A baby with two mothers
The birth certificate of a baby born in New Jersey last week will list two mothers as its parents. Although I assume listing two mothers (or fathers) as parents of a child born to a same sex-couple on the birth certificate happens in Massachusetts after Goodridge, this is the first time I’ve heard of the practice.
Despite my views on same-sex marriage or traditional gender roles, the thought of a baby with two mothers makes me happy. I wish this family and their new baby the very best.
Why?
Comment by Guy Murray — November 16, 2006 @ 1:11 am
The thought of a baby without a recognized father makes me sad.
Comment by John Mansfield — November 16, 2006 @ 9:07 am
Hooray for the triumph of irrationality! Even if a biological impossibility is codified on a birth certificate as possible, it doesnt change the fact that it is impossible and out there somewhere there is a father. But, hey, lets all pretend and engage in denial, shall we? Because biological facts are only relevant when it is politically expedient.
A baby with two mothers? ECS, what about a polygamous family with two wives, or more? Would that baby have two, or more, mothers? Would that also make you happy?
Comment by Kurt — November 16, 2006 @ 9:24 am
Seriously.
I don’t understand why this makes you happy ECS. Do you know what kind of effect not having a father has on children (especially girls, speaking from experience) ?
Comment by madre — November 16, 2006 @ 10:05 am
I don’t know, just happy that the baby is born into a loving family (and a bit sad that the baby is a political football). Families come in all shapes and sizes. That’s all.
Comment by ECS — November 16, 2006 @ 11:25 am
Isn’t it common that birth certificates are “corrected” with adoptive parents’ names all the time? This news struck me as an easy beurocratic change to reflect the legal biological/adoption situation in that family. At least, that was my assumption.
Comment by cchrissyy — November 16, 2006 @ 11:39 am
Yeah, having decided that two persons of whatever sex can constitute themselves a couple (and must be accorded the same rights as a man and woman married to each other), it’s rather a short step to say that those two persons, if one has a child, are the “parents” of the child. It saves them the trouble of naming the woman who gave birth as the mother and then adding the second woman as the other parent by adoption (which NJ permitted before).
If you take a word and add enough variations and permutations and perambulations and on and on, the original word loses all meaning.
Comment by Mark B. — November 16, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
And, ECS, why should we assume that this is a loving family?
Comment by Mark B. — November 16, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
Mark B. – Why should we not?
Comment by ECS — November 16, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
Because gay people aren’t normal and therefore can’t be as loving as an LDS man and woman who have children?
Comment by jjohnsen — November 16, 2006 @ 5:02 pm
Does it really make you happy or are you being politically correct?
Comment by annegb — November 19, 2006 @ 6:45 pm