Aug 5, 2010
CPCROCA 2010: Naurice on Family Protection and ‘Pink’ Adoption
We are delighted to welcome this contribution from Andrew Naurice, on behalf of Irish Pink Adoptions, to the carnival on the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. Written in narrative style, the post is preceded by an explanatory note from the author.
Explanatory note: Irish Pink Adoptions is a support group for Irish “pink” households. Because we cannot expose the identity of our members let’s gather, from their shared experience and testimonials, what it would be like to be a pink household adopting in Ireland today. In this post we hear from a fictional individual—Tighe—about how he feels about the Civil Partnership, and how it impacts the constitutional rights of his adoptive daughter.
We are family… why not?
My boyfriend and I are happily married. We are not legally married, but we live a happy couple life, and we are treated by our families as spouses. My husband is my parent’s favorite son-in-“law”. My sister looks up at our relationship as an example of harmony, and my nephews admire my husband as a role model. My mother-in-“law”’s priest thinks that her god will not be offended by our love as long as we are faithful to one another and that we raise our child to be a good person. The government used to look down at us, treat us as second class citizens: our relationship was not recognized. The HSE confirmed what our family knew: we are family; we are family to our adoptive child. And we can be as good parents as any other parents. It is the HSE saying it, not some communist church-bashing gay lobby. They accept that our pink household can be in the best interest of our child.
Because we were not allowed to marry, the HSE could only allow one of us to adopt: but they assessed us as a couple, as one single household, not caring for a second that we are a same-gender household. They are not bigots. They knew children are not raised in isolation, and that we had family relations and friends who would bring diversity and gender balance to our child. They never took into consideration the baseless arguments of some people who mimic religion without understanding love, and who cannot be trusted with the best interest of children. They could not allow us to adopt jointly… because they cannot allow any unmarried couple to adopt jointly. The marriage laws denied the HSE the possibility to offer what they knew was in our daughter’s best interest: the married us.
Why?
Impact of Civil Partnership
Civil Partnership would have made, and will make no difference to this situation.
We will be paying taxes together.
We will protect one another from adversity, and inherit one another’s estate in case of tragedy. Not as well as married people though.
But we could still not adopt jointly.
But in case of tragedy, my husband will get custody of my electric arm-chair and of my dog… but not of our child. He will have to apply to adopt her; otherwise she will be the ward of my parents. Even if my parents had never talked to her, or had rejected me. (Which luckily has never been the case)
The destiny of my child will be down to luck. So much for a caring State.
The Civil Partnership is progress for couples. But not for families.
As a couple we will be better off. We are no longer second class tax-payers. But as a family, our child is more exposed than ever.
She is denied her right to have a family, as defined and protected by the constitution. She used to be denied those rights before the Civil Partnership was voted. But it was because the bigots hated us, the “fags”.
Now she is still denied her family rights… but why? Is it because the bigots hate children even more than they hate fags?
What the constitution really says (underneath all)
According to the Constitution, the family is a household, as indicated by the word Teaghlach used in the Gaelic version of the Constitution. The Irish version is used as a reference when in doubt on the meaning of the English version. The constitutional family is not a Clann -blood-related children-, but a Teaghlach/household relating as a caring unit under one roof. We are that family. Why not?
And the constitutional family is founded on marriage, not the opposite. So we are denied our family’s foundation. Why?
Denying marriage to me and my husband (the husband is, etymologically, the household manager), is denying our rights to be a fully fledged family. It is denying the right of our daughter to be protected in adversity. She used to be denied that right by a bullying marriage law, because of who we were, because we were her parents. Now she is denied that right because she is our daughter, because of who she is.
She is still treated by the law as a second class citizen, less valuable than a piece of furniture or a pet. Why?
So is Civil Partnership bad?
Civil Partnership is a step forward for us as tax-payers, but it is a frontal attack to our daughter’s civil rights.
Civil Partnership in itself is not a direct violence made towards us. But the fact that we are limited to Civil Partnership, for no other reason than because of our gender, is a violence. And that violence has no other reason than bigotry. Why? After all the HSE has made it clear that we are good parents.
Civil Partnership is a good thing, but it is not enough.
Civil Partnership is a good thing for people who do not want children, and it should be open to all couples: same gender or mix-gender. Marriage is in the best interest of children, for families who want to raise children, and it should be open to all couples: same gender or mix-gender. Ideally our child should be raised by her real family, the family that loves her and that she loves. Us. Why not?
An ideal cannot be a fantasy: it has to be a reality. Will someone think about the children for once? Why do they prefer listening to their selfish fantasies?
What can we do to show your support to Tighe’s daughter?
Lobby your TD, Senator, MEP’s, local representatives, etc. Vote with your rights and children’s rights in mind. Wear the White Knot, to ask “Why not?”
Tighte’s family is fictitious, but the situation of hundreds of children raised by gay couples is not.
Our children are real people, we are real families; they deserve real rights. Why not?
The LGBT community is put in a tight spot with the Civil Partnership.
Imagine for instance that Senator Norris had voted against it… and that his vote meant the rejection of the bill. How could he have faced the couples expecting to be recognized as equal tax-payers? The realistic approach was needed: “better a bit for now than nothing for longer”, we cannot be extremists because some people’s real lives are at stake.
But we still need to show our disapproval of how our families are still not constitutionally protected. As why our citizenship is reduced to being tax-payers.
The white knot symbol started in the USA where a number of LGBT advocates and “straight allies” wear it.
We suggest that all LGBT groups who want to unify their battle for marriage under one simple and quirky symbol adopt the white knot. Why not?
You can create your own (with ribbon or with your own bed linen), and when asked why, you can answer “white knot… why not?”
When people ask you what it is for (and they will, especially if it looks home made), it is a chance to strike a conversation and find out that most sane people cannot possibly want to deny children their constitutional rights.
A family, just like adoption, is not a gay right; it is a children’s right! Why not?
I have nothing against gay rights, I am gay myself.
But the children’s right is to have two parents: one of each gender. It is simple enough.
There are enough straight couples willing to adopt to not have to use single parents or same-sex couples.
@John,
Thanks for expressing this common argument against “pink” households.
Following that logic, consider this:
- ideally everyone would work, so let’s not pay unemployement benefits;
- ideally a boat would not sink, so let’s not put enough life jackets on the Titanic, or test evacuation procedures, or even broadcast them.
Ideal parents are real parents who can raise the child at a given time in all of their lives.
Children who need to benefit from adoption cannot wait for the elusive “ideal parents”… who are parents who probably do not have a desire (or need) to adopt!
Also consider that this article is written from the point of view of a pink household already formed… with the stamp of approval of the HSE, after 4 to 5 years of rigorous checks and procedures.
You know that deep down it are just words.
In reality a child needs a mother and if possible a father.
But not two fathers.
Imagine the taunts at school!
Children want to fit, not to fight your personal militant cause!
Why not?
Because nature did not intend for children to be raised without a mother.
I could imagine being in such a dire condition I would give my children up, for their good.
But I would never want them to be raised without a mother.
It is very selfish of homosexuals to want to have their “rights” vindicated before wanting to protect the children.
I have nothing against homosexuals but they are not the right people to raise children. And my homosexual friends agree with me.
And you are still asking why? Are you for real?
Excellent article, clear, concise and authoritative.
Pity it is to such a small audience.
I’d love to see something like that in my Sunday paper because it’s the kind of writing that will get people to think, when they would usually pay no attention.
I am a bit confused.
Are you saying that we should combat the civil partnership?
If you’re argument is that children need to have a mother, what about the scenario of a lesbian family? Perhaps even one where one of them gave birth to their child? That child’s other parent, who is also female has no rights to their child if the birth mother died! In my situation, although my child would have no father, they would have 3 uncles on my side, 4 uncles on my partner’s side and a grandfather on each side also. Best of all is the fact that each of our familys fully support our relationship and recognise us as a couple. This removes any fear of an unbalanced gener rearing for our child, so why is our child’s legislative rights to have a family under the law being denied? What is the justification for such an injustice?
It is obvious that children need a mother AND a father.
Both.
Single mothers and gay parents damage their children. They do not know it but they do.
The Law has to protect children, and make it harder for [**edited**] to raise children and damage them.
Mark, thanks for your comment. In the spirit of open engagement we would ask that you make your comments in a more respectful tone, without using derogatory terms such as ‘deviants’. While your views are of course welcome here on HRinI, we do insist that people ought to express those views in as respectful a manner as possible (and the same, of course, goes for all commenters on all posts here on HRinI).
Go girl fight for your rights!
This is all very confusing.
Why is it so hard to accept:
Marriage = children.
Civil Partnership = taxes.
Open both to all couples.
Problem solved!
So civil partnerhship excludes children “rights”.
No one has a right to children!
Children are born from a father and a mother, ideally they should be raised by them.
If not, the closest match must be found.
I have no issue with gay couples adopting hard to place children. But regular children should be given a chance with regular families. Life has been hard enough on them as it is.