Changes to the laws on gay marriage - and how it will affect us

[pinky33]

If you have to change stuff just because I law is being passed I think that's very sad, I also don't see what the point was in your writing this in the first place if I'm honest. Your either fully inclusive or your not. It's just a tad offending that you struggled writing this but don't explain why, it just smacks that its not your belief but you wrote it anyway.

[singingcactus]

I won't be changing anything in my setting. I have been campaigning for equality in all areas for so many years now, and my setting clearly shows this this. My paperwork, my toys/books/posters/etc all reflect that equal means equal.

I am more than happy to let my feelings show on this, and I need to say, ABOUT TIME TOO!! I cannot believe it is taking the people of this planet so long to start opening it's eyes to true and full equality.

[pinky33]

My problem is that if your setting isn't inclusive to this anyway then don't bother, as god forbid us gays have to require a special book, toy etc to be purchased.

[PixiePetal]

Well having had a look through my paperwork it is all fine anyway - unless NCMA paperwork (contracts and child info forms) is non inclusive?!

I won't be buying any extra resources as what I have is all inclusive - even 18 years ago when I started minding I thought it stupid to be told to buy a black doll I would buy one because I liked it or because my DD chose it, not as a token effort It is what is in your heart and mind that counts not what is on your toy cupboard/bookshelf. My heart is inclusive Having sad that - Ofsted don't work with their hearts

[pinky33]

Sarah seems to think this is an attack, so rather than just delete my messages so it would appear I'm feeling guilty, let me just clarify that A it isn't and B if a name wasn't mentioned then it was a sweeping statement.
I will stick by my opinion and my opinion only, if you don't provide resources already then don't just because you think it's a requirement. Non of us in what's perceived as a minority want to be feeling like we're just another reasorce to provide.

[LauraS]

I hope I haven't offended, I certainly haven't meant to. I'm just genuinely a little perplexed about what difference the change from c.partnership to 'full' marriage will make through a childs perspective.

Sorry people

[PixiePetal]

I hope I haven't offended, I certainly haven't meant to. I'm just genuinely a little perplexed about what difference the change from c.partnership to 'full' marriage will make through a childs perspective.

Sorry people

I find children are a lot more accepting of anything than many adults

[Mouse]

I find children are a lot more accepting of anything than many adults

That is so true.

[pinky33]

You haven't offended x x and c partnership going into marriage is no difference other than a title. For some that title is important but in reality nothing changes from what we should be doing anyway.
We've never had mother/father on contracts etc as many children belong to one parent families, we have always used the term family and parent one and parent two, but I guess even this could be perceived as wrong as you could be insinuating one parent is more important.

It's easy to over think everything.

[Helen79]

If you have to change stuff just because I law is being passed I think that's very sad, I also don't see what the point was in your writing this in the first place if I'm honest. Your either fully inclusive or your not. It's just a tad offending that you struggled writing this but don't explain why, it just smacks that its not your belief but you wrote it anyway.

When I read the blog yesterday I thought this as well and felt uneasy with the tone of the op. I wasn't sure what the point of writing it was as we should all be doing this anyway. Whether it comes across in the blog or not, by saying that it was difficult to write automatically made me think that the op doesn't agree with the subject. I'm very sorry if this isn't the case but you have asked for feedback on it and this is how your op has come across to me.

I can understand why you felt you needed to bring the gay marriage law to our attention but felt it should have been more from the legal parental responsibility angle, not how we shouldn't stop a child making 2 boy dolls kiss, surely no cm would ever do that anyway, the way the blog has been worded is patronising and seems to imply many cm'ers are prejudice.

[LauraS]

You haven't offended x x and c partnership going into marriage is no difference other than a title. For some that title is important but in reality nothing changes from what we should be doing anyway.

Yeah, I understand that. For sure, if it were me I would want to be allowed to have a truly equal marriage with everything that entails rather than have a civil partnership but that's just me.

[FussyElmo]

Im sure sarah only meant to inform us and show us different view points. Its alright saying we should do it already but in reality will every cm have considered this.

Im sure sarah only wrote it to help and inform us like she does on any change to cming

Yes I get what your saying about not buying books etc but who says when ofsted will deem that we should. I guessing we all have multicultural toys, disabled resources books that show men and women in positive lights.

[sarah707]

To answer Pinky, I struggled writing this blog because I wanted to ensure the wording was absolutely right without influencing anyone's views or presenting views which might be misunderstood or misinterpreted.

I welcome constructive criticism which is why I had my blog proofed by 2 friends who are gay and a forum member I knew would give me honest feedback. All were positive about the information I am sharing.

I also put it on my blog rather than the forum. It is there to advise and inform and it is absolutely not intended to cause offence.

To cover other comments -

Many, many childminders will have to make changes to their documentation as a result of this change in the law. It is not enough to say 'you should have it in place anyway' - because many probably haven't even thought about it.

As a member says in this thread, she has wording from a Govt produced form that still says 'mother' and 'father'.

If we don’t freely share this type of information freely and openly then prejudices and inappropriate documentation will continue to exist.

It is very similar to the ways in which disability and equality of opportunity provision have been improved over the years - it’s not that long ago - only 20 years - when I registered and was told by my LA advisor to buy a black doll.

In the same way, just because I don't care for a disabled child does not mean I haven't thought about the possible implications if a disabled child or family want to access my provision - and included appropriate resources as 'just there' rather than 'special' or 'different'.

Attitudes are being changed and the general level of provision has improved over many years because of articles exactly like mine which challenge thinking. I don’t see criticism in posts advising members to buy multicultural and diverse resources - they are accepted as good practice advice. This blog is meant in the same way.

My role on the forum is to provide and advise on statutory information in the best way I possibly can. That is what I have tried to do here.

In a lot of instances people simply don't realise the implications - or subjects like gay marriage don't affect them - and they need support to understand what might need changing or adapting.

For every comment on this thread there will be 4 or 5 other members and visitors to the forum who have read my blog and found out about the new law and, as a result, checked their documentation and been made more aware of the ways their resources might reflect our diverse society - that has to be a good thing surely??

Similarly, the mention of the 2 boy dolls was carefully thought out because I wanted to challenge thinking and explain that sometimes people’s perceptions about what is right and wrong will influence the ways they react to children’s play - thoughtful reflection on attitudes which might have, for example, been ingrained over generations will help us all to improve our practice.

It's the same as the commonly asked Ofsted question - what would you do if a boy wanted to wear wearing full make up and a frock during dressing up play? And as a follow up - what would you say to his father if he threatened to remove the child if you let him dress up like that again?

......................

If it continues to cause offence I will of course remove the thread from the forum. Those who have been offended by it - please let me know privately or on the thread if you want me to do this.

However, the information is on my blog not the forum and will remain there as good practice advice for other childminders who might need support to ensure they comply with the requirements.

Thank you.

PS My co-childminder is with the children while I have been writing this reply. They are singing 'Incy Wincy' at the moment. I will go and join them. I will respond to any further comments later this evening.

[pinky33]

My question is though why now? Why not years ago? Us gays have been having children from decades. And this is the point in question,it's not just simply because We can marry,as the LGBT community have been in partnership be it co-habiting, co-parenting,civil partnerships now for years.
Lesbians have been able to both be named on a birth cirtificate as parent one and two for a couple of years.
Why has it taken the word "marriage" to appear in society for people to now think that the LGBT parents need to be recognised when if there was true equality this would have been discussed and implemented already.

[pinky33]

And in response to the thread title "how will it affect us",my answer is it won't affect anyone unless your LGBT and want to say I'm married.
Please don't think I'm being defensive as that isn't my intention ,I find it interesting how people perceive my family set up,but I'm aware text is difficult to interpret so just so you all know I'm calm and have a smile in my face.

[Mouse]

I'm afraid I still don't understand why a change in law is relevant. My comment that we should already be doing this anyway still stands. I accept that not all childminders have thought about, or needed to think about, same sex couples using their service, but it isn't the change in law that should be prompting it. It's something we should all be aware of and while your comments bring up some good points, suggesting we should now be doing this in response to a change of legislation is wrong. We should be doing this in the same way as we consider any family or group of people.

I cannot believe that there are suddenly going to be a huge influx of married gay couples using childcare. It'll be the same co-habiting couples and civil partners continuing to use the service. Surely the fact that the law will now allow them to be married isn't really relevant?

Like I say, I do think your information is good and will prompt childminders who haven't considered same sex families using their service to think about paperwork, but I don't agree with linking this to a change in law is necessary.

As for representing same sex couples in resources, again, this is something we should all consider, whether or not we look after children of gay parents and whether or not the law allows them to marry.

[pinky33]

This is sometimes how it feels

ForumRunner_20130327_153213.jpg

[Helen79]

In a lot of instances people simply don't realise the implications - or subjects like gay marriage don't affect them - and they need support to understand what might need changing or adapting.

I honestly don't think that this affects anyone, or that there are any implications for anyone other than people who want to get married under the new laws. The new law doesn't affect me in any way and it certainly won't change or affect my practice. The only paperwork that we may need to change surrounds any legal rights and parental responsibility forms if this law affects this.
As good practice childminders should already have their paperwork saying parents or carers not mum or dad, this new law doesn't affect this as it should already be in place.

I struggled writing this blog because I wanted to ensure the wording was absolutely right without influencing anyone's views or presenting views which might be misunderstood or misinterpreted.

There's no need for any views or opinions to be raised in regards to this. 'There's a new law, please everyone be aware that your paperwork should say 'parents' not mum & dad' that's all that needs to be said about it. <the following line has been edited out at the direct request of Helen79>

[FussyElmo]

I honestly don't think that this affects anyone, or that there are any implications for anyone other than people who want to get married under the new laws. The new law doesn't affect me in any way and it certainly won't change or affect my practice. The only paperwork that we may need to change surrounds any legal rights and parental responsibility forms if this law affects this.
As good practice childminders should already have their paperwork saying parents or carers not mum or dad, this new law doesn't affect this as it should already be in place.

There's no need for any views or opinions to be raised in regards to this. 'There's a new law, please everyone be aware that your paperwork should say 'parents' not mum & dad' that's all that needs to be said about it. <the following line has been edited out at the direct request of Helen79>

I think in this case its dammed if you damned if you dont. If sarah had written there is a new law please make sure you have your paperwork in order and someone asked what law? Would people have then queried why she didnt say.

I read the blog and it didn't read to me that she had personal issues with regards to the subject In fact most of sarahs blog go into detail - probably too much but thats sarah.

The fact we need a law is shameful but thats to be said about alot of laws.

[Mouse]

I think in this case its dammed if you damned if you dont. If sarah had written there is a new law please make sure you have your paperwork in order and someone asked what law? Would people have then queried why she didnt say.

I read the blog and it didn't read to me that she had personal issues with regards to the subject In fact most of sarahs blog go into detail - probably too much but thats sarah.

The fact we need a law is shameful but thats to be said about alot of laws.

But what specific paperwork is needed by the introduction of a law allowing gay couples to marry? Why would anyone query why Sarah didn't tell us about something that doesn't affect us?

The law itself isn't relevent to childminding or childcare at all. The law isn't saying we have to treat married gay couples in a different way. It isn't directing us to be inclusive. It is a law allowing gay couples to marry and have the same rights as other married couples. There's no need to have any paperwork in order any more than there would be for any other same sex couple who are using childcare, or indeed for any parents. You make it relevent to their situation, whatever that may be.

The blog isn't about getting paperwork in order. It's about stepping up your practice to make sure you're inclusive of married gay couples. The title says "how it will effect us". The new law won't affect us, even if we do look after the children of same sex couples who decide to marry. It's good practice that affects how we deal with parents, not a law allowing them to marry.