A few years ago I participated in a radio discussion on the rights of fathers along with, among others, the chairwoman of the National Economic and Social Forum, Dr Maureen Gaffney, who expressed the view that fathers would have to earn the right to be treated equally. At the time I was at a loss, but now it all becomes clear writes John Waters. What fathers must do to qualify for equal treatment in this society is very simple: they must become homosexual.
Dr Gaffney was recently at the launch of the report of the Equality Authority, which urged legal recognition for same-sex couples, including what the report insists is the right of gay and lesbian couples to be regarded in the same way as heterosexual couples in adopting and fostering children. She welcomed the report and said the NESC would "vigorously" pursue its implementation.
There are many layers to this discussion, and most will remain unexplored because of the climate of fear surrounding such politically correct matters in the public domain. Many in this society will be metaphysically offended by these proposals, but will maintain a dejected silence for fear of being dubbed "homophobic" by the self-appointed guardians of public thought. These issues touch on the essences of our future existence, involving consideration of the responsibility of the present generation for the effects of our prescriptions in the future.
But today I want to ask one simple question: whose children does the Equality Authority propose gays be allowed to adopt? When you set aside the issue of surrogate parenting - a massive, unexplored ethical minefield requiring careful examination by this society as a discrete issue - you are left with just two categories in which the issue of gay adoption might arise. One is when someone leaves a heterosexual relationship to enter a homosexual one, bringing her or his children along. This category is so tiny that it can easily be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, as must other situations involving exceptional circumstances. It is clear, then, that the main category for which the Equality Authority's report has implications is the standard adoption situation in which the "unwanted" child of one couple is put up for adoption.
Such children, like all children, have mothers and fathers. At present, the primary decision resides with the mother, the father having a minimal input. Up until four years ago, fathers had no input at all, but this altered marginally following the embarrassment of the Irish State in the European Court of Human Rights when Joseph Keegan successfully pleaded that the placement of his child for adoption without his knowledge or consent amounted to an interference with his family life. The only consequence of this judgment in Irish law was the insertion in the Adoption Act 1998 of a legal fig leaf requiring that, before an adoption can take place, "such steps as are reasonably practicable" should be taken to contact the father. If the mother refuses to name the father, the adoption board cannot compel her, and the adoption can proceed without the father's knowledge.
Even when contact is made with the father, he will simply be asked if he has any objections to the adoption. If he has objections, the court is free to disregard them, and invariably does so. The only way the father might obtain even a theoretical equal standing with the mother and the prospective adoptive parents with a view to adopting his own child is to first obtain a guardianship order under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. For this he requires the consent of the mother or an order of the court made, presumably, against her wishes, which is unheard of.
So, leaving aside the massive moral and ethical dimensions to its bizarre proposal, the Equality Authority is demanding that homosexual couples be given parity with heterosexual married couples in a situation where a massive unaddressed inequality already exists. Last week I put three questions to the authority: 1,What has it said about discrimination against separated fathers? 2, What has it said about the denial of rights to single fathers? 3, What has it said about the denial of the rights of natural fathers in the context of adoption? The answers were: 1, nothing; 2, nothing; 3, nothing.
BY virtue of failing to address pre-existing discrimination, the Equality Authority is suggesting, in effect, that children be snatched from the arms of their natural fathers and given to gay men and women. The authority maintains that it is asking, inter alia, for a constitutional change to redefine the Irish family to embrace various other excluded categories, including single fatherhood. But, noting how the authority has itself carefully avoided perceiving the glaring inequality besetting fathers, we can be certain that, if such a constitutional change were to be effected as a result of the authority's prescriptions, those implementing such changes would be of such an ideological disposition as to ensure that the bias against natural fathers would be worse than before. In a climate nurtured by those who have framed or supported this report, there can be no doubt that the ideological bedfellows of the authority would deliver a system exercising affirmative action in favour of gay couples.
The Equality Authority has nothing to do with equality. It is a body established by the Labour Party in government and funded from the public purse to promote an extreme liberal agenda which will one day visit chaos on this society. Far from allowing the NESC to promote vigorously its agenda, the Government should disestablish both bodies in the best interests of Irish children.