Australia's greatest women's tennis player Margaret Court says she will not be deterred by gay activists planning to target the Australian Open over her views on homosexuality.

Court, who is now a pastor at a church in Perth, is staunchly opposed to gay marriage and a peaceful protest is planned at the first Grand Slam of the season next week at Melbourne Park, where a court is named after her.

The Facebook group, Rainbow Flags Over Margaret Court Arena, began in response to Court's anti-gay marriage stance and they are urging people to display gay pride colours at the tournament.

Court vowed the protest would not stop her from attending.

"Are they not wanting me to come to the Australian Open? Is that what they are trying to do? I don't run from anything," Court, who won all four Grand Slams in the same year in 1970, told The Australian newspaper Thursday. ...

Tennis Australia said it did not share Court's views.

Labels: Australia, gay marriage, homosexuality, professional associations, religion

VOTE

Surrogate mothers and egg and sperm donors should be provided with "reasonable" financial reimbursements, says Monash IVF clinical research director, Associate Professor Luk Rombauts.

International ethics expert Prof Guido Pennings told the World Congress on Human Reproduction in Melbourne that surrogates could be paid for their services in the same way participants in clinical trials were reimbursed. ...

Victorians were commonly travelling to South Africa, Thailand and India to find egg donors, surrogate mothers or select the gender of their baby.

Overseas clinics may have lower standards with women risking sperm, eggs or embryos being swapped, infection and complications due to a lack of follow-up care.

"The risks of reproductive tourism are real, and by having restrictive policy on reimbursement we are ignoring this risk," he said.

Labels: Australia, donor conception, economics, surrogate motherhood

VOTE

WHAT'S all this about traditional marriage coming back into vogue? Rubbish, if you look closely at the statistics.

While it's true the 121,176 marriages that took place last year represent a record number, that is only reflecting Australia's population growth.

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures published yesterday show the total number of marriages has jumped considerably from the 104,000 unions in 2001. But the crude marriage rate - marriages in a year per 1000 people - is well down on the numbers 20 years ago and has barely changed in the past decade.

"In 2010, the crude marriage rate was 5.4 marriages per 1000 estimated resident population, a decrease compared with 6.9 marriages per 1000 estimated resident population in 1990," the ABS's Marriages and Divorces 2010 report says.

Nor are we marrying younger, the figures reveal, though they do show the trend for marrying later that was prevalent through the 1990s started flatlining around 2005. ...

While the so-called revival of marriage may be a myth, the rise and rise of the marriage celebrant isn't. Nearly seven in every 10 marriages (69.2 per cent) last year were performed by a marriage celebrant rather than a minister of religion.

As recently as 1998 more marriages were solemnised by religious ministers than marriage celebrants.

Labels: age at first marriage, Australia, divorce, Marriage, religion

VOTE

WE ARE living longer than ever, but being indigenous, single or divorced or living outside a city increases your chance of an early death.

The latest life tables from the Bureau of Statistics show an Australian girl born today can expect to live until 84, and even longer if she survives her relatively dangerous first year. An indigenous Australian girl can expect 10 years less. A boy born today can expect 79 years; an indigenous boy 11 years less. ...

Marriage seems to be a big help, with married and widowed and divorced men and women far less likely to die at any age than men and women who have never been married.

The ABS report says married people ''are less likely to participate in risky behaviour and more likely to nurture each other's health through promoting good diet and physical care,'' although it says it can't rule out the alternative possibility that healthy people are more likely to get married.

Labels: Australia, divorce, Marriage, men, race, women

VOTE

The Catholic Church will cancel registration to conduct legal marriages if hand forced on same-sex unions, says Perth's Archbishop Hickey.

If the state forced the Perth archdiocese to officiate at same-sex unions, the archdiocese would cancel its registration to celebrate legal marriages, Archbishop Barry Hickey said last Sunday.

His comments were made to members of the Traditional Anglican Church parish of St Ninian and St Chad in Maylands.

However, whether the Church would bury dead Catholics who had entered into same-sex unions was something of which he was less certain, he said. ...

The archbishop said he thought the Australian Constitution would have to be changed before same-sex marriage could be passed. Nevertheless, if the push for same-sex marriage succeeded, the Church would continue to celebrate marriage as it always had.

“We might be back to the ghetto. We cannot do those marriages at all. And if the law forces us to, we cancel our registration as marriage celebrants. We just don’t do it,” the Archbishop said.

Labels: Australia, Catholic Church, gay marriage, religion

VOTE

Westpac has walked away from financing the “world's biggest brothel”, the proposed 42-room megaplex on Parramatta Road opposite Sydney University.

The bank had come under pressure to abandon its role financing the brothel project when BusinessDay revealed an investor presentation two weeks ago showing Westpac as the senior financier on the deal. National Australia Bank was also a financier. ...

Westpac declined to specific why it had withdrawn its offer but it had come under substantial pressure for its involvement with the deal since it was made public on August 1.

Labels: Australia, prostitution

VOTE

AS Queensland's first child born under the state's altruistic surrogacy laws, Connor Harris's arrival was a moment of unbridled happiness for his parents.

For his biological mother "Rosie" (not her real name), there has been nothing but heartache and regret since that historic day last May 11.

"As soon as the baby was born it all changed," the married friend of the couple said.

"I was crying in hospital when he was having his first bath, I couldn't watch, I thought what the hell have I done?

"I never thought having a child and giving him away would make me feel like this.

"I regret everything, I don't regret Connor, I regret the decision very much, I just wish I'd never done it."

Matt said things changed after Connor was born, with Rosie wanting to be called b-ma (biological mother) instead of auntie Rosie as agreed before the birth.

"We went into this just wanting to be parents and not having a third parent," he said.

When Rosie and the Harrises agreed to go through with surrogacy, the laws had not been enforced and what they were doing was illegal.

"It was a risky thing to do," Rosie said.

"We couldn't get psychological counselling prior to the pregnancy because we were running the risk I could have gone to jail." ...

The gay couple are both listed as Connor's parents on his birth certificate after Rosie agreed to legally transfer parentage in court.

Labels: Australia, donor conception, motherhood, surrogate motherhood

VOTE

ALMOST 500 single women and lesbians have used IVF and other fertility treatments in the past year in Victoria.

Taxpayers are subsidising the women who plan to raise children without biological dads, the Herald Sun reported.

The law was changed in January 2010 to allow Medicare rebates for women who are not infertile to access assisted reproduction.

IVF clinics are reporting a significant number of women accessing their services for the first time in Victoria. ...

Dr McBain said donors had no obligations, no responsibility and no rights - but once a child turns 18 he or she has access to identifying information about their donor.

Melbourne IVF has just launched a new online campaign to attract more sperm donors.

Labels: Artificial Reproductive Technology, Australia, donor conception, Fathers, gay parenting, IVF, motherhood, single parenting

VOTE

Romance isn't dead, it just needs a little cash injection - according to those old romantics known as the Australian Family Association. Late last week, the AFA announced that couples deserved to receive a federally funded ''reward'' for staying married. As AFA vice-president Mary-Louise Fowler put it: ''One innovative idea is the idea of a marriage bonus - if you become married and you remain married for five, 10, 15, 25 years." ...

As those of us bound up in holy matrimony well know, wedded bliss sure can feel like bloody hard work sometimes. But don't just take our word for it. A day after the AFA's suggestion, the Coalition announced that, should it win office, it would provide $200 vouchers for couples to use in marriage or parenting education.

The proposal is billed as a critical response to the "enormous" financial and emotional cost of the "many" marriages dissolving like fairy floss inside a Swedish sauna.

It's true that more than 47,900 divorces were granted in 2007, but what the AFA and the Coalition conveniently leave out is the fact that divorces in this country have been steadily decreasing since 2001, while marriages are actually on the rise. ...

Contrary to what the AFA says on its Facebook page, the "stability, morale, security and prosperity of the Australian nation" is not built solely on the bedrock of marriage. Society also needs justice, understanding and inclusion.

As "Casey" wrote in response to the report last week: "What if I don't want to get married because I am not religious and don't see the point, yet I stay with my partner for 50 years because I am committed to them? Does that mean I contribute less to society and therefore shouldn't be rewarded?"

She makes some good points, but Casey might well have added that until a person's sexual preference no longer dictates whether he or she can legally take the plunge, incentives such as the AFA's marriage bonus must be seen for what they are: disingenuous and discriminatory.

Labels: Australia, committed relationships, divorce, Marriage

VOTE

The line goes like this: "You’ve got millions to spare, we only need one."

There is such a critical shortage of sperm donors in Australia that one of the country’s major IVF companies has taken desperate measures — an advertising campaign targeting men’s ‘‘generosity.’’

In Australia, it is illegal to have a commercial (buy or sell) arrangement for human tissue, including sperm, eggs and embryos, so would-be parents rely on donations.

Michael Chapman, a senior fertility specialist with IVF Australia, said that over the past few years, the number of sperm donors had dwindled from over 100 in Australia to less than 30, largely due to changes to the law governing anonymity.

All sperm donors must agree to provide identifying information so that the child can contact them once they reach 18 — a change that has been gradually brought into force over the past three years in all states.

And doctors cannot bring in sperm from overseas that has been donated anonymously. Chapman said that about 15 percent of all sperm donations in Australia came from overseas.

However, some clinics in Australia import up to 80 percent of their sperm supply from the United States, which is legal as long as the person is not anonymous and not paid for supplying the sperm.

Labels: Australia, donor conception

VOTE

The Anglican Church wants Australians to have fewer children and has urged the federal government to scrap the baby bonus and cut immigration levels.

The General Synod of the Anglican Church has issued a warning that current rates of population growth are unsustainable and potentially out of step with church doctrine - including the eighth commandment "thou shall not steal", Fairfax newspapers say.

Labels: Australia, Christianity, demographics, natalism, religion

VOTE

The Australian Senate today rejected a bill to give equal marriage rights to gay citizens.

The bill was introduced by the Greens but was defeated 45-5, just days before the world’s biggest gay celebration, Sydney Mardi Gras.

Twenty-six senators were absent from the vote, with some of these choosing to abstain because they disagreed with their parties’ official stances against same-sex marriage.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who introduced the bill, said: ”There may have been a group of senators voting to keep discrimination against same-sex couples being able to marry the one they love, but well over one-third of all senators were absent for the final vote, presumably the only form of protest open to them.”

Labels: Australia, gay marriage

VOTE

TWO Labor MPs have crossed the floor to vote against the Bligh Government's plan to allow gay couples and single parents to have children through surrogacy.

But it was not enough to scuttle the Bill which was passed at 8pm, 45 votes to 36 following a marathon debate. ...

[One Labor MP] revealed he had concerns about the practice of surrogacy because there was a pre-meditated intention to separate a child from their birth mother.

But Mr Choi added that he may have been persuaded to support it as a last resort for infertile heterosexual couples but he could not back a Bill which also "pre-destined" a child to grow up in a family with just one parent or with two parents of the same sex.

Labels: Australia, family structure, surrogate motherhood

VOTE

THE divisive issue of gay parenting is set to split State Parliament after the Opposition introduced a Bill to ban same-sex couples and single mothers from accessing surrogacy.

Opposition deputy leader Lawrence Springborg yesterday moved to trump the Government on the issue after it drafted laws to decriminalise altruistic surrogacy for anyone in Queensland, including homosexual couples and sole parents.

But Opposition MPs were angry the issue of surrogacy had been tied to gay parenting and had called on the Government to split its Bill, allowing all MPs to vote separately on decriminalising surrogacy for heterosexual couples and then same-sex couples.

The Government refused, but Labor politicians will now be forced to vote on the Opposition's Bill with a conscience vote expected to reveal deep divisions over the issue on all sides of politics.

Labels: Artificial Reproductive Technology, Australia, gay parenting, single parenting, surrogate motherhood

VOTE

I’ve been mulling over a recent news story from Australia that someone sent to me. It’s a rather complicated tale.

Ms. Fabian and Ms. Halifax (they only give last names in the story) were in a relationship for about seven years. During that time, each of them gave birth to a child. Ms. Halifax used sperm from a family friend, identified as Mr. Dalton. That child is now seven. Ms. Fabian used sperm from an anonymous donor. That child, a girl, is the subject of the litigation. She is now three.

The two women separated when the daughter was 20 months old. At the time they lived in Queensland, but at least Ms. Fabian, and perhaps both, were from New South Wales. Ms. Fabian now wants to return to New South Wales.

Her request to move is being opposed not only by her former partner, Ms. Halifax, but also by a gay male couple. According to the newspaper story, this couple “cannot be named,” but one of them is apparently the donor for the other child, which would mean he is Mr. Dalton. An Australian court has determined that she should not move while the requests of the various parties are considered. ...

I cannot help but contrast this with the evidence women asserting claims to be de facto parents produce. You can find at least half-a-dozen cases that I’ve discussed on the blog–some where the women won and some where the women lost. But win or lose, the evidence offered by the women I’m thinking of is qualitatively different. It’s far more about the hands-on care offered than about the public acknowledgement.

In truth, it seems to me that the men are claiming rights on a basis akin to holding out. Perhaps that is not so surprising. If you go back and read that earlier post (and the ones that follow) you will see this is a historically male path to parenthood. It makes me wonder if this legacy of gendered family law will find its way into the legal regulation of decidedly modern families.

Labels: Australia, de facto parenting, Fathers, gender, gender differences, Julie Shapiro, motherhood

VOTE

A HOMOSEXUAL couple has been granted leave to appear before the Family Court in a bid to gain access to a girl who isn't biologically related to either of them.

The men, who cannot be named, have successfully argued that they are important people in the life of the three-year-old.

The girl, who likewise cannot be named, was not conceived with sperm from either of the men. But her mother was, until last year, in a same-sex relationship with another woman who does have a child conceived with one of the men's sperm. ...

The magistrate accepted the mother's argument that she was "less committed to the non-traditional family arrangement enthusiastically embraced by her former partner". However, she said the mother had encouraged the men to have a relationship with her child while she was with the other woman.

She said the men were "publicly acknowledged as father figures" during the life of the relationship, while both women were the established "mother figures".

Those roles were acknowledged at a naming ceremony, where all four adults affirmed their commitment as "parents" of the child.

The men told the court they were involved in the parenting of both children. They attended the mother's 12-week pregnancy scan, and visited the hospital on the day of the child's birth. All four adults also attended annual gay pride parades, marching in the "family" section.

The men were introduced as "daddy" to friends and family, and were listed as emergency contacts at the child's daycare centre. ...

The child has been living with the four adults in three separate households since March.

Labels: Australia, de facto parenting, donor conception, gay parenting, motherhood

VOTE

Living happily ever after needn't only be for fairy tales. Australian researchers have identified what it takes to keep a couple together, and it's a lot more than just being in love.

A couple's age, previous relationships and even whether they smoke or not are factors that influence whether their marriage is going to last, according to a study by researchers from the Australian National University.

The study, entitled "What's Love Got to Do With It", tracked nearly 2,500 couples -- married or living together -- from 2001 to 2007 to identify factors associated with those who remained together compared with those who divorced or separated.

It found that a husband who is nine or more years older than his wife is twice as likely to get divorced, as are husbands who get married before they turn 25.

Children also influence the longevity of a marriage or relationship, with one-fifth of couples who have kids before marriage -- either from a previous relationship or in the same relationship -- having separated compared to just nine percent of couples without children born before marriage.

Women who want children much more than their partners are also more likely to get a divorce.

A couple's parents also have a role to play in their own relationship, with the study showing some 16 percent of men and women whose parents ever separated or divorced experienced marital separation themselves compared to 10 percent for those whose parents did not separate.

more

Labels: Australia, cohabitation, divorce, Marriage

VOTE