Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, September 15, 2009
Homo / News Ukraine: No Parents Better Than Old Parents, Gay Parents
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Elton John expressed an interest in adopting a 14-month-old HIV-positive child that he met while touring a Ukrainian orphanage. No way, says Ukraine.
John announced his desire after meeting the boy, named Lev, while touring an orphanage Saturday as part of an anti-AIDS charity project. "I don't know how we do that, but he has stolen my heart. And he has stolen David's heart and it would be wonderful if we can have a home," John said.But [Ukrainian Family, Youth and Sports Minister Yuriy] Pavlenko told The Associated Press that the adoption will not happen because adoptive parents must be married and because the pop star is too old.
There are 32,000 children in Ukraine waiting to be adopted and only 2,000 couples are pursuing adoptions in Ukraine right now. Older children and ill children are almost never adopted in Ukraine. According to Pavlenko, only 30 HIV-positive children have been adopted in Ukraine in the last two years.
1
"According to Pavlenko, only 30 HIV-positive children have been adopted in Ukraine in the last two years."
To be fair, this number is entirely meaningless without knowing how many HIV-positive children are available for adoption in Ukraine, period.
(I keep wanting to say "the Ukraine;" what's up with that?)
To be fair, this number is entirely meaningless without knowing how many HIV-positive children are available for adoption in Ukraine, period.
(I keep wanting to say "the Ukraine;" what's up with that?)
2
I think the impulse that Elton has to mentor young talent could be channeled very well into fatherhood. He'd be great.
3
The threat to superannuated pop stars' ability to adopt international orphans cannot be overstated. Understated. What?
4
The way this has been reported in the UK is actually quite heartening, as it's focused on the legal difficulties of Elton's age and the adopting-abroad issues faced by straight celebrities (Jolie etc.), rather than becoming hysterical over the issue of gay adoption.
5
I highly doubt that now due the publicity this baby's plight has been given due to the star status of Elton John, a couple that meets the requirements set by the Ukraine will not come forth to adopt him. Not only him but many of the other children that find themselves in his same situation.
In that sense Elton John served for an importance purpose, highlighting these children's plight to the larger world. At the same time it would've been more prudent of him to give more deep thought of wanting to adopt with his male companion and weight the challenges and psychological and societal consequences that the kid would have to confront latter in his life. In other words consider what's beneficial for the child and not what he wants or thinks would be wonderful for his male partner.
The minister's response was also somewhat vague and could be construed as being supportive of adoptions by same sex partners where such is legal. He could've been more concise and clearly stated that such pairings should not seek adoption in his country to avoid further discussion of the subject and discourage others like elton from seeking it there.
In that sense Elton John served for an importance purpose, highlighting these children's plight to the larger world. At the same time it would've been more prudent of him to give more deep thought of wanting to adopt with his male companion and weight the challenges and psychological and societal consequences that the kid would have to confront latter in his life. In other words consider what's beneficial for the child and not what he wants or thinks would be wonderful for his male partner.
The minister's response was also somewhat vague and could be construed as being supportive of adoptions by same sex partners where such is legal. He could've been more concise and clearly stated that such pairings should not seek adoption in his country to avoid further discussion of the subject and discourage others like elton from seeking it there.
6
I have the solution to all health care costs: especially like those of HIV+ children:
It is FREE to let them DIE.
It is FREE to let them DIE.
7
With a 62 year old prospective dad, the odds are good that the 14 month old will be orphaned twice. Not to mention that John is on a pacemaker, and that drug and alcohol addiction take a toll on one's health. Or that his sincerity can be doubted because prospective parents usually discover their parental urge before they're eligible for Social Security.
8
Yeah, it would be terrible to let a multi-millionaire adopt a kid. Much better to let him live off public support until he dies of malnutrition or something.
@7,
I don't think Elton John will be worried about collecting social security.
Ukraine... isn't that where the nuke plant blew up at Chernobyl? Yeah, they don't seem to have the best judgement over there.
@7,
I don't think Elton John will be worried about collecting social security.
Ukraine... isn't that where the nuke plant blew up at Chernobyl? Yeah, they don't seem to have the best judgement over there.
10
the "not married" part is bullshit but he IS a little old AND has a reputation as being a difficult diva...I'm not sure if I think celebrities adopting kids is that great a thing since it frequently looks like the kids end up getting raised by a flotilla of servants and employees...
12
@5: They've been together for 13 years and John is an HIV/AIDS awareness activist who has witnessed firsthand the fight for acceptance, being on the frontline in the mid-80s in speaking out against government silence and the abuse and mistreatment of those that are HIV+.
Moreover, it's highly unlikely that any other couple would step forward to adopt this child, considering the costs inherent to caring for a child that is HIV+. I can guarantee you this child will spend his last days without a family at this rate.
So we have this couple with the compassion and understanding required to care for this child, the monetary resources, the relationship stability, and all you can think about is that they're a pair of fags, right? It's not about the "right role models" since it's a boy, and it's not about relationship stability since John and Furnish have been together for 13 years. Instead, you insist it's that people will talk and, gasp, might not accept the kid. I mean, 'cuz there's nothing for the kid to be shunned over now, right?
Moreover, it's highly unlikely that any other couple would step forward to adopt this child, considering the costs inherent to caring for a child that is HIV+. I can guarantee you this child will spend his last days without a family at this rate.
So we have this couple with the compassion and understanding required to care for this child, the monetary resources, the relationship stability, and all you can think about is that they're a pair of fags, right? It's not about the "right role models" since it's a boy, and it's not about relationship stability since John and Furnish have been together for 13 years. Instead, you insist it's that people will talk and, gasp, might not accept the kid. I mean, 'cuz there's nothing for the kid to be shunned over now, right?
14
I remember an acquaintance back in the 80's saying that blacks & whites should not marry because the children will be shunned. "Think about what's best for your children -- don't have any!" That's actually good advice for a lot of people, come to think of it...
15
@7: You forget his partner, David Furnish, is 46. A far cry from 62, although I can definitely admit it's still not ideal.
16
I thought Elton John and David were among the first to get married in the UK when they finally legalized gay marriage?
17
@8: Problematic. To point out he's filthy rich and has the resources to set up a child for life means that we're essentially saying that rich, old people can break the rules and get what they want -- as the article stated, Ukranian law stipulates that adoptive parents must be 45 or younger, and neither John nor his partner qualifies -- but poor, old people need to obey the letter of the law.
I sympathize; they'd provide a great home for the kid. But they should have thought of this earlier. It's not like John and Furnish *just* became gay advocates, *just* became AIDS activists, or *just* got married. They married four years ago. I understand many couples need time to consider if they want to raise a family together, but considering their ages and the fact they had a long-standing relationship, they should have been aware that this kind of decision needed to be made sooner. That's the kind of responsibility parents should ideally have, and it's definitely a good trait to show for adoption agencies.
Anyway, I'm sure they'll be able to adopt another child in need somewhere else, eventually. Doesn't solve that one child's plight, but .. seems to happen in these situations.
I sympathize; they'd provide a great home for the kid. But they should have thought of this earlier. It's not like John and Furnish *just* became gay advocates, *just* became AIDS activists, or *just* got married. They married four years ago. I understand many couples need time to consider if they want to raise a family together, but considering their ages and the fact they had a long-standing relationship, they should have been aware that this kind of decision needed to be made sooner. That's the kind of responsibility parents should ideally have, and it's definitely a good trait to show for adoption agencies.
Anyway, I'm sure they'll be able to adopt another child in need somewhere else, eventually. Doesn't solve that one child's plight, but .. seems to happen in these situations.
18
@10,
True, celebrities may not make the best parents; however, better to be adopted and raised by waitstaff and grow up without having to worry about health or food or whatever, than to live feeling unwanted and in poverty.
True, celebrities may not make the best parents; however, better to be adopted and raised by waitstaff and grow up without having to worry about health or food or whatever, than to live feeling unwanted and in poverty.
20
Speaking as someone who's now entering my fourth year of waiting for a child to be referred through international adoption, I can't really work up a whole lot of sympathy for someone who decided he wanted to be a parent last week and can't just pick the baby he wants because he's famous. Trust me, the argument that a single/gay/older/ethnically-different parent is better than no parent carries no weight at all in the politically fraught world of international adoption. And the regulations are in a constant state of change. The adoption forums I frequent are saying that the UK and Ukraine don't even have an adoption treaty, so the discussion of what kind of father Elton John would be is kind of pointless.
I've been navigating this labyrinth a long time, and I've met a lot of people who think they know how international adoptional works, but it's way more complicated than the press is making out.
I've been navigating this labyrinth a long time, and I've met a lot of people who think they know how international adoptional works, but it's way more complicated than the press is making out.
21
@17,
That's very understandable and logical and it's the way things SHOULD be (i.e., the rich should not receive differential treatment simply because they're rich)
However, I'd hate to tell the kid "We need to teach the rich people a lesson, and you're going to be that lesson... sorry it'll suck for you, but it's for the greater good, you understand..."
The reality, although completely unfair, is that the wealthy can already do whatever they want. If they can't do it legally, they'll find a way to do it illegally. Sucks totally, but it's the way it is. Perhaps it's best to just let EJ and partner adopt this kid off the record or something, or make him fund the adoptions of 10 or so other Ukranian kids along with his own, something like that.
That's very understandable and logical and it's the way things SHOULD be (i.e., the rich should not receive differential treatment simply because they're rich)
However, I'd hate to tell the kid "We need to teach the rich people a lesson, and you're going to be that lesson... sorry it'll suck for you, but it's for the greater good, you understand..."
The reality, although completely unfair, is that the wealthy can already do whatever they want. If they can't do it legally, they'll find a way to do it illegally. Sucks totally, but it's the way it is. Perhaps it's best to just let EJ and partner adopt this kid off the record or something, or make him fund the adoptions of 10 or so other Ukranian kids along with his own, something like that.
22
@21: I can totally understand that too. Fact is, even if John and Furnish died the day after the child was flown to England, I know the kid would be in a better situation than in an Ukranian foster home or orphanage, and hell, he'd be in a better position than any kid with dead AND poor parents.
But the other reality is that I find it hard to believe the Ukranian government would take your suggestion (as good as it is), because it's really awful to treat the other adoptive parents that way.
Like Kuzibah up there, these people have often committed a lot of money and time to trying to win the system. I'm not familiar with stories from Ukraine, but I'm guessing the red tape is similar globally for all adoptive parents.
Letting a wealthy AND foreign AND old AND not-legally-recognized-as-married couple waltz in and skip the line will seriously compromise people's faith. I guess it's naive to say they genuinely give a political crap what their citizens think, but I really believe the problem here is that the government is fearful of alienating what few qualified and willing families they have.
I mean, your suggestion makes it easier for so-and-so many families, but it's not a sustainable, long-term solution -- just temporary pacification. What about all the other families in line? The families to come? That rule comes to mind: If you want to cut in line, you'll have to ask everybody behind me.
But the other reality is that I find it hard to believe the Ukranian government would take your suggestion (as good as it is), because it's really awful to treat the other adoptive parents that way.
Like Kuzibah up there, these people have often committed a lot of money and time to trying to win the system. I'm not familiar with stories from Ukraine, but I'm guessing the red tape is similar globally for all adoptive parents.
Letting a wealthy AND foreign AND old AND not-legally-recognized-as-married couple waltz in and skip the line will seriously compromise people's faith. I guess it's naive to say they genuinely give a political crap what their citizens think, but I really believe the problem here is that the government is fearful of alienating what few qualified and willing families they have.
I mean, your suggestion makes it easier for so-and-so many families, but it's not a sustainable, long-term solution -- just temporary pacification. What about all the other families in line? The families to come? That rule comes to mind: If you want to cut in line, you'll have to ask everybody behind me.
23
@21: One other point: My reality is the one that's unfair to the kid (and only unfair in the sense that somebody wanted him and decided to *create* this unfair situation), but yours is unfair to almost everyone else.
24
@16, from what I've read, EJ and David are not married as such. The UK quickly agreed to full equivalent "civil partnership" rights nationally. Gay and lesbian political leaders there didn't insist they be allowed to have it called "marriage." EJ and David were among the first to have a civil service under the new law. Elton's earned quite a bit of shit from US gays by saying our choice to frame what we want as "marriage" needlessly prolongs our own suffering, delaying full protection for ourselves and our families in order to claim a benefit he believes is largely sentimental. (Which makes Ukraine's insistence that he and David can't adopt because they're not "married" kind of interesting.)
25
With so many unwanted children, they need to adjust the laws, and let these children be adopted by loving parents, gay straight, etc. It's ridiculous to not let Elton John not have this child. Elton will find another child, but there's not much hope for this child's future.
26
Psst what they don't tell you is that the orphans are being taken care of by 62 year old Babushki, all of whom ADORE their little sweet heart kids. It's the Ukrainian government that feels 62 year old Gay men are too old, not the children.
What's unfair to the children is that someone wants to give them a family life and some one else wants to deprive those children of a family life, not putting the children in a home with a 62 year old parent.
What's unfair to the children is that someone wants to give them a family life and some one else wants to deprive those children of a family life, not putting the children in a home with a 62 year old parent.
27
Wouldn't it be nice if Sir Elton could figure out some way to do something for underprivileged orphans in Ukraine without handing a winning lottery ticket to just one of them. Rich, old celebrities traveling to the Third World (or even the old Second) to purchase babies is not a wholesome prospect, whether it's Gay Old Elton or Madonna or Brangelina or whomever. The hubris and selfishness of these people, I swear.
28
you girls aren't getting it-
let me spell it out (thought @24 pretty much hit on it)
Dan wants us to escoriate Elton for being an Asshole and disagreeing with Dan's position on gay marriage and now- na na nana - Elton can't adopt the baby because he's not 'married', get it?
Dan thinks Elton deserves not to get to adopt the baby because Elton disagrees with Dan and isn't gay enough- a homo Uncle Tom.
if it also means the kid will die a slow lingering miserable death, well, that's just too bad.
Dan delights in the suffering of his enemies (and anyone who doesn't agree with Dan 110% is an Asshole Bigot ENEMY of DAN) and children often have to suffer in order for Dan to make his point.
If it weren't for the horrible suffering and abuse of children all over the world Dan couldn't do the "Every Child..." and "Youth pastor Watch".
sorry kids, but it's the culture wars and you are collateral damage.
And Dan thinks black women deserve to get AIDS from downlow homo men and die because they supoported Prop 8.
so Slog FanBoys, get on with it-
let me spell it out (thought @24 pretty much hit on it)
Dan wants us to escoriate Elton for being an Asshole and disagreeing with Dan's position on gay marriage and now- na na nana - Elton can't adopt the baby because he's not 'married', get it?
Dan thinks Elton deserves not to get to adopt the baby because Elton disagrees with Dan and isn't gay enough- a homo Uncle Tom.
if it also means the kid will die a slow lingering miserable death, well, that's just too bad.
Dan delights in the suffering of his enemies (and anyone who doesn't agree with Dan 110% is an Asshole Bigot ENEMY of DAN) and children often have to suffer in order for Dan to make his point.
If it weren't for the horrible suffering and abuse of children all over the world Dan couldn't do the "Every Child..." and "Youth pastor Watch".
sorry kids, but it's the culture wars and you are collateral damage.
And Dan thinks black women deserve to get AIDS from downlow homo men and die because they supoported Prop 8.
so Slog FanBoys, get on with it-
29
27, Elton John donates millions to various charities all around the world, as does Angelina Jolie, and Madonna. Why shouldn't Elton be able to take in a child if he wants to do so?
30
@22,23
You made a good point that I hadn't considered. In the long run, people who play by the rules and wait in line to adopt might be turned off to adoption completely if they see the system can be so easily manipulated. There are already too few people willing to adopt, much less adopt a baby with AIDS or other health issues. The celebrities who want to jump the line are very few (Madonna, Elton John, and ? anyone else?) and to give in to them at the potential cost of losing what few other "normal" adoptive parents they have would be worse for the kids overall.
You made a good point that I hadn't considered. In the long run, people who play by the rules and wait in line to adopt might be turned off to adoption completely if they see the system can be so easily manipulated. There are already too few people willing to adopt, much less adopt a baby with AIDS or other health issues. The celebrities who want to jump the line are very few (Madonna, Elton John, and ? anyone else?) and to give in to them at the potential cost of losing what few other "normal" adoptive parents they have would be worse for the kids overall.
31
@29, Elton's charity participation runs to things like society balls, where the rich buy expensive tickets and sit around drinking champagne and listening to terrible speakers and performers. Perhaps he also writes quiet checks. I wouldn't know. But society charity, undertaken for tax purposes, is a different game than real charity, and both are quite different than plucking just one boy or girl out of his situation.
32
@15,
Still not ideal? My father was 46 when I was born; I guess I should have been taken away from him then.
I vastly trust older parents more than younger ones.
Still not ideal? My father was 46 when I was born; I guess I should have been taken away from him then.
I vastly trust older parents more than younger ones.
33
@29- So, what? You should be able to buy kids for any reason provided you pay enough money? One could argue that's slavery (and they do, which is why most countries DON'T have International adoption programs. They simply can't believe foreigners would want children for anything but malicious purposes.)
36
To be fair, the Elton John AIDS Foundation's raised about $150 million, got a nice four-star rating from Charity Navigator, and is pretty smart about grantmaking. The Syringe Access Fund, ACLU's National Prison Project, GMHC, Black AIDS Institute, etc. He's never shy about the need.
That doesn't mean he gets a kid, no, but for a famewhore whose once-gloriously-flexible voice is in ruins, it's very clear he's done waaay better than most.
That doesn't mean he gets a kid, no, but for a famewhore whose once-gloriously-flexible voice is in ruins, it's very clear he's done waaay better than most.
37
@35- You said an exception should be made for people who donate millions to charity. Why do you think so? Is there something about having lots of money that means international treaties or foreign adoption laws don't apply to you? How would this work politically?
38
@25- well said, Rob.
That poor kid would be better off with a 90 year old parent from any developed western country, even if he is far from being rich, then to remain in Ukranian orphanage, where he won't survive for long, and if he manages to make it to adulthood, being HIV pos. he will just be thrown out into the street, unwanted and uneeded, into the life of crime, and will enter the prison system or die soon anyway.
That poor kid would be better off with a 90 year old parent from any developed western country, even if he is far from being rich, then to remain in Ukranian orphanage, where he won't survive for long, and if he manages to make it to adulthood, being HIV pos. he will just be thrown out into the street, unwanted and uneeded, into the life of crime, and will enter the prison system or die soon anyway.
39
The singer also gives large amounts of his personal wealth to charity. In 2004 he donated over $43 million to organizations around the world, making him the most generous person in music for that year – a title he retains year after year.
http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/…
I didn't say he should get a child because he gives to charity, or because he's rich and famous, not even close. Someone else was arguing that he shouldn't take in a child, and that he just try to help all the children in the Ukraine. He does help people all around the world with his personal wealth, and shouldn't be denied a child because he is rich and famous. (And to try to address next argument: I know they are not denying him this child because he is rich and famous.) I am saying that with the tens of thousands of children, and with only a couple thousand perspective adoptive parents, they need to adjust their rules.
41
To add to my post at 39, because I know people will purposely twist what I said. They need to adjust their rules for everyone., not just for Elton John.
42
I don't get it -- since when does a celebrity adopting a foreign child, especially a child with HIV most other people don't want, scare people off adoption? If anything, it seems it makes foreign adoptions more popular, not less. And I think anything that popularizes adoption of underprivileged kids is great -- who cares if the reasons seem superficial? People have babies for superficial reasons all the time.
Rob in Baltimore, I'm with you on this thread. The child is unwanted and needs love; they fell in love with it and want it. Its country's policies have failed it.
Rob in Baltimore, I'm with you on this thread. The child is unwanted and needs love; they fell in love with it and want it. Its country's policies have failed it.
43
@39- Regarding changing the rules. I 100% agree with you. Adoption should not be a political issue, it should be about finding families for children. But it is very political, unfortunately, and if Elton John had spent more than four days learning about the situation, he would know he isn't being singled out. And now the press has grabbed hold of it, it will become MORE politicized, and that's bad for international adoption as a whole. While I've been waiting for my adoption, half a dozen countries have closed their international adoption programs because of foreign and UN criticism.
As I said, I just wish the press would educate themselves.
As I said, I just wish the press would educate themselves.
44
43, I don't think Elton John is saying he is being singled out. What he is saying is that the rules are archaic and harm the children. Elton John will go on, but this HIV positive child will probably languish in the orphanage.
45
Where's the debate? The Ukraine has the 45-year-old limit on adoptive parents but no one worries about the future of children born to parents such as Charlie Chaplin, Tony Randall, David Letterman, and Michael Douglas. Each had children way late in life.
Is it unconventional? Sure. Attending a son's or daughter's high school graduation in one's 70s or 80s is a bit odd, but it isn't sick and wrong.
Elton and David could give this kid a wonderful home and a wonderful life. Heaven knows he'd never want for anything, and unlike Joan Crawford, this couple has real affection.
The earlier commenter is right. Even if the adoption doesn't take, Elton has cast a huge spotlight on an ignored problem.
Is it unconventional? Sure. Attending a son's or daughter's high school graduation in one's 70s or 80s is a bit odd, but it isn't sick and wrong.
Elton and David could give this kid a wonderful home and a wonderful life. Heaven knows he'd never want for anything, and unlike Joan Crawford, this couple has real affection.
The earlier commenter is right. Even if the adoption doesn't take, Elton has cast a huge spotlight on an ignored problem.
46
Dan, did you see that scientist have discovered that it is clear that lifelong same-sex orientation is unlikely to evolve and, indeed, few
examples of life-long pairings in wild animals exist?
That means homosexual attractions are short term and temporary.
And icky.
but there is hope, according to scientist, that you can grow out of it.
examples of life-long pairings in wild animals exist?
That means homosexual attractions are short term and temporary.
And icky.
but there is hope, according to scientist, that you can grow out of it.
47
kuzibah @43, it is very sad to hear about the closing of the adoption programs. More policy failures. I wish you the best in adopting your child, and I admire your perseverance.
49
The same study also said that same-sex orientation is impossible to ascertain in animals and cited no cases of it existing in the wild.
50
46
I read that study on Slog.
It said that examples of same-sex preferences in animals are far more rare than examples of same-sex behavior.
In the only example cited, the damselfly Ischnura elegans, researchers demonstrated that males had to be exposed to all-male groups before developing the habit of preferentially courting other males when they were given a choice between a male and a female.
Their preference for one sex over the other was flexible, and could be switched by manipulating the social context they experienced previously.
In other words, same sex preference was dependant on the social environment and could be changed by changing that environment.
I read that study on Slog.
It said that examples of same-sex preferences in animals are far more rare than examples of same-sex behavior.
In the only example cited, the damselfly Ischnura elegans, researchers demonstrated that males had to be exposed to all-male groups before developing the habit of preferentially courting other males when they were given a choice between a male and a female.
Their preference for one sex over the other was flexible, and could be switched by manipulating the social context they experienced previously.
In other words, same sex preference was dependant on the social environment and could be changed by changing that environment.
51
@47- Thanks, Irena. Right now, the best estimation is that we will become parents around this time next year. I hope that is true.
And it would be nice if publicizing these issues caused a loosening of restrictions, but historically that hasn't been the case. I just hope Ukraine doesn't become even more restrictive. That 2,000 adoptive families number is not because there aren't willing parents, it's because the cost and restrictions are so prohibitive.
And it would be nice if publicizing these issues caused a loosening of restrictions, but historically that hasn't been the case. I just hope Ukraine doesn't become even more restrictive. That 2,000 adoptive families number is not because there aren't willing parents, it's because the cost and restrictions are so prohibitive.
52
i'm curious, why the 45 year age difference limit? i'm sure there's a reason, but can't figure it out. if the father is not feeble, and is capable of the basic physical skills necessary to raise a kid... i don't care so much that he's a gay. any kid would be lucky to grow up in that place. he probably wouldn't even be doing much of the "raising" himself.
as for "buying" children, i know it sounds wrong, but so what? it's not like he's doing it through some underground child-stealing operation. there are a ton of kids who need homes. let him have one, even if it's just to fulfill some domestic fantasy of playing house. it's better than what the kid has now.
as for "buying" children, i know it sounds wrong, but so what? it's not like he's doing it through some underground child-stealing operation. there are a ton of kids who need homes. let him have one, even if it's just to fulfill some domestic fantasy of playing house. it's better than what the kid has now.
53
@15: Um, no. Nowhere did I say that parents of a "less than ideal" age -- "ideal" being an abstract value that is difficult to achieve -- should lose their kids. Nowhere.
In the context of what I actually said, the only thing that remotely resembles your allegation is that yes, according to *Ukranian adoption law*, your father wouldn't be able to adopt a child. Pretty sure it doesn't say whether he'd have to *lose* a biological child or an adopted child he already had.
I chose the word "ideal" because it's commonly acknowledged that most people *aren't it* and it's not necessarily *a bad thing.*
Unfortunately, yes, adoption laws in Ukraine and other places will discriminate against parents for failing a single qualification. But then your beef is with them, not me.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
In the context of what I actually said, the only thing that remotely resembles your allegation is that yes, according to *Ukranian adoption law*, your father wouldn't be able to adopt a child. Pretty sure it doesn't say whether he'd have to *lose* a biological child or an adopted child he already had.
I chose the word "ideal" because it's commonly acknowledged that most people *aren't it* and it's not necessarily *a bad thing.*
Unfortunately, yes, adoption laws in Ukraine and other places will discriminate against parents for failing a single qualification. But then your beef is with them, not me.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
54
@46
That was a really good study.
The researchers concluded that same sex behavior was really really icky.
That was a really good study.
The researchers concluded that same sex behavior was really really icky.
55
@42: I'm not talking about foreign adoptions. The article specifically discusses the problem of *domestic* adoptions. There are too few *Ukrainian* families adopting orphans.
These people have been waiting in line for a long time. I'm talking about the negative dynamic that could occur if you let someone who doesn't *even live in the country* jump the line. I'm not saying outsiders *can't* adopt children from another country, but they should get in line like everyone else.
@45: Good point, except you forget that the adoption process has lots of qualifications that don't apply to bio parents. We don't routinely screen biological parents for income, education, mental health, age, or sex either. But we do for adoptive parents.
Another thing: Your list is all fathers. Remember that there IS some significant social stigma attached to having a child when you're a *mother* of a certain age, because of the higher risks of complications. People judge such women all the time.
These people have been waiting in line for a long time. I'm talking about the negative dynamic that could occur if you let someone who doesn't *even live in the country* jump the line. I'm not saying outsiders *can't* adopt children from another country, but they should get in line like everyone else.
@45: Good point, except you forget that the adoption process has lots of qualifications that don't apply to bio parents. We don't routinely screen biological parents for income, education, mental health, age, or sex either. But we do for adoptive parents.
Another thing: Your list is all fathers. Remember that there IS some significant social stigma attached to having a child when you're a *mother* of a certain age, because of the higher risks of complications. People judge such women all the time.
57
@52- I think the concern is that the parents might become too infirm to care for the child before he or she reaches adulthood, or that they might die. Most restrictions have to do with the parents' (perceived) fitness to raise the children, and in most cases there are restrictions for poor health or chronic health conditions, a criminal or abuse record, unemployment or other financial problems, being obese, and so forth.
Not saying it's fair, but that's how it is.
Not saying it's fair, but that's how it is.
59
I did not know John's partner was that much younger. My remaining concern is that this impulse to adopt is merely an impulse -- because John's desire to be a dad took 62 years to materialize -- and John will soon get tired of the kid. The question becomes, will John's partner commit to raising the kid?
60
OK, OK, Elton gives much to charity. You're right, I DO think the rich and powerful should be denied things, on principle, and I think all pop stars and movie stars should be ground into pet food. Or something.
I guess I don't think one pop star and one orphan is a big deal either way when there are millions like him who aren't getting jack.
I guess I don't think one pop star and one orphan is a big deal either way when there are millions like him who aren't getting jack.
61
Gloria @55: I see where you're coming from, but sadly, it doesn't sound like too many Ukrainians are in line for this child:
"Pavlenko said Ukraine was grateful for the singer's charity work and expressed hope that his desire to adopt Lev would spur the domestic adoption of more children with health problems, which is still rare in Ukraine."
However, we're missing the real point of the article. Elton John's age doesn't matter: even if he were younger, he still wouldn't be able to adopt a child from the Ukraine -- because he's gay:
"Pavlenko [the minister in charge] said Ukraine does not recognize gays unions as marriage."
And:
"Albert Pavlov, head of the Happy Child foundation for orphaned and sick children in Zaporizhia, said he opposed adoption by gays, but called for removing age and marriage restrictions for adopters."
That said, "Yukie Mokuo, UNICEF representative in Ukraine, said that foreign adoptions should be encouraged when no local families can be found."
I agree with Mokuo, and would add that foreign adoptions by gays should also be encouraged -- not forbidden.
"Pavlenko said Ukraine was grateful for the singer's charity work and expressed hope that his desire to adopt Lev would spur the domestic adoption of more children with health problems, which is still rare in Ukraine."
However, we're missing the real point of the article. Elton John's age doesn't matter: even if he were younger, he still wouldn't be able to adopt a child from the Ukraine -- because he's gay:
"Pavlenko [the minister in charge] said Ukraine does not recognize gays unions as marriage."
And:
"Albert Pavlov, head of the Happy Child foundation for orphaned and sick children in Zaporizhia, said he opposed adoption by gays, but called for removing age and marriage restrictions for adopters."
That said, "Yukie Mokuo, UNICEF representative in Ukraine, said that foreign adoptions should be encouraged when no local families can be found."
I agree with Mokuo, and would add that foreign adoptions by gays should also be encouraged -- not forbidden.
62
Sorry, that's Ukraine, not the Ukraine. Argh!
I'd also like to add that of course, local adoptions by gays should be doubly encouraged. What an outrage that needy children are being denied loving homes because of this stupid, stupid prejudice.
I'd also like to add that of course, local adoptions by gays should be doubly encouraged. What an outrage that needy children are being denied loving homes because of this stupid, stupid prejudice.
63
@ 62 And you know what's scary? There are people that bill themselves as "Christians" , like the local poster and village idiot "Loveschild" that actively oppose that. They dont want those poor kids to have families, they would rather keep them orphans just to punish gay population.
Christian love truly rears its head.. what pukes.
Christian love truly rears its head.. what pukes.
64
Forty five seems to be an arbitrary maximum age. It may make sense when considering newborns or infants, but we're talking a fourteen-year-old here. He'll be entering majority in four years.
Ukraine not recognizing a legitimate marriage from the UK is fucked up, but that a not unsurprising sign of the times. Ukraine is not exactly the height of civilization when it comes to human equality.
Ukraine not recognizing a legitimate marriage from the UK is fucked up, but that a not unsurprising sign of the times. Ukraine is not exactly the height of civilization when it comes to human equality.
67
a fourteen-year-old @65 you're right. It's a civil partnership and it's still fucked up. The fact that we're having this conversation demonstrates why gays need the right to marry and not some civil equivalent: Anything that is not marriage will never be equal to marriage.
68
@61: Agreed. The discrimination against gay people is hugely problematic.
"Albert Pavlov, head of the Happy Child foundation for orphaned and sick children in Zaporizhia, said he opposed adoption by gays, but called for removing age and marriage restrictions for adopters."
As sad as Pavlov's aversion to gay adoption is, his call for the removal of age and marriage restrictions may be an even better step. Remember, even though yes, Elton John is gay, technically Ukraine is really rejecting him on the grounds that he is not married in the eyes of their legal system.
Yes, he's not married in Ukraine because he's *gay* but technically he has the same status legally as any het couple or any single het who wants to adopt.
Ukraine's system is definitely *broken* but nonetheless, I can see where this can be excused as a problem of "Sorry, we're saying no because of a legal technicality, not because we're bigots (even though we are)."
If they take *away* the double crutch of age and marriage status, then they'd really be fucked.
"Albert Pavlov, head of the Happy Child foundation for orphaned and sick children in Zaporizhia, said he opposed adoption by gays, but called for removing age and marriage restrictions for adopters."
As sad as Pavlov's aversion to gay adoption is, his call for the removal of age and marriage restrictions may be an even better step. Remember, even though yes, Elton John is gay, technically Ukraine is really rejecting him on the grounds that he is not married in the eyes of their legal system.
Yes, he's not married in Ukraine because he's *gay* but technically he has the same status legally as any het couple or any single het who wants to adopt.
Ukraine's system is definitely *broken* but nonetheless, I can see where this can be excused as a problem of "Sorry, we're saying no because of a legal technicality, not because we're bigots (even though we are)."
If they take *away* the double crutch of age and marriage status, then they'd really be fucked.
71
64 I'm surprised that you would opt to disparage the Ukraine before looking at the legality of what they stated. If one of the requirements they have set for adoption is marriage then Elton John does not qualify since same sex marriage is not legal in the UK. What they do allow and rightly so is for civil partnerships which provides the legal benefits of marriage for gay pairings who so wish to enter them. To recap, all countries that make up the UK prohibit same sex marriage so the Ukraine cannot recognize a marriage that does not exists.
72
Kuzibah, I find myself wondering what part of the world you are in, that there are no children available for adoption in your country.
73
I would think it obvious, Loveschild @71. Elton John's civil partnership with David Furnish is, as you explained, for all legal purposes, the same as a marriage. In other words, it's a marriage except in name.
But the fact Ukraine determined that amongst the reasons Elton John was disqualified as an adopter was that he was not married demonstrates exactly why any form of separate but equal legislation is not equal. It does so by showing how easy it is for an a country or agent thereof to make a distinction when the convenience suits them. This is exactly why gays need access to marriage, not just a technical likeness, before they can achieve the equality they deserve (as does all humankind) to the mainstream.
Ukraine's law is discriminatory, just as if they required separate buses or schools for coloreds and whites, and that deserves, in my opinion, censure. Incidentally, the United Kingdom does as well. I do not agree with you that the UK's allowance of mere civil partnerships for gay couples is rightly so.
I, too, am having a problem not calling it the Ukraine. When did the convention change?
But the fact Ukraine determined that amongst the reasons Elton John was disqualified as an adopter was that he was not married demonstrates exactly why any form of separate but equal legislation is not equal. It does so by showing how easy it is for an a country or agent thereof to make a distinction when the convenience suits them. This is exactly why gays need access to marriage, not just a technical likeness, before they can achieve the equality they deserve (as does all humankind) to the mainstream.
Ukraine's law is discriminatory, just as if they required separate buses or schools for coloreds and whites, and that deserves, in my opinion, censure. Incidentally, the United Kingdom does as well. I do not agree with you that the UK's allowance of mere civil partnerships for gay couples is rightly so.
I, too, am having a problem not calling it the Ukraine. When did the convention change?
74
Ukies hated their homeland being called "the" Ukraine. They thought it was a form of discrimination -- the only other countries with "the" in their name were plurals like the Netherlands, or the Philippines.
75
My linguistically apt buddy studied some Cyrillic languages. She points out they have a very different relationship with linguistic articles, but the closest English interpretation is that the Ukraine implies a region, whereas simply Ukraine implies an identity.
76
@16 Yep, Elton John IS married, or at least has the full legal equivalent. There's this very fun story about how his husband came out to his parents, which was by calling mum and dad a few weeks before the wedding and saying "I'm gay, and marrying Elton John".
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
-
Planned Parenthood Exposed! by David Schmader
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (76) RSS