THE BRAVE NEW TERRITORY OF GAY PARENTING

Many couples in same-sex relationships are as enthusiastic in their desire to become parents as those who are in heterosexual relationships. Adoption, surrogacy, sperm donation, have all enabled same-sex couples to achieve their parental ambitions and create families. For the most part, they have done so without any interference by, or involvement with, the biological parents after the birth of their children.Whilst the majority of lesbian parents tend to use sperm which has been obtained from an anonymous donor, some women have shown a preference to use a sperm donor who is known to them to become the biological father of their children.This may be because they want to know the background, personality and medical history of a potential father before embarking on the procreative process. In some cases, it may also be because some women want their children to have a male role model in their life. Using a known sperm donor can, however, involve risks for would-be-mothers if, contrary to the father’s wishes, they do not want him to play a significant role in the child’s life. Their dreams of creating an autonomous nuclear family may be destroyed and replaced with a new form of extended family, consisting of three or even four parents if the biological father has a partner. The tale recounted in the Appeal Court judgment in A v B and C (Lesbian co-parents: role of father) (2012) is a cautionary one for lesbian would-be-parents and one of hope for potential biological fathers who are known to them. The Court of Appeal emphasised the paramountcy of the welfare principle, contained in s1(1) of the Children Act 1989 in resolving all child contact disputes. It declined to elicit any further principles in these difficult fact specific cases and stated that the sexual orientation of the parents and their pre-conceptual agreements, or understandings, spoken or unspoken are either irrelevant (per Thorpe LJ) or relevant but not determinative (per Black LJ).* Dr Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor of Family Law, University of Buckingham.[1] Re G; Re Z (Children: Sperm Donors: Leave to Apply for Children Act Orders) [2013] 1 FLR 1334.

Download Full-text

Michael’s Clan

10.1093/oso/9780190888275.003.0006 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Rosanna Hertz ◽

Margaret K. Nelson

Keyword(s):

Emotional Support ◽

Relative Influence ◽

Same Sex ◽

Sperm Donor ◽

Material Support ◽

Same Sex Couples ◽

Family Form ◽

New Family ◽

Nature And Nurture ◽

Families Of Choice

The same-sex couples highlighted in this narrative are members of the “families of choice” cohorts that arose during the 1980s. Although they were establishing a new family form, the mothers in a two-mother family told their child that he had a sperm donor “father” whom he could meet when he turned eighteen. When the meeting occurred, the two formed a limited father-child bond. The donor provides emotional support, but he does not offer any material support. When other offspring from the same donor contact him, the donor introduced the donor siblings to each other. The members of this network reconsider ideas about the relative influence of nature and nurture. Yet ideas about chosen families remain central to the manner in which the members relate to one another. Born between 1986 and 1990, the kids in this network were between twenty-four and twenty-eight years old at the time of the interviews.

Download Full-text

Sexual Citizenship and the Civil Union Act 2004

Victoria University of Wellington Law Review ◽

10.26686/vuwlr.v37i2.5571 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 37 (2) ◽

pp. 281 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Nan Seuffert

Keyword(s):

Family Relationships ◽

Private Law ◽

Heterosexual Relationships ◽

Committed Relationships ◽

Same Sex ◽

State Recognition ◽

Parliamentary Debates ◽

Same Sex Couples ◽

Civil Union

This article analyses the parliamentary debates on the Civil Union Act 2004, which provides for legal recognition of same sex relationships, for stories of national identity. A close reading of the parliamentary debates on the Act suggests that although the supporters and opponents of the legislation seemed to be worlds apart, many told similar stories about New Zealand as a nation, and citizens within that nation, emphasising similar values and aspirations. Both sides told stories of citizens, of New Zealanders, as tolerant and fair, as forwarding-looking progressives who value stable long-term, committed relationships, warm loving communities for children, and strong families and family relationships. Both sides generally saw marriage as a positive institution, a cornerstone of society and a building block for society and the nation. While some talked of existing alternatives to marriage, such as de facto relationships, and there was some recognition that not all marriages are good ones, with a few notable exceptions, there was little mention of critiques of marriage as an institution and little or no positive mention of relationships outside of the paradigm of long-term committed, monogamous relationships. Further, while there were arguments, reflecting a privatisation paradigm, that the Civil Union Act 2004 was not necessary since the rights and duties of same sex couples could be structured using the private law of contract and trusts (a claim that was debated), there was no suggestion that state recognition of marriage should be abolished, or that long-term heterosexual relationships should be structured through private law.

Download Full-text

Wage differentials of males and females in same-sex and different-sex couples in Canada, 2006–2010

Canadian Studies in Population ◽

10.25336/p60602 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 41 (3-4) ◽

pp. 105 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Richard Mueller

Keyword(s):

Wage Differentials ◽

General Social Survey ◽

Heterosexual Relationships ◽

Same Sex ◽

Social Survey ◽

Gay Couples ◽

Same Sex Couples ◽

Males And Females

This paper utilizes five cycles of the General Social Survey in consecutive years from 2006 through 2010 to address the issue of differential wages amongst members of same-sex couples compared to their counterparts in different-sex couples. We find that men in gay couples have wages that are statistically indistinguishable from those of males in heterosexual relationships. By contrast, a sizeable and statistically significant earnings premium exists for lesbians in same-sex couples.

Download Full-text

Family, Loss, and Change

LGBTQ Divorce and Relationship Dissolution ◽

10.1093/med-psych/9780190635176.003.0012 ◽

2018 ◽

pp. 221-232

Author(s):

Katherine R. Allen

Keyword(s):

Nuclear Family ◽

Extended Family ◽

Family Members ◽

Relationship Dissolution ◽

Same Sex ◽

The Family ◽

Family Loss ◽

Legal Marriage

Same-sex relationship dissolution has reverberations for individuals beyond the nuclear family. This chapter discusses a lesbian-parent family, consisting of two moms and two kids—when it broke up nearly two decades ago, many other family members, including the donor and his husband, were deeply affected. This chapter reflects on this experience from the author’s perspective of a family scholar and an activist for LGBTQ family rights. In the absence of legal marriage and thus legal divorce, family lives turned out in ways that even the most careful, deliberate efforts could not anticipate nor protect. The experiences described highlight many losses and regrets, despite the intentional love and concern for all of the parents, children, and extended family members involved. These reflections on this experience are intended to honor the family as it once was and the families they have become.

Download Full-text

Relational Parents

The Oxford Handbook of Children and the Law ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190694395.013.23 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 476-502

Author(s):

Robin Fretwell Wilson

Keyword(s):

Child Welfare ◽

Extended Family ◽

Parental Status ◽

Same Sex ◽

Same Sex Couples ◽

The Law ◽

Family Privacy

Significant changes in family forms and dynamics (such as increases in nonmarital cohabitation, children cared for by extended family, and same-sex couples with children) have prompted policymakers to rethink the question of who is a legal parent. Specifically, the law is grappling with which adults will be granted parental status or rights based on their relationship with a child’s parent and why. This chapter reviews the mounting number of doctrinal hooks used by courts, legislatures, and law reformers for deciding when adults can make claims in children. It examines traditional parentage and family privacy doctrines, reviews justifications for a dramatic widening of the parental tent, and then turns to a set of fairness and child-welfare concerns raised by these concepts, highlighting four major worries. It argues that costs of considering the parentage claims of relational parents—both to the legal parent and to the child—have received inadequate weight to date.

Download Full-text

Intimate Partner Violence in Same-Sex Relationships: An Analysis of Risk and Rearrest

Criminal Justice and Behavior ◽

10.1177/0093854819871984 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 46 (11) ◽

pp. 1515-1527

Author(s):

Caryn Gerstenberger ◽

Richard Stansfield ◽

Kirk R. Williams

Keyword(s):

Intimate Partner Violence ◽

Partner Violence ◽

Intimate Partner ◽

Male Victims ◽

Heterosexual Relationships ◽

Same Sex ◽

Same Sex Couples ◽

Female Violence ◽

Female Perpetrators ◽

Male To Female

Research on intimate partner violence (IPV) among same-sex couples remains relatively rare. Moreover, few studies examine risk and the likelihood of reoffending among such couples. The present study utilized a large sample of people ( N = 6,711) arrested for IPV to explore the risk, likelihood, and timing of reoffending, including 332 perpetrators in same-sex relationships. Analyses revealed that male perpetrators in same-sex relationships had lower assessed risk than males in heterosexual relationships, and a smaller percentage were rearrested for a new violent offense. Although female perpetrators in same-sex relationships were no more likely to have higher assessed risk compared with perpetrators of female to male violence, female perpetrators in same-sex relationships had a higher likelihood and rate of reoffending, more closely resembling male-to-female violence. Female perpetrators with male victims were identified as the lowest risk to reoffend and indeed were the least likely to reoffend.

Download Full-text

Risks in Surrogacy Considering the Embryo: From the Preimplantation to the Gestational and Neonatal Period

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2018/6287507 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 2018 ◽

pp. 1-9

Author(s):

M. Simopoulou ◽

K. Sfakianoudis ◽

P. Tsioulou ◽

A. Rapani ◽

G. Anifandis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Neonatal Period ◽

Preimplantation Embryo ◽

Same Sex ◽

Surrogate Mother ◽

Sperm Donor ◽

Donor Sperm ◽

Literature Research ◽

Same Sex Couples ◽

Egg Donor ◽

Single Person

Surrogacy is an assisted reproduction-based approach in which the intended parents assign the gestation and birth to another woman called the surrogate mother. The drivers of surrogacy refer largely to infertility, medical conditions, same-sex couples’ parenting, and cases of diversity regarding sexual identity and orientation. Surrogacy consists of a valid option for a variety of conditions or circumstances ranging from medical to social reasons. However, surrogacy may be associated with risks during the preimplantation, prenatal, and neonatal period. It became obvious during the exhaustive literature research that data on surrogacy and its association with factors specific to the IVF practice and the options available were not fully represented. Could it be that surrogacy management adds another level of complexity to the process from the ovarian stimulation, the subsequent IVF cycle, and the techniques employed within the IVF and the Genetic Laboratory to the fetal, perinatal, and neonatal period? This work emphasizes the risks associated with surrogacy with respect to the preimplantation embryo, the fetus, and the infant. Moreover, it further calls for larger studies reporting on surrogacy and comparing the surrogate management to that of the routine IVF patient in order to avoid suboptimal management of a surrogate cycle. This is of particular importance in light of the fact that the surrogate cycle may include not only the surrogate but also the egg donor, sperm donor, and the commissioning couple or single person.

Download Full-text

Legal and Policy Battles Over Same-Sex Relationships

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics ◽

10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1311 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Erez Aloni

Keyword(s):

Social Movements ◽

North America ◽

Nuclear Family ◽

Marriage Equality ◽

Legal Institution ◽

Same Sex ◽

Same Sex Couples ◽

The World ◽

The Impact ◽

Same Sex Parents

Since the 1980s, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) social movements worldwide have put significant energy into securing relationship rights. In the 1970s, however, the general sentiment in such movements in the Occident had been anti-marriage and anti-nuclear family. This changed in the 1980s due to three factors: the impact of HIV/AIDS, which emphasized how vulnerable same-sex families are; the rise of families headed by same-sex parents who did not have the same protections as their different-sex counterparts; and globalization, which transferred the ideas about same-sex relationships among movements and created energy and useful policy connections. During the 1990s, a wave of marriage alternatives spread around the world, sometimes extended by legislatures and other times by courts. The rise of alternatives has raised these questions: are they a temporary compromise on the path to marriage equality; are they a replacement for marriage that is free of its historical discriminatory heritage; or are they proposing an additional legal institution alongside marriage? In the 2000s and since, marriage equality became realistic and more common as two dozen countries gradually extended marriage rights to same-sex couples, initially in Europe and North America, but later also in Australasia, in the entire Americas, and even—in fewer countries—in Asia and Africa. Incrementalism is the generally accepted theory for why progress occurs in some countries and delays in others. However, scholars have criticized the theory as descriptively inaccurate and, normatively, as portraying marriage as the final frontier for LGBTQ equality—thus contributing to that community’s emphasis on marriage equality to the neglect of other possible advocacy avenues. Further, the incrementalistic account should take into consideration that the path toward recognition is not linear and is international as well as national. Supranational courts have played an important role in the progress toward recognizing same-sex relationships; at the same time, the globalization of LGBTQ relationship rights has also resulted in a strong backlash and in regression in some countries.

Download Full-text