SX - "Getting with the program" by Jenni Millbank

Same-sex parenting reforms have finally been approved, marking the end of a very long road. But the journey is far from over, writes Jenni Millbank.

Last week saw a major victory for our families in NSW, with the passage of the underwhelming titled Miscellaneous Acts Amendment (Same Sex Relationships) Act 2008 (law reform can be satisfying but I never said it was sexy).

These reforms ensure that same-sex couples are recognised as de facto relationships across all areas of NSW law (the ‘missing pieces’ left over from the 1999 reforms, with the continued and vexing exception of adoption) and strengthen anti-discrimination protection on the basis of same-sex relationship status.

Most importantly, it finally provides parenting recognition from birth to co-mothers of children conceived through donor insemination, making them legal parents in all areas of NSW law. Both mothers can be recorded as parents in the birth register, can have their children listed as siblings, and can both appear on their child’s birth certificate.

These changes will apply to children who have already been born as well as those born after the passage of the law. There is a simple process for mothers to apply to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registry to add the second mother to the birth certificate.

This is a huge achievement for community activism and grass roots law reform because we devised our own solutions and then slogged away until the government realised they were the right ones. These reforms reflected the proposals devised by the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby in And then the Brides Changed Nappies in 2002 and 2003. I am so proud of the Lobby’s commitment and professionalism over the years; this simply would not have happened without them.

These changes bring NSW into line with similar laws now in place in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the ACT (with Victoria set to follow later this year), and will help to bring pressure to achieve the same kind of recognition in federal law in the near future.

This system is far more accessible, equitable and broad-reaching than second-parent adoption, in place in many US states, because it does not require a court process. Rather, recognition applies automatically from birth and simply requires that the co-parent consented to assisted conception, regardless of whether conception took place through a clinic or informally at home.

Some press reports have misrepresented the changes as removing rights from fathers, including gay fathers. Nothing could be further from the truth. These changes add a mother to lesbian-led families that previously only had one legal parent.

Sperm and egg donors are not legal parents under current law anywhere in Australia, even if they have a relationship with the child and even if they have been listed on the birth certificate. If mothers have listed a donor as the father in the past this did NOT make him a legal father, but it should be noted that he will only be removed from the birth certificate with his permission or following a court hearing.

Of course there is still more to be done. We need to work together to make adoption open to all and to ensure that parental rights are also included in the new federal reforms. If genuine multiple-parent caregiving is happening in lesbian and gay families we should pursue modes of recognition that can accommodate the needs of such families.

In my view it is also time to create a careful and transparent scheme for the transfer of parental status to commissioning parents in surrogacy arrangements, including gay fathers who have children through this process. But these goals shouldn’t detract from celebrating the magnitude of what we achieved last week.

Jenni Millbank is a Professor of Law at the University of Technology, Sydney. She is the lead author of And then the Brides Changed Nappies report, published in 2002.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

SX - "Hope for prospective HIV-positive dads" by Katrina Fox

HIV-positive gay men who want to become fathers can do so in the US, thanks to new developments in assisted reproduction technology and legislation changes in California.

Growing Generations, the US’s largest surrogacy agency, has launched a new program that provides surrogacy and egg donation services to men with HIV and allows them to use their own sperm to create biological families.

“Reproductive technologies have developed to the extent where they can now identify and separate the virus from semen so they can have virus-free semen used for insemination,” Anthony Brien, moderator for social networking group Gay Dads NSW, told SX.

The group has invited Kim Bergman from Growing Generations to give a talk next week on surrogacy options for gay men, including those who are HIV-positive. While surrogacy is not permitted under Australian law, those who can afford it can travel to the US, contract a surrogate to carry a child for them and then bring that child back to Australia.

“We have a number of dads in Australia who are parents that way,” Brien said.

ACON CEO Stevie Clayton said there is an option for HIV-positive men’s sperm in Australia to be ‘washed’ to remove HIV. “But this process can be prohibitively expensive,” Clayton told SX.

Gay Dads NSW information night with speakers Kim Bergman from Growing Generations and gay men who have gone through the surrogacy process will be held on Monday, June 16, 7pm at Twenty10 offices, 43 Bedford St, Newtown. RSVP to GaydadsNSW-owner@yahoogroups.com.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

Joy 94.9 - Allegro Non Troppo - "Gay Dads!"

Gay Dads! Homosexuals wanting to be parents is a quite a political and ethical hot potatoe at the moment. Why? Why do so many politicians consider that Gay men (In particular) in relationships or single, do not qualify as having qualities to make them good parents? In this show we look at 2 situations, Damien in Adelaide who does long term foster care with the blessing of all governments and communities, and Jason and Adrian who used overseas surrogacy to become parents.

Click here to listen CD Quality Mono Quality

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

The Age - "Gay couples face long wait for equal rights" by Misha Schubert

DISCRIMINATION against gay couples in federal laws will continue for months, after the Opposition last night vowed to delay any changes until all the proposed reforms are put before the Parliament.

After an emotionally charged debate last night, the House of Representatives passed laws to give gays and lesbians the right to inherit their partner's public sector superannuation or death benefits.

But the Coalition will use its Senate majority to send the bill to an inquiry that will consider giving the same rights to other interdependent couples.

It also flagged that it would not support making such changes until it sees all of the same-sex reform bills proposed by Labor.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson last night gave in-principle support to the reforms to end discrimination against gay couples, but warned that undermining marriage may be a consequence of passing such laws.

Dr Nelson said any delay was the responsibility of the Government — not his party. "It is more important that this be done properly, than it be done immediately," he said.

Labor MP Shane Neumann insisted the changes would not undermine the special place of marriage but merely gave gay partners the same entitlements to payments.

"The God that I worship at my church I don't think is offended in the least bit by the fact of this legislation," he said.

Liberal MP Stuart Robert warned that by replacing references to a "marital relationship" with a "couple relationship" in the super laws, it may "slowly chip away at the institution of marriage".

He also opposed moves in the bill to give inheritance rights to the children of a non-biological gay parent, arguing it would support the practice of gay IVF.

And he asserted that "health insurance funds should not be legally bound to recognise homosexual couples and children as families — some funds may have an ethical objection to this and they should retain the right to uphold their views as to what constitutes marriage and family life."

Labor MP Arch Bevis accused Dr Nelson of opting to "pander to that more extreme right-wing conservative group behind him on the Opposition benches" by refusing to pass the laws quickly.

Queensland Labor MP Graham Perrett urged the Parliament not to deprive same-sex couples of their entitlements "for one minute more than is necessary". He told of his two gay brothers, Nick and Simon, who had found it difficult to come out in a small country town.

"I hope that one day my darling brother Nick will be the beneficiary of the changes before the House," he said.

Shadow treasurer Malcolm Turnbull hit back at critics who accuse the Coalition of delaying the end of discrimination, arguing the Government was free to backdate the laws to whenever it chose.

"That would ensure that those people who are concerned that they might die or their partner might die before this becomes the law of the land, that concern can be set aside and the Parliament can focus on getting the legislation right," he said.

"So let's stop the suggestion that the Liberal Party is homophobic."

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

Australian Gay & Lesbian Law Blog - "NSW: Bill passes Upper House" by Stephen Page

(Stephen Page) previously reported that New South Wales Attorney-General John Hatzistergos had introduced a Bill to Parliament to amend 55 pieces of legislation, including now providing a presumption that where a woman gives birth and is in a lesbian relationship and going through IVF, then her partner will also be deemed to be a parent.

This Bill, with amendments, has now passed the Upper House and is on its way to the Lower House.

Fred Nile's most significant amendment was to allow fathers to be shown on the birth certificate for children of lesbian couples, if the fathers wanted to. Here is what he (and Hatzistergos) said:


[Fred Nile]Insert after clause 5 (2):

(3) If the particulars supplied to the Registrar under section 14 of the Act specify that:

(a) a parent who is the father of the child wishes to be identified in the Register as the father, or

(b) a parent who is the birth mother of the child wishes to be identified in the Register as the mother,

or both, the particulars entered in the Register under section 17 of the Act must identify the parent as the father or mother, as the case requires. This subclause does not limit the particulars which may be included in the Register.

The amendment seeks to address the criticism that the bill's wording seems to devalue the role of the father in that it gives the appearance that the father would not be shown on the birth certificate in this circumstance. What appeared to be an omission and a downgrading of the role of the father has caused a deal of concern about the legislation as a whole; indeed, most of the criticism has focused on that aspect. I have been endeavouring, as have other members, to find a way of resolving that situation. The Attorney General has indicated that it was never the Government's intention to make any statement in the legislation about the role of the father or the importance of fatherhood. If that is the case—and I believe it to be the case—I seek the Government's support for the amendment and the support of Opposition members by way of a conscience vote.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [11.22 p.m.]: The Government will support the amendment. As I clearly indicated in my second reading speech, it is not the Government's intention to modify the way birth certificates are issued in the sense of removing the names of mothers and fathers. Indeed, the current practice in relation to the naming of mothers and fathers has been an administrative practice that is not regulated by specific provisions. However, in order to allay any concerns we are happy to support the amendment.

Click here for Hansard of the debate.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

ABC Online - "Rights Win for Lesbian Families"

The rights of New South Wales children with lesbian parents have been expanded under legislation passed by the State Government.

The law clears the way for children from lesbian couples to inherit money from their non-birth parent and receive workers' compensation on behalf of their non-birth parent.

It also allows both mothers to appear on their child's birth certificate.

NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos says the Bill is a big step.

"It means that the non-birth parent will have obligations to that child in the same way that every other parent has," he said.

"It also means that child will have the same relationship with the non-birth parent as they do with their birth parent."

Mr Hatzistergos says shadow attorney-general Greg Smith defied his own party in voting against the Bill.

"The Opposition is hopelessly divided on this issue but it's important to recognise that the vote was carried 64 to 11," he said.

"With Mr Smith being one of the few leading spokespersons within the Opposition voting against the legislation, he not only defied his leader but also the leader of the National party."

Emily Gray, from the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, says many Liberal MPs, who voted against the reforms, were confused about the meaning of reforms.

"A lot of that was stemming from the fact that they believed that fathers would be removed from birth certificates following these reforms and that's just simply not true at all," she said.

Ms Gray says the changes have been long-awaited.

"With 71 per cent of the Australian population now supporting equal rights for same-sex couples, it's about time that this equality came through," she said. "We're really happy that it has."

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

Sydney Star Observer - "Rudd's Broken Promise" by Emily Gray & Peter Johnson

In response to the 2007 pre-election survey from the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby and ACON, Kevin Rudd and the Australian Labor Party promised the following: “Labor is committed to equality for gay men, lesbians and same-sex couples and, if elected, will remove provisions which discriminate on the basis of sexuality, with the exception of the Marriage Act.”

Last week the federal government indicated that it would not be including the Family Law Act 1975 in its first raft of reforms to provide equality for same-sex couples. A few weeks ago the Rudd government announced its plans to introduce equal rights for lesbian and gay couples in many areas. We will have the same super benefits, tax breaks and access to healthcare as straight couples. The Rudd Labor government has decided not to include the Family Law Act 1975 at this time. If they continue to exclude it, this will be a broken promise.

The omission of the Family Law Act 1975 from the package of announced reforms will have a number of discriminatory impacts for our community. A lesbian co-mother will not be recognised as a “parent” in child-related court proceedings in the Family Court. This creates uncertainty for a child in the event of a relationship break-up. This also means that a birth mother cannot pursue child support through the Child Support Scheme from the co-mother in the event of a break-up. Already, lesbian parents have to go to enormous financial and personal costs to secure child support for their children and resolve conflicts on the breakdown of a relationship.

Leaving out this reform will also contribute to discrepancies between federal and state law, leaving couples uncertain about their rights and the rights of their children. We are talking about a significant number of people. An estimated 20 percent of lesbians have children and this figure is likely to be increasing. The 2006 Census recorded at least 4,386 children living in same-sex families in Australia. This change is necessary to ensure the majority of same-sex families are treated equitably. It is in the best interests of these thousands of children to have the economic and emotional security which comes with the legal recognition of their families

[Link: Original Article]

Read More