Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Northern Ireland gay adoption challenge adjourned over “massive mistake”

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Christine Beckett 15 Dec 2011, 12:03pm

    Totally confused by this article… :-(

    chrissie

    1. I know – I read it three times and was still unable to work out what was going on. See Atlanta’s comment below – makes much better sense :)

  2. Chrissie, you’re not alone.

    I’m sitting here working my way thought Russian grammar textbooks, and even they make more sense! :D

  3. I’m glad I’m not the only one. I started losing the will to live halfway through.

  4. Glad it wasn’t just me. I’ll read it again, maybe that’ll help…..

  5. I’m incredibly confused by this …

  6. This article makes no sense whatsoever. Did someone not proofread it, to make sure its meaning is clear?

    What I want to know is whether Iris Robinson be adopting a child?

    No – she’ll probably be f***ing him.

  7. This is a confusing report about a very confusing case.

    Currently in NI, single people can adopt, but only married couples can adopt as a couple – not people in CPs or living together.

    A clause in the 2004 CP legislation means that if you are in a CP, you cannot adopt as a single person. This makes sense in the rest of the UK – if you are going to adopt, you and your partner should both be up for it. It also mirrors UK law for married people. One half of a married couple can’t adopt as a single person.

    But in NI, this regulation means that a person in a CP can’t adopt at all – not as a couple, but not as an individual either.

    In the 2008 House of Lords case, Stormont allowed the courts to think that this was a mistake by the NI government.

    But right before the hearing, the NI govt has now said that they really did intend to exclude gay people in CPs from adoption in any form.

    The NI govt has behaved appallingly, and the Human Rights Commission will now have to rewrite their case.

    1. Commander Thor 15 Dec 2011, 12:38pm

      Thank you. This appallingly-written article should be replaced by your comment.

    2. Thank you Atalanta, admirably clear as always.

    3. Thank you,

      I think it just goes to show how bigoted, underhand and dishonest our devolved parliament is (although I suspect it was heavily influenced by the DUP in this particular piece of christofacism).

      I am disgusted with them.

      1. you only just noticed that the NI assembly is dishonest? considering the sort of people that are in it!!!!

        1. Oh I always new they were dishonest, but this trick is particularly underhanded.

    4. THANK YOU! You did an EXCELLENT job of breaking down a very confusing situation into understandable form.

      Have you ever considered a job writing for PinkNews?

    5. *blushes*

      Glad I could help on this occasion! I have to confess I wrote this very quickly, on the basis of my memory of the 2008 judgement, so please forgive me if it turns out my inference was wrong.

      1. No need to blush – it was very helpful, Thank You

    6. Miguel Sanchez 15 Dec 2011, 3:37pm

      Thanks mate for making sense out of that and writing it so we could understand it. I’m glad it was caught and is being fixed. Gay and lesbian couples can be just as good a parent as straights. And we won’t teach predjustice unlike heteros.

    7. Just on a side note… same sex couples living together can adopt, provided that only one person makes the application.

  8. Another reason why marriage equality matters. It’s clear, CPs aren’t working in NI the way they’re supposed to. Let the Irish republic have it back, no loss to the UK.

    1. Locus Solus 15 Dec 2011, 1:43pm

      As a guy living in NI I can say although Great Britain wouldn’t exactly miss the majority of Northern Irish people; If we weren’t part of the U.K. gay/bi people here would have a much harder time getting by than we already do. :'(

      The problem is we just have farmer Joe retarded politicians, the kind of people who list “have a clean tractor licence” under their qualifications for the job. The British government helps to improve the quality of life for LGBT citizens in Northern Ireland.

      1. “The British government helps to improve the quality of life for LGBT citizens in Northern Ireland.”

        really? I’ve never noticed the British government helping to improve anyone’s quality of life in the six county appendage.

        1. Locus Solus 15 Dec 2011, 4:05pm

          1. Equalization of the age of concent
          2. Gay people allowed to serve openly in the military
          3. Civil Partnerships
          4. Goods and services.

          Do you believe either the fiercely religious south or the “politicians” here in the North would have brought any of these measures in? I personally would have my doubts.

          1. I was speaking of people’s quality of life generally. not just LG BT. Personally I live in the world, not a seperate part of it with issues of my own. I consider the right to walk down all streets, including those still owned by the UVF as the first right that needs to be guaranteed. But as the Assembly is run by people who support sectarianis, for their own ends that won’t happen.

            When were you last in the ‘south’ by the way? this ‘fiercely religious’ tag is a bit outmoded.

          2. Irishman,

            Remind me which country recently brought in a blasphemy law and then tell me again how the “fiercely religious” tag is outmoded.

          3. “fiercely religious south”?

            Been to Ireland much? The Republic is vastly more secular then the North, and its hardly “fiercely religious” given according to the last census the second largest “religions” group was atheist/agnostic.

          4. “Do you believe either the fiercely religious south or the “politicians” here in the North would have brought any of these measures in?”

            Oh, and all those measures ARE in place in the “fiercely religious south”.

          5. Locus Solus 16 Dec 2011, 1:03pm

            “I consider the right to walk down all streets, including those still owned by the UVF as the first right that needs to be guaranteed”

            -“Been to Northern Ireland much?” That’s bullpoop and hasn’t been the case for more than a decade. Have you read about this recently or something? Crime != perception of crime. I’m mixed marriage and happily walk down any street, although I can’t hold my boyfriends hand.

            “Been to Ireland much?”
            -Have indeed: Very bad roads and the vast majority of road users seem unclear about the highway code; speed limits, signalling before turning, stopping in yellow boxes, L drivers actually WITH someone who can drive, these would be things to consider obeying.

            “Oh, and all those measures ARE in place in the ‘fiercely religious south'”

            -Civil Partnerships in the south only became law just 2 years ago, hardly stellar thinking, and you can’t adopt.
            -No recognition of gender identity.

            The south (&north) is not nearly as progressive as you seem to be making out

          6. 1. Equalization of the age of concent [sic] – YES
            2. Gay people allowed to serve openly in the military – YES
            3. Civil Partnerships – YES
            4. Goods and services.- YES

            Ergo, by your own criteria, you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

            More facts, less histrionics and nonsense/irrelevant anecdotal comments about road use (what the f*** was THAT all about?), and you might make a better argument.

    2. As an English guy, my personal view is I dont really mind whether N Ireland is part of the UK or joins the republic … but I do think that should be the decision of the people of Northern Ireland

  9. That’s the most confusing article I’ve ever read. Does anyone have a clue what it’s trying to say?

    1. Atalanta clears things up nicely above.

  10. johnny33308 15 Dec 2011, 3:25pm

    It is always about delay, delay, delay for giving people the rights they already should have had all along. This lets all of us see the truth of our rights….and how keen the govt is to “allow” us our human (Natural) rights….how very nice of them…..

    1. I agree its a delay … and thats wrong …

      However, the delay is to allow the Human Rights side to amend their case given that the government have not been entirely honest until now

      Or at least thats how I read it …

      Regrettable, because rights can’t be granted to us by government (only taken away or restored) … but a sensible decision by the court as otherwise the decision may have been not to restore rights …

      1. It’s they way NI politicians, well the DUP particularly, do things. More true when they have to take decisions for the greater good that their church followers and the Orange Order disapprove of. Rather than take the decision they prevaricate until a judicial review or Westminster forces their hand. Then they play the “he made me do it” card to their electoral base. Cowardly.

        They delayed decriminalisation of homosexual acts in NI until 1982 (10 years after the rest of the UK). More recently Edwun Poots (the same minister involved in this story) has delayed the removal of the lifetime ban on gay men giving blood not by saying no but by “not having come to a decision yet”. If he said no then it could be taken to judicial review but by not taking a decision (and there being no time frame for a decision) he has delayed even that.

  11. Another Hannah 15 Dec 2011, 3:29pm

    Uhhh, isn’t it saying that when the civil partnerships law went through in NI those honourable conservative forces added a bit and lied and misled the politicians that the clause wasn’t there. ie they dishonestly sneaked an extra bit of legislation through? This has to be something close to treason surely?

    1. Not sure treason …

      Certainly misleading parliament …

    2. Not treason. You have to plot to kill someone important like the monarch or the prime minister etc or aid an enemy of the realm.

      This is just lying and misleading parliament par for the course in British politics it seems.

  12. Locus Solus 16 Dec 2011, 10:34am

    Isn’t this a bit like perjury? You know, that thing people go to jail for if this was before a court?

    1. Its certainly misleading parliament …

      but unless false evidence was given in court it is not perjury

  13. Basically… In Northern Ireland, as it stands, if you are an LGBT person, you can adopt a child as a single person but not if you are in a Civil Partnership. If you are in a long-standing same sex relationship you can still adopt, provided that only ONE of you applies. However, the minute you enter into a civil partnership, you wipe out any rights to adopt at all – because you can no longer be classed as a single. person. Basically, the law discriminates against any civil partnership, rather than LGBT indiviuals themselves. Of course, this goes against so many human rights.

    The Human Rights Commission are bringing this case for review on the grounds that, in 2008, an unmarried couple were, for the first time, allowed to adopt a child. This should then have changed the legislation for ALL unmarried couples and would have included Civil Partnerships, however, that has not been put into practise and now the Department of Health are saying that the 2008 case was won on an ‘anomaly’ and..

    1. … was therefore a mistake. The Department of Health is saying that it was always the government’s intention to ban same sex adoption in N.I and so the case must be adjourned so that each side can gather the relevant information to prove/disprove this.

      Hope that helps!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all