The Cedar Lounge Revolution

I meant to post this earlier, but events comrades, events… Reading the Irish Times two Saturday’s ago it was almost inevitable that my eye would stray to Breda O’Brien’s column. And with equal inevitability it was certain that Breda O’Brien would weigh in on the High Court case. Breda is gentler and less fluffy than John Waters… but the message?

Well we’re told that ‘it’s simply unjust that fathers do not have an automatic right to guardianship’. Well, yes and no. Circumstances are all. But we’ll get to that…
Then, we’re told that…

The real issue in this week’s case is the right of a child to know, and where possible, to be reared by his or her biological parents. There is also the reality that the child in this case cannot avoid eventually knowing that his mother took a conscious decision to exclude his father from a parenting role.

Two thoughts strike me. Firstly - despite the supposed exoticism of the particular case, this situation isn’t anywhere near as unusual as she presents it. I know of mothers who have also taken quite conscious decisions to exclude for a variety of reasons including drug-taking, fathers from a parenting role. I think that is a sensible and - unfortunately - sometimes inevitable outcome of such matters. Yet curiously, no hand-wringing about that then - eh?
Secondly, and interestingly, she seem less concerned with the context of the family than with the biological aspects. But then, presumably there are distinctions between good and bad families…

She notes that the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network havea ’suggested that family units of three parents should be recognised in these cases’.

She continues, ‘but where would the line be drawn? Why not four parents, if a gay couple and a lesbian couple decided to cooperate in producing children? Why not six, to allow for break-ups and reformed partnerships?’

Erm… well, again, this isn’t entirely novel. In the context of divorce something approaching this is already evident. And she knows that hence she says ‘we already have ample evidence of how difficult children find it to navigate te two seperate emotional worlds of their parents when a couple break up…’ Still, she doesn’t actually reference this evidence. Which is unhelpful. And then to continue ‘ … what will happen to children of three or more parents?’. Well, yes. But then what of the fact that the nuclear family is actually usually embedded within broader social networks. I was largely brought up practically on a day to day basis by my grandmother who lived with my parents. Is that not close to three? How on earth did I manage to ‘navigate’ the inevitable conflicts and issues that three adults living in a house brought up? No doubt Breda O’Brien would say that was ‘different’, but the distinction is not entirely clear.

And then she cuts to the chase…

The simplest but no longer politically correct solution is to do everything possbiel to support the changes of children being reared by biological parents, or carefully screened adoptive parents. That means supporting heterosexual marriage and enabling those who are not married to shoulder the rights and responsibilities of parenthood.

But, predictably she shies away - perhaps in a fit of political correctness - from the logical conclusion of her thoughts. The only way to ensure the above is to prohibit sperm donation or egg donation or gay marriage or whatever. Except that won’t actually stop Irish people from going abroad, as countless numbers of them have already, or gay and lesbian couples entering into private arrangements which result in the birth of children which they will parent (verb, Breda, not just a noun). And unless she’s suggesting some form of truly draconian social measures I can’t see how matters would be markedly different from the current de facto situation.

And the paucity of her argument is found in the following:

It is even worse when the State colludes in the idea that it is acceptable to plan to exclude either a father or a mother from their proper role in a child’s life before the child is even conceived.

Well perhaps. But the State didn’t collude as such, it merely had to adjudicate on the actually existing family which came about as a result of the various events. Not quite the same thing (incidentally what, one wonders would Waters view be of two gay men acting as a couple entering into a similar situation with a woman - would their wheel of life be regarded as coming loose?). And again, what sanction does she suggest for such things? Prison for those involved?
Is that what she is proposing? I think we should be told.