The Australian Senate today rejected a bill to give equal marriage rights to gay citizens.

The bill was introduced by the Greens but was defeated 45-5, just days before the world’s biggest gay celebration, Sydney Mardi Gras.

Twenty-six senators were absent from the vote, with some of these choosing to abstain because they disagreed with their parties’ official stances against same-sex marriage.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who introduced the bill, said: ”There may have been a group of senators voting to keep discrimination against same-sex couples being able to marry the one they love, but well over one-third of all senators were absent for the final vote, presumably the only form of protest open to them.”

Labels: Australia, gay marriage

posted by Imapp Staff at 4:19 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

TWO Labor MPs have crossed the floor to vote against the Bligh Government's plan to allow gay couples and single parents to have children through surrogacy.

But it was not enough to scuttle the Bill which was passed at 8pm, 45 votes to 36 following a marathon debate. ...

[One Labor MP] revealed he had concerns about the practice of surrogacy because there was a pre-meditated intention to separate a child from their birth mother.

But Mr Choi added that he may have been persuaded to support it as a last resort for infertile heterosexual couples but he could not back a Bill which also "pre-destined" a child to grow up in a family with just one parent or with two parents of the same sex.

Labels: Australia, family structure, surrogate motherhood

posted by Eve at 1:38 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

THE divisive issue of gay parenting is set to split State Parliament after the Opposition introduced a Bill to ban same-sex couples and single mothers from accessing surrogacy.

Opposition deputy leader Lawrence Springborg yesterday moved to trump the Government on the issue after it drafted laws to decriminalise altruistic surrogacy for anyone in Queensland, including homosexual couples and sole parents.

But Opposition MPs were angry the issue of surrogacy had been tied to gay parenting and had called on the Government to split its Bill, allowing all MPs to vote separately on decriminalising surrogacy for heterosexual couples and then same-sex couples.

The Government refused, but Labor politicians will now be forced to vote on the Opposition's Bill with a conscience vote expected to reveal deep divisions over the issue on all sides of politics.

Labels: Artificial Reproductive Technology, Australia, gay parenting, single parenting, surrogate motherhood

posted by Eve at 11:50 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

I’ve been mulling over a recent news story from Australia that someone sent to me. It’s a rather complicated tale.

Ms. Fabian and Ms. Halifax (they only give last names in the story) were in a relationship for about seven years. During that time, each of them gave birth to a child. Ms. Halifax used sperm from a family friend, identified as Mr. Dalton. That child is now seven. Ms. Fabian used sperm from an anonymous donor. That child, a girl, is the subject of the litigation. She is now three.

The two women separated when the daughter was 20 months old. At the time they lived in Queensland, but at least Ms. Fabian, and perhaps both, were from New South Wales. Ms. Fabian now wants to return to New South Wales.

Her request to move is being opposed not only by her former partner, Ms. Halifax, but also by a gay male couple. According to the newspaper story, this couple “cannot be named,” but one of them is apparently the donor for the other child, which would mean he is Mr. Dalton. An Australian court has determined that she should not move while the requests of the various parties are considered. ...

I cannot help but contrast this with the evidence women asserting claims to be de facto parents produce. You can find at least half-a-dozen cases that I’ve discussed on the blog–some where the women won and some where the women lost. But win or lose, the evidence offered by the women I’m thinking of is qualitatively different. It’s far more about the hands-on care offered than about the public acknowledgement.

In truth, it seems to me that the men are claiming rights on a basis akin to holding out. Perhaps that is not so surprising. If you go back and read that earlier post (and the ones that follow) you will see this is a historically male path to parenthood. It makes me wonder if this legacy of gendered family law will find its way into the legal regulation of decidedly modern families.

Labels: Australia, de facto parenting, Fathers, gender, gender differences, Julie Shapiro, motherhood

posted by Eve at 3:45 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

A HOMOSEXUAL couple has been granted leave to appear before the Family Court in a bid to gain access to a girl who isn't biologically related to either of them.

The men, who cannot be named, have successfully argued that they are important people in the life of the three-year-old.

The girl, who likewise cannot be named, was not conceived with sperm from either of the men. But her mother was, until last year, in a same-sex relationship with another woman who does have a child conceived with one of the men's sperm. ...

The magistrate accepted the mother's argument that she was "less committed to the non-traditional family arrangement enthusiastically embraced by her former partner". However, she said the mother had encouraged the men to have a relationship with her child while she was with the other woman.

She said the men were "publicly acknowledged as father figures" during the life of the relationship, while both women were the established "mother figures".

Those roles were acknowledged at a naming ceremony, where all four adults affirmed their commitment as "parents" of the child.

The men told the court they were involved in the parenting of both children. They attended the mother's 12-week pregnancy scan, and visited the hospital on the day of the child's birth. All four adults also attended annual gay pride parades, marching in the "family" section.

The men were introduced as "daddy" to friends and family, and were listed as emergency contacts at the child's daycare centre. ...

The child has been living with the four adults in three separate households since March.

Labels: Australia, de facto parenting, donor conception, gay parenting, motherhood

posted by Imapp Staff at 3:29 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Living happily ever after needn't only be for fairy tales. Australian researchers have identified what it takes to keep a couple together, and it's a lot more than just being in love.

A couple's age, previous relationships and even whether they smoke or not are factors that influence whether their marriage is going to last, according to a study by researchers from the Australian National University.

The study, entitled "What's Love Got to Do With It", tracked nearly 2,500 couples -- married or living together -- from 2001 to 2007 to identify factors associated with those who remained together compared with those who divorced or separated.

It found that a husband who is nine or more years older than his wife is twice as likely to get divorced, as are husbands who get married before they turn 25.

Children also influence the longevity of a marriage or relationship, with one-fifth of couples who have kids before marriage -- either from a previous relationship or in the same relationship -- having separated compared to just nine percent of couples without children born before marriage.

Women who want children much more than their partners are also more likely to get a divorce.

A couple's parents also have a role to play in their own relationship, with the study showing some 16 percent of men and women whose parents ever separated or divorced experienced marital separation themselves compared to 10 percent for those whose parents did not separate.

more

Labels: Australia, cohabitation, divorce, Marriage

posted by Imapp Staff at 7:52 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT