Labour allegedly rushes adoption legislation

The labour party is being criticized for allegedly rushing through legislation regarding gay equality laws that could allow gay couples to adopt through Catholic adoption agencies in the UK. (BBC)

I am surprised that the Tory party are doing the criticizing however, as they appear to be all-for equal rights the majority of the time.

I think that in trying to pass the legislation Labour are taking brave strides towards a better future for UK adoption, and a better future with equal opportunities for everyone. They are taking the risk of losing many voters on this issue, but have the wits to realize that they are also making political history.

This is an unusual, and difficult situation, but I feel that the most important thing for either side to remember is that the children in care desperately need loving homes. If the Catholic church dig their heels in, and close down their agencies, they will make it harder for children in need to find adoptive parents of any sexuality, however if they remain open and refuse to place children with same-sex families they will face breaking equality laws.

I think that a compromise must be reached in this complex situation. It is reported that church and government are trying to achieve one, but I just hope that the agencies will stay open, and that a middle-ground can be found for the sake of the children.

We shall see.

Politics and the modern family

Parenting and family is something of a hot topic at Westminster recently. I can see a definite battle has begun between the Tories and the Labour party. The views expressed by both could have been spurred by a recent Unicef report, which claims to have found Britain's children the "worst off" in a report examining child well-being in industrialised countries. Or in the case of Alan Johnson, his comments could be seen as a response to David Cameron's ‘wake-up’ warnings to absentee fathers.

I think both parties are certainly competing for the spotlight today, however I view multi-party discussions on these issues as beneficial. After appearing in the headlines several times in the last few days, these comments are now being considered by the society in which these issues are located. Both Johnson and Cameron have highlighted important points, Johnson’s references to "alternate" family structures, and their capabilities of being as equally beneficial to child well-being as two-parent structures, are welcome and helpful words. Cameron’s stern warnings to errant fathers are also constructive; I feel that it was about time society was given a jolt forward by those on the outside, looking in.

Whilst we poke fun at a new breed of fathers, known commonly as 'metro-daddies', whose babies are strapped to their chests, fiercely proud of their status as modern parents, they are still few and far between. The other breed of fathers, the absentees, are sadly all too common.