Gay Dads Australia

The Uniting Church faces a split over a ruling that has allowed an affiliated charity to stop a gay couple from fostering children.

The couple began a legal battle seven years ago with Wesley Mission Australia, which refused to allow them to become foster parents.

In a landmark decision earlier this month, the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal found in favour of Wesley Mission, which is part of the Uniting Church.

Advertisement: Story continues below

But a spokesman for the church said its members would be split by the decision.

“From the liberal point of view, there will be parts of the church that will be disappointed with this decision,” he told AAP.

“Generally though, the more conservative side of the church will be happy with the decision.”

Uniting Care Burnside is a social justice service that’s also part of the Uniting Church and places foster children in safe homes.

It has a non-discriminatory policy when it comes to placing children in foster care, as does the Department of Community Services (DoCS).

“Community Service foster carers can be single, married, in a de facto or same-sex relationship,” DoCs said in a statement on Monday.

When the tribunal handed down its decision on the recent case, it cited the very broad exemptions in the Anti-Discrimination Act relating to religious groups and suggested parliament consider revising it.

But NSW Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell said there was no need to review the laws as the same-sex adoption bill had been passed in September.

He said “faith-based” services were not the only option for those looking to adopt.

“But because there is choice, because if you’re a same-sex couple you can … seek to adopt a child, I don’t think it’s a big concern,” he told reporters in Sydney.

The case involving Wesley Mission dates back to 2002 when the gay couple lodged a complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act after an agency refused to allow them to foster a child.

The tribunal initially found in favour of the men in 2007 and awarded them $5,000 each.

But Wesley Mission appealed and a review panel overturned the decision, ruling the tribunal had erred in deciding the mission didn’t have a right to discriminate on religious grounds.

The panel sent the case back to the tribunal, which decided in favour of the Wesley Mission and dismissed the complaint of discrimination.

[Source: Original Article]

Gay couples are able to legally adopt children in NSW so there’s no need to review NSW’s anti-discrimination laws, says Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell.

His comments follow a ruling in favour of a religious organisation which refused to foster children to same-sex parents.

The NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal earlier this month found in favour of Wesley Mission Australia, which wouldn’t allow a gay couple to become foster parents.

But the tribunal suggested parliament may wish to review the Anti-Discrimination Act, which it based its decision on.

Mr O’Farrell on Monday said there was no need to review the laws as the same-sex adoption bill had been passed in September.

“The concern with this decision would have been if the only adoption services in NSW were faith-based,” Mr O’Farrell told AAP on Monday.

“But because there is choice, because if you’re a same-sex couple you can … seek to adopt a child, I don’t think it’s a big concern.”

Under the new adoption legislation, church adoption agencies were granted the right to refuse to provide services to gay and lesbian couples without breaching anti-discrimination laws.

[Source: Original Article]

A NSW government department says there are plenty of opportunities for same sex couples to foster children, despite a recent ruling allowing religious charities to ban gays from becoming foster parents.

A gay couple began a legal battle seven years ago with Wesley Mission Australia, which refused to allow them to become foster parents.

However, the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal found in favour of the Wesley Mission earlier this month.

Advertisement: Story continues below

The tribunal found that the mission was exempt from the NSW Anti Discrimination Act on religious grounds.

But a statement from the Department of Community Services (DoCS) should g]ve the gay couple hope, as it makes clear that the department accepts gay couples as foster parents.

“Community Service foster carers can be single, married in a de facto or same sex relationship,” the statement read.

DoCS puts its emphasis on the need for foster carers to provide “a safe, nurturing and secure family environment” and states that anyone in good physical and emotional health can apply to become a foster carer.

The case involving the Wesley Mission dates back to 2002 when the two gay men lodged a complaint under the Anti Discrimination Act after an agency operated by the mission refused to allow them to foster a child.

The Administrative Decisions Tribunal initially found in favour of the men in 2007 and awarded them $5,000 each.

But the Wesley Mission appealed and a review panel overturned the decision, ruling that the tribunal had erred in deciding the mission did not have a right to discriminate on religious grounds.

The panel sent the case back to the tribunal, which decided earlier this month in favour of the Wesley Mission, and dismissed the complaint of discrimination.

An affidavit supplied to the tribunal by the Wesley Mission, which follows the Methodist doctrines of the 18th-century preacher John Wesley, says: “The Methodist doctrine is based on the belief that God’s pattern for family relationships includes a union between a man and a woman.

“For Wesley Mission to appoint homosexual couples as foster carers would be fundamentally unacceptable to the Methodist doctrine and would be viewed as an abdication of its responsibility to uphold the word of God as understood by Methodism.”

The Wesley Mission is a parish of the Uniting Church, but the church allows its parishes to make their own decisions on matters involving homosexuality.

[Source: Original Article]

The ruling, made in the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal, has been hailed by the Catholic Church but has outraged civil libertarians, who are demanding religions no longer be exempt from anti-discrimination laws if they receive public money, reported The Daily Telegraph.

The Council of Civil Liberties suggested more children might end up in orphanages because church-based service providers could now knock back couples who did not conform to their beliefs.

Even the tribunal itself, whose judgment came down in favour of the ban, said it was effectively bound to reach the decision because of the very broad exemptions in the Anti-Discrimination Act relating to religious groups.

And, it went as far as suggesting that Parliament may wish to revise those laws.

The decision marks the end of a seven-year legal battle for a gay couple who attempted to become foster carers through Wesley Mission Australia but were knocked back because their lifestyle was not in keeping with the beliefs and values of Wesleyanism, a Methodist order of the Uniting Church.

The ADT initially awarded the couple $10,000 and ordered the charity to change its practices so it did not discriminate but an appeals panel set aside that decision and ordered the tribunal to reconsider the matter.

The tribunal then said it had little choice but to find that the discrimination was “in conformity” with the church’s doctrine because the test in the law “is singularly undemanding”.

Council of Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy said churches who received taxpayers money to provide services for the state -as was increasingly the case -should no longer be exempt from discrimination laws.

“It’s outrageous,” he said. “If a non-religious organisation tried to do this they would be in breach of the law.

“If they want to run a foster care agency they ought to be looking after the best interests of the child, not trying to push their religion on the community.

Cardinal George Pell welcomed the decision and said churches must be able to choose who they wanted to use in the provision of services.

Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann said it was high time groups were no longer able to discriminate for religious reasons. 

A spokesman for Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell said if the matter came before Parliament the Liberal Party would allow a conscience vote.

[Source: Original Article]

After a seven-year battle, a Johannesburg gay couple can finally look forward to holding their own child in their arms. 

In a judgment in the Johannesburg High Court, Judge Seun Moshidi granted Harry and Kevin Johnson (not their real names) an order confirming a surrogacy agreement between them and a 32-year-old woman who has undertaken to carry a child for them.

He also granted an order that the mother-of-five from Roodepoort relinquish her parental rights and responsibilities once the child is born.

This is in line with the new Children’s Act that came into effect in April 2010. The order has to be granted before embryos are transferred to the surrogate.

Now that the court order has been granted, the couple hopes to have at least one child by this time in 2011.

For more than seven years, the Johnsons battled homophobia while looking for a woman to carry their child.

The couple, who live in an upmarket Johannesburg northern suburb, wanted a child that was biologically theirs and this ruled out adoption. They opted for surrogacy.

Harry said: “It has been quite hard. We first tried in 2003 and went to a fertility clinic, but they did not like the fact that we were gay.”

While waiting in the clinic’s reception area, the couple was made to feel uncomfortable as staff members took turns to peek at them.

“We were probably the first gay couple there. Every single member of staff came and peeked,” said Harry, adding that a friend who had been willing to carry the child for them had since relocated.

Now the Johnsons are close to realising their dream of starting a family,

“What we are hoping for is triplets – then we don’t have to go through this all over again,” said Harry.

Read more…

“This is a big step for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in Israel,” commented lawyer Irit Rosenblum.

A breakthrough legal ruling in the Jerusalem Family Court on Thursday will pave the way for homosexuals to officially adopt their partner’s or spouse’s child, the Tel Aviv-based New Family organization told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

“This is a big step for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in Israel,” commented lawyer Irit Rosenblum, executive director of New Family, an organization that champions the rights of Israelis to marry and build families outside the traditional system.

“However, there is still a long road to the desired recognition, since each issue pertaining to gay rights is decided by the courts, and not by the legislature.”

Rosenblum, who submitted the request for adoption on behalf of the couple, told the Post that before this particular petition, no male homosexual had applied to legally adopt his partner’s child.

She pointed out that unlike in the past, surrogacy has succeeded in creating a new situation for gay couples, in which a man can become a single parent.

In this precedent-setting case, the child in question was born two years go to a man via a surrogate mother in India.

About a year ago, the father asked to allow his partner to adopt the child.

The two men went through the standard adoption process – including a review from a social worker, who assessed the partner to be a fit parent and submitted a positive recommendation to the Jerusalem Family Court.

Read more…

Attorney-General Lara Giddings today released for public comment draft legislation to legalise altruistic surrogacy in Tasmania.

Ms Giddings said the Surrogacy Bill, which she aimed to introduce in the first sitting of State Parliament next year, would legalise surrogacy in certain defined circumstances.

“This legislation would help many Tasmanians to realise their dream of starting a family,” Ms Giddings said.

“I recognise that this is a complex and contentious area and that is why I intend to allow time for the community to comment on the draft legislation.

“For some people surrogacy may be the only way in which they are able to have children and I am pleased the proposed legislation would help them to become parents.

“Currently surrogacy arrangements are illegal in Tasmania and commercial surrogacy would continue to be banned.

“The Bill would permit all people, regardless of their marital status or sexual orientation, to enter into a surrogacy arrangement but a surrogate mother will only be able to accept medical and other related expenses.

“It would also impose conditions on parties entering into surrogacy arrangements, and will include requirements to undergo counselling and to obtain independent legal advice.

“Parentage of a child would only be transferred to the new parents where it is found by the Children’s Court to be in the best interest of the child to do so.”

Ms Giddings said the drafting of the Bill followed a Legislative Council Select Committee Report supporting the move, and support for the provision of altruistic surrogacy at a national level through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG). 

“This legislation has been developed by SCAG after extensive community consultation at a national level.

“It would bring Tasmania into line with other jurisdictions across Australia as well as meeting the expectations of the Select Committee.

“One jurisdiction which has taken a slightly different approach to the others (and to the current draft Tasmanian Bill) is Western Australian in its Surrogacy Act 2008. 

“That Act enables a court to make parentage orders in circumstances where the consent of the birth mother is not forthcoming but the child is the genetic child of the intended parent/s and is not the genetic child of the birth mother.

“Even in that circumstance the best interests of the child remains the paramount consideration which a court must have regard to when deciding whether to make a parentage order, but I invite comments on whether this provision might be included in the Tasmanian Act.”

Ms Giddings said progress on surrogacy delivered on another major aspect of her law reform agenda.

“I said in June this year that my key law reform priorities would be progressing a Charter of Rights and Responsibilities, reforming Tasmania’s sex industry laws, introducing surrogacy laws and developing voluntary euthanasia laws.

“We are currently consulting with Tasmanians about whether we need a Charter and if so what it should look like, and I am pleased that through the draft Bill released today we are making progress on surrogacy as well.

“The other two issues will be addressed in the coming months,” Ms Giddings said.

The draft Bill, together with some explanatory material as well as links to the interstate legislation is available on Department of Justice website (http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/legislationreview/reviews). 

Copies of the Bill can be downloaded from the website or obtained from the Department by emailing legislation.development@justice.tas.gov.au or by calling 6233 3798.

Comments on Bill can be directed to the Office of Legislation Development and Review, Department of Justice, GPO Box 825, Hobart. Submissions close on Friday 4 February 2011.

[Source: Original Article]

FIVE-YEAR-OLD William and his baby sister, Jane, suffered a life of neglect until they were placed with foster carers.

One took a year off from his job as a child welfare worker to care for the troubled siblings; both foster parents work four-day weeks to maximise their family time.

The children are now thriving and their foster parents – affectionately called ”Dad” and ”Papa” – have become the first same-sex couple in NSW to adopt.

Advertisement: Story continues below

A Supreme Court judge, George Palmer, last week made orders for the adoption of William, 9, and Jane, 5, by their foster parents, Mr Smith and Mr Jones (the family has been given pseudonyms).

Mindful of the debate surrounding same-sex adoption, Justice Palmer took the unusual step of publishing his reasons for the landmark decision. ”Many in the community have expressed, and continue to express, a strongly held belief that adoption by same-sex couples is, in its very nature, contrary to religion, to morality and to the best interests of the child, and that it undermines the long-established concept of the nature of a family,” he said.

Though the court and the community would ”grapple for some time with the novelty of same-sex couple adoptions”, such applications did not require a specially cautious approach.

The judge said the court was not concerned with ideological debate, only what was best for the children, and Mr Smith and Mr Jones were ”unquestionably capable of parenting these two children”.

Although single gay men and women have been eligible to adopt children, the Adoption Act previously defined a ”couple” as a man and a woman who were married or in a de facto relationship.

Amendments to the legislation introduced in September expanded that definition to ”two persons”, allowing adoption by same-sex couples.

William and Jane were born to a young woman with a history of substance abuse. She has only seen them once since June 2006, when they were taken into care by the Department of Community Services. She has had no contact with them since January but did not object to their adoption by a same-sex couple.

William’s father could not be found to obtain his consent to adoption, which was dispensed with by the court.

Jane’s father – who has never met her – consented to her adoption by Mr Smith and Mr Jones, who were among the 8 per cent of foster carers with the child welfare organisation Barnardos who are gay.

A consultant psychologist involved with the family viewed them as ”experienced, highly skilled and creative” parents.

Justice Palmer described Mr Smith and Mr Jones as exemplary parents, observing that the children were happy and outgoing in court and ”stood close to their new fathers, hugging them in moments of excitement and at other times unconsciously reaching for their hands”.

[Source: Original Article]

THE decision that same-sex couples are allowed to foster children in Queensland has infuriated a 63-year-old grandmother who said she was passed over as a foster parent while two of her grandchildren were placed with gay men.

She said one of the men “walks around the streets in a dress as if he was a woman.”

“It’s not right,” she said.

The case was raised in State Parliament on Monday when Rob Messenger (Independent, Burnett) asked Child Safety Minister Phil Reeves if he was aware the state had entrusted children to a transvestite.

The grandmother, who can not be named for legal reasons, said the decision to place children with homosexuals ran counter to her strong Christian values.

She said her grandson aged four and a granddaughter, 12, were taken from their mother in July and placed with the gay couple without considering the family’s feelings.

“I can’t understand it at all,” she said.

“I was really upset. It has split our family even further.”

She won the support of a long-time social worker who said he knew of three cases where homosexual couples had been allowed to foster children in a Queensland regional city.

When the grandmother complained, she eventually won custody of the four-year-old, while the granddaughter was returned to her natural mother.

The grandmother admitted there had been drinking and gambling problems in the family.

She said the children were suddenly seized one morning while their mother was at bingo.

Mr Messenger asked Mr Reeves to explain why the government failed to ask the parents and grandparents whether they agree to same-sex couples or transvestites being allowed to provide foster care to their children and their grandchildren.

Mr Reeves did not answer the question directly.

He said: “It is a sad fact that in Queensland 7800 children are not able to live at home because they would not be safe there. The reality is that in Queensland we need more foster carers.

“We need more people to put up their hands to offer care to children. I would like to thank each and every one of our foster and kinship carers who have gone the extra mile to help our children.”

[Source: Original Article]

LITTLE Connor Harris doesn’t yet realise he’s a history-making baby.

The bubbly six-month-old is the first child in Queensland to be born under new surrogacy laws which grant his gay parents legal parentage.

And there’s no wiping the smiles off Connor’s proud parents, Brisbane couple Bentley and Matt Harris. "We are just so excited, it’s been pretty amazing," Matt said.

"When we held Connor for the first time there was a bond instantly, we just started crying. It was very emotional and life changing."

Altruistic surrogacy was decriminalised in Queensland on June 1, after a rare State Parliament conscience vote.

MPs voted 45 to 36 to support surrogacy and allow the legal parentage of the child to be transferred from the birth mother to the intending parents.

Last-minute Opposition amendments to confine surrogacy to married and heterosexual couples failed, although commercial surrogacy remains illegal.

A friend of the couple agreed to be the surrogate mother to Connor.

The married mother-of-two, who does not want to be identified, underwent artificial insemination using Bentley’s sperm last year and gave birth to Connor on May 11.

Despite no written agreement being made between Connor’s birth mother and his parents until he was born, Brisbane Children’s Court Judge Marshall Irwin transferred parentage to Matt and Bentley in September.

While the couple admits there have been sleepless nights, plenty of bottle feeding and lots of nappy changing, they’re quick to quash any sceptics who criticise gay parenting.

"I think if you want to be a parent, go for it," Matt said. "I just know there are people out there who aren’t going to accept it, but they’ll be people out there who will just love it."

The pair wed in a civil ceremony in New Zealand in 2008.

"I think we’re (gay couples) slowly getting more rights," Matt said.

"Just when it comes to our superannuation for example, we don’t have to worry because we know everything will be left to the other person."

Solicitor Kate Cherry from Colville Johnstone Lawyers, who helped the pair gain full custody and guardianship of Connor, said it was a landmark legal decision for Queensland.

"Because this had never been done before it was literally starting from square one because there was no precedent to follow."

On Connor’s birth certificate, Bentley is listed as Connor’s father and Matt is listed as his parent.

Matt has taken 12 months leave to look after Connor, while Bentley works full-time.

A Perth man has paid $50,000 for a woman in India to be a surrogate mother and have his twin boys.

The single man, aged in his 30s, was desperate to have children.

He travelled to a Mumbai clinic last month to pick up the twins, several days after their birth at Hiranandani Hospital. He returned to Perth this week with the four-week-old babies.

It was his third attempt at surrogacy in India after a woman chosen to be a surrogate failed to fall pregnant last year. The two unsuccessful attempts cost him another $24,000.

In the last attempt, twins were conceived using the man’s sperm and donor eggs from an Indian woman.

A different woman acted as surrogate.

Read more…

Click here to watch the video.

Mark and Allan recently featured in the magazine “That’s Life” with their story “Two men and a baby”.

The Rainbow Families Council have issued their Federal Election Statement.  There are still many areas of the law that discriminate against our relationships and our children.  Make time to see you local member/candidate or at least write them a letter.  The points in this statement are very helpful in raising the matters that affect us all.

?In April 2010, a national network of advocates, community members, researchers and service providers identified the following three priorities for reform and resources at a federal level:

• Marriage equality

• Removal of discrimination in adoption law, and

• Ensuring that federally-funded services are inclusive of children with same-sex parents and their families.

Rainbow Families Council is the Victorian community organisation representing same-sex parented children and their families. We urge all parties and independents running in the federal election to consider these issues.

Towleroad is reporting some figures by Nate Silver on places that recognise gay marriage.  Unfortunately Australia (Big Fail) isn’t featured.

"The big spike you see in 2008 is California recognizing gay marriage through the courts, and then un-recognizing it through the passage of Proposition 8. Right now, it’s possible to marry your same-sex partner in Buenos Aires, in Mexico City, in Ames, Iowa, and in Pretoria, South Africa, but not in San Francisco. With countries like Argentina and Portugal now recognizing same-sex marriages, however, the global trajectory has returned to its slow-but-steady upward pace."

[Source: Original Article]

In New South Wales same-sex couples are not allowed to adopt, but a private member’s bill is seeking to change that.

Independent MP Clover Moore recently introduced the bill, which will be debated when parliament returns from its winter break in late August.
Adoption by same-sex couples can be an emotive issue, inciting a broad range of opinions in the community.

Laws governing adoption by same-sex couples vary from state to state with little uniformity.
The policy coordinator with the New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, Senthorn Raj, says the country’s same-sex adoption laws range widely.

There are very few states and territories in Australia that permit same-sex-couple adoption.
Western Australia and the ACT permit same-sex couples eligibility to adopt.

Tasmania permits a second-parent adoption mechanism for same-sex couples, which applies to step-parents.

Other states and territories currently do not have any mechanism permitting same-sex couples eligibility to adopt.

Raj says there is a misconception in the community that same-sex couples are primarily seeking to adopt unknown children.

He points out very few children are adopted domestically in Australia or overseas.
Instead, he argues, the real issue is about children already living with same-sex parents.
Across Australia there are over 4,300 children who live in same-sex families, but those children are being denied the legal recognition of both their parents.

This compromises the legal entitlements and rights a child is able to access around superannuation, workers compensation, custody and contact with their parent after a relationship breakdown.

Jenni Millbank, of the Faculty of Law at the University of Technology in Sydney, also argues law reform is primarily about children in existing relationships.

For same-sex couples the major issue with adoption is that if they foster or look after a child or children over a long period of time, as a couple they are not then eligible to adopt those children and give them a more secure environment.

They are also excluded from step-parent adoptions.

This means that a same-sex couple where one biological parent has died or there is no other legal parent, in the case of a lesbian couple who have had a child or in the case of assisted conception, for example, the family cannot formalise a parenting arrangement that is already in place.

Millbank says law-reform processes and parliamentary committees are important in letting everyone have a say on issues like same-sex adoption.

She says that generally they show you cannot make an absolute finding, based on sexual orientation or family structure, about what is good or bad for children.

Instead, Millbank argues, you need to look at individual people and couples and their parenting styles and the way they interact with children and make a finding about whether those specific adults are right for that specific child.

Political party Family First opposes adoption by same-sex couples, saying the number of children already living with same-sex parents does not justify law reform in the area.

Dennis Hood, a member in the upper house of the South Australian parliament for Family First, is opposed to legalising same-sex adoption.

Hood argues that the very small number affected by the arguments Millbank outlines does not justify a change in legislation.

He says one of the implications of a change parenting laws that allows homosexual couples to adopt children is that it would mean a change in the whole terminology of what parenting is.
Hood says parents may no longer be referred to as mother and father. They would become co-parents because, in some cases, the actual biological parent of the child is no longer included on the birth certificate.

Different groups have called on the Federal Government to take over adoption laws so they are more consistent.

But Hood claims legal reform would set a precedent he does not think Australia needs.
He argues that children have been brought up, where possible, by a mother and father for thousands of years. To change that role may be beneficial for the small minority of parents, but questions whether it is beneficial for the children themselves.

When it comes to fostering children, many agencies, especially, with religious affiliations, can reject some carers based on exemptions granted by the Anti-Discrimination Act.

While exemptions vary from state to state, it is not unusual for faith-affiliated groups to reject same-sex couples’ applications based on those exemptions.

Barnardos Australia is a foster-care agency based in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory that openly recruits same-sex couples.

Chief Executive Officer Louise Voigt says the main priority for Barnardos is not the carers’ sexuality, but their ability to take care of traumatised children.

She says that with same-sex couples it can be difficult because they are not approved as adoptive families. They have a number of (same-sex) carers who are highly successful and they do not want to move those children, who have strong attachments but still need the security of adoption.

Voigt says she would like to see legal reform because it would allow many of Barnardos carers to permanently adopt the children they care for.

She says that, with around one in three children eventually adopted, permanency is always in the child’s best interests.

[Source: Original Article]

Argentina on Thursday became the first country in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage, following a landmark Senate vote carried live on national television.

The law, backed by the center-left government of President Cristina Kirchner, was adopted in a 33-27 vote after 15 hours of debate. In this majority Roman Catholic country, some had reservations, but the law passed. "It is a historic day," said ruling party leader Miguel Pichetto.

Opposition Radical senator Gerardo Morales said Argentine society has changed, stressing that the bill was aimed at guaranteeing the rights of minorities.

The law tweaks the legal code which no longer will refer to husband and wife, but rather to "the marrying parties".

Same-sex couples will have the same rights as heterosexuals in terms of adoptions, social security and family time.

Argentina became the first country in Latin America to give a green light to same-sex marriage nationwide. It followed, around the world, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal and Iceland.

[Source: Original Article]

A wonderful story from Far North Queensland.  Two proud Dads, one beautiful son and an incredible story.  Read about it and download the MP3 below.

Becoming parents was hard work for gay couple, Pete and Mark but they’d do it all over again if they had to.

A shiny child’s bike lies on its side on the front lawn of an immaculate garden.

Around the back gay dads Pete and Mark chase their son’s pet chickens around, trying to catch them.

Drake, 5, exclaims that the little birds are too fast for him.

It’s a happy, relaxed family scene. But it wasn’t an easy road to get there. After many hurdles Drake was born by surrogacy in Russia.

"We decided that we would have a child, that it was time for us to have a family. We wanted to experience the joys of fatherhood and we started our surrogacy over in the United States back in 2002," Pete said.

At the time, Pete and Mark were living and working in the US.

"Surrogacy rules and laws are much easier in the United States," Mark said.

While not everybody was comfortable with the idea of surrogacy, Mark said the couple felt their options were limited.

"We knew that there were certainly plenty of women willing to do it so if it OK with them, then I guess it was OK with us," he said.

Mark and Pete used the internet to find prospective mothers for the child they longed to have. Apart from the woman’s health, Pete said one of the big concerns was how genuine the candidates were.

"We have heard about a lot of scams and certain people who represent themselves as so-called surrogate mothers who are really out there just to make money," he said.

Pete said the couple also wanted to make sure that any woman they employed as a surrogate fully understood the commitment she was making.

There was also the issue of whether the mother would actually give up her baby, Mark added.

After many failed attempts in the US, the cost was becoming prohibitive. The pair decided to try Russia as cheaper alternative.

That decision presented its own problems. Language was the main one. The couple took on a private Russian tutor and Pete gave up his job in Australia to oversee the process.

"We were very dedicated to making this work….we decided that at some point we didn’t have a budget. Our budget was anything that we had earned, anything that we had saved, anything that we could borrow to make this happen," Pete said.

In the end Pete said they found a woman who they ‘clicked with personality-wise’.

"She was very quiet. She didn’t have a lot of demands or conditions that some of the other woman that we had met had. She seemed like somebody we could work with," he said.

At the first attempt, Drake was conceived via artificial insemination using Mark’s sperm.

When asked why it was Mark’s sperm and not Pete’s, Mark laughed.

"A flip of the coin I think," he said.

During the pregnancy the couple stayed in limited contact with the mother via a translator. Mostly they were in touch just when there were practical things to care of such as visiting a doctor or getting an ultrasound.

"We made it clear to her that we wanted her to take vitamins, that we wanted her to eat well. We provided the money to do that and we just had to hope that she would do it," Mark said.

Neither man was at Drake’s birth because they felt it was important to protect the mother’s privacy.

When their son was five days old, Mark and Pete were handed their child. To their surprise, Drake’s mother gave them the baby and walked away.

"I think she had resigned herself to this much earlier on and was trying not to let emotions get in the way," Mark said.

In fact, it wasn’t the mother who got in the way of Drake coming back to Australia with his two Dads. What followed was two and a half years of bureaucracy before the child received permanent Australian residency and another year before he got citizenship.

On arrival in Australia customs quizzed Mark and Pete for hours. Police were also sent around to their house on a Sunday morning to investigate.

"When people see two guys together, you know it’s like, ‘Where’s his mother?’ We’ve had a lot of people ask that," Pete said.

"I think that even if one of us was a woman, we wouldn’t have had the same suspicions and problems that we went through."

Thinking back to the police visit, Pete said the police seemed to want reassurance that the situation was ‘right’.

They checked if the couple had equipment to raise a child like a bed, clothes and bottles.

Mark said he’s sure that they were under suspicion of paedophilia. But despite the difficulties, he said the couple would do it again with no hesitation.

"We’re a family just like any other family," he said with pride.

[Source: Original Article]

[Source: Original MP3]

2010 FULL REPORT – LGBTI National Findings on Relationships and Well-Being

The final and full report of the Australian national NOT SO PRIVATE LIVES survey is now available online.

The 2,032 participants were 18-82 years of age, from each state and territory, and from metropolitan and rural Australia. Results are presented based on gender identity (male, female, and gender different), six age groups (18-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-82) and three age cohorts (<25 yrs, 25-34 yrs, 35+ yrs). Additional findings are provided for transgender/transsexual and intersex participants.

[Source: Original Document]

Rodney Croome is an advocate for gay human rights and author of Why vs Why: Gay Marriage. In this impassioned argument he talks about marriage as a bond “to the exclusion of all others”. Croome argues that equal marriage rights – and the right to choice – are highly meaningful if Australia is to consider itself a nation of inclusion. He touches on gay parenting, Gillard’s failure of empathy and six reasons why we should change the laws to allow gay marriage.

[Source: Original Video]