02.14.10
Posted in Agreements, Family, Law in a Changing Society, News at 7:57 pm by admin
Queensland’s controversial surrogacy bill was passed on12th February 2010 by 45 votes to 36. Two Labor MPs crossed the floor to vote against the Bligh Government. Until this time, a contract for surrogacy had been unlawful in this state.
Surrogacy means substitute, and in this context the term is used for a substitute birth mother. Surrogacy is when a woman agrees to become pregnant and carry to term and deliver a baby for another party or parties. (known as gestational carrying)There are a range of ways this can occur including intercourse, artifical insemination or implanting an embryo. This may be done for altruistic reasons or for a sum of money (commercial surrogacy) which may be done through an agency. Given that altruistic surrogacy is now lawful in Queensland there will typically be a surrogacy contract drawn up. Surrogacy is an option when there are medical or other reasons for why a person cannot have a child in the natural way, for example, infertility, a medical condition that makes pregnancy risky for a woman, a desire to have a child but not go through a pregnancy, same sex couples and single people.
Debating this issue has been legally and morally difficult for many members of our Parliament .
Legally the presumption has been that a woman who gives birth to a child is the baby’s mother. In surrogacy, the mother is not the one who gives birth but the person who has acquired legal rights to the baby once born. So the law in Queensland will be changed so that the person or persons who contacted the surrogate birth are the baby’s legal parents.
Morally there are difficulties too. Some members of the Queensland Parliament believe that ideally children need parents of both sex and were morally concerned with babies being available through surrogacy to same-sex couples or to single men or women. Others felt it was discriminatory to exclude anyone from being a parent – essentially all people have a right to have a child to raise as their own and that Medicare payment should be equally available.
Permalink
07.30.09
Posted in Family, Uncategorized at 8:48 am by admin
The Prime Minister has announced that the government remains opposed to same-sex marriage. He said that marriage should be a ‘union between a man and a woman’. However he welcomes a debate on gay marriage (see Courier Mail Thursday 30 July , 2008).
Stephen Keim supports same-sex marriage and his article first published in Brisbane Legal sets out why.
Proposition 8 and Rights to Marriage
One of the curious aspects of the elections conducted across the United States of America on the first Tuesday in November 2008 was the passage of a number of referendum proposals that stripped gay couples of the right to marriage or some form of civil union. The America that had voted for the change promised and represented by Barack Obama had also shown itself to be niggardly with the rights of others.[1]
At time of writing, the Californian Supreme Court has just finished hearing argument in a case that argues that the Californian version of that referendum was, itself, unconstitutional. At first, the argument seems anti-intuitive in that proposition 8, the proposal which banned same sex marriage, was an amendment to the Constitution of California. The argument,[2] however, is based on core commitments to equal rights in the Constitution. The whole purpose of Constitutional protections of minority rights is to stop an elected majority from treating particular minorities in a discriminatory way and removing from them the rights enjoyed by the rest of the population. It goes against the purpose of this core aspect of the Constitution for a majority, by the initiative (referendum) process, to overrule minority rights which have been recognised by the courts as protected by the Constitution. If this is allowed to happen, the central commitment to equality in the Constitution would just become a chimera.
The judges have reserved their decision. Media reports, [3] based on the thrust of the questions asked of attorneys by the judges, suggest that the case may be unsuccessful.
The passage of proposition 8 and similar proposals in other States galvanised supporters of rights to same sex marriage. Demonstrations in support of equal treatment for gay people proliferated across America. Even many normally conservative small towns in the American Bible Belt saw outbreaks of activism.
The Atlantic Monthly’s columnist and blogger, Andrew Sullivan, documented in words and pictures[4] this unexpected result of what appeared to be a set back for the gay rights movement. The demonstrations appear, in the photographs, to be cheerful and good humoured. The protest signs display characteristic street humour. One of my favourites is: “Against Gay Marriage: Then Don’t Have One”.
For me, however, a fundamental truth emerged from the response of bloggers across the world to Andrew Sullivan’s own comments urging that this new level of activism be maintained. Sullivan had said: “When every gay person and every friend or family member of a gay person really, truly believes that the status quo is unacceptable, we will win.” What emerged from the responses, however, is that rights of gay people, like other minority rights, are too important to be left to the minority and their friends for their protection. Suppression of minority rights is a challenge to the rights that each of us enjoys as well as a challenge to our sanctimonious world view.
It is too easy for people to feel about same sex marriage that this is just an indulgence. Deep inside, we can hear ourselves thinking: “What will they want next. They are not thrown into jail, anymore. Surely that’s enough.” The reality, however, of the desire for gay marriage is far from an indulgence.
From the blogs, the anecdotes of true suffering emerged. One was the story of a man who had to leave his brother and father, both terminally ill, so he could live with his non-US partner in Canada. Because their overseas union was not recognised by US law, his partner was not allowed admission to the US. Another concerned a man whose partner had died after they had been together for 34 years. The funeral home would not accept the surviving partner’s instructions for a cremation. A family member’s instructions were required.
The most heart breaking story, however, involves a hospital scene. In true Alan Ramsay style, I will uplift and reproduce the whole anecdote:
“I remember a story told me during the AIDS epidemic. A man was visiting a friend dying in hospital. It was a grim scene, as it often was in those days. The next bed in the ward had a curtain drawn around it. And from behind that curtain, you could hear someone quietly singing. The man told his friend, “Well, at least that dude is keeping his spirits up, however sick he is.” And the friend replied:
“Oh, that’s not the patient singing. He died this morning. And his family came to collect the body. That voice you hear is the man’s partner. The family didn’t approve of his relationship and they have barred him from coming to the funeral and kicked him out of their shared home. That song he’s singing is the song they called their own. It was playing when they met. He used to sing it to him all the time when he was dying.”
“He’s still singing it even though they’ve taken the body away. He’s singing it to an empty bed. I guess it’s the last time he feels he’ll ever be close to the man he loved. They were together twenty years. The hospital staff don’t have the heart to ask him to leave yet.”
It is easy to forget the rights that we enjoy. It is difficult to understand how it feels to be treated as sub-human until it happens to you. Anecdotes like these, however, may help those of us who have not suffered to bridge the empathy gap.
The Commonwealth Parliament passed a law, last year, that gives some grudging recognition to gay partnerships in terms of Commonwealth entitlements. Some States have legislation which recognises civil unions. Equality remains, however, a long way away.[5]
In Australia, as in the United States of America, gay rights are human rights. It is a simple proposition but one that is hard to digest. Hopefully, we, as a community, can learn to understand that it is true.
[1] The report of one such vote (in California) is here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story.
[2] A summary of what was argued is at http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11494.html.
[3] A report of the argument with links to media reports may be found at http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/03/california-supreme-court-hears.php.
[4] http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/week46/index.html.
[5] A summary of existing legal provisions in Australia (and other useful information and links) may be found at this site: http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/index.htm.
Permalink