This seems sensible to me:
“Women in same-sex relationships can now register both their names on the birth certificate of a child conceived as a result of fertility treatment.
Female couples not in a civil partnership but receiving fertility treatment may also both be registered.”
Complaints about undermining marriage are misguided, unless you believe that lesbians would otherwise get married to men if they were denied these rights, and that this would be inherently good:
“Conservative MP Nadine Dorries told the BBC that the move undermined the traditional family model.
She said: “If we want to build a stable society, a mother and father and children works as the best model. “We should be striving towards repairing and reinforcing marriage. I think this move sends out the exact opposite message.”"
The reason why the state intervenes in marriage (by providing legal and tax incentives) is because society in general believes that a stable couple makes for better parents and citizens, and because it gives the spouse certain rights in cases of death, illness, etc. Sexual orientation is thus irrelevant. If this is the case, we should be looking to extend these benefits to as wide a range of people as possible. This could be done by allowing all adults to have a ‘civil union’ with one other person, which would grant them rights. At present there are certain groups which miss out on said rights, such as unmarried sisters who live together. Marriage would then just be a purely religious affair, and could be done by those who wanted something else on top of their civil union.
Essentially, either the state should be promoting people staying together, or not. One cannot have it both ways. I do believe that children, in general, benefit from having two parents (not least because they can share the workload). I do not believe though that their parents’ gender or sexual orientation affects how well as child is brought up.
|Post to del.icio.us|
Filed in: Civil liberties,Culture,Sex equality