Well, congratulations, I suppose, on recognising that what children in need of adoption need are loving parents, never mind the colour, gender, sexual orientation. But what slightly puzzles me is his motivation in making this statement.
I thought that law was passed already???
As always it’s good to hear the support. The problem with too many adoption agencies esp of the religious kind they focus on the rights of the parents to be fears and not the loving stable enviroment needs of the child.
Such retrictions need to be fully removed to focus on the best parents for children.
His motivation seems to have been to change the government guidelines ( Labour Government ones were still in effect) which had been to show preference for placing children with parents which reflect their background, be that racial, sexuality or financial.
What the new guidelines say is that the priority is that the perspective parent/s be able to provide a loving and stable environment above racial, sexuality or financial considerations.
Once againa the wicked, evil Tories confound the ‘loony lefties’ when a prominent Minister reiterates support for liberal adoption laws and supports the move to make them colour blind.
nice that he avoids saying which party was so vehemently against
And wait, wasn’t Theres May (our joyous equalities minister) behind a opush for a mother and father in laws about parentage?
Yeah, keep squirming and pretend it didn’t happen
@John MJ — “Once againa the wicked, evil Tories confound the ‘loony lefties’ when a prominent Minister reiterates support for liberal adoption laws and supports the move to make them colour blind.”
Don’t understand your point. The comments on the thread are positive and supportive. Using phrases like “loony lefties” is hardly the stuff on reasoned debate. Most people on this site are concerned with LGBT equality, and assess a policy’s merit on whether it promotes equality, not on whether it is introduced by a left wing or a right wing or centre administration.
Probably most people, regardless of their sexuality, do something similar for most policies.
So apart from taking money from the poor to give to the rich, the Tories only other activity is claim for itself all the social advances initiated by Labour… pfff
A “Duty” is far more powerful than guidelines, guidelines mean nothing.
Hear the voices of conservatism… investigating gay businesses, privatising social and health care, social cleansing in housing, etc etc etc…. so thank you very much, but nothing would be miles better than what the Tories are currently doing.
And of course, the religious cults, especially of the roman vareity, would prefer that 64,000 children languish just as long as they stay out of the homes of good, prospective gay parents. They’d rather have children adopted by abusive straight parents than decent, loving gay couples who can often give them a better shot at life than a lot of straights can. Studies in America have proved that many children of gay parents exceed far better in school than a lot parented by straights.
They dont really care about the kids being adopted. They care about assimilation Cameron already said that multicultralism dosent work this is phase one.
I am NOT a tory and think almost everything they’ve done since they’ve got in has been appalling (with the Lib Dems being pretty useless at tempering any of it). BUT, credit where credit is due, the current guidelines are too rigid and this will change things to mean more kids will be adopted. Remember, it would have been easier for Gove to pander to the right wing element of the tory party and made it more difficult for gays to adopt.
Hooorah!! Finally someone with sense to know it’s far more important that a child is brought up in a kind and loving home than one that is apparently fits into better! What has always got me with this is that when a child is born no one questions the colour, religion etc the child is born into, they’ve only done that when a child is being adopted!
This is good news for children languishing in care, waiting for loving homes. Culture is still very important in this world we live in, to help you form a sense of self, identity and stability — but all that pales into oblivion compared to the primary human need for loving person/people to be your family.
Now, this new race-blind take on adoption needs to cut both ways though — no reason to stop black parents or a mixed race couple from adoption a white child.
That happens automatically now. Unless you are a white person or a white couple, you will not be matched witha white child, even if all other markers show that personality and otherwise you would all make a great family.
If race/ethnicity is no longer a driving factor, then no reason to not consider brown & black people to raise a white child either.
I work for PACT and we have been positive about anyone adopting so long as they can deal with the issues most adopted children will come with. Believe me, even babies will need to come to terms with the fact they were given away, abused or worse…The whole ‘race’ thing was around in the 60s and 70s and those adoptees, now adults, tell us it did matter whether or not you looked like your parents and family. For some more than others, like most things in life. The fact is we need more adopters of all backgrounds and for people to be open to taking older children and siblings. Our experience is LGBT people make great adopters so come and join us.
@S Sandhu: I do hope your comments on inter-racial adoption do not indicate that your charity is going to sabotage the government’s policy, as it was reported was done (not accusing your organisation) after the previous government tried to make such adoptions easier.
@S Sandhu: I do not doubt that you are right, that people who were adopted interracially in the 1960s and 70s feel that race was very important and that they would have fared better if they had parents of similar cultural background.
But this is not the 1960s and 70s. Race relations and understanding in the 21st century is vastly different that those times. Even well-meaning white parents back then may not have known how to help their brown/black child understand and cope with their realities, and the social services back then certainly didn’t do a lot in the way of supporting the new families through the tough times. Some of them didn’t even know what to antcipate, as to what questions the children would have, what concerns, what fears….
But again, this is the 21st century where the support and knowledge is there. And the communities these children grow up in will no longer be what they were — they will most likely not be the only child with a ‘mixed’ family that they know or that anyone has ever met. They will not stand out like sore thumbs and always have to explain themselves and their famililes. They will not be barred from knowledge, understanding and participation in the culture of their birth, the way it was thought they should back then.
Things have changed and we must change with it and give children what they need most — someone or some people to love, care for and raise them. A home.
As a linguist, I notice an interesting semantic shift in Gove’s use of the derogatory term ‘politically correct’. He is using it to describe attitudes which EXCLUDE gays, instead of (as is usual) the opposite. How interesting.
Good for him, though. Pity he’s such a crap education minister.