Popping head over the parapet
I don't do TV. I was asked last week and did a refusal. There is a cost/benefit analysis. It was the BBC local news. I live on a tiny island. We have no spare time ever. But mrs w and I are also the poster girls for equal rights. Lawyer and academic-femme and successful ubers. Unthreatening. I felt guilty, so I got on the phone to my member of parliament. Here is my follow up letter as the Civil Partnership Bill hoves into view in the teeny tiny jurisdiction where I live that only decriminalised sodomy in 1991.
"Dear Mr Rodan,
Following our phone conversation last week, I was encouraged by your support for the Civil Partnership Bill and cautiously optimistic that it is likely to pass. I thought it would be helpful if I put in writing a few of the issues that the Civil Partnership Bill will make in improving and supporting my family.
I called because, as one individual to another, it is paramount to emphasise that this matter set before the House of Keys is not an abstract debate on principles, but a Bill that does much to provide protections to individuals within our community. You may consider yourself as legislating for an ideal, but one ideal can often be seen to come into conflict with other strongly and dearly-held principles. It would be unfair and unjust to assume that all those who oppose the bill are necessarily doing so from solely Christian conviction and ideals. As a practising and active member of my local church, I can see a variety of viewpoints and in the spirit of charity would encourage all participants in the debate to look to the people within their congregation, as well as studying their bibles.
I would therefore ask that the House consider the Bill’s impact on individuals living on the island. My partner of ten years and I have a two year-old son. We are naturally cautious and, as far as we have been able under the current limitations of the law, have done as much as we can to protect his future. We have been able to apply successfully through the Courts for a residence order for my partner, my son’s co-parent. In granting such an order, it provides limited peace of mind.
Where it falters is in the case of my untimely death as I am his biological mother. In her grief, my partner would be required to apply again to the Courts for permission to look after our son on a permanent basis. The proposed amendments to the Adoption Act, settles this anxiety.
We are no less subject to the stringencies of the Court under the amendments to the Adoption Act than any other applicants. We would still have to undergo social worker’s assessments, and a panel report. We would have to answer the searching questions of a Court. The protection of a child’s best interests remains paramount. As it should be, political correctness is set aside to answer the fundamental question of a family court; what actions are in the best interest of the child.
By amending the Adoption Act in particular, you are allowing conscientious and caring parents to make an application during the best of times, so that should the worst of times prevail, a child could be assured of a stable loving home environment. My partner could take comfort that having already lost a loved one she was not at risk of well-meaning authorities taking away her own child. In addition, her own parents would fear losing a much loved grandchild.
The best light I can put on the time taken to implement the Civil Partnership Bill, compared to the UK and other EU countries, is for the House to have taken the time to see the impact of similar legislation in other jurisdictions. There has been no evidence for the denigration or devaluing of marriage or the family in the past five years since a similar act has been passed in the UK. Family life has not been unwound in actuality. Giving greater rights to a group that has been previously discriminated against has not resulted in the crumbling of the institution of marriage. Marriage remains the exclusive domain of the heterosexual couples who can also have the further endorsement of a religious ceremony. Such an endorsement certain churches have the right to withhold, as it is within their dominion. But the law of the island cannot be made solely by leaders of the church. The law of the country has to be made by people who, in all conscience, truly represent the views of all their constituents. The same constituents who have voted democratically for their law-makers to make decisions based on the evidence and not on prejudice.
I don’t assume to represent any other views except that of my own and that of my family. Others may feel differently. That is their right. I can only hope that before making their judgements that they seek out families similar to mine with an open mind and an open heart. We are not a stereotype, a fearsome threat, a group of militant lobbyists. We are parents dealing with the same challenging issues of other families and would ask simply to be treated equally under the law. I wish to live quietly with peace of mind. I ask the House to legislate to provide us with that peace of mind.
My experience as a mother on the Isle of Man has been unequivocally positive. From my neighbours to health care professionals to nursery workers, I have found people to be caring, interested and supportive. I would hope that House would reflect our experience and reality of living as a family on the island, by passing the Civil Partnership Bill and amendments to the Adoption Act.
Yours etc etc."
I feel slightly better. But also wierded out that if it is read out my vicar will be one the scribes taking it down for the parliament's Hansard. I warned you it was a tiny island.