America's New Math
Parker writes:
What’s really behind the push for biology-neutral birth certificates isn’t fairness, or equal rights, but the elimination of any biological/procreative connection to parenthood.”
Ms. Parker should realize that the issue is indeed about equal rights, specifically the equal rights of a same-sex couple who are in danger of losing their children through government initiatives. The issue of biologically-neutral certificates is not an issue about eradicating the man-woman parenthood theorem, but is instead guaranteeing that the state recognizes the couple (both the biological parent and the respective partner) as the child’s legal birth parents.
In an unforeseen event where the biological parent dies, the partner would generally not be considered a legal parent, despite the fact that he or she helped raise the child from birth. The children would be warded to either the opposing birth parent or put into a foster family.
Instead of being an issue about rights for same-sex couples, Parker has turned it into an issue where she is painting a picture that portrays gay and lesbian parents as revolutionary anti-science guerillas that want to change the world. This is far from the truth. It is true that they want to change the world, but only for the better.
The lives of a husband/wife couple differ greatly from that of a same-sex couple on many different levels. To the husband and wife, a “regular” life is something that is taken for granted. Marriages (and divorce) and the ability to father/give birth/adopt child after child is a fact of life that is also taken for granted. It is quite easy for them to do one of the other.
Same-sex couples are not given the same liberties. Marriage between two men or two women is forbidden by law, except in Massachusetts (and even then, the right is on the edge of extinction). Adoption only happens to a lucky few, depending on the state you live in. Same-sex couples do not get the chance to experience “the American Dream”.
But, what is the “American dream”? Getting married, having 2.4 children, and living in a house with a white picket fence, right?
In response to two Massachusetts men who wanted both of their names on the birth certificate (with the biological father’s partner “replacing” the mother), Parker notes: “No doubt the gentlemen-parents were distressed by the negative intrusion into their familiar fantasy.” The way that the term ‘fantasy’ is used is akin to wanting a pair of shoes or dreaming about driving a Mercedes Benz. Those fantasies are attainable, so why not having children?
Why shouldn’t everyone experience the joy of parenthood? Not only should gays and lesbians suffer eternal damnation (as some well-wishers say), but celebrating Holy Matrimony and parenthood are out too, I guess.
Smugly, Parker concludes her statement about the Massachusetts couple: “Meanwhile, one can’t help but feel sorry for the infant – Baby C, or Thing Three?” Thing Three?! The child of a same-sex couple has as much right and aura of existence as a child born to a mother and father. To take a quote of Shakespeare out of context: “If you prick a child of same-sex parents, will it not bleed?”
A child, no matter what the parentage is, should not be reduced to being called a “thing”. A baby is a baby is a baby, no matter what. Parentage should not reduce a child to being an object, or a “Thing” as Parker writes.
To quote Lee Majors, women are things. I guess innocent children can be things as well.
So much for the American dream.
James Falcon is a freelance writer. He lives on the Turtle Mountain Reservation in North Dakota, and can be reached for comment at littlechief_falcon@yahoo.com.