LGBT+ rights, oral presentation, English class, article analysis, gay adoption, Maureen Rice, The Guardian, British government, Adoption Act 1976, homosexuality, family, adoption, Adoption and Children Act 2002
The document is an editorial analysis in the form of an oral presentation on the theme of gay adoption.
The 1976 Adoption Act prohibited unmarried couples from jointly adopting a child. Twenty-five years later, on May 16, 2002, the British government presented an amendment in order to lift the restriction on unmarried couples.
British LGBT couples did not wait for the bill to be passed before applying for adoption. They would nonetheless have to apply as single parents, and accept the fact that only one parent would have parental rights and legal responsibility.
In her article for The Guardian entitled "We are family," dating from July 14, 2002, Maureen Rice echoes to the passionate debate taking place at the time in Britain.
[...] To start her plea, Maureen Rice takes the time to introduce her readers with the opponents of the bill and their ideas. Who are they? They are mainly Church groups, such as the Christian Institute, and members of the Conservative Party. Why are they opposed to the amendment? It all sums up to quote) "old, ugly stereotypes" linking homosexuality with AIDS and paedophilia, on the one hand, and the difficulty, still in 2002, to accept the idea of homosexual families, on the other hand. [...]
[...] "We are family" is a clear advocacy of gay adoption. By focusing on the question of what children need, Maureen Rice manages to go beyond the LGBT-rights issues which divide society. Even if she firmly criticises homophobia and is sorry for the conservative, traditionalist reticence regarding the evolution of society and family in the UK, the core of her argumentation is pragmatic, carefully documented and, although nearly melodramatic at times, written with style. On October 16[th], 2002, the amendment's proposal was dismissed at the House of Lords. [...]
[...] Back to the Parliament, on November 2002, the Adoption and Children Act eventually received royal assent. It came into effect on Dec 30, 2005. Following was the 2010 Equality Act: LGBT people were now protected from discrimination; that is to say, for example, that adoption agencies who could no longer turn applications down based on the fact that the prospecting parents were LGBT. Let's add that today's reader finds that the remark implying that "gay and lesbian partners don't have that option," finds an echo in the 2013 legislation to allow same-sex marriage in Britain. [...]
[...] The arguments put forwards rely on these serious, almost scientific figures; hence they become unquestionable. Maureen Rice chooses meaningful adverbs such as "hugely," "absolutely," "desperately," "there is no doubt" in order to explain why the bill has to pass, contrasting with the other side's "furiously" and "stubbornly" refusing the change. The sentence "But for a minor amendment, it's a major controversy" is to be pointed out. First, there is a clear antithesis between the adjectives minor and major: Much ado about nothing, Maureen Rice seems to imply... [...]
[...] Regarding the new faces of family in the UK, this third argument is a little weak. On the contrary, a new legislation authorising unmarried couples, namely homosexual parents, to be legally responsible for adopted children would first and foremost reinforce the children's rights, namely in case of separation or death of one of the parents. As the Prime Minister's spokesman pointed out, making adoption easier and more open would undoubtedly increase the pool of families that could adopt and therefore diminish the list of children desperately waiting for adoption. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
