PM Howard wants to introduce legislation that would deny entry visas to foreign children adopted by same-sex couples. It appears that this is the response to the successful WA adoption of a child by two men after WA changed its laws regarding adoption by same-sex couples. A federal law would override the various state legislations that have recently changed to allow same-sex adoption.
More marginalising of same-sex attraction, with the result that children who could have had a loving home in our wealthy country will instead remain in orphanages or on the street overseas. The attempted justification by Howard and Ruddock that this law will simply mean that heterosexual couples will be given preference in adopting a limited supply of children totally ignores the facts on the ground: heterosexual couples are already given preference in adopting the very limited supply of healthy infants. Heterosexual couples have far less interest in adopting the children who are not healthy and not infants, and same-sex couples have shown themselves far more willing to adopt these less fashionable adoptees (perhaps purely because of the reality that they’re at the bottom of the list for adopting healthy infants). So Howard and Ruddock are deliberately creating a situation where the children that most heterosexual adoptive couples don’t want anyway now have even less prospect of growing up with love and in comfort.
Yeh, it’s a rotten little wedge designed to pander to prejudice.
But “less fashionable adoptees”? Gimme a break. That’s a sentence with an appeal to prejudice in it, and certainly our celebrity betters seem quite fashionably keen on collecting those “less fashionable adoptees” of yours.
I expect Rudd will say “me too”. Under Beazley they were happy enough with the amendments to the Marriage Act – Nicola Roxon, the shadow A-G at the time, didn’t even bother replying to my polite email asking her why.
Rodney Croome reckons this is more dog-whistling.
Certainly a move like this would place Malcolm Turnbull’s seat in real jeopardy, and there are several liberal parliamentarians who might consider a revolt.
Since most nice Australians these days know a poofter or two (or even have one in the family), the anti-gay wedge doesn’t work quite so well any more. Not having a subcontinental doctor in the family, the anti-foreign-terrorist wedge still works a treat for most of us. Sadly.
I clicked the box ‘Request a Read Receipt’ option in my email client when I emailed Roxon with the same question. That option returned me the message, “Deleted without being read”.
I don’t believe a Rudd government will be in the least bit sympathetic to same-sex law reform.
(Did anyone see Rudd on The 7.30 Report last night? I’ve never seen him looking so slippery and slimy and those stupid little talking-down-to-you phrases he kept using – a very unimpressive performance. As much as I want to the see the arse-end of the Rodent, Rudd does not inspire me with any hope.)
Just another attempt to engender wedge politics. They are as obsessive as they are unconscionable.
“Come on, Labor, take the wedge! We’re begging you. Give us something, we’re running out of time here!”
I think you’ll probably find that Ms Roxon didn’t get to see that email. It was (probably) deleted by an Electorate Officer. This issue won’t give them any traction, one hopes, fingers crossed and all that.
This is grotesque.
The adoption arrangements being interferred with by this legislation will be those administered by adoption agencies and authorities in the originating country.
The Howard Clique, in full panic mode, are now denying the legality of adoption procedures of these countries.
Just another bit of gay-bashing from the Government. WTF is wrong with these people?
Just when you think that they can’t sink any lower, they manage to surprise you.
I don’t think this wedge will be as effective. Believe or not there are plenty of Gay Liberal voters. And My hunch (and is only a hunch) is that the average punter would be OK is a gay couple gives a child from a poorer background a chance ‘in the best bloody country in the world’. Young people are mostly very relaxed about this. Most people who are against it are probably Coalition voters anyway.
I don’t believe that it would swing many votes in the marginals.
back when Rudd was Wayne Goss’s chief boffin, he was not good at all on gay law reform. Indeed, it’s better to say he was bad. I’m not certain but maybe he was the one behind the proposed preamble and might also have been behind the differential age of consent. I don’t have high hopes for Rudd although on some things I believe a Rudd gov’t will bring some necessary changes, but nevertheless it’s pretty clear that anohter term of the Rodent and his crew will be an unmitigated disaster for this country.
Re 7.30 Report I missed Rudd’s interview last night but saw the dreadful Tony Abbott the night before. He was smirking like Conie Costello and lying though his teeth. He’s nothing but a thug
Michael makes a good point. I seem to recall a member of a gay and lesbian group in Queensland (doesn’t exist anymore) saying that Rudd was one of the most conservative pollies she ever had to deal with.
How Machiavellian! Could this be a reverse wedge, where the Coalition suggests something they know a significant number of ALP voters will hate, hoping Rudd will acquiesce or stay mum and piss off social liberals?
Look how much ground it covers:
1) Wedge attempt (standard)
2) Anti-Labor-States power grab (quite a lot of this lately)
3) Poofter-bashing (traditional)
4) Xenophobic direct attempt to keep furriners out (also traditional)
5) Further expression of increasing mean-spiritedness (see treatment of M. Haneef)
All in one proposed legislative move. Katz is right, it’s grotesque, but you have to admit it’s efficient.
(I really need to stop mucking around with my name. Sorry TT, OT.)
Would preference negotiations be underway yet for the election?
Family First got such a good deal out of labour last time, the libs are going to have to work hard to impress them.
In the midst of serially picking these fights, I wonder if Howard’s paused to consider how completely scattergun he looks compared to Rudd.
I would suggest that this is more about sewing up a preference deal with Family First.
At the last election, FF mostly directed preferences to the Libs, but in some (where the ALP fielded conservative candidates) they directed to the ALP instead. Rudd is a nice Christian man and he’s shown himself to be conservative on a great many issues and I suspect that FF would be quite relaxed about having him as PM.
The Libs suspect this as well, and I think they are shit scared that FF will preference mostly to Labor this time – especially in light of the very family-unfriendly things the Libs have done over the past three years.
Let’s face it; the Libs don’t have a hope in Hell of winning the election without preferences from FF, which is why I think that is the real agenda here.
Nothing like a nice gay-bashing wedge to get the conservative Christians on side…
scattergun indeed mr lefty
he may still get ricochet shrapnel wounds:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/doctor-quits-mersey-in-protest-at-takeover/2007/08/02/1185648061389.html
Oooh, I heard the sound of a Labor/Greens/FF battle coming on and just had to jump in first.
Lynda (and Michael S):
I would suggest, errr, not. I would suggest that same-sex adoption policy is driven by the strongly held beliefs of members of the Coalition party room about same-sex adoption. Note that the legislation isn’t going to be introduced until the Spring 2007 session (ie. after the election).
That’s not going to happen. In the highly unlikely event that it does, however, it’ll be because Labor directs Senate preferences to FF in return, rather than out of the kindness of their Christian hearts.
FF preferences will flow primarily in the Senate. They have far too few candidates and far too little money to affect any significant number of HoR seats. The Coalition still has an excellent chance of winning the upcoming Federal Election, don’t believe anything anyone says to the contrary.
Hopefully it backfires. At least a couple of the supposed blue-ribbon Liberal seats have significant gay communities (Wentworth comes to mind).
Should we have an election victory by a fairly conservative Labor party, it would at least provide some symbolic satisfaction to see the Libs lose their blue-blood seats.
Interesting, Liam – the friends of mine who are actually in the ALP are among the most pessimistic about its chances.
Maybe thats because it hurts more to hope from that embedded position!
Me, I reckon with the consistent high ALP primary compared to 01/04 – its objectively Rudd’s to lose at this point.
But of course he could do exactly that….
You’re quite right to pull me up on that, it was a prejudicial comment, although I do think it speaks to an underlying truth.
From a purely practical point of view, I can understand people wanting to adopt an infant so they can ensure that they are the primary influence on the child’s life right from the start. Older children will obviously have their lives as they know them totally rearranged, and guiding them through that upheaval will obviously be more difficult than working out the adjustment issues of an infant to whom everything is new and strange anyway.
Seeing as same-sex couples are less likely to find favour as adoptive parents of infants, those who feel really strongly about becoming parents often decide that their best chance of being approved is to take on the extra challenge of dealing with the adjustment issues of older adoptive children whereas heterosexual couples are more willing to wait for their opportunity to adopt an infant.
Nitpick: I believe most celebrity adoptions are also infant adoptions, Brangelina aside.
She who mucks around with her handle, Her Most Adelaidean Majesty, is correct on 5 counts.
*changes cat-cushion covers*
latest morgan poll
*drum roll*
no change
55-45
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4192/
nothing to see here folks , look away now
Some interesting sub-data:
Who knows, this may be a sign that punters think the coalition posture of “being tough on 12 things at once” makes them appear addled, shrill, and all over the shop.
PS How bollocks is this whole “soft support” measure?
I may be mistaken – but won’t the party in front, by definition, have more swinging voters onside than the one coming 2nd?
Thats how you win elections. ‘Soft support’ is in fact what you want.
Apparently the ALP shadow attorney general has had recent meetings with gay groups in which he committed the ALP to support proposed changes to remove discrimination against same sex couples with children. So I’ll be curious to see which way they jump on this one.
The Coalition’s proposed rule-change on this is utterly obnoxious (what’s new?)
Labor can still oppose this motion without coming out as queer-friendly (God forbid!) I imagine they’ll argue as they did in 2004 and again in 2006 that a/adoptions should be determined on a case-by-case basis and b/ Howard is again trampling on the states’ and territories’ autonomy. Token show of solidarity for their state counterparts.
Someone should tell those bloody homophobic bigots that the 1950s are over. Obviously Howard and his religious-right ministers didn’t get the memo that it is now the 21st century and this sort of prejudice has no place in the modern society.
I’d like to know what the Labor party’s response to this outrage is. Is Rudd going to sit quietly or is he going to stand up for the rights of Australian citizens? It would be a shame if the party that was instrumental in overturning the anti-gay criminal laws in Tasmania will not actively oppose such overt display of homophobia.
Unsilenced, love your bold, clear, incisive rationality.
But rationality, obvious as it may be to you or me or many, is not, I believe, the ultimate appellate.
Is it possible to confidently appeal to rationality if it is not the fundamental determinant?
Thanks Jinmaro
Unfortunately it is not possible to appeal to rationality when it is absent. I do however believe that when rationality is absent from government decision-making, it is a sure sign that we need a new government.
The Australian people aren’t interested in theories of executive decision-making!