Elton John's adoption hopes have been quashed by a Ukrainian official. Elton was visiting and performing at an orphanage in the town of Makeyevka outside Donetsk as part of the work he does for the Elton John AIDS Foundation, and expressed interest in adopting a young orphan named Lev.
The AP reports that it won't be possible: "The country's Family, Youth and Sports Minister Yuriy Pavlenko told The Associated Press that adoptive parents must be married and Ukraine does not recognize homosexual unions as marriage...Pavlenko also said John was too old. The singer is 62 and Ukrainian law requires a parent to be no more than 45 years older than an adopted child. 'Foreign citizens who are single have no right to adopt children ... and the age difference between the adopter and the child cannot be more than 45 years,' Pavlenko said. 'The law is the same for everybody: for a president, for a minister, for Elton John.' ... Pavlenko said Ukraine was grateful for the singer's charity work and expressed hope that his desire to adopt Lev would spur the domestic adoption of more children with health problems, which is still rare in Ukraine."
There you go. They'll take your money and star power. Just keep your faggotry off their children.
However, he IS quite old to be a parent...
Posted by: Lucrece | Sep 14, 2009 4:26:51 PM
So the child will remain in an orphanage where he and his playmates will be raised by 62 year old women (who are great at this sort of thing BTW) and not by a caring loving adult who happens to be Gay. NOW do you see the logic in that?
Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Sep 14, 2009 4:28:21 PM
Sixty-two is pretty old to parent a newborn. Is it fair for a newborn child to have a parent who may only be around for 10 or 12 years of his/her life based on statistics? Why not adopt an older child or teenager from foster care?
Posted by: Crikey | Sep 14, 2009 4:45:12 PM
...because God forbid an orphan should have two loving, caring, incredibly wealthy parents.
You suck, Ukraine.
Posted by: kepster | Sep 14, 2009 4:52:15 PM
I have to agree. He is much to old to purchase an infant.
Posted by: Timmeeeyyy | Sep 14, 2009 4:55:51 PM
let's be honest with ourselves. do we need a baby, ukrainian, elton john running around? It's a pro-active measure against cattiness.
Posted by: ian | Sep 14, 2009 4:58:40 PM
He is too old - the civil unjustice aside.
That infant would be raised by a nanny.
Now there have to be some cool pre-teens in America who would love out of foster care.
IF John wanted to really help - he would adopt from within America.
I think the celebrity need to adopt "an exotic" is appalling.
Posted by: walter | Sep 14, 2009 5:08:20 PM
>>I have to agree. He is much to old to purchase an infant.<<
: )
Posted by: Keith | Sep 14, 2009 5:29:09 PM
Too old? Bullshit. If Elton only lived until 75-77, that would have been enough time for the child to grow up and well into his mid/latter teens; and if you assume he won't live past average age, there'd still be a pretty good chance of the child having a living parent (Furnish) for years beyond.
All told, that's a HELLUVA lot more parenting than he'll get in a state-run orphanage.
Besides, I'm 100% positive that Elton would have a very capable and qualified full-time nanny so he could continue his charity work and public appearances. He would be there to provide nurture, guidance, and a loving home.
I'd give a kid much better odds of becoming a self-assured, well-adjusted person in the care of Elton John and David Furnish than 99% of celebrity parents who *do* have children, biologically or through adoption.
Posted by: sparks | Sep 14, 2009 5:29:30 PM
Why do celebrities always want to adopt from far-flung lands? Why not be green & adopt locally?
Posted by: mrmnyc | Sep 14, 2009 5:31:44 PM
As if Sir Elton all by himself would be taking care of the child, and as if the child would be left all alone and penniless on the streets when Sir Elton dies.
Posted by: Trog | Sep 14, 2009 5:35:37 PM
he is too old- he needs to get a grip. Adopting a kid at that age is just selfish.
At least they could've both gotten their diapers changed together
Posted by: Matt | Sep 14, 2009 5:39:46 PM
Based on statistics of life expectancy for British white males, Elton would likely be around until the kid is a young adult, and David Furnish (his husband) is, at not yet 47, still young enough by Western standards that he would probably see the kid into his 30's and could quite easily live to see this baby become a grandather himself.
And along the lines of what Sargon pointed out, it's odd they are unconcerned that instead the baby is being condemned to be brought up by a bunch of shift workers whom the child likely won't know in a few years, surely won't finance much of an education or lifestyle, and who may very well also have died before he grows up.
Posted by: GregV | Sep 14, 2009 5:48:25 PM
Walter, why would he adopt from within America? Hes British!!
Posted by: Rovex | Sep 14, 2009 6:06:43 PM
The Ukraines are just plain homophobic Elton John could give this the chance he will never have living in a state run orphanage depending on hand outs And did you get a glance of the ministers title so he is in charge of kids and soccer balls interesting combination. Where is the EU who is supposed to challenge these bigots. Deal with them when show up for money to run their orphanages.
Posted by: walter | Sep 14, 2009 6:31:31 PM
Never too old or too gay !!-- capice?
Posted by: David B. 2 | Sep 14, 2009 6:40:21 PM
Elton John is an insufferable old queen. Serves him right after he denigrated those of us who chose to be legally wed last year. When he speaks and acts, he acts on behalf of Elton, not the gay community. He does not represent me. Plus he's too old and a f***ing bitch to boot.
Posted by: Mike | Sep 14, 2009 6:53:04 PM
Too old? Is that like being too White or too Black to adopt? Remember when idiots used to claim "Same race" parenting was best for the kids and would take the SCREAMING Black children out of the hands of their horrified White parents? The children were traumatized for life by that one event.
Parents are parents at any age and NO ONE tells str8 62 year old men they can not parent a child should they make one themselves. But when a 62 year old Gay man wants to buy one off the shelf (and this is what is happening don't water it down) the Child sellers say No.
Children need love from people, the age of that person matters not, just ask your Grandparents. Ageism is so rampant with Gay citizens it's sick.
Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Sep 14, 2009 6:57:31 PM
Larry King had a child at 67. But such rules don't apply to straight people.
The child is not a newborn.
Furnish is 46. That's more than 20 years younger than King was when he had his last kid.
Posted by: KevinVT | Sep 14, 2009 8:04:25 PM
Well, well well. He can't adopt because he's not legally married? That sucks but, I wonder if he will change his tune now about civil union being the same as marriage?
Posted by: Dairyqueen | Sep 14, 2009 8:16:18 PM
With his drug history Elton John is not exactly likely to be beating the actuarial tables.
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 14, 2009 8:21:44 PM
Would seem to me that 10 or 12 years with an adoptive parent is better than no adoptive parent.
Besides - if EJ/DF adopt a kid - do you really think that kid is gonna end up on the street?
And for all you age-queens - let's come back and visit this subject when you can no longer feign to be "bait" at the local meat rack. Once the bird of youth flies - it don't come back around unless it is to remind you that you ain't got it no more.
If he can give this kid half a chance of making a decent life..then it should be done.
Btw - did you notice that all of the restrictions are on the "parent" side of this equation? What happens if Lev is gay?
Posted by: mark | Sep 14, 2009 8:24:12 PM
Since he is wealthy and has access to excellent health care, he will outlive the average Ukrainian by many years so I don't think his age should prevent him from adopting.
Posted by: Daniel | Sep 14, 2009 10:00:20 PM
Isn't Elton known, even now, for hiring male escorts?
Not exactly a good environment for a child, wealthy or not.
Posted by: Stan | Sep 14, 2009 10:32:49 PM
"Isn't Elton known, even now, for hiring male escorts?"
I think you're thinking of Boy George -- a completely different British singer. Elton John is known mainly for being one of the world's most prolific musicians (perhaps unparalleled) of the 1970's, 80's and 90's.
Posted by: GregV | Sep 14, 2009 11:44:53 PM