The Adventures of QueerPenguin

Correction

So it would seem I've gone the way of Today Tonight and quoted someone entirely out of context.

In this posting way back in January on the new wave of neo-con extreme right Young Libs in NSW, I quoted Amy Keenan-Dunn (well, as she was quoted from The Mercury) as moving an amendment to condemn single parents, saying she believed it was "far more harmful for a child to grow up with a single parent than it is to grow up with homosexual parents", as part of my argument that Victorian YLs could be just as stinky as their NSW counterparts when it came to poof and single mum-bashing.

Anyways, while I was in Europe I received an email from Ms Keenan-Dunn, who had come across my posting while Googling her own name at work one day (don't pretend you haven't done it once or twice) and wanted to set the record straight.

She wrote:

"While I appreciate that your comments in relation to me were simply drawn from the tiny article which appeared in one of the Sydney dailies (I can't even remember which) and were made without malice, perhaps I would recommend that you read the recent article on the YL conference in The Monthly.

It gives a better understanding of the sarcasm of my amendment, and the rest of my comments (including what I whispered to the person sitting next to me during the debate). My amendment was about taking the p*ss out of the NSW right and their race to out 'right-wing' each other with increasingly offensive comments about the traditional 'conservative' topics, abortion, homosexuals, single mothers, indigenous australians etc etc etc. My amendment and my comments were not reflective of my personal views.

I believe that when the state is the guardian of a child, it has a responsibility to place that child into a home in which it's needs will be met, both materially and emotionally. I don't believe that any two families are the same and believe that these decisions need to be made on a case by case basis. Therefore, I don't believe that any type of family should have a 'right' to adopt, but rather that all families should be *considered* for the privilege of adopting a child.

Please feel free to email or call me for further clarification, but please realise that I'm anything but the homophobic, pretentious brat that you described in you blog."


I was pleased to receive this email as it partially re-ignited the tiny spark of hope I have that there will always be moderate Libs to keep them from shifting to the polar right, although I do believe the battle is truly lost in NSW.

I also apologise to Ms Keenan-Dunn for any misrepresentation.

It's a valid point she raises about determining the placement of children into homes on a case-by-case basis. It is probably true that sometimes queer activists will get carried away talking about the "right" to adopt and forget that's more about what's in the best interest of the child, but the only reason this happens is because it is still so difficult for same-sex couples to adopt children. Yes, in the ideal world all would be "*considered* for the privilege of adopting a child", but this statement implies it's already a level playing field between hetero and homo couples when possible foster homes are considered, and this just isn't the case. In fact, things will only get worse when this government, now it has total control of both houses, re-introduces and passes its failed legislation to ban same-sex couples from adopting children from overseas, re-inforcing the message that queer people are inappropriate parents and dragging out the old "all children deserve a mum and a dad" chestnut.

Anyways, my apologies once again. I must always remember my maxim for Young Liberals: "hate the sin, not the sinner", and never forget that there is always scope for them to be saved.

posted by Sam @ Friday, July 22, 2005