|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2010 6:11:07 GMT
...this is blatant discrimination AGAINST heterosexual couples and IMHO ought to be ruled unconstitutional. How can it be? We haven't got a constitution. Jean, we so very DO! It may be rooted in convention rather than treaty, but IMO that makes the best sort of law at all, because it isn't dependant upon legislators who turn round later and have to say "Ah, we hadn't thought of that!" But our constititution is more a guide to the democratic process than a guardian of civil rights, see Erskine May Parliamentary PracticeFor that we have to rely upon the European Convention of Human Rights and our very own HRA, both of which rather neatly illustrate my point about convention. (stands back to await volleys from the left...!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2010 6:29:33 GMT
Well, the whole story is confusing. In one sentence they say there will not be a record in the birth register of the child's original parents, and in another they say the children will be able to trace their biological parents when they are 18. How will they do that, if there is no record held?
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 30, 2010 7:01:58 GMT
Karma to Skylark!
Of course the UK has a constitution. Most of it is written down. It's just not all written down in a single document which can only be changed by the judiciary. Our constitution can be changed by Parliament, which stops the kind of freeze on law-making that can happen when things are written into the constitution which the country later wants to change.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 30, 2010 7:29:21 GMT
Well, the whole story is confusing. In one sentence they say there will not be a record in the birth register of the child's original parents, and in another they say the children will be able to trace their biological parents when they are 18. How will they do that, if there is no record held? exactly skylark....doesnt sound very well thought out am glad to see that its aknowledged we do have a constiruttion much better a flexible system than one rooted in the past
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 30, 2010 7:36:49 GMT
but not until the age of 18...however as any parent knows the questions start much earlier... much better to be up front with kids from an early age..they find it easier to come to terms with It's exactly the same for adopted children some children are not aware they are adopted.....however a child with any homosexual male or female twosome couple will be aware quite early that part of its past is missing..its not exactly some thing which can be hidden... i would have thought that parents hetro or homsexual would wish to have the information to answer questions a child may ask. in my book the childs right to know is paramount....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2010 7:42:52 GMT
Mousel, is there anything to stop them giving the child this information? And if so, are they treated differently from any other adoptive parents, who have used surrogacy, donor sperm or just plain old social services?
I suspect that most people do tell their children the truth early on. I know two women of about my age who didn't discover they'd been adopted until they were adults - in one case, when one of them decided to get married! Both felt their parents had been misguided, if well-meaning, in not revealing the truth.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 30, 2010 8:00:57 GMT
Mousel, is there anything to stop them giving the child this information? And if so, are they treated differently from any other adoptive parents, who have used surrogacy, donor sperm or just plain old social services? I suspect that most people do tell their children the truth early on. I know two women of about my age who didn't discover they'd been adopted until they were adults - in one case, when one of them decided to get married! Both felt their parents had been misguided, if well-meaning, in not revealing the truth. is there any thing to stop.......if the adoptive parents know then there is nothing to stop them...but as so often happens a good idea can lead to complications ie i know a couple adopted a little boy..the adoptive couple knew the birth mother and who the natural father was[because she told them]...however they were both killed in a car crash...later the adopted son wanted to know his background......he still to this day at the age of 40 plus doesnt know who his birth father was as his birth mother also died shortly before the adoptive parents i know this doesnt happen very often..but for this chap its been most painful....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2010 9:35:13 GMT
There does need to be a record somewhere of a person's natural parentage - but there is no compulsion now or a mother to record the name of the father; indeed, unless she is married, she can't do so without his permission.
I'm still confused now as to whether there will be two records (one with the name of the birth mother and the father if known) and one with the names of the couple who will bring the child up. That seems sensible, but the story doesn't suggest that is happening.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 30, 2010 9:47:49 GMT
you expect ""sensible"" ?? you really should know better..this is the uk after all and sensible isnt on the agenda
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 30, 2010 15:06:27 GMT
Of course the UK has a constitution. Most of it is written down. It's just not all written down in a single document which can only be changed by the judiciary. Well, yes - and that's why things can't simply be 'ruled unconstitutional', which was my point. As for skylark's anticipated volleys from the left, if that means what I think it means, I must point out that the person I knew who was most vociferous in his support for a written constitution was an academic lawyer whose political leanings were rather in the opposite direction.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 30, 2010 15:29:33 GMT
it has nothing whatsoever to do with homophobe, although that is a cool word to toss around when you're on the wrong side. this happens to be about what's right, nothing more, and changing certificates to benefits homos is NEVER right So, "benefiting homosexuals is never right" - and yet you are not a homophobe. And darling, FYI, my opinions are not based on how many other people agree with me - I am no sycophant. I also prefer to debate points of view rather than just childishly claim someone is 'on the wrong side'. anything, and everything, intended solely to benefit a minority with the intent of depriving the majority, as in this instance, is by defintion, wrong. it's not a point of view, it's simple reality
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 30, 2010 15:32:28 GMT
Genes are important, June, that is why it matters. The more we know about our geneaology, the easier it is to take precautions in order to avoid an early death. But the original certificate is not lost it is available for the child at 18 years old. Just as happens when a certificate of adoption replaces the birth certificate. No big deal at all. This is about anti gay prejudices - no one has frothed at the mouth about adopted children having to have 'a certificate of adoption' replacing their original birth certificate. Where was the hoo-ha then? Or do they not matter? all of your wishful thinking will never change reality hon. this is NOT about anti gay prejudice, it is strictly about anti hetero prejudice, and the imbecillic rush to oblivion in order to elevate homos over normal people
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 30, 2010 15:33:43 GMT
I know people who have been adopted, and to them their "mum and dad " were the important people in their lives, and they had nothing to do with their biological parentage. The same would apply to people brought up by same sex couples. And if two people commit themelves to bringing a child into the world, or adopting one, it is right that this is acknowledged so that if, at a later date, disputes arise, none has a legal priority over the other. But if we don't record the biological parentage, there will be no chance of tracking vital information about inheritance should this be needed. or, most importantly, health issues
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 30, 2010 15:36:00 GMT
but not until the age of 18...however as any parent knows the questions start much earlier... much better to be up front with kids from an early age..they find it easier to come to terms with It's exactly the same for adopted children since when do they issue a BIRTH certificate for an adoption?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2010 15:37:58 GMT
Well, that's what I meant by "inheritance" Jumbo; one's genetic footprint.
But of course, there could also be pecuniary advantages should one turn out to be the child of Elvis Presley or someone.
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 30, 2010 17:14:33 GMT
It's exactly the same for adopted children since when do they issue a BIRTH certificate for an adoption? Meh?
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 30, 2010 17:18:47 GMT
I am chortling that you think the words you have written support the argument you are attempting to make. No wishful thinking on my part just facts. But the original certificate is not lost it is available for the child at 18 years old. Just as happens when a certificate of adoption replaces the birth certificate. No big deal at all. This is about anti gay prejudices - no one has frothed at the mouth about adopted children having to have 'a certificate of adoption' replacing their original birth certificate. Where was the hoo-ha then? Or do they not matter? all of your wishful thinking will never change reality hon. this is NOT about anti gay prejudice, it is strictly about anti hetero prejudice, and the imbecillic rush to oblivion in order to elevate homos over normal people
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 30, 2010 17:22:22 GMT
Who, exactly who, is being disadvantaged by this change and precisely how? So, "benefiting homosexuals is never right" - and yet you are not a homophobe. And darling, FYI, my opinions are not based on how many other people agree with me - I am no sycophant. I also prefer to debate points of view rather than just childishly claim someone is 'on the wrong side'. anything, and everything, intended solely to benefit a minority with the intent of depriving the majority, as in this instance, is by defintion, wrong. it's not a point of view, it's simple reality
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2010 17:30:58 GMT
Could someone please explain exactly what certiifcates are issued and with what information, what is registered where and available to whom, before we all unravel and disappear up our own belly buttons?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 30, 2010 17:59:59 GMT
I am chortling that you think the words you have written support the argument you are attempting to make. No wishful thinking on my part just facts. all of your wishful thinking will never change reality hon. this is NOT about anti gay prejudice, it is strictly about anti hetero prejudice, and the imbecillic rush to oblivion in order to elevate homos over normal people sadly, you don't seem to be concerned with facts. would you care to enlighten me as to when you anticipate presenting some
|
|