This is my daddy and this is my daddy
Alright, there are so many aspects of this topic that grate the wrong way with me that I’m going to apologise in advance if this post bounces all over the place a little bit. I promise that I will try my hardest to keep it coherent and stop it from devolving into a crazy rant… hand on heart.
Now before I go on I want to make a distinction in terms. When I refer to religion or to ‘the Church’ I am not referring to the collective peoples that make up that religion or that particular church. I know that the vast majority of the people who are part of these religions are amazing, caring, selfless people. When I refer to these institutions I am referring to just that, the religious institution and political unit which does operate within the church. The Australian Christian lobby is a political actor, the Catholic Church is a political actor. It is essential to understand this differentiation because I am not blaming church goers for the views of their church. As is often the case it is, in fact, the church which is dictating the views of the followers, not the other way around.
As I’m sure you have already guessed, this is part two to my examination of the influences of religion on policy. Religious organisations in western nations have, over the past few years, pushed the angle of ‘religious freedom’ to influence and subvert policy at a number of junctions. High profile examples such as the religious freedom laws passed in the United States recently are perfect demonstrations of this fact.
The disgusting thing that these laws and loopholes demonstrate is the extent to which some religious institutions are willing to go to protect their political influence. Call me a cynic, call me what you like, but these conflicts are, at their core, competitions for political power.
So what am I looking at today? Gay adoption rights.
The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) recently completed a submission to the Victorian Government on the issue of gay adoption rights. Now Victoria actually lags behind the rest of the country on this issue, which has already been sorted out pretty much everywhere in favour of gay couples. Actually, that statement is misleading; it wasn’t in favour of gay couples, it was in favour of the children!
Lets not even start on the topic of whether gay parents can ensure the same level of well-being for their children as straight parents (Hint: They can). We’re talking about whether or not gay parents can ensure a higher level of well-being than NO PARENTS AT ALL! So lets not even pretend that there is a debate to be had here. The gay adoption issue is pure and simple homophobia.
So what exactly has the ACL asked for in their recent submission? I’ll be the first to admit that by ACL standards it’s actually pretty restrained; I mean, at least when compared to… say… comparing homosexuality to smoking. For starters, the ACL has made the request that parents who give up children for adoption be able to stipulate that their child not be adopted by a gay couple. It also requested that any change of laws allowing gay parents to adopt children include a clause which allows religious adoption institutions to ‘opt-out’ of allowing gay couples to adopt children from that institution.
OK, let’s get one thing out of the way early on here. I have no problem what so ever with people giving up children for adoption if they believe that they are not able to provide that child with the life it deserves. A decision to give up a child would be one of the most difficult decisions anyone can ever make and in many cases is done genuinely in the interests of the child. However, once you give that child up for adoption you have NO SAY in its future. You can’t go half way on this… you either want the child and all the responsibilities and powers that come with that fact… or you’re OUT OF THE PICTURE. Yes, some people will call me heartless for saying this but it’s the only fair thing to do. Seriously, why stop at being able to stipulate no gay parents, why not Asian or African parents? Or while we’re at it… Christian parents. There’s as much evidence to discredit the ability of those parents to raise children as there is for gay parents (See: None).
Item two of the ACL’s submission is where things really get juicy though. The ACL has claimed that based upon an institution’s rights to religious freedom, that institution should be able to opt-out of allowing gay parents to adopt children. The ACL claims that this clause isn’t just preferred, it’s necessary for the well-being of children in care, and for the stability of the entire adoption system. Why is this you ask? Because the ACL claims that if religious adoption institutions are forced to allow gay parents to adopt children in their care, they would most likely be forced to cease their operations as providers of care for those children.
I just want to let that sink in for a second. The ACL has, for all intents and purposes, just attempted to blackmail the Victorian Government with the welfare of thousands of young, vulnerable, completely innocent children. They have quite openly declared that their political, anti-gay agenda, is more important than the welfare of thousands of children.
I really don’t know where to go from here… I mean we’ve come full circle. We’re back to the point of whether or not an organisation or individual should be able to justify child abuse in the name of ‘religious freedom’. Now I don’t know about you but in my mind the answer for this is an overwhelming NO. We’ve already seen the repercussions of institutionalised sexual abuse coming out of the woodwork over the last twenty years. Why then are we still allowing the abuse of children to continue under the guise of ‘religious freedom’? It seems to me then that the answer to these issues is to do what should have been done from the very beginning. Get religion out of public policy.