Privileging biology over this kind of support and love is dismissive and discriminatory towards the millions of families that do not fit into your “ideal” mother-father nuclear unit. You are telling the children raised by grandparents, adoptive parents, single parents and, yes, same-sex parents that we are worth less than other children.

That’s really a lovely, lovely letter Mackey. Thanks so much for sharing the link!

In response to that submission, a group of 20/30 years olds, who were all raised in a same sex family environment, wrote a fantastic piece debunking the myths propogated in that submission. Have a look here: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4012552.html

What’s fascinating to me — having spent some time on the Family Scholars Blog and reading this report — is the way Marquardt seems to put special pressure on LGBTQ parents to keep their reproductive decisions open. As if a) LGBTQ parents are more likely to be secretive — in my experience they’re more likely to be open, because it’s obvious from the get-go they can’t have reproduced as a biological pair — and b) as if they represent the overwhelming number of adoptive/assisted reproductive parents. When this simply isn’t the case. We’re called a minority for a statistical reason, and even within the queer community we don’t all choose to reproduce!

The Declaration’s language is pretty vague, but parts of it refer to a child’s right to “parents” (who this is, it never says) and more interestingly, the right to Identity, Nationality, etc. There are a lot of legal scholars who have proposed that the Declaration could, if read a certain way, codify not a preference for bio-parents but grant any child the right to access. Some LGBT organizations express concern that it may, if read a certain way, end anonymous gamete donor (in effect, all donors would have to become known donors).

Part of these arguments that I dislike is that the argument over parentage is always phrased in a way that it argues over the superior or equal forms of parentage from the perspective of the government or adults. There is a lot of literature out there that discusses parentage from the vested rights view of the child – what parent(s) the child should have a right to, what the child is entitled to as matter of right. Its far more interesting than the bio-essentialism that people still seem to keep pushing on.

This is pretty much exactly what happened with the Regnerus study on “gay and lesbian” parenting which wasn’t about that at all; he designed the study on the assumption that a person’s sexual orientation and/or behavior is related to their ability to provide their children with a space for well-being and healthy growth. That’s an assumption that, in fact, would need to be supported by evidence rather than just be read as fact. (One reason why the study is now being audited and was recently recommended for retraction).