Take note Australia

One of the more shameful acts of recent years was the failure of successive Australian governments to put in place marriage equality. Now it looks like the United States will get there first.

To underscore this I command Judge Posner’s decision the other day striking down the Wisconsin and Indiana bans on same-sex marriage. To wit:

Formally these cases are about discrimination against the small homosexual minority in the United States. But at a deeper level, as we shall see, they are about the welfare of American children. The argument that the states press hard- est in defense of their prohibition of same-sex marriage is that the only reason government encourages marriage is to induce heterosexuals to marry so that there will be fewer “accidental births,” which when they occur outside of marriage often lead to abandonment of the child to the mother (unaided by the father) or to foster care. Overlooked by this argument is that many of those abandoned children are adopted by homosexual couples, and those children would be better off both emotionally and economically if their adoptive parents were married

Once again, shame Australia shame.

One thought on “Take note Australia”

  1. Marriage ceremonies have little to do with welfare of children.

    Only a few minutes to father a child, ignoring perhaps the lifetime of caring required.

    A sweeping statement “accidental birth”, years may pass before learning of an “accidental birth” or that it was no accident.

    Particularly when little control over pregnancy or birth retained by the sperm contributor.

    Disappointing is your view of raising of children “outside of marriage”.

    Depends on how you define “marriage ceremonies” which can be found still to include both mutual agreement or enforced arrangements.

    Suggestion of “abandonment of the child to the mother” a simplistic view.

    Exists a wide range of separations, as many for economic, social and other reasons.

    Your “unaided by the father” ignores where mutual arrangements agreed to.

    When consider separating child from both biological parents, then “foster care” first sort from extended kinship.

    Foster caring is supported, long term has been provided with mutual support from kinships of both foster carer and kinship of natural parents, when foster occurs outside kinship of natural parents.

    Accepted is excluding where exist serious security and welfare risks to the child, with such separation biological parents restricted to “supervised access” until that to fails.

    Non kinship foster parents can be supported, valued more, where full range of extended kinships are able to maintain some relationship with fostered child and foster parent.

    Total separation between child and parental kinships a final, reluctant point.

    Australia’s High Court judges stated that if children were placed with parents who have traditional Christian views “there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children”.

    The Justices noting existed a tension between the equality provisions concerning religious discrimination and those concerning sexual orientation, but ruled that in regards to fostering, “the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence”.

    Yes exists some widespread opposition to gay couples adopting children, due concerns re paedophilia, the gay community needs work further on this.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: