…but until nanobots take over our reproductive processes (a move I welcome, as such a breakthrough will purportedly shorten the gestation period to 45 minutes and make delivering a child as easy as unzipping a pair of Levis), all human offspring, by biological necessity, have a father and a mother—and changing the terminology on birth certificates simply will not change that fact.
What it will do, however, is structurally support the activist notion that any state that priviliges a traditional and statistically normative representation of “parents” on its official documents is engaging in an offensive and exlusionary political act. Otherwise, what’s the rationale for making the change—at taxpayer expense?
(h/t Karol)
****
update: Interesting discussion in the comments. From my perspective, this debate is another battle in the nature / nurture war. In the last 40 years or so, the social constructionists (the Trading Places camp) have won a number of important legal decisions—decisions that almost always, at base, privilege the privacy of the mother. I’d like to see this changed, with compromises reached that better represent the interests of the child. And father.
Homophobe! Hater!!!
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL
I don’t see the problem here. My wife’s birth certificate lists her adoptive parents and not her biological ones. How is this any different?
Does it list them as Parent A and Parent B?
Romney says cross out the offending / inaccurate term; what activists want is to normalize the statistically aberrational and to change the form to reflect that change—as if the father / mother coupling is not the natural producer of a “birth.”
Incidentally, I’m adopted as well, and when I had health problems a year ago had a very difficult time tracking down my biological parents (my biological father had passed away, it turns out, but I was able to find my half brother). I believe I should have had access to that information for medical purposes, but that’s a different story.
Or maybe it’s not. Perhaps what we need is a second form for parenting—but for parentage, I’m for listing that information on the birth certificate.
The left is so above biology, human nature, and all those demeaning secondary social effects. It’s all so inhumane.
I had always just assumed without thinking about it that birth certificates were essentially medical records, and only listed biological parents in the first place.
I would have said “your birth certificate” but couldn’t remember how open you were with the adoption thing on the blog. Totally agreed on the medical stuff, I boggle whenever a doctor asks my wife for family history of, say, heart disease and she has to say, “I don’t know.”
Of course it doesn’t say Parent A and B. But why not? It’s an accurate (if less specific) description of the parents. If you had a beef with the birth certificate change ignoring “biological neccesity” then it would seem to follow that would want the birth certificates of adopted kids to list their bio-parents. They obviously exist, being biologically necessary and all, so I see erasing them as a much bigger deal than changing the terminology that references the parents.
I know that can’t happen because of the privacy concerns, and I also know this is a case where we’ll never agree. I just don’t think it’s any big deal, and I suspect that this is a case (like God in the Pledge) where you feel strongly that language (esp. traditional language) is important for its own sake.
You may want to know that a lot more information is available to adopted kids these days. For instance, when we adopt our child, my husband and I will be listed on the birth certificate, but other files will be available to the child should he/she ever want to find out who his/her bio parents are. And there is a separate form that extracts medical histories; these are generally complete for the mother, and sometimes sketchy for the bio father (if he’s out-of-touch with the birthmother, or it’s unclear who he might be). We get that information when we get the baby, so we’re not flying blind in obtaining health care.
Also: our birthmother is entitled to ask for yearly/semi-yearly visits with the child (sometimes in a neutral location such as the agency’s playroom), and she will receive a yearly letter with photos. (If she doesn’t want them, I’ll simply send them to the agency for their files in case she changes her mind.)
I have mixed feelings about the custom of placing adoptive parents on birth certificates. But given how many purposes birth certificates are used for, it’s probably the better way. Otherwise, every time our child applied for a driver’s license or passport, there’d be this whole song-and-dance to be done. This is primarily a record of identity; the medical records can be kept separate.
And in the case of bisexual parents we can use “Parent AC” and “Parent DC.”
And when they start cloning people, the birth certificate will list “Manufacturer”.
Choose one from column A and one from column B…
Gamete A and Gamete B?
What is the point of a “birth” certificate if is not listing a persons biologically related to the “birth?” I would have thought that legally this sort of issue would have been resolved long ago.
It was resolved, but it went the way of the social constructionists.
Attila Girl’s info is heartening, and represents a fair compromise. Not sure if it’s universal or state specific, though.
I think Atilla Girl sums up the reasons for listing the adoptive parents well. It’s really more of a parentage certificate. I agree with her, it should continue to be used for legal identity with other means used to establish genetic/birth identity.
I was unaware that adoptive parents could have their names included on a birth certificate, but I think Jeff’s point on naming the biological parents as being critical for medical info, as well as providing genealogical info for your great-grandchildren decades from now are reasonable premises for letting them stand as their eponymous titles proclaim them to be–cerificates of birth. If not, then why not just change the whole title to Certificate of Parentage?
By including the fields doctor, date of birth and name of child and then the mother’s and father’s names below that, there is the obvious implication that this is the same woman that just gave birth.
Additonally, Birth Certificates are primary documents that are less likely to be lost than concomitant medical records, and, irrespective of the parents’ names on the form, have no bearing on getting a passport or driver’s license–my parents were divorced and her name changed and still I had no difficulty with obtaining either document.
As for nomenclature changes to suit gay activists, where are the feminists on this!?
I mean, how come you get to be “A” and I’m in second place with a ‘B”!?
sexist.
So Matt, do you think taxpayers in Mass should pay to have all the birth certificates reprinted, or is it okay, in those rare statistical instances where a child is adopted (or conceived) by same-sex parents, to simply cross of the “offending” word and replace it with something that better represents the actual set of circumstances.
Me, I believe that insisting that the birth certificates be redone to reflect the wishes of a small minority—which, I must say, boils down to purely aesthetic concerns, as the change is physically made when the offending word is crossed out and replaced—is a political statement meant to forcibly normalize a statistical aberration at taxpayer expense.
T Marcell – It’s not that adoptive parents can be included, they are the only parents listed at all.
Jeff – I don’t think the social constructionists won the battle to have adoptive parents put on birth certificates. Obviously they were happy with the outcome, but I think it was privacy advocates that actually fought the battle. I could be wrong, it would be interesting to read up on the history of the decision.
No, I don’t think they should round up all blank certificates that are in the wild and reprint them. I’m not at all sure that the gay activists are even requesting that. I don’t see a problem, however, with printing the next batch of certs with the A/B nomenclature.
The mechanism that allows the privacy argument to hold for the mother and not for the “child” is that the mother is a person and the child is, as yet, legally (in most instances) not. Though we’re starting to see changes.
To be clear: I’ve never thought of my adoptive parents as anything less than my parents; but they are not my biological mother and father, and I was a person made by those two parties—not by my adoptive parents.
Re: the actual certificates: if it isn’t a big deal, why insist on the change? It will surely offend those with a traditional view of the family, and for what purpose?
The problem with A/B nomenclature is that it is entirely lacking in MEANING. Person A and Person B “gained” Fetus C on such and such a day.
The terms “mother” and “father” are not simply constructs of the heteronormative culture.
Jeff, I’m glad you found this important enough to blog on. I did too. I think it is extremely problematic for the primary document not to reflect the biological parents for a number of reasons, the most likely to occur in a person’s life being medical need.
PS I’d try to trackback on the two posts from today, but Heloscan won’t let me for some reason. It’s been an ongoing problem, but that’s the joy of technology.
For the purpose of offending those with a traditional view of the family. I don’t agree with it, but clearly the rights movements have decided that if they can’t convince you then you’re a bigot and they’ll be loud and obnoxious just to piss you off.
The adoptive parents have a sort of privacy argument, also. I don’t know when your parents told you you were adopted, but some children grow well into adulthood without finding out. Hell, some of them probably never do. So I would think that there are a lot of adopters that like having the evidence of the biological parents erased.
Whether that’s right or wrong I just don’t know.
Carin – But on the birth certificate of an adopted child they are just constructs, they just happen to be the same sex (usually) as the real parents.
I also disagree that A/B lacks meaning. It has less meaning, sure, but the mother and the father are both still parents.
Which order you put them in is still problematic.
Turning “Mother” and “Father” into “A” and “B” – how does it not lack meaning? It is entirely detached from any specific meaning- since it could mean anything. Which ( I suppose) is why it is being suggested.
Somewhere, in an apartment, house, or condo – decorated immaculately, of course – The Platonic Form of a Gay Guy Who Is Smarter Than Identity Politics Require Him to Be is saying to himself, “Boy, that sounds dumb, but I’d better shut up about it or I’ll piss somebody off.” And then he gets dressed to attend a Pink Pistols meeting at the range.
“There should be no doubt in Massachusetts that Massachusetts records should accurately reflect the true nature of Massachusetts families and that includes same-sex couples,” said Michele Granda, staff attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.
Fine. Switch to A and B, but the gender “check box” for A and B must remain for the sake of accuracy.
Perhaps even the “Pitcher” and “Catcher” distinction should be made as well.
This is an outright attempt to normalize homosexual couples, toward the goal of acheiving normalization of homosexual “marriage.” Parent A and B is hardly a step removed from “I now pronounce you Spouse A and Spouse B.”
It is part of an overall effort to completely delegitimize in-born and socially traditional gender roles, all at the call of the relatively small percentage of people who don’t, or choose not to, fit such basic roles. In my view, deviations from norms should be tolerated, but not free from criticism. Societies depend on a degree of homogeneity. To loosely quote Mark Steyn speaking on the multi-culti debate, it is not enough, societally speaking, to have little in common apart from the fact you have little in common. As such, deviations from norms should not be permitted to redefine said norms to the lowest common denominator or hijack the language used to describe them.
After all, what would the “whaddya got?” crowd of rebels rebel against once language and societal values are redrawn to such a degree of vagueness that no one could possibly object to one’s rejection of them?
Carin – It’s on a birth certificate, so it means “parent.” Like I said, not meaningless, just less meaningful.
If the A/B thing bothers people, then just make both boxes say mother/father. Then circle one or the other.
I think Jeff’s point on naming the biological parents as being critical for medical info, as well as providing genealogical info for your great-grandchildren decades from now are reasonable premises for letting them stand as their eponymous titles proclaim them to be–cerificates of birth.
So when genealogical charts are constructed, these should reflect biological parents rather than the people who actually raised someone? This has never been the case in the past. The charts we have reflect actual family structures, not any kind of idealized genetic “purity.”
What you’re proposing is not about “letting them stand.” It’s a revolutionary notion that invades the privacy of birthmothers and birthfathers, and makes them less likely to choose adoption.
I’ve dated four adoptees, one of whom I lived with for several years. In the case of my ex-boyfriend, he had two ethnicities: that of his parents (German-American), and that of his biological ancestry (English and Polish).
My friends who adopted Korean children are of a different race than their kids. But the children are theirs; they are raising them.
Here’s another one for those of you who think a birth certificate should be a medical document rather than a legal one: a woman’s husband is the presumptive father of any children she conceives. Therefore, if a woman has an affair, her husband is the legal father of anyone conceived thereby. No matter what.
Your notions of genetic purity are pipe dreams. The lines you want to maintain have always been smudged, theoretical ones.
While it certainly violates the privacy of the birth mother (and, theoretically, the birth father—though he doesn’t have much choice in the matter if the woman chooses to end the pregnancy or give the child up for adoption), it likewise shields the child from genetic and health information—at least, in states that don’t require medical histories and the like.
As I say, if medical histories are standard (they weren’t when I was put up for adoption), I have no problem with having that info included on a separate document.
My adoptive parents are my parents. But they aren’t my birth parents.
Another thought:
What do you call a deadbeat dad? Being a father is different from being a parent.
How do you help ensure second parents legal status is recognized?
How about a form that is updated to reflect advances in medicine? e.g. Mother = Mary, Father = Unknown, Second parent = Joseph
Or, will such a form stigmatize one parent babies/mothers/parents?
Oy.
What about the offense this causes? Why is it when Whites / Jews / Christians are offended, tough shit, but when .0000005% of the real world gets irritated at something all hell should be let loose?
I just had my 2nd daughter. I am her FATHER. I am my wife’s HUSBAND. Not the “labor coach”, not the “significant other”, not Parent A or B. Why should my feelings be trampled (along with 99.999% of the rest of us) for such an insignificant minority?
Jeff, a lot of the babies at our agency have to be in foster homes for months at a time before they can be placed with their adoptive parents. Guess why? Because there is a possible father out there that hasn’t yet been reached, and they need him to sign the papers (or officially refuse).
If the father is unknown, ads have to be placed in newspapers, alerting the potential father that this adoption is going to take place.
I’m afraid you’re not going to get a lot of sympathy from me about the rights of biological fathers, for a whole batch of reasons. One of which is that the biological facts on the ground have tended to give men more options than women: if parenthood is convenient, the man has always had the option of simply leaving. (And they’ve done so, for thousands of years.)
Another reason?–when I had my abortion, it was because the man I was living with at the time insisted. Had I held my ground, he would have made my life miserable. (Yes, I know. I should have left. But I was 20, and dependent on him in multiple ways.) I say men often have too much power in these situations.
The way things are set up biologically aren’t fair to either sex: on the one hand, women get to have kids. On the other hand, women have to have kids. Both sexes have plenty to bitch about.
Well, I suppose we all have our stories. My biological father evidently, didn’t know about me at the time of my birth. Not that it would have made a difference, in all likelihood.
To your argument that biological facts on the ground have tended to give “men more options”—well, I’m not talking about “men.” I’m talking about the father of a child that is half his. He is an individual. And I won’t suspend his rights on the pretext that those with genitalia like he has have experienced historical priviliges.
It seems some of the arguments brought up support the idea that since it isn’t a perfect syste (my sister didn’t even put the father’s name on her son’s birth certificate – it was left blank), we should throw the whole system out. Or let anything go. While I understand the need for ABC’s in the case of adoption, from what I read, the original (and biologically accurate) still exists- albeit sealed. Is the not the practice done now?
A Sharp and A Flat.
So when genealogical charts are constructed, these should reflect biological parents rather than the people who actually raised someone?
Genealogy. Genealogy. Genes. Genetics.
Biology.
Good genealogy software allows multiple relationships to be shown—biological as well as step- and adoptive parents. But the point of genealogy (and I’m surprised I have to point this out) is actual ancestors and descendants.
Adopted children who don’t mind not knowing who their own biological parents are, and the heritage thereof, are under no obligation to seek such information. But if I were seeking my ancestral heritage, and came up against a roadblock because one of my ancestors was adopted, I’d be miffed if I couldn’t find a way around it.
Here’s the thing, McGehee. Even if you want to trace your genes back through time, I’d bet you get off track pretty quick. How many men are “fathers” of children that were produced during affairs their wives were having?
Regardless, when people put children up for adoption I’m pretty sure their last concern is some hypothetical future person and their dead-end family tree.
Hm. I have a friend whose children were conceived through in-vitro using donated eggs. I’ll point out that all his families’ future charts will have to include the egg doner on them rather than his wife.
The question you pose, Jeff, about the “rights” of biological fathers brings up this issue: where should the onus be, after a sex act? On the man to keep in touch with the woman, or on the woman who is about to undertake a dangerous and difficult process (either way) to find him and tell him that she’s pregnant? Quite literally, the woman bears the burden.
Someone is going to point out here that the woman can simply disappear, not telling the man about the situation. But that cuts both ways: perhaps men have a responsibility not to have sex with women they cannot trust.
Gay guy’s take… I find this issue annoying. I find the gay community’s crusade to get the word “marriage” applied to them annoying.
They’re turning this fight for gay rights into a battle of terminology and have lost sight of actually gaining equal rights. For them, nothing less than equality in deeds and words will do.
I for one don’t give a rat’s smelly bum if I’m “married”, so long as I have the same rights as any other straight couple.
And if this issue of bith certificates is that important, then how hard would it be to have a separate certificate for gay couples indicating Parent A and Parent B, or Dad 1 and Dad 2?? Why is the only solution for these people changing a document that the majority of the population has no problem with for the sole purpose of suiting their (a minority’s) needs??
All these activists are doing is creating more anymosity for the gay community.
You think this kind of PC hair-splitting and redefining is bad, I’m still scratching my head over a discussion I had with a “transgendered” person in response to what I thought was an innocuous enough remark—that I considered sexual relations between two persons who both had penises to be homosexual in nature. The trans/person, clearly unhappy with what “s/he” would probably call my “homonormative” view of things, didn’t consider such sex “homosexual” but wouldn’t call it “heterosexual” either. (I had tried to forget about it, but this post reminded me.)
For some, no terminology will ever suffice. Give them their way, and it will be revised again.
Sometimes, preserving the status quo preserves an ability to do things like communicate with each other.
That can lead to sanity.
Why delineate it into Parent A and Parent B at all. Just put Parents with two blank lines for the names and be done with it.
Oh great… that “365Gay.com” is going to look wonderful in the network logs at work. If I’m asked about it I guess I can always acuse the sysadmin of homophobia.