The Boston Herald reports on the first same-sex couple to have both parents’ names listed on the birth certificate. In Massachusetts, “under state law, married couples that have a child through artifical insemination are automatically recognized as parents.”
Astoundingly, David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values objects.
First of all, why didn’t David or other marriage movement folks raise a stink about this “could-care-less-about-children” law in the years it existed before same-sex marriage became an issue?
More importantly, it’s obvious that the intent – and the result, in most cases – of such a law would be to benefit children. It clarifies that a child created through artificial insemination is part of the family as a whole, and that both parents are legally responsible for the child’s well-being. It gives a child two parents, instead of just one. What on earth about that implies that the lawmakers don’t care about children?
Finally, it’s obvious that David, like most SSM opponents, is a chicken little (“the society is falling! the society is falling!”). This law doesn’t radically transform the meaning of “parent” to “a married adult in the household”; it applies only in the specific and narrow case of a birth via artificial insemination to an already-married couple. In essence, this law is nothing but an speeded-up adoption law for infertile couples using artificial insemination; far from attacking the family, it supports it..
What Mr. Blankenhorn is really objecting to is the artificial insemination–meaning no paterfamilias presiding over the household.
Well.. but the artificial insemination aspect is not new.
Still, I agree, that’s what Blankenhorn doesn’t like.
If he disagrees with artificial insemination, then why doesn’t he get his tighty-whities in a bunch over married couples who do it? Some men are sterile, and their wives go to a sperm bank, after all. Does he actually propose that we invalidate these relationships as well?
Blankenhorn, like nearly every other anti-SSMer, is just making up reasons so that he doesn’t have to admit that his real problem with SSM is that he is against homosexuality.
Bored now.
So SSM opponents complain that a same sex partner is not presumed to be the parent of a child. Then they complain when a same sex partner is presumed to be the parent of a child. I’m so confused.
I agree with Jake. The only argument against SSM that makes any sense to me is “People should be permitted to codify in law their irrational beliefs.” If you believe that, fine. I will simply disagree.
If you don’t, and try to rationalize with any other reason, it will be nonsensical and easily disproven. Boring. And it’s not like if you point out the logical flaws, you will convince anyone. People who oppose SSM want to codify their irrational beliefs, and if you knock one rationale out from under them, they’ll just pick up another.
The solution to this issue is simple. 1 million homosexuals voted for George Bush in 2000. If they would simply vote for the candidate that doesn’t find them evil, people like this would become a permanent minority party and we could just start ignoring them until the all die off.
Excuse me? The law states that in heterosexual marriage, any child born to the wife is also the legal child of the husband, whether he has any genetic contribution or not. The law doesn’t make exceptions for travelling salesmen or artificial insemination. Husband is legally responsible. This has been law for a long long time. So maybe Blankenhorn wishes to institute bastardy again.
then why doesn’t he get his tighty-whities in a bunch over married couples who do it?
Because there is still a man presiding over the household in those couples.
Oooooh. So, um, I guess he’d be okay with two men presiding over a family, then? A twofer!
You’d think, but then that lacks a woman to take charge of the children and do all the housework. Maybe if they hired a maid.
Is there a candidate that doesn’t find homosexuals evil? Seems the best we can get is “I find them evil, but i guess i’ll leave them mostly alone.”
hmm, two problems with this article and the reaction. This is not the first homosexual couple to both be listed on the child’s birth certificate. It is the first homosexual couple who had artificial insemination and one of them bore the child to both be on the birth certificate.
Ok granted, ‘small’ semantic point, but still.. My partner and I were _both_ listed on our adopted daughter’s certificate at the time of the adoption (no ‘second parent’ adoption later). The certificate reads (Mother/Father): me (Father/Mother): my partner. We definitely weren’t the first, we know of many others.
So, they might want to ‘qualify’ that statement :).
secondly, this isn’t really anything new as Lucia points out… this law has been in affect for a long time for straight couples and children have had ‘non-biological’ fathers listed as the legal father since time immmemorial.
Blankhorn needs to look deep inside himself and pull out the homophobia.
Hmm.. If you visit Family Scholars, you’ll note Tom Sylvester doesn’t like the parent A/B names. Sounds like he might like your father/mother and mother/father classifications better. (It did read as though he just didn’t like the A/B semantics, and recognized it as a semantic issue.)
More generally, many states (including Oregon) have a law stating that a child born to a married woman is conclusively presumed (sometimes with a very few limited exceptions) to be the child of the woman’s spouse also. The principle isn’t anything new.
Pingback: Pacific Views