Same-sex parents call for more legal rights to their children

Myler

Active member
Joined
May 30, 2019
Messages
167
Can't help thinking this is reaching the limits of what "equality" can mean.


A child has two natural parents. That's simply the way it is.

A child can also have adoptive parents. That's another thing.

A child can be adopted by a couple. That couple can consist of her natural mother, and her natural mother's spouse. Is this campaign thinking some other reality is feasible? That we can pretend a child's natural parents are both of the same sex?
 


Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
55,295
I don't think a biological parent should be removed from the birth cert against their wishes.

I think we need to look at some alternative to the birth cert but which has the same legal affect in terms of conferring rights on parents both biological and non biological.

The birth cert in part is an historical record. You can change the present but not the past. But there is a problem that so many applications for services require the birth cert. So an alternative is needed for that in relevant cases to allow access to essential services, without changing history.
 
Last edited:

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
5,475
Can't help thinking this is reaching the limits of what "equality" can mean.


A child has two natural parents. That's simply the way it is.

A child can also have adoptive parents. That's another thing.

A child can be adopted by a couple. That couple can consist of her natural mother, and her natural mother's spouse. Is this campaign thinking some other reality is feasible? That we can pretend a child's natural parents are both of the same sex?
Sadly, it appears that you are completely ignorant of the rights being requested. That's such a pity as they were all articulated clearly in the campaign for SSM.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,704
There’s certainly an argument that the non bio partner should be able to do things like apply for passports etc, and there needs to be an easily achieved legal way of supporting that relationship.

There isn’t much argument for the birth certificate thing though. It’s a legal document detailing the biological parents of an Irish citizen. There shouldn’t be anyone else on it.
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
5,475
There’s certainly an argument that the non bio partner should be able to do things like apply for passports etc, and there needs to be an easily achieved legal way of supporting that relationship.

There isn’t much argument for the birth certificate thing though. It’s a legal document detailing the biological parents of an Irish citizen. There shouldn’t be anyone else on it.
There are ramifications in the sense of asserting parental or next-of-kin rights, such as in an emergency medical scenario.
 

Myler

Active member
Joined
May 30, 2019
Messages
167
Sadly, it appears that you are completely ignorant of the rights being requested. That's such a pity as they were all articulated clearly in the campaign for SSM.
I fear you are in error, as we were repeatedly told in the course of that campaign


Speech by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Frances Fitzgerald TD ... 5th February 2015-

"Enacting the Child and Family Relationship legislation in the coming month will mean that the only question in the minds of the people, when they vote on the Referendum question in May, should be about marriage equality, and not about children, parents, custody, adoption or the rest of it."
 

Myler

Active member
Joined
May 30, 2019
Messages
167
There are ramifications in the sense of asserting parental or next-of-kin rights, such as in an emergency medical scenario.
But, to be clear, nothing that actually delays the access of children to medical services in an emergency.

Because, as I'm sure we all know, doctors will even apply to the Courts if people with actual legal parental rights try to obstruct access to medical services that their children need.

A baby boy was given a life saving blood transfusion under court order after his parents, who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, objected on religious grounds.
Of course, if there isn't a parent with a legal right to object, the children will get their medical treatment even quicker.

(Just anticipating the next step of that line of reasoning, to move the discussion along without the need to exhaust every single cul-de-sac.)
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
5,475
But, to be clear, nothing that actually delays the access of children to medical services in an emergency.

Because, as I'm sure we all know, doctors will even apply to the Courts if people with actual legal parental rights try to obstruct access to medical services that their children need.Of course, if there isn't a parent with a legal right to object, the children will get their medical treatment even quicker.

(Just anticipating the next step of that line of reasoning, to move the discussion along without the need to exhaust every single cul-de-sac.)
I'm not suggesting going down that cul-de-sac in the least. The only possible link to a risk that I could imagine (and it is just a minor stretch) is that an unaccredited parent might be unable to pass on some vital information to medical staff. If they have no formal role in the life of the child then what are the ethical ramifications if medical staff accept or reject advice from a third party to the defined parental relationship? The same applies in the reverse direction as well, of course, where a son or daughter might be ignored.

There are also visitation rights and rights of succession which might be in need of resolution.

I'm sure that if I, for instance, accompanied a close friend to hospital and said that condition X needs to be factored into the treatment, they would try to establish the truth of that both diagnostically as well via contact with someone from the family, but that creates a gap.

The succession rights potential is another matter entirely. A death followed by a subsequent remarriage could see someone completely disinherited without any recourse.

These should be no more than minor procedural and minor legislative concerns, but they should be addressed urgently if they are not fully in place.
 
Last edited:

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,704
Yup. Succession, medical decisioning, financial obligations etc all need to be easily assigned.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,998
A child has two natural parents. That's simply the way it is.
That's how it used to be, but in this case there are 3.
The lesbian who appears to be orchestrating (or at least fronting) this protest, and is pictured in the IT article, explains here...
Reciprocal IVF or ‘Shared Motherhood’ is a really special form of IVF treatment where one mum supplies the egg or the DNA, and one carries and births the baby.
But in Ireland, this means that only the mum who birthed the baby has legal parental rights – while the mum who gave her egg and her genetic DNA does not.
It seems to me that this insanely complicated (and expensive) form of IVF is being pioneered specifically to cater for a particular type of customer.
The type that really wants to pretend that men are not needed, and that two lesbians can be the two equal parents, and that both of them will be exactly equal. And neither of them can be called "the real mother" by everybody else.
Their objection to using the simple sperm donor method is that one of the women might feel a bit "left out". So they flip the egg from one partner to the other, just to mix it up a bit.

Also, is Ranae Von Meding even Irish? There's just something "off" about trying to change the laws of a country when you are only a visitor yourself.
Would she campaign for this in Saudi Arabia? if you don't like their rules, then don't go there.

Here's the exact same issue cropping up in ultra-liberal California. I don't see them rushing to change the law over there.
Another slight happened when we had to return to the hospital a few days after Kennedy’s birth. The receptionist asked us who the mother was. We said we both were. She got very frustrated and kept repeating the question. We explained that it was Katie who carried my egg, but she insisted that there can only be one mother, and that was the woman who carried the baby. I get it – she wanted to know who gave birth, but it still made me feel left out and not recognized as an equal mom.

After Kennedy was born, the dynamic shifted. We now get comments on her appearance like “she looks just like Christina,” and those are painful to Katie who, after all, grew our baby for nine months. We’ve also been asked if Katie will be having her baby, instead of mine, for our next child. That presumes that Kennedy has no relation to Katie. But one reason we created our family this way was our strong desire to avoid labeling our children as belonging to only one of us.
We also hear, “She doesn’t look anything like the father.” Excuse me? The father? There is no father in our family. There are two loving moms. We affectionately refer to our sperm donor as Donor Dennis, which is just something we made up. We are incredibly grateful to our donor, but he isn’t another parent.
The moment Kennedy was born, and in the days after at the hospital, there was no jealousy or sadness – we both felt that we were equal parents. But labels are powerful, and hearing even some well-intentioned comments can stir up these emotions.
We don’t want our children labeled by which mom they came from or whose egg they originated from.

On a philosophical note, its interesting to see this billed as a campaign for "equality".
They obviously don't want equality for all 3 biological parents in the arrangement, they are only counting the 2 women in this.

Also, what they want is superior rights to a single parent, or heterosexual adoptive couple, or a "blended family". Not equal rights.
In these situations only one parent normally goes on the birth cert. The other parent(s) is normally content with the satisfaction of being a good parent, and does not feel the need to take the kids to a protest outside the Dail.
 

Myler

Active member
Joined
May 30, 2019
Messages
167
Yup. Succession, medical decisioning, financial obligations etc all need to be easily assigned.
Tbh, I'm not sure "easily" is the right word. They need to be robustly defined, taking account of the actual realities of the situation.

There's already a process that does this, equally available to folk who are in the same actual situation.

Their objection to using the simple sperm donor method is that one of the women might feel a bit "left out". So they flip the egg from one partner to the other, just to mix it up a bit.
I have to say, I'd the same feeling. Its actually a bit nuts to do it this way, when one partner can just conceive and carry the child. The elaborate nature of the procedure shows the depth of discomfort these poor folk seem to have over the facts of their situation.
On a philosophical note, its interesting to see this billed as a campaign for "equality".
They obviously don't want equality for all 3 biological parents in the arrangement, they are only counting the 2 women in this.
Indeed, there's an eloquent silence over the fact that the child's father is not a party to the marriage.

As I said in the OP, I think they are trying to reach beyond the limits of what "equality" can mean.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,998
I have to say, I'd the same feeling. Its actually a bit nuts to do it this way, when one partner can just conceive and carry the child. The elaborate nature of the procedure shows the depth of discomfort these poor folk seem to have over the facts of their situation.Indeed, there's an eloquent silence over the fact that the child's father is not a party to the marriage.
I'd even compare it to some of the some of the extreme and unnecessary forms of cosmetic surgery that are made available to people with the money and the mentality to avail of them.
At what point do we say these insanely complicated medical procedures are pointless and unethical? Should they be made illegal?
Should we pass laws to restrict Reciprocal IVF, instead of passing laws to make it seem more respectable?
Sometimes its too easy for people to book in for surgery, when its really their mental attitude that needs changing.

If the woman receiving the egg was infertile, then fair enough. It would be "equal" to a same sex couple undergoing IVF then.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,998
Is Ranae telling porkie pies, as per the emboldened parts above? Is she honestly trying to claim that the 2015 Act gives some parents the right to apply for guardianship, but her children would be automatically orphaned if something were to happen to her? That simply doesn't add up..
I'm open to correction, but it only seems to add up if Von Meding's partner either refused to marry her, or refused to apply for guardianship of the kids. One reason she might neglect to do that, is so they could both continue to complain about being oppressed.

Supposing the state offered to allow all three names to be put on the birth cert. The egg donor, the sperm donor, and the birth mother.
Would they accept that? I doubt it. That would give the sperm donor and the egg donor equal rights..... can't be having that.
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
5,475
Equality is really a very simple concept. When you see someone enclose it in inverted comments you know that you are speaking to a fool.
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
5,475
"The Children and Families Act 2015 introduced some rights for same-sex parents including the right to apply for guardianship to non-biological parents in certain relationships and the right to apply to adopt for civil partners and cohabiting couples."

"Von Meding is the legal parent to her two daughters while her wife has “no legal rights or connections” to them, despite also being their mother"."

Well, they already have the right to apply to the Courts for legal guardianship, so she's lying through her teeth, when she claims that ''her wife has no legal rights or connections.'' I could understand if her wife applied for guardianship and was refused, but what she's claiming is that they have no 'legal rights', which is a blatant lie. The question is why?

"If anything were to happen to me, our two daughters would be orphaned and yet they have another parent who loves and cares for them equally”, she said.

Which again, is another blatant lie. The question is why?
You think that people applying to assert their rights amounts to equality? Right.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,998
;)
Equality is really a very simple concept. When you see someone enclose it in inverted comments you know that you are speaking to a fool.
Its not that simple, but lets take it in small bites.
First, should the sperm donor and the egg donor have equal rights?
Second, should a homosex married couple and a heterosex married couple have equal rights?
Third, should the egg donor in the homosex married couple have the same automatic paternal rights as the father in a heterosex married couple, and should the sperm donor go fcuk himself?

I'm fine with the first two. Number 3 is a bit dubious though.
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
5,475
;)

Its not that simple, but lets take it in small bites.
First, should the sperm donor and the egg donor have equal rights?
Second, should a homosex married couple and a heterosex married couple have equal rights?
Third, should the egg donor in the homosex married couple have the same automatic paternal rights as the father in a heterosex married couple, and should the sperm donor go fcuk himself?

I'm fine with the first two. Number 3 is a bit dubious though.
Address the question from a far simpler viewpoint: that of the child.

That is where you find your answers.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top