Monthly Archives: July 2012

Queensland Government Moves to Change Surrogacy Laws.

It has been in the news for a little while, precipitating some fairly heated arguments across many a facebook and twitter account. If you haven’t heard, now that they’ve scrapped the Civil Union for same-sex couples and downgraded it to Registering a Relationship, the Queensland Government has amended the Surrogacy laws to disallow same-sex couples, those in a de facto relationship of less than two years, or a single person access to “…altruistic surrogacy…” options.

There are those in support of the move, stating it, like the removal of adoption rights for same sex couples, is for the benefit of the children that they are not brought up in unstable conditions (Shelton, 2009 & Lawson, 2008). A few sources of this side of the argument provide little more than anecdotal references to “studies”, with no real referencing to back them up. In any other kind of argument this would be laughed at passed over, yet it is allowed to continue!

De facto couples are also banned from accessing surrogacy as an option if they have been together for less than two years. There are some fears that other rights extended to de facto couples may also be next to be amended, such as inheritance rights.

Are you a single person? You’re also out of luck, with this amendment also barring you from access to non-financial surrogacy. As financial surrogacy is illegal by both old and new forms of the law, there’s no alternate route either.

If you are involved in surrogacy for one of the banned groups of people, you could face up to three years in jail.

There are some in the legal field who suggest that these changes may breach federal discrimination laws. I wonder if there is a QC who would offer pro bono services to fight this claim should it arise?

ImageThose who have acted as surrogates in the past have written to their local members of parliament (see the image to the left), saying they oppose the changes. Keeping in mind that these women do not receive payment for their services, there is no financial reward to be gained from more people having access to surrogacy. They truly believe that everyone should have the ability to bring up a child and, if they cannot do so themselves, everyone should be able to have access to assistance.

So why am I writing about this? Why does it bother me? I’m not living in Queensland, or one of the banned groups of people. I’m not currently considering being a surrogate, though I have been approached on this matter.

I am writing about this to bring attention to the incredible injustice of it all. These laws, in my opinion and the opinions of many others, fly in the face of all that those working for anti-discrimination laws have achieved. I implore each and every one of you to send a letter, email, postcard, etc to your local member (if you’re in Queensland), or to any member of Parliament or the Senate in either your own state or the federal level.

Marriage Equality – Weighing on the argument.

First, a little preface to this mini-rant. A friend is engaged to his boyfriend, and is living in Queensland. For those who do not know Queensland over-turned a rather progressive ruling for Australia when it decided to not allow same-sex couples a civil union (not quite a marriage, but close) but, rather, allow them to register their relationship, and then endangered their right to surrogate assistance. Now, all I have been seeing amid all of this, is the very loud religious overtones shining through. However, I am able to cut through this and see the issue for what it is. I think parties on both sides of the fight need to see this for what it is: A fight for civil rights, not religious ones. I hold my own belief system and sexuality. I do not understand why I should be forced to adhere to another person’s belief teachings or have one relationship model elevated to a higher status than mine simply because it is their model of choice. As a friend commented once:
‘…if you dont [sic] want to love Jesus, then don’t. If you don’t want to marry a man, then don’t! But how can you tell someone else they can’t because you think so?
‘It’s basically like me going up to you and saying “I don’t think it’s right to cross your legs when you sit down, because of the personal beliefs I hold. Therefore, you are not allowed to do it!”‘
I know this is a rather hot topic for some, but please if you comment bear in mind the feelings of others.

 

ImageMarriage equality is NOT a religious issue. I’m sorry, but it really isn’t. We had an institute of marriage well before the Church came along. Various cultures had their own ideas on what constituted marriage, and allowed people to freely enter into what would have been recognised as a marriage in this day and age. There was little stigma regarding differing approaches to marriage as well, with one type of marriage only being observed for thirteen moons, with the particulars being revisited and discussed amongst the married parties at that point to see if they wanted to continue or dissolve the union.
Going even further back, the ancient Egyptians had secular and sacred marriages, both of which were held in the same level of respect as one another. The secular marriage had a few more legal assurances to both parties (in particular, that the female was assured of leaving the union upon dissolution with exactly what she entered it, plus half of whatever the pair accrued).
The native Americans had their own traditions, different for each tribe.
I could go on to describe each tradition across the world. In all of these cases, though it may have been something of an anomaly, same sex couples were recognised. They held the same level of respected union as opposite-sex couples, were afforded the same level of legal or community assistance, and were not necessarily barred from the union of marriage unless there were other circumstances in the way (children from a previous union, disputes of property ownership, etc).
What we see now is a world-wide community wherein a religious order has become so heavily integrated into the political system that people find it hard to separate one from the other. Our societal compass has become so heavily directed by the moral teachings of one group of people that there is no room in some people’s minds to any other kind of system.
For those who say marriage is a sacred institute, I could not agree more. Marriage is, indeed, a sacred thing. Love is the highest sacred calling we humans have.
Jesus preached love for our fellow man. Not love until it makes us feel strange, not conditional love, but love across the board, without borders and selfless.
In all of native, or nature-worshipping traditions, love for the world and one another was the over-riding premise to morality.
In Islam, love of Allah and one another is what drives morality.
How then, can we see not allowing two people, regardless of their sexuality or displayed gender (because don’t get me started on non-binary gender in this issue), share and commit to love as following our moral compass?

 

Want to know more about this issue? These are some links for the Marriage Equality argument in Australia. Not in Australia? Please feel free to post your own links in the comments below. On the other side of the argument, please feel free to discuss this issue as well. A well-rounded discussion involves two sides, and I would appreciate your side of the discussion. Do keep things civil though, please.

Australia Marriage Equality

Equal Love

Parliament Information on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012