Time for prejudice to be cast aside for good

It is genuinely fantastic to see Green and National MPs drafting legislation alongside one another, with the same aim as that of a Labour MP's bill from the previous year. Indeed, Kevin Hague and Nikki Kaye initiating a bill which would legalise adoption for gay couples is great for both its bipartisan nature, and for its ultimate effect of giving gay couples the same rights as everyone else in New Zealand.

It is only over the last year or so that I have become certain on this issue. I used to wonder if there was a justification in opposing adoption for gay couples on the grounds that the child would be subjected to bullying and abuse from their peers.

The first problem with that view is that it's not even likely that this abuse would occur to a great degree in today's world. I know in my year group we are now in a position where only the most crude and primitive students would subject another to that sort of treatment. I would certainly hope that there would be clear condemnation from the rest of our student body in reaction. Society has moved to a point where this sort of mindless homophobia and harassment is no longer a common part of life for youth.

That's not to say that it would be a perfect life for a child. The homophobic jokes that continue to be uttered daily, the use of words like gay and fag as substitutes for stupid and idiot, the clear lack of comfort for some people with the idea of two men or two women loving each other; these would all make life as a child growing up rather tough.

But the crucial point is that when we are talking about adoption, the situation is already a long way from ideal for these children. We're talking about children who face very limited and often very suboptimal options anyway; for some, it is getting shifted from foster home to foster home with no stability. Adoption agencies and the appropriate bodies have the ability to weigh these factors against the difficulties of growing up with the prejudices that will inevitably come from a minority in society towards a child with gay parents. Legalising gay adoption does not mean that children must go to gay parents; it just means that at the point at which they can give a child the best upbringing compared to the alternatives, they can be utilised as that option.

The broader reason why gay adoption should be legalised is one of how we react to prejudicial individuals in society. Do we appease their beliefs in policy, or do we fight them? We should not devise policy which reacts to the small minds of bigots who can't get over the notion that some people have a different sexuality to themselves, but rather we should, as a society, proactively oppose those people and devise policy which reflects that. It would have been easy to say that blacks in America should not have been able to adopt 50 years ago because their children might get bullied for having parents who were subjected to racial discrimination; we now look back on that view as utterly repugnant. In 50 years time, we too will be repulsed by the sentiments of those who consider gay couples somehow less human or less fit to bring up children.

It would help if our political leaders took more proactive and principled steps, rather than politically calculated ones on such an important and intrinsically principled issue. John Key should not wait for the entirety of society to change its views; most polls show the majority of New Zealand citizens already support gay adoption.

Instead of waiting for Barack Obama to indicate his support for gay marriage, John Key should have done so of his own accord when he personally decided what his view was. Instead of saying he's "not afraid to have debates" regarding gay adoption, Key should actively support it.

Instead of being a follower, John Key should start being a leader of scruples and courage.

Legalising adoption for gay parents would be an honourable place to start.