STUART GENT hopes his daughter Lucy will grow up believing herself blessed, a girl conceived and born with love in mind and with the greatest care and deliberation. She was no accident or afterthought.

At two years and seven months old, she knows she has a ”tummy mummy”, a biological one, and a dad who adores her. Planning of her life began in London; the first steps to conception were taken in Boston; she was born in California; she’s being raised in Melbourne.

”Lucy knows,” says Mr Gent, 38, who is gay.

”I tell it in the way of a fairytale.

I tell her that I wanted to have a little baby girl and that I went to a big land called America … and they were able to help me find a nice lady who helped me have my little girl and there was another lady who gave me the seed. The story changes, it gets more elaborate as she gets older.”

Mr Gent is speaking about his experience at a moment when surrogacy is again in the headlines. Last week Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban announced they had become parents via a surrogate mother in the US. At Christmas, Elton John and his partner David Furnish revealed they had become parents by the same route.

Mr Gent hopes his story can also shed light on a practice steeped in controversy.

When in his early 30s, he had been living in London for more than a decade, a long relationship had ended and he was starting to ponder his future. A certainty was that he wanted a child. He considered adoption, but was defeated by red tape. So he turned to surrogacy.

Online, he established contact with a surrogacy agency in Boston. The agency matched him with an egg donor, then with a woman to carry the child. Everyone involved had psychiatric and medical tests. He first met Lucy’s ”gestational carrier” Stacy and her husband at a Californian restaurant and the match seemed perfect.

Mr Gent’s sperm fertilised the eggs, which were implanted at an IVF clinic. Result: pregnancy. Nine months later, in July 2008, Lucinda was born in California. Her dad missed the birth when she arrived a few days early. He made a cross-Atlantic dash to the hospital.

”I went up to the nursery and they said, ‘Which one do you think is your daughter?’ and I said, ‘The little one, frowning.’ And I was spot on.

I just knew.”

Mr Gent brought her home to Melbourne a month later. His family was supportive. Friends rallied around. He now has a partner, Craig Swain, although they don’t live together.

”I’m a single father, that’s it,” Mr Gent says. ”I just happen to be gay. It took three years for me to become a father. There’s a lot of love goes into that. My objective is to give her as much courage and confidence as

I can so that if there are any problems, she can weather them.

”It comes down to the amount of love you give to a child, and she has plenty of love.”

[Source: Original Article Alternate Version]

LEGAL experts are urging State Parliament to reconsider new surrogacy laws they say will lead to couples lying to authorities, friends and family about their children’s births.

Under altruistic surrogacy laws from March 1, any NSW resident who travels overseas for commercial surrogacy can on return be fined $110,000 and imprisoned for two years, reported The Daily Telegraph.

They will also not benefit from other changes making it easier for couples to be recognised as parents of a child born via an altruistic surrogacy.

Commercial surrogacy, where a surrogate mother is paid for carrying a couple’s genetic child, is illegal in all states of Australia.

Community Services Minister Linda Burney said the laws aimed to stop exploitation of women in other countries who might be forced to become a surrogate for financial reasons.

University of Technology Sydney law professor Jenni Millbank said couples desperate to have a child would still seek commercial surrogates overseas and lie about it.

It comes as a gay Melbourne couple who paid an Indian surrogate to give birth to twin girls won a major Family Court case for parenting rights for the non-genetic partner.

Justice Paul Cronin said: “While it is clear that the Act talks about a parent as a mother and a father … biology does not really matter. It is all about parental responsibility.”

[Source: Original Article]

Nevertheless, it is good news and a surprising positive article from the traditionally sensationalist Herald Sun.  Congratulations to the gay couple who got their parenting orders!  Well done.

A GAY couple who paid an Indian surrogate mother to give birth to twin girls have won a major legal case for parenting rights.

The case comes as overseas surrogacy booms, with 350 babies expected to be brought to Australia in 2011, compared with 50 just two years ago.

The Herald Sun can reveal the parenting rights breakthrough hot on the heels of Nicole Kidman’s shock new surrogate baby revelation and the success of TV hit comedy Modern Family, which features a gay male couple with a baby girl.

The 20-month-old girls were born in Mumbai to a woman who carried eggs from an anonymous donor impregnated with sperm from one of the men.

The Melbourne couple went to the Family Court seeking full parental status for the non-genetic father.

“In this case, the children do not have the benefit of a mother, but they have the good fortune of having two fathers,” Justice Paul Cronin found. “As a matter of law, the word ‘parent’ tends to suggest some biological connection, but … biology does not really matter; it is all about parental responsibility.”

Lawyer Susan Buchanan, who represented the couple at the Family Court, said the ruling could pave the way for other same-sex couples to win full parenting rights.

A gay couple told 60 Minutes last year they paid $40,000 for an Indian woman to give birth to twin girls.

“They’re going to grow up finding this totally normal until they see otherwise and then, you know, when they start asking questions we’ll give them the answers,” one of the men told the program.

The Family Court decision was welcomed by surrogacy advocates.

“It’s a major step forward having that kind of judgment because it sets a precedent,” said Sam Everingham, of Australian Families Through Gestational Surrogacy.

“Any judge would have seen that this is a modern family made in a fairly unconventional way.”

But Catholic ethicist Nicholas Tonti-Filippini said surrogacy should be discouraged because a “committee of parents” – surrogate, donors and commissioning parents – confused a child’s sense of identity.

“Parents don’t have rights, they have responsibilities. The crucial thing in all of this is that the courts make decisions in the interest of the child.”

The Family Court made “parenting orders” in three international surrogacy cases last year where couples- and in one case, a single Sydney man – returned to Australia seeking citizenship for the newborns.

India is the most popular source of surrogate babies.

Mr Everingham said more than 200 surrogate babies would be born this year to Indian women, who will charge about $25,000.

About 100 babies will come from the US, where the going rate is $150,000-plus, while about 50 will come from Thailand, where the charge is up to $50,000.

[Source: Original Article]

The photo is purely self indulgence.  Jeff, Ethan and I had our photo taken with the fabulous Matthew Mitcham.  What a sweet, confident, inspiring young man.  The little doll Ethan is holding is his new (recycled) Ken doll which we brought from the ALSO stand.  For all those who got to carnival I hope you enjoyed it as well.

MEETING Mr and Mr Luciani-Crout and their daughter Rani for the first time requires some mental gymnastics. Two men and a toddler are a somersault and a half. Yet this tight domestic unit mirrors the average Australian family in so many ways.

A lush garden inhabited by free-range chooks surrounds their modest home near the Victorian spa town of Daylesford. Inside is neatly kept and comfortable. Framed professional certificates hang above the computer in a nook of the kitchen where baby bottles drain beside the sink. Christmas decorations brighten the lounge room. Season’s greeting cards dot the sideboard. Assorted toys on the floor belong to Rani, who clings to Allan’s hip, her arms around his neck. Dressed in a hot pink tulle fairy dress, her blonde hair is swept into a high ponytail tied with a silver bow. Her conception was unbelievably complicated and costly. Sperm from one of her fathers fertilised an egg harvested through an anonymous donor in India where the embryo was implanted into the womb of a surrogate. (Elton John and his partner last month became parents to a baby boy using similar mothers of invention.) Silver anklets and Rani’s name are the only clues to an exotic heritage camouflaged by naturally fair skin.

After putting his daughter down for a morning nap Mark switches on the baby monitor to listen for her cry. These two men hover dotingly like any new parents caring for a sweet-breathed gift of flesh and blood. They would never squeeze into Jane Austen’s 19th-century ideal of marriage and yet they are just as preoccupied by this social virtue because the privilege is denied them. Australian law forbids them to marry. So they’ve shown the law to be an ass. They have hyphenated their surnames and done everything within their power to tighten the knot that binds them together.

Five months before Rani was born, they invited 100 of their friends and family to a “commitment ceremony”. “We told everyone it was a shotgun wedding,” Allan jokes. A sympathetic priest braved church opposition and blessed their rings. A former nun sang Ave Maria. There were speeches and toasts and Allan’s mother made a white cake. “Why can’t I have two daddies?” one of the younger guests was heard to lament. Questions like this make traditionalists squirm. But when a son or a daughter or a brother or a sister or a niece or a nephew turns out to be gay there’s an inevitable mellowing of suspicion and prejudice. Is there a grandparent on the planet who would spurn a soft, warm bundle of kinship, however tangled the threads?

Gay families are multiplying. The 2001 census counted 19,594 same-sex de facto marriages. By 2006 numbers had swollen to 27,000. Younger gays born since decriminalisation have benefited from anti-discrimination laws which have encouraged tolerance. They expect to live together openly. Now reproductive technology is delivering them children. They want to share surnames, mortgages. They want to swap rings and vows. They want to be as boringly normal as it’s possible to get. They want the imprimatur of marriage, and the momentum for this stroke-of-the-pen amendment is gathering pace.

“It is the final citadel to be stormed in the quest for legitimacy,” says Anglican archbishop Peter Jensen, who supports the status quo yet at the same time sees an opportunity to revisit what marriage means to us.

Battle lines were staked last November when Greens MP Adam Bandt introduced a motion to kindle national conversations on gay marriage. Australia’s Marriage Act did not define marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution for the first 44 years of its legislative life. Only in 2004 was the Act changed to lock out same-sex couples, in a pre-emptive strike by the former Howard Government’s attorney-general Philip Ruddock. He rose first in last year’s parliamentary debate to argue against reform. “Marriage is a union that can give rise to the procreation of children”, who deserve “both a father and a mother available to them and influencing their upbringing”, he said.

Tell that to the littlies who attend childcare with two-year-old Dougal Mok, son of Melbourne couple Helen and Cath Mok. When his parents come to collect him, their arrival is often heralded by the children calling out: “Dougal! Your mother’s here… and your other mother.” Their daughter Maisie, now six, was the one who clamoured for them to share the same surname. She badly wanted the four of them to be “the Mok family”. Helen and Cath wear traditional gold bands on their wedding-ring fingers. Cath says when she was young she didn’t much care about marrying, but since the children came along “I feel strongly about it – I want the same thing for us as my family had”.

Ruddock says the only same-sex families he’s ever encountered comprise women with children from a traditional marriage who have left their husbands and set up house in a lesbian relationship. “I’ve never heard of men raising children,” he splutters a week before Elton John’s progeny makes international headlines. There are hundreds of these families. Allan and Mark recently attended the Gay Dads Christmas party where there was a crowd of fathers with kids. The Rainbow Families Council has more than 200 same-sex couples with children registered as members.

Although gays and lesbians tend to congregate in inner-city neighbourhoods, their family networks reach into every cranny of the country. There was nothing “queer” about the Sydney plumber and former Vietnam veteran who made an impassioned plea to Tony Abbott on the ABC’s Q&A for his gay son to be able to marry. His emotion was visceral. The politics behind the push for reform crosses party lines and traverses city and bush, uniting battlers, professionals, farmers, every kind of voter with a personal connection to someone who is gay. The Governor General’s private secretary, Stephen Brady, is gay. Julia Gillard’s chief of staff, Amanda Lampe, is gay. Her partner, Frier Bentley, has just given birth to twins. Federal cabinet minister Penny Wong, who is gay, swung the South Australian ALP behind same-sex marriage with her promise to argue for reform.

Gillard is committed to the status quo. She’s aligned herself with conservatives, church leaders, and older Australians who balk at the idea of Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs reversing the customary order of family life. This resistance will be targeted over coming months in the campaign to change hearts and minds.

Days after Liberal frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull spoke against gay marriage, he began to equivocate. He now acknowledges he’s “open” to persuasion. “If Turnbull doesn’t believe in gay marriage we’ll make Wentworth a Green seat,” warns a local resident who galvanised the Hawke Government’s response to HIV. On Labor’s side, sympathisers want the party to support a binding vote or at least allow a conscience vote when the national conference meets in December.

Hard-won rights

why do gays and lesbians want to marry? Divorce rates remain high in Australia, with between a third and a half of all marriages doomed. Mark and Allan Luciani-Crout both worked in family law. Mark, who has been married once, is a solicitor. Allan was a personal assistant in a family law firm. They’ve seen the hatred and fury first hand. “Seeing so much dysfunction didn’t put us off,” Mark says.

Marriage is not something that Mac Ronan, 84, and Geoff Allingham, 83, aspire to after living together for 62 years. When they first hooked up as young teachers in Melbourne their relationship was a criminal act. “For 30 years the law was against us,” says Ronan. “Marriage always seemed like such a long shot, something that was never likely in our lifetime.” The idea of fathering children was an even tinier speck in the landscape of possibility. They spent years as activists fighting for decriminalisation and countering the threat of AIDS. “I can see a lot wrong with the hypocrisy of marriage. Some of our friends say, ‘We don’t need to get married.’ But that’s a smug cop-out. Of course we need the choice for all.”

That’s how Tasmanian gay activist Rodney Croome explains the desire for marriage amongst a younger cohort he calls “the Family Law Act generation”.  Thirty years ago gays and lesbians made a virtue out of their exclusion. “Queer” was a badge of pride. But the minority is becoming more mainstream, hungry for the rituals and traditions that shape society as a whole. Most gay couples recorded by the 2006 census are aged 30 or younger. According to a University of Queensland study of 2032 gay and lesbian participants, around 63 per cent of under-30s favour marriage, which jumps to 67 per cent for under-19s. “In the era when men were breadwinners and women were stay-at-home mothers it was difficult to conceive of two men or two women living together because it didn’t make economic or cultural sense. Now there is a breakdown in the social dichotomy,” says Croome. The institution of marriage has evolved through no-fault divorce and the rise of de facto relationships. “It is now just another life choice. When you are not allowed to make that contract it sends a powerful message of exclusion.”

Alex Grimshaw, 30, spokesman for Australian Marriage Equality, remembers wrestling with his sexuality as a teenager and being stung when the then Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating tossed off his throwaway taunt that “two men and a cocker spaniel” don’t cut it as a family. “I wanted to grow up and get married and have a family,” says Grimshaw. “I remember walking to school and trying to convince myself I was straight.” Marriage matters to him: “It’s important for equality, the symbolism, because it allows us to be more comfortable with who we are.”

Megan Peters, 29, and Leanne Ferguson, 32, personify the new wave of same-sex couples who are renovating the architecture of heterosexual relationships with their own radical design. They had a wedding of sorts in a Hunter Valley vineyard before 118 people. Photos of the girls dressed in floor-length silk gowns on the arms of their silver-haired fathers suggest a traditional bridal party until a second glance fails to locate any groom. Megan has taken her partner’s surname. “It helps make us one family. Just as straight couples do. I was always going to change my name whether I ended up with a guy or a girl,” she says. She met Leanne, “the goddess”, in 2002 and they’ve been together since.

Once the courtship drew them into a deeper commitment they began canvassing the idea of children. Whereas straight couples may stumble into a pregnancy by accident or with the barest preparation, parenting for same-sex partners requires meticulous planning and discussion. The Fergusons imported sperm from a US donor after an online search through thousands of profiles, settling for a blond-haired blue-eyed professional whose identity might never be revealed to the son he’s fathered. “We did think of asking my brother to be the donor but it didn’t seem right,” Megan explains, “Too Jerry Springer.” Leanne is the birth mother of baby James. “I’m meant to go next,” Megan says. They can draw on frozen reserves from the same donor stored in a sperm bank.

Megan works full-time for her brother, manufacturing and selling products to clean coffee machines. Leanne is on leave from her human resources job, to cope with the breastfeeding and demands of a newborn. Many of their heterosexual girlfriends marvel at how much Megan helps when she gets home, compared with their own couch potato husbands. “I cook dinner and chuck on a load of washing,” Megan laughs. Her name is on James’s birth certificate, which means a lot to them but lacks any legal punch.

Gay couples want to secure the non-biological parents’ role. Step-parents in heterosexual families enjoy rights that are denied to the non-birth parent in a same-sex couple. “We are just like any other normal happy couple,” Megan says. “We’re upholding the sanctity of marriage, contributing to society, we own a house, we pay taxes, we’re raising a little pearler, we’re living a life that is so similar to heterosexual couples yet we are treated differently under the law. We still have to explain ourselves.” The stigma annoys her. “It’s as if there is something wrong with us. Families are going to keep changing. You can’t stop it happening, and the law has to keep up with this.”

Like every social institution, marriage has bent and stretched to accommodate waves of political reform and the rich diversity of modern life. We’ve got rid of betrothal; matrimonial vows of obedience; bans on inter-racial marriage; even the need to marry at all. Frank Bates, emeritus Professor of Law at Newcastle University, can’t see what’s wrong with another shift to account for the rise of same-sex relationships. Originally seen as a means of securing property rights, marriage became invested with romantic and emotional baggage in the 19th century. “There’s nothing magical about the Marriage Act – it’s just another piece of legislation,” says Bates. “We all know people who are part of long-term gay and lesbian couples whose commitment is as great as many married couples. If they want to formalise their relationship I can’t see any reason why it shouldn’t happen.”

Politicians against gay marriage tick off recent reforms ending discrimination of same-sex couples in the fields of tax, superannuation, Medicare benefits, Centrelink payments, child support, immigration. They believe gays and lesbians who live together are catered for already. Allowing them to marry would “diminish” the institution, they say. But the core of resistance to same-sex marriage is preference for the mother/father model of family life. Archbishop Peter Jensen believes “it’s demonstrable that the traditional model is better for raising children”. He welcomes an “informed moral debate” on the issue, but he’s not about to alter his view that conferring marriage on same-sex unions will lead us in slippery directions. Philip Ruddock agrees, saying of his opponents: “What they are really arguing is that the fundamental nature of our culture should change.”

It is changing already, with or without a walk down the aisle. Numbers of same-sex couple families are difficult to count. Census officials acknowledge underreporting. The University of Queensland survey found that 33 per cent of 742 lesbian couples have children who are their own or inherited from previous relationships, while 30 per cent plan on having children; 14 per cent of gay male couples have children and 11 per cent plan on having offspring. New technology and free market solutions to baby-making have subverted the template. Tales of creation are mind-blowing. Insemination is being done at home with syringes of sperm provided by friends or strangers; eggs and wombs are being sourced on the internet through the international fertility market; extended family members are responding in innovative ways.

Concerns at how these offspring will fare may not be resolved until a generation are well into adulthood. A US study that followed 78 children raised by lesbian mothers for 17 years reported last June that these adolescents demonstrated healthy psychological adjustment. But critics have challenged the veracity of these results. The academic arena is so heavily politicised that one Australian academic who has reviewed the scientific literature for state parliamentary reviews examining same-sex couple adoption now begs anonymity because of the abuse he’s copped for pointing out methodological flaws in the research. He believes work on the children raised in these families is embryonic and suffers from bad science and bias.

Little is known about the impact of donor anonymity on children’s welfare. Much depends on the individual personality of the child and the stability of their adult relationships. There is no rulebook; each couple devises strategies to suit their needs. Australian researcher Dr Ruth McNair shares a three-year-old son, Sam, with her lesbian partner. Sam knows the identity of the man who helped his mothers conceive. The man visits from time to time. Sam calls him by his first name. Eilis Hughes of the Melbourne based Rainbow Families Council says her daughter Drew enjoys frequent contact with the biological father she calls “Dad”. The Mok children can access the identity of their donor father when they turn 17. The Luiciani-Crouts say they have chosen anonymity to limit problems and confusion for their daughter. The Fergusons were concerned to avoid donor intervention down the track.

Same-sex couples can’t hide the story of conception. The children in these families often begin their inquiry at an early age. The Rainbow Alliance distributes literature portraying the diversity of families with kids being raised by one parent; by grandparents; by two men or two women. Dr McNair says her son, Sam, grew curious after reading conventional story books populated by Mums and Dads.

The couples I interviewed try very hard to bring a mix of genders into their family circle so that male or female family and friends counter the imbalance in their household. Megan and Leanne Ferguson held a “naming ceremony” for baby James where guests were invited to contribute to his lifelong education. “Leanne’s brother Grant is a carpenter who surfs and fixes cars. We can’t teach James everything. We’re going to use everyone in our lives,” says Megan.

Mark and Allan Luciani-Crout have encouraged Mark’s sister and Allan’s mother to become involved with Rani. The Moks say most of their friends are heterosexual couples. Cath says when Dougal and Maisie role play, “she’s the Mummy and he’s the Daddy”. Any confusion is met squarely. “How come Dougal has two Mums?” Cath was asked recently as she collected him from childcare. “I just said, ‘Families come in all shapes and sizes.’ I know it may become an issue with their peer group at school but I trust we can give them the tools to deal with it.”

Childcare centres and schools are recognising sexual diversity just as they must acknowledge different races and religions. When other children at Dougal Mok’s childcare centre busied themselves making gifts for their dads on Father’s Day, he was encouraged to make something for his Great Aunty. Intolerance is being tested constantly. Last year in Victoria, two girlfriends were banned from going as a couple to their Year 11 formal. The headmistress of another school, the Methodist Ladies’ College likened their exclusion to “the dark old days”. MLC is one of several Victorian schools supporting kids who come out of the closet.

“People have to change their thinking,” says Allan Luciani-Crout. “Marriage and parenting is less about gender and more about a couple’s commitment to the complex needs of each other and their children.” He came out at 16 and grew up wanting to marry. He remembers thinking when he first met Mark “what a great dad he’d make”. They’ve been together for 18 years. Having brought Rani into the world they now hope desperately that one of a limited number of frozen embryos being held for them overseas will deliver her a sister or a brother.

Allan’s mother, Mary, has been married for 40 years. She has embraced her son’s choices. Allan is the eldest of her three boys. When she first began to talk about her son-in-law friends were baffled. “Son-in-law?” they frowned. “Yes, my son-in-law,” she told them. “And Mark is my son-in-law,” she says in a voice that brooks no doubt.

Rodney Croome thinks extended family members may be the most potent weapon in the push for gay marriage. “Marriage creates bonds between partners and communities, families. It extends kinship.” He’s confident the straight relatives of gay people will change hearts and minds. “My 70-something mother would like gay marriage to happen,” he says. Initially uncomfortable when Croome came out 20 years ago, “now she’s fine. Whenever the issue comes up she talks about it. The really pleasing thing for her is that there are all these other women now at lawn bowls with gay sons. Her line dance instructor is a gay man who wrote a dance as a tribute to his partner who died. These are the exceptions that are overshadowing the rule and my mother is very, very talkative.”

[Source: Original Article]

Gay couples in Brazil looking to become parents now have another option. The country’s national association of doctors has drafted a new set of rules for in vitro fertilization allowing same-sex couples and single people to qualify for the process. The organization says the change in rules “was a demand of modern society.” The new set of standards also allow for fertilization using eggs or sperm from the deceased with prior approval. The prior set of rules, in place for nearly two decades, barred gay couples from qualifying for the procedure.

“MASSIVE congratulations to David and Elton on having their beautiful son. Can’t wait for my first cuddle.”

So Tweeted Elizabeth Hurley on hearing that Elton John and his homosexual partner David Furnish had become parents to a healthy 3.6kg baby boy on Christmas Day.

While the sentiments are warm and reassuring, it seems to me the celebrity probably needed more than 140 characters to more accurately express the reality of the announcement. Or is it the case, as the Beatles song goes, that “All you need is love!”

One Australian who has given the issue of artificial reproductive technology careful thought is Margaret Somerville. Somerville teaches at McGill University in Canada. Earlier this year she presented a paper, “Children’s Human Rights to Natural Biological Origins and Family Structure”, at a symposium in Slovakia. Whether we care to debate the issues now or in future, her paper draws out some fundamental issues that will not go away. Indeed John, Furnish and their child, Zachary, have it all in front of them.

There are many issues, so let’s concentrate on some key ones. For starters, will Zachary be provided with the identity of his biological parents? I do not mean the adults, in this case two males, who are going to rear him. I mean his biological parents. Before John and Furnish leave to return to England in a couple of weeks or so, the state of California will issue a certificate stating they are the parents of the boy. As a baby Zachary cannot speak, let alone ask questions. In a few years that will change. Who is my father? Will it be one of his dads or a third-party sperm donor? And who is my mother? This is where it gets complicated.

That will depend on whether the woman who gave birth to him provided the ovum or not. In what is referred to as a traditional surrogacy arrangement, the woman who gives birth also provides her own genetic material, that is, the ovum. Obviously, she is biologically connected to the child. A gestational surrogacy arrangement is different. In this case, the woman gestates an ovum that is not hers, leading to the birth of a child that has no biological connection to the surrogate mother.

Assuming Zachary was born via a gestational arrangement, he will sooner or later have questions. Where did I come from? Who provided the ovum that caused me to be? Was it given to my dads as a gift by somebody or was it selected to meet certain criteria, for example, height, eye and hair colour, looks, intelligence and emotional quotient scores? Top shelf ova available through Fertility Futures and Perfect Match can set you back in excess of $US10,000 ($9800). And my half siblings? How many are there? What are their names and where do they live?

But perhaps the question that Zachary may ask himself time and time again is: Where is my mother? These may not be the first words he utters and no doubt he will have some carers who are female. However, there will come a time when the boy and indeed the man will surely want to know who his mother is, and where she is, notwithstanding the love and care his dads may provide.

On the question of the knowledge of the identity of one’s biological parents it is important to listen to those who should know, the people born through ART. As the children first born through the use of these technologies reach adulthood they are expressing feelings of anxiety about having their biological roots tampered with. Anybody having doubts about what society is being complicit in should visit the website of the organisation Tangled Webs or read the research of the Commission on Parenthood’s Future released in a report published in May this year entitled, “My Daddy’s Name is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults Conceived through Sperm Donation”.

Nobody has asserted that Zachary is a designer child. It has not been suggested that there has been an attempt to enhance the child one way or another using genetic technologies. It seems to me, though, that in cases where there has been the purchase of an ovum to meet a preordained set of criteria, it can be argued that this represents the rudimentary stage of a mindset that leads to designer babies. Reflecting on this, Somerville argues that genetic manipulation leads to the destruction of the essence of humanness, individually and collectively. Genetic manipulation interferes with the intrinsic being of a person, with their very self.

On the question of a child’s right to both a mother and father we are told by some that society has moved on, progressed. We now live in an era of genderless parenting where function has prevailed over form. However, as Somerville notes, research is showing men and women parent differently. There is emerging evidence that certain genes in young mammals are activated by parental behaviour, for example in epigenetics, which studies the interaction of genes and environment. As Somerville says, science may well show that complementarity in parenting (having both a mother and father) does matter for children’s wellbeing in ways we have not understood.

In Australia, the legal power to regulate surrogacy resides with state and territory legislatures. Most states and territories have moved to create surrogacy legislation; some more comprehensive than others. In all instances commercial surrogacy is outlawed. In simple terms, you cannot engage a woman to have your child on a fee for service basis. You may only reimburse her “reasonable costs” associated with the pregnancy and birth. In passing its legislation in November last year, the NSW parliament explicitly incorporated a provision that outlawed the practice of citizens residing in the state going overseas to enter into commercial surrogate arrangements to secure a child. Parliament determined that such arrangements clearly undermined the non-commercial principle that was a key feature of the law it was passing. Most other state and territory legislation does not contain such explicit prohibition of such overseas arrangements. In those jurisdictions it will be interesting to see how many couples and singles try the Californian or Indian option to obtain a child.

In the meantime, under the full gaze of a prying media and with the insatiable demands of the celebrity world, Zachary will inevitably reflect on the issues that have been mentioned, and more. There is much for him to consider and resolve in terms of the deepest of human questions. And perhaps he has more to ponder than most of us.

[Source: Original Article]

Australian gay men have only recently become parents through surrogacy arrangements. They have had to overcome a discriminatory legal, social, political, cultural and financial environment. A cooperative inquiry action research group was formed, with seven two-father families conceived via surrogacy, to explore their journey to parenthood and their consequent politicisation as gay fathers. This article reveals how that experience of the cooperative inquiry process strengthened their resolve to be intentionally ‘out’ in their communities to overcome discriminatory and conservative social attitudes. They embraced the political reality of their parenting and were stimulated to create improved support structures for themselves and future parents. This transformed the legal, social, political and cultural environment for their families.

[Source: Two Dads: Gay Male Parenting and its Politicisation — A Cooperative Inquiry Action Research Study - By Jason Tuazon-McCheyne]

Download Paper

In this article we present findings from the Work, Love and Play (WLP) study: a survey completed by 445 same-sex attracted parents across Australia and New Zealand. Comparisons of household division of labour are made between a sub-sample of WLP participants, who were currently cohabiting with a same-sex partner (n = 317), and 958 cohabiting opposite-sex parents surveyed as part of a major Australian study, Negotiating the Life Course. This comparison showed that same-sex couples divided household labour significantly more equally than heterosexual parents, and lesbian couples also shared parenting tasks more equally. Qualitative findings from the WLP study indicate that, for many same-sex couples, major decisions around who gives up paid work and how many hours parents choose to work, as well as decisions around work/family balance, are negotiated on the basis of couple’s preferences and circumstance rather than an assump- tion that one parent will be the primary child carer. It is speculated that this finding highlights an important point of difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples where the division of household labour is often based on the assumption that the mother will almost always be the primary child carer and homemaker. The research is a collaborative partnership between La Trobe University, Deakin University, The University of Melbourne, and Relationships Australia Victoria.

[Source: Perlesz-2010]

ALISON RUTHERFORD is a little surprised that so many women she meets complain about their husbands’ ineptness around the house.

It is not a problem she experiences with her same-sex partner, Dale Newman, who is the co-parent of three-year-old Rafael.

”There’s a female culture of husband bashing which is quite alien to me,” she said.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Same-sex parents, research shows, are significantly more egalitarian than heterosexual parents in the way they divide household tasks and parenting responsibilities.

With lesbian couples, the mother who carries the baby and breastfeeds it is not assumed to be the parent who will stay at home or be the main nurturer. In fact little can be assumed and everything must be negotiated when couples do not have gender roles to fall back on.

The findings, from the Work, Love and Play study which compared the experience of

317 same-sex parents – including 27 men – and 958 heterosexual parents, challenges the notion that biology is destiny.

”It is not uncommon for the biological capacity of mothers – childbearing, breastfeeding, nurturing – to be used as the rationale for women’s more limited participation in the workforce and their primary role as homemaker,” says Jennifer Power, of

La Trobe University, a co-author. But among lesbian couples, generally both women take on a mothering role, regardless of who gave birth, and both tend to take on the work role. In other cases, the women changed roles over time.

The study found that compared with heterosexual parents, both same-sex parents are much more likely to be working part time. Only 6 per cent of Australian couples with children under the age of 15 have neither parent working full time, compared with 23 per cent of lesbian couples.

Perhaps because of the extraordinary effort gay people must go to to have children, spending time with them is a big priority for both parents, the study found.

As a result, both partners tend to take responsibility for generating income and for all household tasks. ”Sharing roles means each partner develops empathy for what the other is doing,” said the study, published in The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy.

Dr Rutherford, 41, from the school of public health and community medicine at the University of NSW, and Ms Newman, 47, a freelance illustrator, have been together 11 years. The planning and making of Rafael took four years, Ms Newman said.

Though Dr Rutherford was the main breadwinner, she was the more determined to have children and is Rafael’s biological mother.

She took six months’ maternity leave before returning to work three days a week. Then Ms Newman, who works from home, did more of the parenting.

The decision to live on two part-time incomes until Rafael started school was fairly easy. ”We’re older parents, we’ll only have one child, and five years is not a huge chunk of our lives,” Dr Rutherford said.

While their closest friends are a heterosexual couple both of whom work part time, most parents of preschoolers they encounter are in more traditional relationships where women complain that their husbands do not do enough housework.

”I get jealous that the women don’t have to be breadwinners as well as mothers, so there’s always something to complain about,” Dr Rutherford said.

[Source: Original Article]

Finally, Elton John can call himself a father.

The pop rock superstar and his long-time husband, David Furnish, announced to Us Weekly that they have had a child via a surrogate mother in California. Their son, named Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John, was born on Christmas day, and weighed seven pounds and 15 ounces.

“We are overwhelmed with happiness and joy at this very special moment,” the new fathers told the magazine. “Zachary is healthy and doing really well, and we are very proud and happy parents.”

It’s been a long road for John and Furnish in their quest to be fathers; in 2009, they were denied the right to adopt an HIV-positive toddler from the Ukraine, due to John’s age and the country’s lack of recognition of civil unions rendering him single by their laws.

John said that he still planned to support the child and his brother financially, and now has a son of his own, too. And one with the name Levon, one of John’s many well-known songs.

[Source: Original Article]

BOTH the NSW government and opposition have ruled out any changes to the state’s anti-discrimination laws in the wake of a ruling that charities could bar gay couples as foster carers on religious grounds.

In a decision that will open the way for other religious charities to refuse gay couples access to their services, the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal ruled that Wesley Mission’s foster care arm, Wesley Dalmar Services, had proved an exemption under the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act allowing it to discriminate against homosexual couples, reported The Australian.

Wesley Mission, part of the Uniting Church assembly, argued that providing foster care services to gay couples would put at risk its financial and volunteer assistance from members of the mission who adhered to the doctrine that a monogamous heterosexual partnership was “the norm and ideal of the family”.

The decision overturned a ruling that ordered Wesley Mission to take steps to eliminate unlawful discrimination after refusing services to a gay couple.

NSW’s Anti-Discrimination Act – along with similar acts in most states – provides a series of exemptions for religious bodies. The exemptions apply specifically to the ordination and training of priests and ministers.

However, an extremely broad, non-specific exemption also applies to “any act or practice” of a religious body that conforms to that body’s doctrines.

The Administrative Decisions Tribunal described the ability of a religious group to prove an exemption to the act as “singularly undemanding” and noted that “this may be a matter which calls for the attention of parliament”.

However, a spokesman for NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos said yesterday that the legislation struck the right balance between protection from discrimination and the right to religious freedom.

“It is not envisaged that there will be changes to the current exemptions in relation to religious institutions,” the spokesman said.

NSW Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell also ruled out yesterday any move to push for legislative change on the issue if the Liberals win government next March.

Religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws are also being tested in Victoria in an appeal before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which must decide whether it was lawful for the Christian Brethren to refuse to allow a gay youth suicide prevention group accommodation at the Christian Youth Camps’ Phillip Island Adventure Resort.

NSW passed laws earlier this year that allowed gay couples to legally adopt children, but allowed church adoption agencies the right to refuse to provide services to gay couples without breaching anti-discrimination laws.

[Source: Original Article]