendations, some of which were made by the children interviewed, are for schools to respond robustly to homophobic language and bullying. YouGov polling commissioned last year by Stonewall showed that anti-gay bullying is almost endemic in Britain’s schools. Nine in ten secondary schools teachers reported that children – regardless of their sexual orientation – currently experience homophobic bullying in their schools. This affects children of gay parents too:

‘Sometimes they say … everybody’s got a dad, he must be dead, or something. I say no, he’s not dead, I’ve got a donor dad … sometimes I get teased by them calling my dad a donut dad … They say … I know what gay means, it’s two naked men dancing around on a boat.’ Mark, 8

‘In school I don’t like it how people make fun of gay people. Like when they say “that’s so gay”. Most people say it as a joke, and it’s not funny at all.’ Maheen, 13

‘She said, ‘well your mum’s gay, so why aren’t you?’ … and then it turned to really nasty comments about my mum. Oh your mum’s an effing dyke and all this stuff and I just thought that’s not on …  I just ignored it, but it just got worse.’ Meg, 16

‘Normally people just say like … “gay dad” … and stuff like that. Normally I try and say something back because it like makes me feel better. Or I just try and ignore it. That’s harder obviously … The teachers tell them off but … secretly they always carry on.’ William, 15

[Source: Original Press Release]

"It is in the best interests of children to have both a mother and a father." In a society where marriage, heterosexuality and family are so closely intertwined, such a simple, albeit cliched, statement would seem uncontroversial. In fact, the idea of a mother and a father in a married relationship carries such political and cultural currency that it is hard to imagine having children in circumstances that do not fit neatly under the matrimonial rubric. So how do we then manage to contemplate a family unit that is not only unmarried, but has two mums or two dads?

In moving to recognise the status of existing and potential same-sex families, the recently introduced Adoption Amendment (Same-Sex Couples) Bill removes the last piece of legislative discrimination against same-sex couples in NSW. The basic rationale behind this Bill is that the sexuality of prospective parents should not be a determinative factor when it comes to protecting the welfare of children.

In NSW, the Adoption Act currently uses an archaic heterosexual definition of "de facto", "spouse" and "partner" to preclude same-sex couples eligibility to be considered to adopt. Adoption is not a right. However, the legislative barriers in the Adoption Act send out a troubling social message that a person’s non-heterosexual orientation necessarily makes them an inadequate parent. It is unsurprising then that homophobic ideas that conflate pedophilia and homosexuality continue to exist, when the law itself seems to implicitly connect gay or lesbian parents as potential risks to children.

Discriminatory rhetoric used in protecting children is not new. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families have suffered the forcible removal of children. The commonly referred to "stolen generations" represents an era of government policy that imputed a lack of parenting ability to persons of an indigenous heritage. While such a racially motivated policy is now rightly met with abhorrence and apology, why does the NSW government continue to promote a construct of parenting that disenfranchises same-sex families?

While not contesting the value of the typical nuclear family, part of the problem with our understanding of parenting is the overemphasis of gender. Feminist politics has laboured across generations to contest the popular idea that women bear the primary responsibility or desire for raising children because of their reproductive anatomy. As surprising as this may be to some, not all women want to be mothers. The association between motherhood and nurturing, or fatherhood and discipline, reveals more about our limited cultural stereotypes than any gendered natural predispositions.

Social research on families ably demonstrates that it is the processes of parenting, rather than the family structure that matters. Credible psychological studies discern that children in same-sex families do not demonstrate any important differences in development, happiness, peer relations and adjustment.

Adoption often evokes the image of a mother giving her child to unknown parents. Despite the prevalence of this image in our cultural imaginary, this form of adoption accounts for only a very small percentage of adoptions in NSW. Adoption reform will have the most significant impact on the already 1500 children living in same-sex families in NSW (what is referred to as "known adoption").

If a child is unable to have both their parents legally recognised, they will be denied rights, entitlements and benefits associated with the non-legal parent. This includes automatic rights to inheritance, superannuation benefits or worker’s compensation. Parentage also ensures custody and contact for parents upon relationship breakdown, including child support obligations on a non-resident parent. The Bill also amends definitions of "step-parent" to to include same-sex couples and this will ensure children have greater certainty around their care and welfare.

Perhaps what makes the government policy situation to parenting in NSW more confusing is that same-sex couples are able (even encouraged) to foster children by the NSW government. Minister for Community Services Linda Burney has endorsed parenting by same-sex couples: "Lesbian and gay foster carers make a highly valued contribution to the NSW out-of-home care service system."

Despite considerable praise for same-sex parenting for vulnerable and displaced children, the NSW law denies these children the durability of having their relationship to their foster parents recognised. Permanency planning, which places children in long-term foster care, continues to be undermined, as children fostered by same-sex couples are then denied the security of adoption. Parenting orders that empower foster carers with parenting responsibilities expire once the child becomes 18, effectively terminating the legal parent-child relationship.

With the NSW government claiming it is committed to the most vulnerable groups in our society, particularly children, how can disallowing same-sex couple adoption be conducive to this agenda?

Even in the case of unknown adoptions, permitting same-sex couples eligibility for consideration does not undermine the rights of children or other potential parents. Relinquishing parents should have the broadest possible range of options for their children. The adoption process is intricately guided by the consent and wishes of the relinquishing parents. It should be left to the relinquishing parents to decide on the best place and parents for their child from the widest possible diversity of families.

Adoption reform is not foreign territory in Australia. Western Australia, the ACT and Tasmania (in specific circumstances) already permit same-sex couples eligibility to adopt children.

Equality and non-discrimination before the law are universal rights, not selective privileges. Passing the Adoption Amendment (Same-Sex Couples) Bill will not only benefit children, and existing same-sex families, it will also send an important social message that people should be judged on their individual merits, not on their sexual orientation.

Families come in all shapes and sizes. It is not the lack of a mother or father that should concern us. Rather, it is the continued stigmatisation of same-sex parenting and denying legal recognition to same-sex families that undermines the best interests of children.

Senthorun Raj is policy and development co-ordinator of the Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby.

[Source: Original Article]

THOUSANDS of foreigners are travelling to India in an attempt to conceive a child.

AFTER six miscarriages, years of failed in-vitro fertilisation treatments and endless queues at Australian and international adoption agencies, Megan Sorensen is finally expecting a baby this week, at age 43.

Like an anxious father-to-be, Sorensen (not her real name) will pace the corridors of New Delhi’s Phoenix Hospital while a woman she met six days ago and knows only as Rani goes through childbirth for her.

Once delivered, the baby will almost immediately be handed over to Sorensen. And Rani, when she has recovered from her labour, will return to her own flat, her husband and two children.

In New Delhi the same process will be repeated several dozen times over for Australian couples before the year is out. Childless Australian couples — heterosexual and gay — are looking to Indian women who are prepared to rent out their wombs for the chance to improve the lives and fortunes of their own families.

Delhi fertility specialist Shivani Sachdev Gour says she has seen an explosion of Australian clients as word of her service has spread through the community of couples exploring surrogacy options.

Since the first Australian couple walked through the door of her low-key clinic last year, she now sees at least 10 new Australians every month who have travelled to India — many of them for the first time — in a last-ditch effort to conceive a child.

"Of 100 surrogates on my books, 55 are pregnant and more than 50 per cent of those children will be born Australian babies," Gour says. "Most of the [commissioning parents] have done IVF in Australia and been advised by their specialists that surrogacy is their best option."

Her first successful Australian birth came just three weeks ago, to a single man who came to India for two days of treatment, gave a sperm sample on the day the donor eggs were collected, and nine months later collected his baby.

Unlike some Indian fertility specialists, Gour says helping aspiring single or gay parents conceive a child poses no ethical dilemmas for her. She’s vehement when confronted with the criticism that using a poor, often ill-educated woman to incubate a wealthy woman’s child amounts to exploitation. "Just because the [surrogate] is poor it doesn’t mean she’s not allowed to make her own decisions," she says. "The Supreme Court of India says surrogacy is an industry."

Indeed it is. More than 100 operators turned over an estimated $US445 million ($514m) last year.

But, for some, India’s reputation as the world’s baby factory for foreign women unable, or unwilling, to pay Western surrogate fees is a grotesque commercialisation of the reproductive system.

Sorensen has heard all the arguments before. "People say really nasty things, that we’re selfish for wanting our own child," she says. "What really gets me is when they accuse us of going to India to buy a baby like it’s an easy process. It’s not." She calculates the whole process — including one failed effort and one miscarriage — will have cost more than $90,000 by the time their baby is delivered. Of that, Rani will receive $5000.

While thousands of foreign children have been delivered by Indians without incident, several cases — including the death of a surrogate during childbirth last year — have scarred the industry. The woman, a second wife, was pressured by her husband to become a surrogate to earn more money for the family. And in 2008 the industry faced a scandal when a Japanese couple broke up before their child was born, leaving the baby in danger of becoming India’s first surrogate orphan.

India’s minister for women and child development Renuka Chowdhury warned two years ago: "We do not want surrogacy to become unfettered like the organ trade. We need to put a regulatory authority in place."

Draft legislation governing the entire assisted reproductive industry — IVF, sperm and egg donations and surrogacy — is to be debated in parliament within months. If passed, it will legalise surrogacy services for couples and single people and provide a loophole for gay couples by allowing one partner to register as a single parent on the birth certificate.

Surrogacy clinics will be forbidden from recruiting and acting for surrogate mothers, who will instead be represented by a third party. The law also will forbid a commercial surrogate from carrying more than five babies in her lifetime, including her own.

Australian law further stipulates that a child born overseas of a surrogate mother must have a DNA link to at least one of the commissioning parents.

Gautam Allahbadia, who helped draft the bill, says he expects it to pass with little trouble after five years of debate and amendments.

The Mumbai-based fertility specialist says India is an ideal surrogacy destination; Indian women rarely drink or smoke and the country offers "First World medical services at Third World prices".

But National Federation of Indian Women president Annie Raja fears the new law will lead to the exploitation of more poor and lower caste women. "This country has one of the highest maternal and infant mortality rates. Nobody is thinking about the mental or physical health of these women. It’s all about money," she says.

At Gour’s clinic money seems the furthest thing from Sorensen’s mind as she clucks over her young surrogate. Sorensen is ebullient and awestruck. Rani seems overwhelmed. Both women are close to tears. Through a translator Rani says she is "a little nervous" about the labour and concedes giving up the baby she has carried for 37 weeks, but has no biological link to, will probably be painful.

But she says: "It’s a few hours of sadness for me and a lifetime of happiness for Sorensen."

Asked if she would do it again she doesn’t hesitate; "One hundred per cent."

But she looks uncomfortable when asked to explain how being a surrogate will improve her family’s fortunes. For 10 months Rani has had a driver, maid and food delivery service, her rent and all family medical bills paid. When the baby is delivered she will receive 200,000 rupees ($4981), one-tenth the price of the most cut-rate US surrogate. For many Indian surrogate mothers all the attention that comes with carrying a wealthy woman’s baby ends soon after the child is delivered. But Sorensen says she is determined to make a difference to Rani’s life by helping her buy a home and paying for her children’s education. "I feel very maternal towards Rani," she says. "She’s part of our baby-making team."

[Source: Original Article]