Keneally: love us or hate us?
Analysis
Andrew M. Potts
NSW Premier Kristina Keneally鈥檚 churchy explanation of her support for same-sex adoption may rile some, but it will blunt conservative critics in the debate over this bill.
It鈥檚 said that only Nixon could go to China. Perhaps only the former minister for World Youth Day can back same-sex adoption in NSW 鈥� even if it鈥檚 only 鈥渋n principle鈥� at this stage.
This is not the first time Keneally has drawn on her Christian faith to argue for same-sex rights reforms.
In her first year as an MP, Keneally voted in favour of equalising the age of consent while some of her less publicly Christian Labor colleagues voted against it.
Then, while acknowledging Catholic teaching on the issue of homosexuality, Keneally said it was important to remember that we live in a multicultural society and that the state had to apply a separate standard to that preached from pulpits when deciding when it was appropriate to encroach on people鈥檚 private lives.
Today, Keneally seems more confident in stating that she sees no conflict between her personal faith and letting same-sex couples adopt.
The usual suspects will find it more difficult to criticise as a result. They can鈥檛 accuse her of being a radical social engineer, and will have to acknowledge the diversity of views held among the rank and file of faith communities in NSW 鈥� increasing numbers of whom, like our premier, have had contact with same-sex parented families and have seen that they are just as loving and good as any heterosexual home.
So far the response from the usual suspects has been muted 鈥� the Australian Christian Lobby is 鈥渄isappointed鈥� with Keneally. Days have gone by and the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney and the Anglican Diocese of Sydney are yet to comment.
A slip-up came yesterday, when the premier said, 鈥淛esus sat with the sinners and the saints,鈥� in reference to her support for the bill.
The NSW Greens seized on the comments.
鈥淩egardless of Ms Keneally鈥檚 clarifying statements, she was clearly unwise to use this parable and allow the public to equate same sex couples with 鈥榮inners鈥�, 鈥� Greens leader Lee Rhiannon said.
鈥淭he Premier should apologise to the gay and lesbian community.
鈥淜ristina Keneally could go one step further in progressing her understanding that 鈥楯esus loved all鈥� by removing loopholes in NSW鈥檚 Anti-Discrimination Act which allow discrimination against gay and lesbian people.鈥�
And that final issue under NSW law will be a much longer fight.
Kristina Keneally: now and then
The premier鈥檚 statement to Sydney Star Observer, June 28
鈥淚 know of successful examples of gay and lesbian couples who successfully foster children but are unable to adopt them. I also personally know same-sex couples who are raising children together 鈥� like all good parents, they love their children and want the very best for them.
鈥淲hat we know is that the best thing we can do for children is provide a loving home and stability, and adoption provides that to them.
鈥淪o I give my in-principle support to the legislation. I will speak on it when it comes before the House.聽 It will be a conscience vote for Labor Party MPs.
鈥淚 do recognise that this is an issue where there are many views in the community, and there needs to be an opportunity for the community to discuss this issue.
鈥淚 spoke about my faith when I spoke in support of the equalisation of the age of consent legislation in 2003 in the Parliament.
鈥淲hat I know as a Christian, as a Catholic, is that Jesus himself was about love. He taught about love. Love each other as you love yourself. The greatest thing you can do is to lay down your life for someone else. Jesus loved all, he loved all and he accepted all and for me that is the strongest message that comes out of the gospel.
鈥淲hen I see gay and lesbian people giving that unselfish love to a child, that鈥檚 something that I 鈥� not just as a Christian and a Catholic, but as the leader of this state 鈥� want to support.
鈥淚 do believe that we must be putting as a community the best interests of children first.
鈥淣ow to be sure there will people who will oppose this legislation, and they will argue that they鈥檙e putting the best interests of children first, and I respect that argument.
鈥淎nd that鈥檚 why I say these debates must be held in a spirit of respect and towards working to common ground.鈥�
Kristina Keneally MP May 20 2003
Debating the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Bill
鈥淚n a multicultural, diverse society such as ours, there are many views in the community with respect to the morality of sexual behaviour. As a Catholic, I recognise that Catholic teaching, while it accepts that homosexual orientation exists, does not condone homosexual activity. But I also note that this teaching is a matter for Catholics to judge with a fully-formed conscience. Further, I note that there is a distinction between what some judge as moral behaviour and what the state accepts as legal behaviour.
鈥淗omosexuality was decriminalised in 1984. This bill only creates an equal age of consent for what is already legal activity. Thirdly, 80 percent of sexual abuse victims are female. I find it unjust that men who prey upon girls receive lesser penalties than those who sexually abuse boys. This bill will make no distinction between the genders of victims and will toughen the penalties across the board for sexual abuse.
鈥淔ourthly, the Wood Royal Commission said that an unequal age of consent could encourage corrupt law enforcement practices and possible extortion of young gay men. Consistent laws will be more transparent for the public to understand and easier for the police to enforce.
鈥淔inally, as a Catholic, I passionately believe in the gospel message of love, acceptance and tolerance. I want to encourage a society in New South Wales where the stigma of homosexual orientation no longer exists, particularly for young people, and where all persons are accepted and supported, not condemned and criminalised.鈥�
Seems its going to be the women who make change for us.
And its time those morons who think gay couples will raise gay children should wake up to their stupid selves.
Hello we are all raised by straight parents so why are we not straight ?
Mark and Ed,
I might add that your arguments are based on an if. But if we do nothing we condemn children with no parents to be moved from foster home to foster home, and from school to school. The Victorian Government just produced the results of an inquiry that showed the great damage this causes. That is not an if. It is the present situation.
The reality is not an if. Our reality is that children of Same-Sex couples grow up into well adjust right now as I write this. They have done so for many years, and in many country’s. The reality is also that not to act, can fill our hospitals with some young adults that are not well adjusted. The effects of institutions and foster homes can making adults who are not well adjusted we all know this truth.
If we can do no better then to deny children and teenagers a loving home because we are worried about, not the reality of what happens in Australia and many other country’s, but the if’s, then do not we have a hand in that abuse. I was brought up State run Homes and I assure any of the kids there would of given anything to have parents, even Sam-Sex parents, give them a loving home.
I cannot stand by and deny kids a loving home. I know better. I am better then that. We are ll better then that. We all cannot turn our heads and hide from the reality of orphaned children.
Chillisauce reckons those politicians who voted to support an equal age of consent were just trying to get pedophile priests and teachers off.
It’s an argument in lock-step with radio shock jocks who opposed an equal age of consent.
Ed-
Presently in Australia there is Gay and Lesbian Adoption, and thousands of Same-Sex couples, and single parents, that raise children everyday. There are also thousands of adults that have been raised by Same-Sex parents, or Single parents. It happens. It happens with success overall. And it even has the support of some religious groups. The proof I guess is in the thousands of well adjusted adults. They would be flooding hospitals if this was not the case with psychological problems. Knowing a few psychiatrist, and my partner being a Director of Medical Services, I can say this does not happen.
If there were great problems, then the Psychiatric and Psychological Associations would voice concern in a heart beat. Remember they act on science, often against the political will of the day. They would say there should be no Same-Sex adoption as it damages children long-term, if this was the case, it is not so they do not.
We want what is in the best interest of the child. I for one would never want to expose a child to harm. I can say that about the many couples I have known. They are not pets as you suggest!
I suggest you talk to the Foster Agencies that foster Children to Same-Sex Couples. I suggest you to talk to the Social Workers that adopt children out in DOCS and the ACT and other State Government Departments that allow Adoption for people who happen to be Gay or Lesbian.
I might add the reality is sometimes people who have children come out about their sexuality all the time. We are not proposing to remove these children. The government does not step in and take children away.
Mark- I put it to you that a lot of people might not put their children, even heterosexual parents, in schools that they think might not be good for their children. Same-Sex couples think like all other parents. They put children in schools they think will be best for the child.
I encourage you to do as I have asked Ed. Contact the specialist in the field. I think you both are well intended, but your ideas are not based on what is going on in Australia at present, and has been for many years in Australia and other countries. Your ideas are formed I think, by your own experience of schools and adolescence where some gay guy was picked on, or was seen as not the done thing. I could easily form the opinion Sydney people are racist nut heads if I only saw the riots a few years ago. I have experienced otherwise. I have though, seen girls coming forward as teenagers telling us they have all sorts of problems wearing a Berka. This is new to Australia. We have never heard of thousands of teenagers of Same-Sex parents coming forward with emotional problems, saying they are spat on or mistreated by schools. Children of Same-Sex parents is not new. I have found they do not have the issues with all this. Those on the front line of this have found the same.
Listen i don’t mean to insult anybody. But my interest here is with the children that are being adopted, I’m not much interested what a gay person does with their own lives, i sincerely wish them well. And yes I agree with the editors note that there are many people who are unfit to adopt children and this includes non gay couples also. It’s an unfortunate situation when single parents have to raise their kids solo, but that should only happen when there is no choice. You say i’m incorrect, but ive done my bit of research taken from the APA (American Psychological Association) and i quote: “relatively few studies
have focused on the offspring of lesbian or gay parents
during adolescence or adulthood.” “It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian
and gay parents and their children, though no
longer new, is still limited in extent.” “less is known about children
of gay fathers than about children of lesbian
mothers” Comes from here: (www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx). When there is doubt about such an important issue, the burden of proof lies with the gay people wanting to adopt, and no such convincing proof exists in my humble opinion. Much more research is required on this so called “universal agreement”.
There may be an argument that “gay women” couples should be able to adopt certain homeless children who have absolutely no hope in finding a mother and father, seeing that these children already find themselves in an unfortunate situation anyway, so its the lesser of two unfortunate situations.
Reply to Ben;
Yes I am cynical about the motives that influence Labor Party Policy.
You used a parliamentary vote on altering the age of consent as an example of how, when parliamentarians are allowed to vote according to their conscience, positive changes can be made to the degrees of freedom available to citizens.
How I look at that particular change to legislation is that it was probably contrived to reduce the number of charges of child sexual assault brought against teachers and priests.
Ok,enough of the “My comment bashing” Please & John plz your going ofcourse.
Like I said it would be great for 2 same sex parents in Australia to love and raise a child (Especially 2 men) BUT the Zeolets in our community who scream that their out and proud “In Newtown Or Darlinghurst” ofcourse,Let them try holding hands in Parramatta,lets say Westfields, or Kiss in Blactown or Penrith High street,I give you 1 minute before an Homophobic Obscenity is screamed at you…
Stick the child of a same-sex couple in a Everyday school,Once the other kids find out,and I guarantee you that child will have a miserable schooling experience.
Kids can be cruel too you know.If you series about kids,why not sponsor one? The love and care is still there,thankyou
Also no forgetting the Wood Inquiry recommendations, that the age of consent for gay men should be inline at 16 with heterosexuals and lesbians 鈥� this much needed reform did not happen until 2003 No 9 (a full 6 years).
See Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2003 No 9 on the NSW legislation website.
Prior to 1977 there was no anti-discrimination legislation, which was recommended way back in 1970.
In 1976 the Law Reform Commission (chaired by Michael Kirby) proposed the Decrimalisation of male homosexuality. This reform was not achieved until 1984.
The NSW Legislation website now has the 1984 No 7 law shown on its website.
See Crimes (Amendment) Act 1984 No 7 on the NSW legislation website.
I welcome the news on same sex adoption rights – long overdue indeed!!!!
Back in 1997 (yes you heard correctly) the NSW Law Reform Commission proposed same sex adoption and relationship registers – why 13 years down the track these recommendation are finally getting implemented – when it should have happened in 1997???????
Oh and by the way I was 11 years old in 1997 and that is when I for the very first time acknowledged my sexual orientation.
In March 2011 the NSW LABOR GOVT will be Dead !!!
Cant wait!!!
She has gone out of her way to ban an official ceremony component in her new NSW Register. This is a backwards move, as the City of Sydney Register has had an official ceremony component since 2005. Why the push backwards by her to make us invisible even further???
btw: the City of Sydney one is still going, running concurrently- just do both.
Mark- I would like to add that some Same-Sex couples go to Church, some vote Liberal, some vote Labor. Some even vote Green. They do not all agree on Gay Marriage, they do not all agree on Global Warming, they can be wonderful friends or nasty bitches.
They are just like any other couple in the community. They come in all shapes, sizes, and colours. The difference is they are a Same-Sex couple, but really they are the same. The same hopes and desires like all couples.
Mark- Thank you for your question and for being polite.
I known many Same-Sex couples that have had children. I appreciate your concern for the child. It is actually a concern many Same-Sex couples have had to deal with.
What response the child gets at school depends on the school. What policies do they have, how the school is run. What support teachers have etc. These are the same questions heterosexual couples ask. Every parent wants what is best for child. We all have the same hopes for our children. We do not want them to be bullied or picked on. Sometimes this happens as we have seen with many heterosexual couples children. Remember it can be your race, or what shoes you wear, that decides your fate at school.
Many schools have children of Same-Sex couples with no problems at all. In fact I recall one couple telling me the other kids were really happy for their child having two Dad’s. They loved the idea. Good luck to them. I have also heard of parents being scared of the child that is an orphan. Telling their children to be careful, and the same goes for the child in foster care. It is as though they were not good enough to have anyone one love them. This is just terrible for the child.
Thousands of children have gone through school with Same-Sex couples with no problem at all. Having Same-Sex parents does not make them Gay. You might be surprised to learn I have seen very effeminate Dad’s with really butch teenage sons who are nothing like their Dad’s. I have also seen butch heterosexual Dad’s with a butch Gay son.
What is important is that the child has a loving stable home. There are a lot of Same-Sex couples that can provide that home as we have seen from what currently happens.
mark of Sydney, so indigenous people shouldn’t have children because their children will be taunted in school? what about hearing impaired people’s children? People who follow Islam? or what about people who are hippies and like to only eat vegan foods? should all these people not have children because they might be taunted at school by small minded other children? what about people with red hair genes? It’s parents responsibility to raise their children to be strong and be able to handle anything life throws at them. A child who’s never had to endure anything grows up to be a complainer who can’t get by in the real world.
a “conscience vote” on what is clearly in the best interests of the stability of children. Study after study has shown that adoption is a better option than fostering for many children as it provides security and stability (as well as legal rights). The ALP and Libs are completely Disgusting in allowing this to be decided on the “conscience” of their MPs. Both parties should be supporting this unequivically and taking disciplinary action on any member who votes against party lines. This is nothing but a hedged bet by both parties to win gay votes whilst not alienating conservative votes. You’ll get no thanks from me Ms Keneally, and Mr OFarrell isn’t any better.
Mark of Sydney,
We have to start somewhere. Once marriage equality and same-sex adoption become the norm, then teasing etc should fade away (mostly).
We have lots of same sex parents here in the Blue Mountains and I’m yet to hear of one problem at local schools affecting the children or parents. One male couple a few doors up the street from me just came home with their new baby and the neighbourhood welcomed them warmly.
It would be fantastic for same sex couples (Especially 2 men) to be able to have a child.But are there special schools in Australia like Overseas which are specifically for students of same sex parents to attend?
In a everyday school here in Australia you can guarantee that that child will have a “Miserable” childhood filled with teasing & tormenting by bully’s in school.Sniggering parents of other students and probably run out of town,A real nightmare for the child and its same sex parents.
Thankyou
Two men or two women in a committed relationship in a secular country should be allowed to nurture a child if they wish to. Religion actually has nothing to do with it.
Chilli:-
History says your cynicism on Kristina Keneally is wrong.
Just after being elected, Keneally spoke in favour of an equal age of consent.
That too was a conscience vote.
54 members of parliament supported equal age of consent.
Of the 32 opposed, eight were from the ALP.
Keneally could, like most Premiers, just leave the running to one of her Ministers or her Deputy, Carmel Tebbutt.
She has chosen not to, instead putting on the record her support for reform.
Ed I would like to add that your comment about pets was very nasty and with no foundation. I could just as easily say it of yourself. I think it is a great insult to the thousands of Same-Sex couples, and single parents, around Australia that raise their children every day just like anybody else.
I think you need to looks seriously at yourself. You have come to this website, insulting people, with no evidence at all to back up your claims. If I was an alien visiting from the planet Equality, it would give the impression you are not a balanced person and quite nasty. I could easily form the opinion that people like yourself should not have children.
Their is nothing wrong with going to a GLBTQI website wanting to debate a topic, but think a bit before you speak. Do not start by insulting people. I am sure you are a better man then that.
Ed- The Catholic Church in the UK submitted evidence to Parliament that same-sex couples were the most successful in adopting/foster parenting ‘the most difficult’ and hardest to place children. Catholic Charities UK did not want to lose this alternative.
The facts are many children, especially those with a disability, grow up in small institutions that with the best of intentions, do not provide an environment that gives the child the love they need.
In Australia Same-Sex couples have been fostering some of these children for years, some are not so lucky and cannot be placed. What they need is a permanent home. A stable home. We cannot continue the child abuse that sees children placed in institutions or moved from one foster home to another. This is abuse. It does no good for the child at all. Same-Sex adoption has proven around the world that this is a much better alternative.
You might have your own misgivings about adolescence as you say, but given Same-Sex couples already foster successfully, and other Same-Sex couples actually have their own children, then their is no rational reason to continue to punish those children who people do not want to adopt and end up in institutions.
I think your operating on the assumption that children of Same-Sex couples might somehow become gay or lesbian or develop emotional problems. There is no evidence that this happens more then in a heterosexual family where most of us grew up. I have known many children of Same-Sex parents that have grown up to be just like any other young adult.
It’s real simple. A child needs a Mother and a Father. And even when a child has both of those it may not be enough because they may be bad parents. Even worse then the proposal that gay couples should be allowed to have children, what for? Just to satisfy their longings for a child? A child is not a pet and it has no choice! Some “mainstream” psychologists may show no significant difference, but if you look at the studies they still have not properly looked at the effects beyond adolescence. If a child has no father and no mother it should be because there was no choice in the matter. I respect a gay persons right to live their own way, but not when it comes to adoption.
Editor’s Note: Actually Ed, your are incorrect. The studies carried out on the children of gay and lesbian parents reach right through to young adulthood. Further, those studies are considered universal and have nothing to do with ‘mainstream’ psychologists or otherwise. And I don’t know about you, but I prefer a child to be brought up in a loving home than a cold, loveless orphanage – wouldn’t you? I’d agree with you on one point – a child is not a pet, it has no choice. And yet any old slapper after a new plasma is quite welcome to go out, get knocked up and collect a cash bonus for doing so. What choice did that child get?
Some people say it must be hard for you when you came out emotionally.
I say no, it was quite natural for me. I was attracted to the same sex and didnt think anything different about it.
The peole that seem to find it hard is everybody else! haha its like Im the one who is gay! It should be hard for me! Why are you so confused and cant understand lol.
It makes my blook boil that we dont have equal rights. We are discriminated against for the way we were born. The same way you would discrimnate against some one who was born with black skin if u were a white racist.
I have been with my partner for 3 years. I can not marry him. And in some suburbs we will not kiss in public due to safety reasons.
Why am I treated this way?
Dave- Nice try to use my name. You are a greater sinner then we could ever be. Remember the word homosexual was only first used in the 1850’s. Prior to this the ancient translation referred sexual deviant. Even the Chapters in the Bible were only added well after the Gospels were written. Some new translations, including the Jerusalem Bible, does not even use the work Homosexual as it wrong to use it.
As you are confused about your sexuality and the Bible I suggest you go to Perhaps you can even talk to the 101 Reverends that marched in Mardi Gras supporting our community as they say the Bible supports us just the way we are. I say all this as it appears you do not know any of the Bible, the original translations, or the risk of taking things as the literal meaning. Your understand is that of a fundamentalist! For to believe we are somehow wrong means you also believe the many contradictions in the Bible. This would make you a child sex offender. If you believe we are somehow wrong that is.
For the Bible also says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. Polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable, as is a king’s having many concubines. (Solomon, the wisest king of all, had 1,000 concubines.) Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one’s parents nude.
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
“homophobia is a political device applied by religious organisations for the purpose of uniting members of religious organisations in hatred against a minority group and that policy has the support of the state.”
Spot on, Chilli.
“following Jesus is much more than what you can and can鈥檛 do”
Clearly a lot of telling other people what they can and can’t do is involved also.
The Premier says she will allow a conscience vote on the matter.
This is a Labor Premier we are talking about – freedom of thought and conscience are anathema to Labor culture.
I suspect that the only reason there will be conscience vote on the matter is so the Premier can score some easy points with the gay community but the Labor Party will score more points with the homophobes in the population by defeating the bill in a conscience vote.
Let’s wait and see how the vote goes before we give the Labor Premier any points for tolerance.
As far as the comments by Dave;
Who, in the religious organisations, decides the degree of seriousness of sin?
The ten commandments do not metion homosexuality so it was not serious enough to make it into those proscriptions when they were written.
In the ten commandments murder, stealing and adultery are on the same level as keeping the sabbath day holy by not working on the sabbath.
Why do christians hate homosexuals but not adulterers and people who break the sabbath?
The reason is that homophobia is a political device applied by religious organisations for the purpose of uniting members of religious organisations in hatred against a minority group and that policy has the support of the state.
It is bullying and abuse of power.
Keneally is quite wrong when she said “the gospel message of love, acceptance and tolerance”. Tolerance is not part of the gospel, tolerance destroys the gospel, tolerating sin does not help people to follow Jesus and go to heaven when they die. It misleads them.
Those who love Jesus obey His commands and the Bible. The gospel is for all who accept it, doesn’t matter what your past is. The gospel requires us to repent of your sinful ways and start living God’s way. God is just waiting for you to do that. Obviously along the way Christians are going to sin, they are not perfect people. It is only by grace that we are forgiven but we need to be striving to live by God’s ways. In this case, homosexuality is sinful. But as Christians we are called to love our neighbour, not hurt them etc. However what they are doing is wrong and should not be encouraged. A child needs both a Mum & a Dad. Sex is only for a married couple, so many heterosexual couples are living outside God’s ways too. Not being married having sex and having children also.
But following Jesus is much more than what you can and can’t do.
When you become a Christian you don’t become perfect and you are no better than the person next to you. All people are created equal. But you have a new hope in life.
It’s better to have someone like Keneally as NSW Premier – who is torn between the dogma of her Catholic faith and an a realisation that gay people have as much worth as heterosexuals – than a doctrinaire fanatic of the Pell or Nile variety.
It might be better for Lee Rhiannon to be Premier. But she’s not and, as a Greens MP, she can promise gays the world. The reality is the ALP lead by Keneally is in power in NSW. So Keneally’s party and the Coalition need to be convinced same-sex parents deserve respect and legal rights.
Wonderful, thoughtful and compassionate, Kristina Keneally has shown real leadership on a critical issue same-sex parents and their children.