Submitted by Yardbroom
A release from the Press Association (UK) Monday 31 August 2009, reported that female couples will be able to register both their names on the birth certificate of children conceived through fertility treatment. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The move will give women in same-sex relationships the same rights as heterosexual parents, to have their names on their children’s birth documents.
“Home Office Minister Lord Brett said the move was a “positive change”. He explained: This positive change means that, for the first time, female couples who have a child using fertility treatment have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts to be shown as parents in the birth registration”.
I have put this submission forward in the interest of balance, so that a section of Barbadian society – though small – know that their concerns, not often addressed in other media in Barbados will be given a fair hearing on Barbados Underground (BU). I also hope the variety of views often expressed on BU are not stymied in this submission and that robustness is evident. However, that robustness and freedom are tempered by responsibility and reason.
One could argue – perhaps with some justification – that there are not enough same sex female partners – living together – in Barbados for this issue to be of concern here, and even if they were, the cost of fertility treatment and access to it would prevent it becoming of major significance. However, it could be argued that these debates are taking place in major industrial countries and it serves no purpose not – it does not mean we have to follow – to understand and debate issues which will give us a clearer understanding of our world.
“Same sex marriages are recognized in: “The Netherlands the first country to do so in 2001, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain, Norway, Sweden and five states in the USA. The majority of European countries recognize Civil Unions or Registered Partnerships as does New Zealand and Uruguay. Other jurisdictions to the ones previously mentioned in the USA recognize Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships.” – Wikipedia
The issue of names on birth certificates has become contentious, in Massachusetts – USA – where same sex marriage is legal. Governor Mitt Romney said “babies born to couples of the same sex should be given amended birth certificates”. As if to demonstrate how delicate the issue is, supporters of gay marriage say “the governor’s formula is wrong”. They say “the words “Father” and “Mother” should be removed from birth certificates, and put in their place the terms “Parent A” and “Parent B”.
The supporters of gay marriage and those who agitate for a change. Have to answer the charge that they always want “more” and they will only be satisfied with an equality, which certification cannot give. It is often said there is a separate agenda by those who do not want a change in certification and it has nothing to do with the certificates, but more to do with and anti-gay marriage position.
In the UK there has also been opposition to their proposed New Legislation. Ann Widdecombe a prominent Tory MP criticised the legislation. She is reported to have said: ” Every child has a right to a father and this bill for the first time deliberately creates a situation where children are born without a father.
“A father plays a unique role in a child’s life. The effect is quite simple. You’re going to deprive a child from the outset”. As if to underpin the issue in not on party lines, Geraldine Smith the Labour MP was more succinct she said: ” To have a birth certificate with two mothers and no father is just madness.”
It is understandable that those in a stable same sex relationship have a desire to demonstrate their commitment to that relationship and the child or children being cared for, by having both names on the birth certificate. However, suppose the child on attaining adulthood has a different outlook – it is possible – and is constantly being embarrassed when asked to produce his/her birth certificate.
If same sex marriage/unions are allowed, is it reasonable to refuse rights accorded to heterosexual couples? One could easily argue that what they – same sex couples – are asking is completely different. That is true but the “nature” of their relationship makes that so, it is not wilful intent to defy authority or the norm, they do not exist in a norm as “perceived” by some.
It is also possible that we could be allowing prejudice to determine decision making and that is not in the best interest of a fair and equitable society. It could be that we in Barbados will never have to make those hard decisions, but at least we are adult enough to reflect on them and give those whose opinions about society are diametrically opposed to ours, a fair hearing and an opportunity to advance their views.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.