The Herald is telling its readers that the "[Same sex] marriage bill leaves a few inequalities to sort out". But you Pundit readers knew that already

At the risk of being accused of commiting an act of shameless self-promotion ... oh, OK then, in a transparently obvious display of shameless self-promotion ... can I just point out that if you read this NZ Herald article about how

Following the legalisation of same sex marriage, same sex couples will be able to jointly adopt their children. But which same sex couples?

One of the flow-on consequences of the same sex marriage bill shortly to become our law is that it will permit same sex couples to jointly adopt children. Some people think this is a bad thing. I strongly disagree. 

The High Court has just said that straight de facto couples jointly can adopt a child. Great - now what about the rest of the community?

Two posts in a day on matters legal may stretch the patience, but given this previous post of mine on adoption matters I feel the need to comment on the High Court's just released decision in the delightfully named case Re: A.M.M. and K.J.O.

As far as I'm concerned, preventing gays from adopting is as morally repugnant as stopping mixed-race couples from marrying. But our adoption laws are a bit more complex, and outdated, than just this one issue

I took special interest in the recent speech by the Acting Principal Family Court Judge Paul von Dadelszen, in which he called for a fundamental overhaul of New Zealand's adoption laws.