2004/17: Same-sex couples and children: should Play School have televised a segment showing a child with two 'mums'?

Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines: http://www.echoed.com.au/protected/adocs/docsout/99_00/ivftreat.htm - IVF and gay / same-sex couples

Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).

Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis

Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.

play
school
lesbian

Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald

Sections in this issue outline (in order):
1. What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.

2004/17: Same-sex couples and children: should Play School have televised a segment showing a child with two 'mums'?

What they said ...
'I am 60 years old and my lesbian partner and I have loved each other faithfully for 30 years. Together, we have raised her two daughters since they were three and four years old ... And again the bigots come out to play, nurtured by our political masters.
I am sick to my stomach and tired beyond describing'
Letter from Meryl Constance published in The Herald Sun on June 5, 2004

'To intrude that into a children's programme is just being politically correct and I think is an example of the ABC running an agenda.
If they want to run that sort of issue, let's debate it on an adult programme. Don't, for heaven's sake, inject it as though it were a perfectly regular situation into a children's program. I think it was a very foolish thing for Play School to do'
Prime Minister John Howard being interviewed by Laurie Oakes on Channel Nine's Sunday program on June 6, 2004

The issue at a glance
On May 27, the Prime Minister, John Howard, announced his government's plan to amend the Marriage Act and the Family Law Act overtly to exclude same-sex couples from the definition of marriage and to ban them from adopting children from overseas.
On May 31, the ALP announced that it would support the marriage ban, oppose the adoption ban and refer the legislation to a Senate committee.
The same day, the ABC TV children's program Play School screened a re-run of a two-minute segment showing a young girl going to an amusement park with her two 'mums' and a young friend.
This segment sparked significant controversy. Though overseas at the time the segment was broadcast, the Prime Minister condemned the ABC for following an 'agenda' and criticised them for promoting narrow, minority views. Other Government ministers were equally critical, while the federal Opposition leader, Mark Latham, argued that as a parent he would prefer to make the decision as to when his child was exposed to the full diversity of Australian lifestyles.

Background
The ABC's show, Play School, broadcast the story of a little girl and her two 'mums' to its young viewers .
The segment included the following elements: 'I'm Brenna. That's me in the blue. My mums are taking me and my friend Meryn to an amusement park,' the little girl says in a voice-over played over images of two women smiling and waving.
The whole segment ran for less than two minutes.
Brenna is the daughter of lawyer and children's author Vicki Harding. Her father was a gay sperm donor. Her mother's partner is Jackie Braw, also a lawyer. They were approached by the ABC to participate in a Play School segment after a viewer - a lesbian mother - suggested that a family similar to her own be depicted.
The media coverage of the Play School segment began with Herald Sun cadet Liam Houlihan. Houlihan contacted the Australian Family Association for a comment after ordering a copy of the segment. Houlihan's wife had seen the episode and told her husband about it. Government ministers and then the Prime Minister spoke out against the segment.
It has been variously reported that the segment attracted either one or two written complaints to the ABC.
Census figures indicate that there are some 37,800 same sex couples in Australia.

Internet information
The full text of the Government's Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2003-04/04bd155.pdf
The Bill is introduced with a wide range of background materials including an overview of adoption laws in Australia and the position of same sex couples in relation to them.

The Charter of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC), including its obligation to present programs reflecting Australia's 'cultural diversity' can be found at http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/histact/10/5029/0/HA000100.htm

The ABC's Code of Practice - 2004 can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/corp/codeprac04.htm#spec
The relevant section is Specific Program Codes - Avoidance of Stereotypes.

On June 5 The Sydney Morning Herald published seven letters under the heading 'An adults-only view of Play School's relevance'. Six of the seven letters are supportive of the Play School segment. They can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/04/1086203627455.html?from=storylhs

Channel Nine's Sunday program broadcast an interview with the Prime Minister, John Howard, on June 6. The interview included Mr Howard's views on the Play School segment. A transcript of the interview can be found at http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/article_1569.asp

Dr Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute of Colorado Springs has published a series of articles highly critical of homosexual and lesbian lifestyles and their impact on children. The first of this series of articles is titled 'What causes homosexual desire and can it be changed?'
The article can be found at http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html
The full series of articles can be clicked through to from the bottom of this page.

The American Psychiatric Association's fact sheet on 'Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues' can be found at http://www.psych.org/public_info/gaylesbianbisexualissues22701.pdf
The Association's views differ significantly from those put by Dr Paul Cameron and the Family Research Institute.

Arguments against Play School screening the segment
1. It should be up to parents to decide when they discuss different family structures and sexual orientations with their children
It has been claimed that the decision as to when to talk with children about different sexual orientations should properly be made by their parents. It has further been argued that those in a trusted position, such as the national broadcaster, the ABC, should not use their access to people's homes to introduce issues that families may not be ready to address.
Speaking, he claimed, 'on behalf of the majority of Australian parents', Children's Minister Larry Anthony said he was concerned the ABC was 'putting out this kind of content'.
'When it comes to my children, when I want to explain about same-sex couples, it should be up to parents, it should be up to me, not the Australian broadcaster,' Mr Anthony said.
The same point was made by Communications Minister Daryl Williams. 'Australian parents should be able to choose when to explain concepts such as same-sex couples to their young children,' Mr Williams said.
The leader of the federal Opposition, Mr Mark Latham, adopted a very similar position. Referring to his own young son, Mr Latham stated on the Nine Network, 'I am happy for him over the year to be exposed to the many aspects of our diverse society. But I would rather make that choice as a parent and lead him down that path according to our own values and decisions within the home rather than it coming through TV.
So as a parent I would prefer if they could leave those things to the parents rather than do it through ABC TV.'
Some community groups also seemed to share this view. Jane Roberts, the president of Young Media Australia commented, 'Play School could have acted with more caution. The introduction of children to same-sex parents is most likely an issue that parents themselves need to take responsibility for. And it's their decision whether or not to introduce that.'

2. Adult programs are the appropriate forum in which to debate contentious lifestyles
There are those who have argued that while homosexual lifestyles and the rights of homosexuals are legitimate topics for debate, a children's television program is not the appropriate forum in which to do so. According to this line of argument, these are issues that require life experience and maturity and so should be discussed in programs intended for an adult audience and screened in a suitable time slot.
This point has been made by the Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard. Mr Howard has stated of the Play School segment, 'This is an example of the ABC running an agenda in a children's program. If people want to debate that issue, do it on a program like Lateline, but not on Play School ... If they want to run that sort of issue, let's debate it on an adult programme. Don't, for heaven's sake, inject it as though it were a perfectly regular situation into a children's programme. I think it was a very foolish thing for Play School to do.'

3. Play School was not merely reflecting the diversity of Australian life
The Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, has stated that he does not accept the program's claim that it merely intended to reflect the variety of the contemporary world. 'That doesn't wash with me and I don't think it would wash with most ... viewers,' the Prime Minister said.
Mr Howard has argued that same sex couples with children are such a minority that there is no need to present their parenting style to a mainstream audience in the supposed name of representing the diversity of Australian families.
Mr Howard has suggested that rather than simply reflecting contemporary reality, Play School was giving such parenting arrangements undue prominence and so was effectively promoting them. In doing so, the Prime Minister and others have claimed, the ABC is adhering to a narrowly fashionable set of values condemned by its critics as 'political correctness'.
Referring to the small number of same sex couples who rear children and to the supposed bias of the ABC, Mr Howard has stated, 'You're talking about a very, very small number and to intrude that into a children's program is just being politically correct and I think is an example of the ABC running an agenda.'
Commenting specifically on the level of exposure it was appropriate to give a minority lifestyle, Kevin Donnelly, in an article published in The Australian on June 8, sought to indicate how small a minority lesbians and homosexuals and, in particular, lesbians and homosexuals with children actually are.
Mr Donnelly wrote, ' ... only 1.6 per cent of men and 0.8 per cent of women identify themselves as homosexuals and lesbians respectively.
Also .... according to ABS [Australian Bureau of Statistics] 2001 figures ... while there were 2.32 million mum-and-dad families in Australia there were only 2,187 same-sex couples with children. The reality is that gays, lesbians and same-sex couples with children are a very small minority and such groups do not represent the mainstream.'

4. The ABC should not promote values that are at odds with those of mainstream Australia
It has been claimed that the national broadcaster should not endorse values that are at variance with those of the majority of the Australian population.
This view has been presented in an editorial published in the Catholic Weekly Online on June 13 2004. The editorial stated, 'The national broadcaster has a responsibility to broadcast material consistent with community values.'
In further explanation of this position, the editorial stated, 'It is disappointing ... that a children's program like the ABC's Play School should show its young audience a segment clearly intended to convey the "normalcy" of a lesbian family relationship.
Yes, same-sex partnerships that involve children do exist, but they are far from the norm and cannot be confused with or compared to what we know as family life within marriage.'
A further implication would appear to be that as a body funded by the Australian taxpayer, the ABC should not endorse views significantly at odds with those held by the majority of those whose taxes pay for the programs presented.
Mr Bill Muehlenberg, a spokesperson for the Australian Family Association, has stated, 'Taxpayers have the right to know their two or three-year-old kids can turn on Play School and get some basic learning skills without political indoctrination being rammed down their throats.'
Mr Muehlenberg then stated more directly, 'I'm paying for it, every other parent in Australia is paying for it.' Mr Muehlenberg clearly objects to his taxes being used to promote values he does not share.

5. Same sex couples are frequently inadequate parents
It has been argued that same sex couples are less able to rear children effectively and so they should not be promoted as parents.
Mr Bill Muehlenberg, a spokesperson for the Australian Family Association, has cited a study of Australian primary school children from three family types (married heterosexual couples, cohabiting heterosexual couples and homosexual couples) found that in every area of educational endeavour (language; mathematics; social studies; sport; class work, sociability and popularity; and attitudes to learning), children from married heterosexual couples performed the best, while children from homosexual couples performed the worst. The study, Mr Muehlenberg claims, concludes with these words: "[M] arried couples seem to offer the best environment for a child's social and educational development".

6. Children may be influenced to adopt a homosexual lifestyle
It has been argued that featuring same sex couples in children's television programs could lead to some children choosing to adopt a homosexual lifestyle. According to this line of argument positive modelling of homosexual relationships can encourage young people to become homosexual.
With regard to the current controversy, Mr Bill Muehlenberg, a spokesperson for the Australian Family Association, has claimed that Play School, and other shows featuring homosexuals, could 'influence children's sexuality'.

Arguments in favour of Play School filming the segment
1. The ABC is not required to present and endorse only mainstream values.
It has been claimed that the role of the ABC is not simply to present mainstream values and lifestyles.
The ABC's charter states, 'The functions of the Corporation are to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the Australian broadcasting system ... broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community ...'
Those who support the ABC presenting a wide variety of perspectives in its programming note that its charter requires it to reflect the 'cultural diversity of the Australian community'.
Under the ABC's code of practice it is also required to avoid stereotypes. The code states 'Programs should not promote or endorse inaccurate, demeaning or discriminatory stereotypes. Programs will take care to acknowledge the diverse range of roles now performed by women and men.'
It has been argued that this part of the ABC's code allows it to show family types other than the stereotypical family made up of heterosexual parents and their children.
It has further been noted that all taxpayers contribute to the funding of the ABC and that this includes men and women in same sex relationships.
In a letter published in The Sydney Morning Herald on June 4 Meryl Constance commented on objections to the segment showing a same sex couple with a child on Play School. 'I am 60 years old and my lesbian partner and I have loved each other faithfully for 30 years. Together, we have raised her two daughters since they were three and four years old ... My partner and I have both worked steadily and unremarkably all our lives, paying taxes. And again the bigots come out to play, nurtured by our political masters. I am sick to my stomach and tired beyond describing.'

2. The Play School segment was intended to indicate that same sex couples do rear children, not to endorse such parenting
The ABC children's programmer, Claire Henderson, has claimed, 'The through-the-windows segments on Play School provide an opportunity to show children the wider world ... They reflect the contemporary world in all its variety.'
Same sex parenting groups have claimed that Play School was only somewhat belatedly giving children in such families the same sort of exposure that has already been given to children who are part of other minority groups. Tracey Cocks, one of over fifty members of the Lesbian Mothers and their Children Playgroup has stated, 'You really feel it when television show families of various ethnicities and localities, but no same-sex parent families.'
Ms Henderson has claimed that the segment was intended to reflect an aspect of contemporary reality but that it was not intended as a promotion of any one family arrangement over another.
Ms Henderson has stated, 'In the recent episode broadcast, there was a single verbal reference with the word 'mums' and images of the group attending the amusement park. There was no emphasis or focus placed on any social issue. Any such constructions are adult constructions.' Ms Henderson also noted that past segments had included families from a range of ethnic and religious backgrounds. Other through-the-window segments have explored a child's christening, a Muslim family, and a child as bridesmaid at her grandmother's wedding.
Ms Henderson has summed up the program's intention by saying, 'Play School aims to reflect the diversity of Australian children, embracing all manner of race, religions and family situations.'

3. Children are unlikely to be disturbed by such a segment
It has been claimed that the segment was short and was presented in a non-confronting manner. It has further been claimed that the vast majority of pre-school children likely to have seen the program would not be disturbed by it.
This point was made in a letter published in The Sydney Morning Herald on June 4. The letter writer, Norm Neill, concluded, 'If a four-year-old child asks why a girl on TV has two mothers, all a parent has to say is "because they all live together". The four-year-old isn't asking what happens in the women's bedroom.'
Nicole Brady, a writer for The Age, also commented, 'Last Monday morning I happened to be watching that morning's show with my 4-year-old and saw the through-the-windows segment that has apparently so dismayed senior Federal Government ministers, the Opposition Leader and others.
My daughter was very interested in the activities the child, her friend and her two mums were shown enjoying at the park - merry-go-rounds and dodgem cars are pretty enticing to youngsters ...
The segment passed without comment, inoffensive and utterly non-threatening. It was nothing more than a brief depiction of four happy people, two adults and two children, enjoying a day out ...

4. The segment was intended to encourage tolerance
It has been claimed that such simple, straightforward exposure of children to a family where the care-givers are of the same sex can serve to forestall the development of prejudice. It has been argued that children are intrinsically without prejedice and will readily accept a variety of living unless taught to react otherwise by adults.
Nicole Brady, a writer for The Age, has commented, 'In my experience, preschool children have to be taught prejudice. They do not see race or skin colour as anything to be remarked upon, let alone derided. Unless it is pointed out to them, sexual preference is something of which children of this age are utterly oblivious. A person is a person and a potential friend to play with until they are shown otherwise by adults.
Similarly, different families are just that. Different. Most of my children's friends come from homes with a mum and a dad. But some have two mums, some just one and one has two dads. It's never been an issue anyone in their world has felt the need to comment on to them, it's just how life sometimes is these days in the suburbs. No big deal.'

5. Sexual orientation is unlikely to be influenced by such a segment
It has been claimed that sexual orientation will not be affected by the exposure of children to same-sex couples on television. With particular regard to the Play School segment it has been noted that the treatment was so brief and so unemphasised that it could not possibly have an impact on something as fundamental to identity and personality as sexual orientation.
There are also those who argue that sexual orientation is not a choice and that those who live as homosexuals or lesbians in all probability have a genetic predisposition to do so.
In a letter published in The Age on June 5 Wayne Murdoch wrote, 'I had to smile when I read that Australian Family Association spokesman Bill Muehlenberg accused Play School of ... influenc[ing] children's sexuality ... [It] doesn't ring true.
I was raised on a solid diet of heterosexual television and I have to say that all those years of The Sullivans, The Restless Years, The Brady Bunch etc I was exposed to in the 1970s had absolutely no effect on my inborn (homo)sexuality.'

6. Same sex couples do not damage the children they rear
Research on the impact of same-sex parenting on children is far from conclusive. There are numerous studies, which indicate that children raised by homosexual, or lesbian caregivers do as well or better than those raised in more conventional households.
In a letter published in The Age on June 5, Anne Mitchell of the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at Latrobe University has written, 'Why do we fear that young people might ask questions about having "two mummies"? After all, research consistently shows that children in such families are in every way as emotionally and socially well adjusted as those raised by heterosexuals. However, children raised in lesbian-parented households have been shown to have a greater acceptance of diversity and empathy for so-called "minority" and oppressed groups.'
Numerous letter writers to various newspapers have also written to indicate that they were raised in families with same sex carers and suffered no harm.
In a letter published in The Age on June 7 Sophie Earp wrote, 'As the heterosexual daughter of a gay mother, I feel it is an obligation to say this: the best environment for a growing child is a loving, nurturing, supportive home - and that's the only thing that matters.
That is what I had, and I am a well-adjusted, educated, free-minded young woman. No drug addictions, or confusion, or spiteful feelings towards men, or whatever it is that people such as the Prime Minister, with his gay marriage ban, and Larry Anthony are so afraid of .'

Further implications
On the face of it, the objections raised to an apparently innocuous and very brief segment on a children's television program seem a remarkable overreaction. Two happy-looking children with two happy-looking women at an amusement park are unlikely to provoke anxiety among preschool viewers - even when one of the children refers to the women as her 'mums'. The segment placed parents under no pressure to explain same sex realtionships in uncomfortable detail. It was little more challenging than if the two little girls had been shown with a man and a woman who were introduced as the 'mum and dad' of one of the girls. This would surely not have been seen as an occasion that required parents to undertake a 'facts of life' discussion with their children.
However the segment seemed to touch a number of politicians and lobbists on a raw spot. Morality campaigner, Fred Nile, stated, 'It seems no longer is anything safe ... not even the innocence of childhood.' To see the 'innocence of childhood' as threatened in any way by the segment at issue suggests a high level of sensitivity to even the most passing acknowledgment of homosexuals within the Australian community.
Timing is part of the answer. The Play School segment was shown during the week the federal Government had announced its plan to amend the Marriage Act and the Family Law Act to exclude same-sex couples from the definition of marriage and to ban them from adopting children from overseas. Thus the segment was broadcast at a time of heightened awareness of the potential rights of same sex couples and their role as child rearers.
This however begs the question of why the response to the Play School segment was so negative and what lies behind the proposed legislation. Some commentators have suggested the legislative amendments are no more than a cynical manoeuvre on the part of the Government. It has been claimed that with an election looming the Government is merely pandering to the majority of the Australian electorate whom it assumes will support legislation to further prohibit gay marriage and to prevent gay couples from adopting children overseas.
If this is more than a political manoeuvre, what might motivate it? Some of the concerns that underlie fear of and opposition to homosexuals and lesbians are spelt out in the publications of the Family Research Institute of Colorado Springs. The Institute is a research and lobby group dedicated to the promotion of the traditional nuclear family and to opposing both homosexuality and same sex couples as parents. The Institute argues that homosexual acts are a health risk for the individuals concerned and pose a public health risk via the spread of STDs and hepatitis. It argues that homosexuals and lesbians are more prone to psychological disorders and to suicide and that their relationships are less enduring and are more likely to be physically abusive. It also argues that homosexuals and lesbians are statistically more likely to be child molesters and that same sex couples are less effective as parents - that their children are sexualised too early, have a greater likelihood of being victims of incest or paedophilia and are less socially well adjusted. It also argues that children reared by homosexuals and lesbians are more likely to become homosexuals or lesbians themselves.
These are extreme and disturbing claims, a number of which are directly disputed by the American Psychiatric Association.. Yet critics of the Government's position have argued that concerns such as these underlie the Government's proposed legislative amendments and its extreme anxiety over the Play School segment.
On June 17, Ms Plibersek, the member for Sydney, argued in the House of Representatives against the Government's proposed legislation. She argued, 'The adoption provision that the government has introduced is ... offensive because it says that gay men and lesbians cannot be trusted around children. The coded message is that homosexuality is the same as paedophilia. It suggests that children are better off growing up in an orphanage in a developing country than in a loving family in Australia if that family happens to have two mothers or two fathers.'
Ms Plibersek also argued, 'This legislation is also... offensive because it goes out of its way to say that same-sex love is second-class love ...
The message that this sends to gay and lesbian parents in Australia is deeply wounding, but the message it sends to their children is even worse. I know a number of children who have grown up with two mothers or two fathers-usually two
mothers-and they are perfectly well-adjusted little human beings who understand
that their families are different from the norm but who are just fine with that.
What right does this Prime Minister have to tell those children that their families are so abnormal and so dangerous that this government has to override state legislation to
make sure no more families like theirs are created?'
Ms Plibersek claims that research indicates that same sex parents are as effective as heterosexual parents. She says, 'This flies in the face of all credible research that suggests that it is family processes, not family structures, that determine a child's health and well being. That is, it is the love and care within a family, not the gender or sexuality of the parents which is of utmost importance for a child's wellbeing.'
This is surely the rub. Either homosexuality is a damaging lifestyle or it is not. Either same sex parents are undesirable parents or they are not. And if it is not possible to make generalisations in response to these questions, then perhaps each adoption application should be judged on its individual merits.
The Government's amendments have been referred to a Senate committee for further consideration. The committee needs to complete its review of the proposed legislation by October 7. It is to be hoped that it bases its recommendations on substantial research and not on prejudice either for or against same sex couples.
Whatever happens with regard to the Government's proposed amendments, the negative reactions of numerous politicians to the Play School segment continue to appear excessive.

Sources
The Age
4/6/04 page 7 news item by Kenneth Nguyen, '"Two mums" episode sparks the mother of all rows'
5/6/04 page 8 (Insight section) letter from Wayne Murdoch, 'No, it's inborn'
5/6/04 page 8 (Insight section) letter from Anne Mitchell, 'A society of diverse minorities'
5/6/04 page 8 (Insight section) letter from Alan A Hoysted, 'Infiltration'
5/6/04 page 9 (Insight section) comment by Gregg Barnes, 'Play School exposes a nation's fears'
7/6/04 page 5 news item by David Wroe, 'PM accuses Play School over gays'
7/6/04 page 12 letter from Jane Grant and Shona Bass, "Sorry for exposing ourselves, Minister'
7/6/04 page 12 letter from Andrew Canobi, 'Children's rights'
7/6/04 page 12 letter from Sophie Earp, 'Proof of the pudding'
7/6/04 page 12 editorial, 'There's a bear in there - and lesbians two'
8/6/04 page 15 comment by Nicole Brady, 'Politicians should get out more'

The Australian
4/6/04 news item by Barclay Crawford and Patricia Karvelas, 'Two mums one to many for toddler TV, Aunty told'
5/6/04 page 8 news item by Barclay Crawford, 'Gay mothers defend their "normal" family'
8/6/04 page 13 comment by Kevin Donnelly, 'Attack on tradition goes well beyond Play School'
9/6/04 page 2 news item by Barclay Crawford, 'Swing away from Play School'

The Herald Sun
3/6/04 page 2 news item by Liam Houlihan, 'Gay school for tots row'
7/6/04 page 18 comment by Sally Morrell, 'Two mums, ready or not'