Family First has a new website that deals with 'family policy.' As a gay coparent, I thought I'd sit down and assess just how friendly to our families- and others- it really is. Actually, not much. Predictably, banning same-sex marriage comes top of the list. Hey, yeah, that's really going to help struggling families and whanau in Northland and South Auckland dealing with rising unemployment, rising food and energy costs, and family members needing health care and adequate nutrition, isn't it? Other than that, there's a wholly predictable list of Christian Right wish-fulfilment fantasies. They also want to see no-fault divorce, abortion access (particularly under-sixteens- even if it's the result of incest?!), euthanasia, the Office of the Commissioner of Children and our current prohibitions on parental physical punishment of children all gone, or forever prohibited. Conservative censorship policy and anti-nudity laws are also on the wish list. I fail to see what any of these has to do with concrete family needs. Of course, one expects the Office of Commissioner of Children to work alongside the Families Commission, but creating a new Ministry for the Families would merely duplicate the excellent work that these organisations already do. As for conservative censorship policy, shouldn't priority be given to interdiction of bona fide child pornography? Oddly, there are some worthwhile suggestions amidst the garbage. I support greater state housing provision, particularly for vulnerable families and individuals. I support greater financial and specialist assistance to grandparents, aunts or uncles raising family or whanau members. I support greater financial and medical assistance to adult children caring for their aged parents, because that's the situation that my own family of origin found itself in, when my paternal grandmother developed Alzheimers. I strongly agree that there should be far greater restrictions on loan sharks, gambling and liquor outlets within urban communities. On the other hand, there is one that is particularly offensive, stupid and insulting. I want to particularly condemn the suggestion that family assistance benefits should be policed to insure that the money is spent on children's food, health, educational, housing needs and other parental responsibilities. So, rich parents don't neglect their children, do they? Wouldn't a far more sensible suggestion be the addition of food and energy supplements to family assistance benefits to help with food and energy costs for low income families, given grocery price inflation and power costs for large families/whanau? I was also staggered to find no mention whatsoever about drug policies. I realise that Family First has a pathological aversion to acknowledgement that the centre-left does engage in some worthwhile policy passage, but really, what about policing hard drugs and their effects on vulnerable children in drug-centred, dysfunctional families? What about family violence - or don't spousal violence, child battery, incest and spousal rape exist in their fantasy world? What about social, medical and other services for families of intellectually and developmentally disabled children, especially those with multiple disabling conditions and complex needs? What about families that are caring for mentally ill members? Until Family First addresses those glaring gaps in their family policy recommendations, I'll keep up the criticisms. And for the record, what about some recognition that same-sex led and solo parents care for our families, and want the best for our children, too? What about something about the real struggles that low-income families and children face in a society that is marked by harsh social and economic inequalities? Craig Young - 16th October 2008