Putin orders ban on adoptions by foreign same-sex couples

President Putin is against the adoption of Russian orphans by foreign same-sex couples, Russian media reveal. The government and the Supreme Court have reportedly been requested to come up with amendments to the law by July 1.

Most likely the order will be fulfilled by the Ministry of Education and Science, which deals with issues concerning orphans and adoptions, according to Izvestia daily. But the ministry says it has not yet received instructions on the matter.

Tensions over the issue arose in mid-February, after the French National Assembly approved a sweeping bill to legalize gay marriage and allow same-sex couples to adopt children.

Soon after that children’s rights ombudsman Pavel Astakhov vowed he would do everything possible to ensure that Russian orphans are only adopted by traditional, heterosexual families.


In February, the Russian Foreign Ministry reported that it planned to verify the possible “psychological damage” inflicted on Russian orphan Yegor Shabatalov.The boy was adopted by an American woman, who lived in a same-sex marriage with another US citizen. However, she concealed her relationship from Russian authorities when she filed the adoption request.

Two years after adopting the boy, the couple split and started a legal dispute over parental rights. Such a relationship is “rather questionable from the point of view of morality” and the child got drawn into this row, observed Russian Foreign Ministry's Commissioner for Human Rights Konstantin Dolgov.

Some Russians however say that banning adoptions by same-sex couples is a half measure. The head of the ‘All-Russian Parents’ Assembly’ movement, Nadezhda Khramova, says a total ban of foreign adoptions would be a smarter move, as “it is technically difficult to verify the adoptive parents’ sexual orientation and their legal status can be a marriage of convenience”.

Meanwhile, Nikolay Alekseyev – Russian Gay rights activist, the leader of the LGBT community – doubts Putin’s idea will have any serious consequences.

“It’s purely a political move aimed to show that the government is consistent in its decisions,” he told Izvestia.

Adoption issues have been in the spotlight for several months, following the government’s decision to ban US citizens from adopting Russian children under the so-called ‘Dima Yakovlev’ law, which came into force in January.

The controversial document split Russian society, as opponents claim that it cut of many orphans from the prospect of a better life – especially those with health problems. Critics said the government was using society’s most disadvantaged children as political pawns as the prohibition on adoption was introduced as a response to the US Magnitsky Act, which banned some Russian officials from travelling to America.

Two separate rallies were staged in Moscow by supporters and opponents of the law.

The main sponsor of the Dima Yakovlev law, MP Yekaterina Lakhova, earlier drew public attention to French adoptions, claiming that only traditional families can offer their children a proper upbringing.

“A child should have a mother and a father, rather than two mothers or two fathers,” she inveighed.

However, she said, the introduction of new regulations would take a while and no one should expect the ban to immediately come into effect.

The Russian Family Code does not allow same-sex marriage, making adoption by same sex-couples impossible. Adoption by unmarried individuals is technically possible; authorities do not require future parents to present proof of their sexual orientation

http://rt.com/politics/gay-couples-report-foreign-973/

Aye, the cultural Marxists and hand wringers won't like me saying this, but I'm with Russia on the broad premise here.

No one would choose to have two bleedin' dad's or mum's, would they? Of course they would not, and there are v good reasons why not.

And don't bother citing me examples of bad parents who are hetro, I know there are, but using that does not make a good case for letting two people of the same sex adopt.

And don't assume, as is often done, that same sex couples would automatically offer up this loving home either, indeed, it is a fact that since the homsexual lifestyle does not lend itself to long term, one to one partnerships, that they would break up at much faster rate, which then means that the kids are then subjected to another tier of grief.

Jack

 

I agree with you on several points.

A child brought up by same-sex parents would have an unfair and unnecessary burden placed upon it. I would always put the mental well-being of the child before the emotional needs of same-sex couples. So should they.

 

Exactly.

There is no use living in some fantasy world in which reality plays no part.

The simple fact of that matter is that a child should not be subjected to that which would clearly be a burden on he or she, in any culture that I know of.

And no, that is not the fault of 'bigots', some things are always going to be a natural reaction, to that which is not natural.

Moreover, it is a fact that homosexuals are far more likely to split up, than a hetro couple, or stray. Not saying hetro's never split or stray, just a lot less. Even homosexuals have admitted to me that not many will probably take up the marriage option, since it simply does not sit with their lifestyle.

 

Le sigh.

Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom

TOM!

 

That depends upon the orphanage, obviously, but any decent orphanage would be better placed to enhance a childhood experience, yes. They're professionals with the child's welfare in mind.

 

It's too late.

They are as good as being Joseph Mengele.

 

In the West we hear so much anti-Russian propaganda it's untrue.The latest, was the prominent case of those two female musicians (remember them) that was used by the West as means to bash Putin. This is actually a guy who stands up for Russian domestic interests and world stability in general. This contrasts with his predecessor, the drunkard and idiotic joker Yeltsin who was in reality in the palms of the West.

Yeltsin was hated in Russia but adored in the West. Hmmm, I wonder why that was? On the other hand, Putin is hated in the West but commands an approval rating that Obama could only dream of. Coincidence? Surely not.

This same sex issue is another example where Putin is right, and, moreover, it is politically correct to say so. Putin has hardly anything in his make-up that resembles the Marxist vision but he is closer to it than someone like Obama will ever be.

This is crucial. The Soviet bashers of which haters of Putin, as opposed to their love of somebody like Gorbochev, are ideologically embedded, might well worth consider taking this on board. Despite it's obvious faults, the old Soviet Union nevertheless maintained a foreign policy counterbalance that kept in check US hegemony.

For this reason alone, we, as a society, could do a lot worse than to return to the old days of the Soviet Union. But that wouldn't be politically correct in certain circles ( did I menton Jack?) even though in truth it is absolutely an example of something that makes total sense.

 

No.

What that would be would be your dream, for reasons best known to you, and other people's nightmare.

Thank you

 

So yes, you're telling me an orphanage is better then a homosexual couple raising a single child. Care to describe how you think an orphanage is better then a homosexual couple raising a single child?

 

No.

We and Russia are saying it is better if it is a man and a women.

End of.

No Nazi's or anything.

Just what sort of family environment is best for a minor.

It is called being responsible.

 

I would love for you to explain, to all us common folk, on how growing up in an orphanage is better then being raised by a homosexual couple. How could an orphanage possible give the time and attention needed for a child?

- - - Updated - - -

And people aren't going to be responsible unless you go around sterilizing them. Anyway you face it as long as there's orphans, a homosexual couple is better then an orphanage.

 

That is not the arguement though, it's a strawman.

 

Did the Russian people vote on this or is this Putin just extending his power?

 

I don't know.

Do you get to vote on every call made in the US?

Why are you getting all upset over this, Tom?

Hmm...

- - - Updated - - -

Utterly ridiculous.

 

For an atheist you're sure concerned with morals.... Like abstinence and homosexuality, why are you concerning yourself over these things?

 

I've explained the reasons so they are not best known to me. You have comprehension problems, clearly. Re-read my post than comment again, ok? You claim to detest the power of the Israeli state (sorry, the Jews, but in reality US hegemony) but don't want anything to do with the very entity (ie the former Soviet Union) that kept it in check. Once again, another case of of your contradictory arguments predicated on your blind dogmatism. How predictable.

 

Huh?

Um....you should read what the god of the OT was like.

Morals he had not.

- - - Updated - - -

Give me all of the ways and years that it' kept it in check'?

And according to you, this is what the US do now, no?

 

Do you practice any religions?

 

Not reallly sure what practice would involve, but let me put it this way.

For any sort of moral or sane barometer, I would leave alone the three desert religions, right away.

Too much sadism, violence, rape, torture, revenge, etc, etc, it is a contaminate.

I do not need that to be a good person, in the main way it matters to be a good person, and that is by being kind to your family and friends, while hoping for, and speaking out for an improvement in the areas of society, that are clearly falling down.

I don't need a book to validate myself, live my life by, or stop me from doing a certain thing, or justify me doing another thing.

For me, that is for the weak.

 

Briefly, yes. A child in an orphanage has a chance of a natural family life by being adopted by a heterosexual couple . A child given over to a homosexual couple has no chance of that. You have to put the child first.

 

Then why do you view homosexuality as wrong?

 

As a wrong what?

 

Natural family life?

Let's be clear here... No homosexuals put kids up for adoption, it's the heterosexuals running things amok making all these babies...

- - - Updated - - -

You view homosexuality in a negative connotation, I'm wondering why you do, since religion plays no part.

 

In the context of a child having parents, I would sooner they had one of each, or even just one good one, to be totally honest.

As we have tried to explain, it is not fair not to factor in how the child will feel, as he or she grows up, in any society I know of. There are other psychological issues on top, which a kid would not usually have to deal with, and for those reasons alone, I would v much prefer two parents, one of each gender.

 

And you rank growing up in an orphanage over a homosexual family that loves their child?