Archive Article

And then the Brides Changed Nappies

MAJOR REPORT - APRIL 2003 |

MAJOR REPORT - APRIL 2003

In 1993 the Lesbian and Gay Legal Rights Service, a project of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (GLRL) developed relationship recognition options for same-sex couples in . After a process of community consultation, a second edition of the Bride was developed in 1994.

In October of 2002 we released a discussion paper outlining some of the issues in the laws that regulate and (mostly do not) recognise our families. The discussion paper put forward pros and cons of various possibilities and recommended those we thought were the most practical.(1) The discussion paper was put up on the GLRL website and emailed in PDF form to community organisations, academics and lawyers. We also sent out over 100 paper copies to community legal centres, lesbian and gay community groups and social groups and to policy and social work organisations with interest in, or expertise in, lesbian and gay parenting issues. We included Sydney-based and NSW regional organisations in this mail-out. Copies of the paper were distributed in person at health and human rights conferences and community events such as Mardi Gras Fair Day. We placed advertisements and ran stories in the Sydney Star Observer and Lesbians on the Loose to inform community members that this process was taking place.

This report includes much information from the discussion paper and incorporates the responses of parents, lawyers and policy workers who have responded to the paper, either in writing or through attending one of the six community consultations held by us in 2002/2003. We are also informed in this report by existing social science research on gay and lesbian family forms(2) as well as by the GLRL 2001 general community consultation on parenting issues.(3)

Our starting point is that parenting issues are more of an issue generally for women than men, as lesbians are more likely to be parents than gay men are, and more likely to be the full time residential caregivers to children when they are parents. Acknowledging women’s primacy in parenting issues does not mean we devalue men’s parenting relationships. We believe that the recommendations put forward in this paper work to achieve greater justice for both mothers and fathers.

While we did not specifically address the issues facing transgendered parents in the discussion paper, two transgendered lesbian women did respond to the paper and ask for transgendered needs to be considered. Our focus on flexible non-gender specific forms of recognition and on functional parental relationships rather than biological connection mean all of our recommendations are equally applicable to transgendered people as they are to lesbians and gay men.

In our proposals we aim to cover the broadest range of family forms with the least possible fuss. Our guiding principles are: simplicity, flexibility and accessibility. We want the law to reflect the lived experiences and real needs of members of our communities, and to do so without unnecessary delay, expense or aggravation.

This report includes final recommendations for changes to both state and federal law, and will form the basis of the GLRL’s lobbying efforts until such changes occur in the future. We propose three major changes:

Eleven specific recommendations follow to give effect to these three major reforms. It is essential to note that the three reforms we propose are intended to work together to cover the unmet legal needs of lesbian and gay families. They are not alternatives to each other and we do not consider them to be severable from each other.

1 Copies of the discussion paper can be found at www.glrl.org.au
2 Summarised in Meet the Parents (2002), available on the GLRL website at www.glrl.org.au
3 The report on these consultations is available at www.glrl.org.au