As I write this, the government is about to publish their long-awaited heads of a bill to register civil unions between gay people in Ireland. The Irish Times reports that “it will not provide any right for same-sex couples to be considered as joint adoptive parents, despite a strong campaign by gay equality groups.”
Rather than see this as a defeat for gay equality groups, it really should be seen as a shameful affront to the rights of children. By avoiding the issue in the bill, the government is failing to protect the interests of the children of gay and bisexual people. Because, like it or not, many Irish gay couples already have children, and will continue to have children, whether they adopt or not. Minister Eamon Ryan, in an impressive speech at the launch of the forthcoming 5th Dublin Gay Theatre Festival, acknowledged this reality, and pledged to work for the recognition of this situation in the forthcoming legislation.
No one has an absolute “right” to adopt. Adoption decisions have always been child-centred. A single gay person can adopt now, as long as they can prove that they can offer a stable loving home to the child. If there is a question of a “right”, it can only be a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, which is already the case.
However, I can only imagine that a gay individual in a relationship who registers his/her partnership under the new legislation would be more attractive as a potential adoptive parent than one who hasn’t done so. It’s common sense, and in the best interests of the child. Of course, we homosexuals have a long way to go to achieve the consistent levels of high quality parenting that heterosexuals manage, who, of course, always plan pregnancies with care and diligence, and who never bring a child into the world unless they are confident that they will be secure and nurtured.
But the plucky gays, undaunted, dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants, nevertheless manage to overcome their terrible handicaps, and manage to eke out something resembling love and affection to their hapless young charges.
One of the most important things about marriage, when there are children involved is that, if and when it fails, there are safeguards in place to secure their financial and emotional security. Any new legislation that affects children, as this bill does, must take into account their rights. Children will form loving bonds to whoever brings them up – it stands to reason. After a couple breaks up, it is important that the law safeguards the child’s right to continuity of access to someone who has cared for them as a parent, and preferably both. By not tackling this issue head on, the government is neglecting the welfare of children.
If Anne and Mary are a couple and are bringing up three children, say, two from Anne’s previous marriage and one being Mary’s, by A.I.D. from an anonymous Danish student, the children will, of course, look on both of them as parent figures, and see all five of them as a family. However that may upset some people, it’s a common reality, and as has been repeatedly asserted by extensive research, such bonds are no better or worse than if Anne’s partner were male. If Anne kicks Mary out of their home, and the relationship is acrimoniously over, the two eldest children have no right to see Mary or their youngest sibling, even if Mary was their primary carer. Mary’s child would have to leave with her, separating the siblings.
The law does recognise the quality of a father’s parenting as being a factor in granting access in a separation or divorce settlement, but to a child, the bond formed to a loving carer, be it Mary, Anne or John, is of a similar quality, and the distress in having that bond broken can be just as traumatic. As I understand it, John, if he were the biological father and/or husband, would be able to go to court and be granted access to and/or custody of his children, post-separation, and how good a parent he had been would be taken into account. Mary, having played a similar role in the eyes of the two eldest children, would have no such rights, and Anne would have to watch the youngest of the family, the child she and Mary planned to co-parent together, disappear from her life.
I’m not arguing for absolute right to access – but the right to argue to a court that she is entitled to such access, in the child’s interest. Good family law is about ensuring that children’s rights are respected, and that quality of parenting is rewarded in the event of a couple breaking up. To ignore this issue in the Civil Partnership Bill does not punish gay people per se – but it most definitely punishes their children, and ignores the reality of family life in 21st Century Ireland.