Birth Certificate Murkiness, Same-Sex Marriage, and Other Genealogy Controversies
A prelude for the beginning of this post. Please note that this is not actually an invitation for invective regarding homosexuality. It is an opportunity to explore the murky situation of birth certificates, same sex marriage, and genealogy. How we as genealogists and family historians explore the related worlds of biology and family, the ethical dilemmas that result, and how we make changes based on the new definitions of family are some of my favorite topics.
Whether you share my opinions or not, you are welcome to comment. However, inflammatory or derogatory comments will be deleted.
One of my frustrations with my current genealogy program is that same-sex marriages are impossible to create. I use Personal Ancestral File from the LDS Church which doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, so I really shouldn't be surprised. Still, it is aggravating.
Before our son was born, I simply had two different files. One was for my partner's genealogy, and one was for mine and never the twain shall meet. However, after our son was born, I felt like we needed to merge the databases so that both of his parents were recognized. There were two possible work-arounds. One was to label my partner's sex as "male" (or change mine). The other was to add my partner as an "alternate parent".
Unfortunately, this second option would result in two issues. The first was that a marriage would automatically be created for each of us (since children get added to marriages). I could probably have deleted these marriages, but it was still awkward. The other problem was that only one of our trees would be seen at any given point, instead of the nice fan shaped pedigrees that typically result in a two-parent family. Aside from the aesthetics, ease of navigability was a factor in the decision I made to change her sex. I now have lovely report possibilities and so forth, and since I don't print the names of living people on my website anyway, it doesn't really make any difference to other researchers.
Still, I have been wondering how others have solved this solution. With Massachusetts legally recognizing same-sex marriages, there must be genealogy programs that have this capability now... so I went looking online, but instead came up with all kinds of other interesting stuff.
A 2005 blog from Eastman in which he questions the right of the non-biological parent to be on the birth certificate in Massachusetts, likening it to adoptive parents. The problem is one that I've discussed before, but not quite in this way.
In fact, there are a few problems with this whole debate. The first is the assumption that there is a known biological father for same-sex parents. The second problem is the assumption that there was no other way for same-sex couples to be listed on the child's birth certificate. And the last is that birth certificates are reliable indicators of biological parentage for anyone.
Many children who are born to same-sex couples were conceived using an anonymous donor (and for those of you new to this debate, it is always "the donor" and never "the father" in these situations). For many children born to same-sex couples, sperm banks were used (in fact this is the fastest growing segment of the sperm bank industry). The legal reasons for couples to use anonymous donors from banks is clear, since it alleviates possible paternity custody battles after the birth of the child.
The legal reasons to have both parents on the birth certificate are similar. Imagine (or just look in the news for) the custody battles if one partner were to die, be incapacitated, etc. Think about children's need for health insurance, Social Security, child support, etc. This issue was important enough that there have been (for years) ways for both members of a same-sex couple to be listed on the birth certificate. In some states, same-sex couples can put their names on the child's birth certificate after the child's birth by doing a "second parent adoption". Legally, this makes the situation much more clear for everyone, and paves the way for non-biological parents to interact easily with the child care program, school, doctors, and others. In situations where the biological father is known, he has to sign away his paternity rights for these to go through. Also, a federal court ruled that all states have to recognize these birth certificates.
Massachusetts was already one of the states allowing second parent adoption, so many same sex parents had their names on their children's birth certificates before the marriage law was passed. The change to the birth certificate only means that same sex partners don't have to jump through additional legal hoops to have their names listed, but instead do so at the time of the child's birth. It doesn't actually change anything for genealogists looking at these birth certificates.
Incidentally, this second parent adoption law was originally used for stepparent adoptions, but now also covers many same-sex parents and some parents who have used a surrogate to carry the child. Interesting biological and adoptive convolutions can result if a surrogate carries the biological child of another couple. Addressing that through a birth certificate would be pretty challenging!
As seen from the above example, same-sex couples aren't the only ones who create havoc with birth certificates. In all anonymous donor situations (like virtually all done by banks), you wouldn't have any name to enter on the birth certificate anyway. For heterosexual couples who used sperm banks (typically because of male infertility), the father listed on the birth certificate was usually the man who was married to the mother. Many of these children were actually not told how they were conceived.
This is no different (in practical terms) from the Massachusetts debates over the non-biological mother. The only difference is that future genealogists will come across the same-sex birth certificates and immediately know that two women or two men are unlikely to have been the biological parents of the child -- not something that can be said of the opposite-sex couples.
Further, birth certificates in the case of adoption have long been altered to reflect the adoptive parents' names. Birth certificates for children whose mothers are having children born of adultery nearly always reflect their husband's name. Birth certificates for single mothers often don't list a father at all. The many convolutions of the birth certificate make this argument regarding biology a moot point.
So here is the way birth certificates for same-sex couples seem to stand. It appears that Massachusetts still has the mother and father categories and that same-sex parents just cross out the category titles and write in "Parent A" and "Parent B". In Vermont (where there are civil unions), couples are listed on the birth certificate as parents at the time of the baby's birth. A New Jersey couple also recently won this right. In Texas, adoptive couples who are of the same sex must choose one of them to be listed as "mother" and another to be listed as "father". In Virginia, there was a court battle because adoptive homosexual couples had to choose only one of them to be listed on the birth certificate. The adoptive families won and now both parents are listed as Parent 1 and Parent 2. In Canada, Quebec and Ontario list same-sex partners automatically on the birth certificates.
As a complete side note, there was an interesting controversy with a newspaper birth notice as well.
Anyway after getting a little sidetracked, I did find that many other genealogy programs would allow me to add my partner and child. According to the other bloggers, I could switch to the Master Genealogist, Legacy, Reunion, or Family Tree Maker. So I can switch.
Whether you share my opinions or not, you are welcome to comment. However, inflammatory or derogatory comments will be deleted.
One of my frustrations with my current genealogy program is that same-sex marriages are impossible to create. I use Personal Ancestral File from the LDS Church which doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, so I really shouldn't be surprised. Still, it is aggravating.
Before our son was born, I simply had two different files. One was for my partner's genealogy, and one was for mine and never the twain shall meet. However, after our son was born, I felt like we needed to merge the databases so that both of his parents were recognized. There were two possible work-arounds. One was to label my partner's sex as "male" (or change mine). The other was to add my partner as an "alternate parent".
Unfortunately, this second option would result in two issues. The first was that a marriage would automatically be created for each of us (since children get added to marriages). I could probably have deleted these marriages, but it was still awkward. The other problem was that only one of our trees would be seen at any given point, instead of the nice fan shaped pedigrees that typically result in a two-parent family. Aside from the aesthetics, ease of navigability was a factor in the decision I made to change her sex. I now have lovely report possibilities and so forth, and since I don't print the names of living people on my website anyway, it doesn't really make any difference to other researchers.
Still, I have been wondering how others have solved this solution. With Massachusetts legally recognizing same-sex marriages, there must be genealogy programs that have this capability now... so I went looking online, but instead came up with all kinds of other interesting stuff.
A 2005 blog from Eastman in which he questions the right of the non-biological parent to be on the birth certificate in Massachusetts, likening it to adoptive parents. The problem is one that I've discussed before, but not quite in this way.
In fact, there are a few problems with this whole debate. The first is the assumption that there is a known biological father for same-sex parents. The second problem is the assumption that there was no other way for same-sex couples to be listed on the child's birth certificate. And the last is that birth certificates are reliable indicators of biological parentage for anyone.
Many children who are born to same-sex couples were conceived using an anonymous donor (and for those of you new to this debate, it is always "the donor" and never "the father" in these situations). For many children born to same-sex couples, sperm banks were used (in fact this is the fastest growing segment of the sperm bank industry). The legal reasons for couples to use anonymous donors from banks is clear, since it alleviates possible paternity custody battles after the birth of the child.
The legal reasons to have both parents on the birth certificate are similar. Imagine (or just look in the news for) the custody battles if one partner were to die, be incapacitated, etc. Think about children's need for health insurance, Social Security, child support, etc. This issue was important enough that there have been (for years) ways for both members of a same-sex couple to be listed on the birth certificate. In some states, same-sex couples can put their names on the child's birth certificate after the child's birth by doing a "second parent adoption". Legally, this makes the situation much more clear for everyone, and paves the way for non-biological parents to interact easily with the child care program, school, doctors, and others. In situations where the biological father is known, he has to sign away his paternity rights for these to go through. Also, a federal court ruled that all states have to recognize these birth certificates.
Massachusetts was already one of the states allowing second parent adoption, so many same sex parents had their names on their children's birth certificates before the marriage law was passed. The change to the birth certificate only means that same sex partners don't have to jump through additional legal hoops to have their names listed, but instead do so at the time of the child's birth. It doesn't actually change anything for genealogists looking at these birth certificates.
Incidentally, this second parent adoption law was originally used for stepparent adoptions, but now also covers many same-sex parents and some parents who have used a surrogate to carry the child. Interesting biological and adoptive convolutions can result if a surrogate carries the biological child of another couple. Addressing that through a birth certificate would be pretty challenging!
As seen from the above example, same-sex couples aren't the only ones who create havoc with birth certificates. In all anonymous donor situations (like virtually all done by banks), you wouldn't have any name to enter on the birth certificate anyway. For heterosexual couples who used sperm banks (typically because of male infertility), the father listed on the birth certificate was usually the man who was married to the mother. Many of these children were actually not told how they were conceived.
This is no different (in practical terms) from the Massachusetts debates over the non-biological mother. The only difference is that future genealogists will come across the same-sex birth certificates and immediately know that two women or two men are unlikely to have been the biological parents of the child -- not something that can be said of the opposite-sex couples.
Further, birth certificates in the case of adoption have long been altered to reflect the adoptive parents' names. Birth certificates for children whose mothers are having children born of adultery nearly always reflect their husband's name. Birth certificates for single mothers often don't list a father at all. The many convolutions of the birth certificate make this argument regarding biology a moot point.
So here is the way birth certificates for same-sex couples seem to stand. It appears that Massachusetts still has the mother and father categories and that same-sex parents just cross out the category titles and write in "Parent A" and "Parent B". In Vermont (where there are civil unions), couples are listed on the birth certificate as parents at the time of the baby's birth. A New Jersey couple also recently won this right. In Texas, adoptive couples who are of the same sex must choose one of them to be listed as "mother" and another to be listed as "father". In Virginia, there was a court battle because adoptive homosexual couples had to choose only one of them to be listed on the birth certificate. The adoptive families won and now both parents are listed as Parent 1 and Parent 2. In Canada, Quebec and Ontario list same-sex partners automatically on the birth certificates.
As a complete side note, there was an interesting controversy with a newspaper birth notice as well.
Anyway after getting a little sidetracked, I did find that many other genealogy programs would allow me to add my partner and child. According to the other bloggers, I could switch to the Master Genealogist, Legacy, Reunion, or Family Tree Maker. So I can switch.
Labels: family definitions, genealogy, sources
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home