When the same sex marriage debate was taking place the argument was posited that once we allow same sex marriage that "slippery slope" would come to bear. The pro same sex side said that was just social conservative paranoia. Yet here we are, little more than a year from passage of the bill, and a case is about to go before the courts that will attempt to redefine the "parent".
As published in today's Toronto Sun, a mother is going before the Ontario Court of Appeal to have her lesbian partner declared a "third parent" to her son. The column's author, Rachel Giese, asserts that this couple is "asking the court to catch up with reality," because the partner is a "parent in every possible way" and is in a kind of "strange limbo" because this relationship isn't officially recognized. Giese thinks our courts should recognize this by declaring the lesbian lover, "a third parent".
I disagree with this on many levels.
First, by saying the lover's role as a parent-like figure is somehow diminished because it isn't "officially recognized" gives credence to the position that many people held when discussing same sex marriage: mainly that it would diminish the meaningfulness of a heterosexual marriage. Giese herself, in a previous column, had taken the position that her own homosexual relationship wasn't affecting anyone else's, and therefore, no one had any reason to feel their own heterosexual marriage was any less meaningful. A relationship's strength did not arise from the definition of marriage she said. But now, the "third parent" somehow feels less because it isn't "officially recognized?" Rubbish. This goes against her own arguments of the past.
Second, a parent "in every possible way" requires by definition that the person be a biological one, else, you aren't a parent "in every possible way". This seems fairly straightforward a point to make. Furthermore, I believe there is a definition that already exists for those who aren't biological parents that fulfill a permanent role as primary or secondary caregiver. Aren't they called "foster parents", or "step-parents"? Is this not a form of "offical recognition?"
Third, while the reality that children have many caregivers may be true, it does not, however, entitle anyone else to be defined as a "parent". Many children, in marriages or not, have had other people fill the role of parent at one time or another, for whatever reason or another; aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, grandparents, and friends. Do we as a society expect them to be declared parents? Ridiculous! That definition is the sole domain of a mother and a father, and should remain that way. It is a birthright of humanity, and a lifelong designation, it's only fee being the act of reproduction. No law that changes this would ever have the moral attachment necessary to make it just and right. A biological parent has a connection to their offspring, a vice versa, that can never be severed.
Fourth, if it is reasonable to redefine a person to be "another parent", can one then remove him or herself as a parent? Can a divorced parent providing child support then absolve him or herself of the responsibility because they are not "parents in every possible way"? This is ridiculous, of course. As a society, we have time after time, asserted our belief through legislation that a parent must live up to their parental responsibilities. The child, at the very least, is entitled to the financial support, if not moral or emotional support of the parent. It is this biological connection, once again, that is the defining feature of parenthood, a feature that has been accepted for time immemorial. The law that says a parent is responsible is rooted in the fact that a parent has created the child.
Does Giese consider what will happen if this lesbian couple decides to separate? Will the "third parent" be obligated to make child support payments? Since the lesbian partner played no role in the creation of the child, what responsibility could we as a society have any moral right to place on her?
Does the fact that this lesbian lover acts as a parent, but isn't legally recognized as one, diminish the contribution she makes? Absolutely not. The only official recognition one needs is the returned love and the "unofficial recognition" that hopefully that child will make.
I think the failure of the lesbian couple to recognize this simple truth is what is most troubling about this story.
The fact this case is even before the courts at all demonstrates a fundamental lack understanding of the nature of parenthood. Official recognition in law is meaningless and empty if the child one day makes up his or her own mind and says "you aren't my mother!", or "you aren't my father!" What good is your "official recognition" then?
Will this "official recognition" entitle the "third parent" to be recognized by the child when that child reaches the age of reason? As a parent, I can tell you a child's refusal to recognize you as parent does more damage and is more hurtful than any law or absence of law ever could. I should know. My parents divorced when I was two, and I felt pressured to call my "step-father" Dad. I actually did for a little while, but I was so uncomfortable with it, I soon stopped. My father is my father, and that's all there is to it. In no way does it diminish the contribution to my life that my mother's husband has made, and continues to make to this day.
This couple is not "asking the court to catch up with reality" as the writer asserts. The couple, in fact, is asking the court to change the definition of "parent", and this is a more fundamental societal shift than the same-sex marriage debate. I can guarantee that if my role as parent was usurped by another it would be emotionally devastating, and my three year old son would be in no position to assert his own feelings either.
Do you see that slippery slope, yet?
4 comments:
I read you comments with interest. Please note that while I disagree with your conclusions for the reasons laid out below I am in fact a Tory not a raving anti-Harper troll!
You wrote: “She does this by asserting that the lesbian partner's role as a "parent" is less meaningful because it isn't officially recognized. Does this not also mean that she believes her homosexual relationship wasn't as meaningful as it could be because, until recently, also wasn't "officially recognized". Is this not hypocrisy? If a heterosexual couple can reproduce sexually, is their marriage not more meaningful of a marriage "in every possible way"?”
-- I don’t follow you. Gay and lesbians explicitly argue that “official recognition” does make their relationships more ‘meaningful’ in a social (i.e. as a symbol of formal social acceptance) and economic (i.e. pensions etc.) way. So clearly, a lesbian partner who acts as a parent “in every way” would argue that “official recognition” is very important in making their role “more meaningful” for the same reasons. So there does not appear to be any hypocrisy.
Also: how is a couple/parent that/who can reproduce sexually more “meaningful”? This would exclude infertile couples and parents who adopt. “Meaningful” parenthood can therefore not be restricted to those who reproduce sexually.
You wrote: "Second, a parent "in every possible way" requires by definition that the person also be a biological parent, else, you aren't a parent "in every possible way"."
-- does this not exclude adopted parents? Biology alone seems unable to account for a cohesive definition of "parent".
You wrote: “That definition is the sole domain of a mother and a father, and should remain that way.”
-- If a single mother or father (widowed, never married, divorced etc…) can be considered a parent then the definition of “parent” does not rely on the existence of both a mother AND a father, or even on the existence of a state of matrimony between the parties. Therefore, what difference does the gender of either parent matter? That is to say, could “parents” not just as easily apply to two men, two women and a man and a woman?
You continue: “A biological parent has a connection to their offspring, a vice versa, that can never be severed.”
No-one will dispute that there is a connection between birth parents and their offspring. However, this bond can be legally severed in numerous ways, i.e. by court order, lack of custody, lack of visitation rights etc… Therefore, the idea of a “natural and indissoluble bond” generated by a “natural” birth should not alone frame what we define as a “parent”. Finally, no-one will seriously dispute that close bonds “that can never be severed” can exist between a child and many figures in their life, including close and extended family and the partners of their parents.
You wrote: “Fourth, if it is reasonable to redefine a person to be "another parent", can one then remove him or herself as a parent? Can a divorced parent providing child support then absolve him or herself of the responsibility because they are not "parents in every possible way"?”
You continue: “It is this biological connection, once again, that is the defining feature of parenthood, a feature that has been accepted for time immemorial. The law that says a parent is responsible is rooted in the fact that a parent has created the child.”
-- The assessment of what constitutes a parent-child relationship often hinges on three different criteria: blood, the way the adult acts towards the child (i.e. does the adult treat the child as if they are a parent) and how the child is perceived by the community, i.e. do the neighbours think the adult serves in a parental role. If the court determines (on the basis of these criteria and other factors) that an adult is a parent to a given child and orders that the parent then provide adequate support, that adult (male, female, straight or gay) is bound by the decision. This would apply equally to biological and non-biological parents.
While the biological connection has “from time immemorial” been perhaps the most common feature of parenthood it has never been the sole feature of parenthood. You are overlooking adoption. An example drawn from history at random: Caesar adopted his nephew Octavian (future emperor Augustus) – it is of note that the adoption would have been perceived as completely legitimate even if there had been no familial ties between the parties. If anyone can adopt and become a parent why should a gay partner of a parent not adopt, or be recognised as a parent of, the child in question?
You wrote: “Will the "third parent" be obligated to make child support payments? Since the lesbian partner played no role in the creation of the child, what responsibility could we as a society have any moral right to place on her?”
Again, you are overlooking adoption: when an adult assumes (and by this I mean ‘legally considered to have assumed’) a parental role they are bound to fulfil parental obligations, whether the adult is a male heterosexual married to the child’s mother or a female partner cohabitating with the child’s mother.
I am confused by your use of the term “third parent” and your assumptions about the implications of a “third parent”. Surely the rights and responsibilities of a lesbian partner who acts as a parent to the mother’s child and who is legally recognised as such would be the same as those of a husband who has married a divorced mother with children from her previous marriage and who acts as a parent to those children.
You wrote: “Does the fact that this lesbian lover acts as a parent, but isn't legally recognized as one, diminish the contribution she makes? Absolutely not. The only official recognition one needs is the returned love and the "unofficial recognition" that hopefully that child will make.”
This may be very true. But if the couple in questions feels official recognition is important then, quite simply, it is! Also – if such recognition is of so little social and economic importance than why would anyone object to it being extended to a lesbian couple in the first place?
You conclude: “This couple is not "asking the court to catch up with reality" as the writer asserts. The couple, in fact, is asking the court to change the definition of "parent", and this is a more fundamental societal shift than the same-sex marriage debate.”
The current legal (and cultural) definition of parent is not limited to biological parents and never has been. For example BC’s Family Relations Act defines parent as:
“(a) a guardian or guardian of the person of a child, or (b) a stepparent of a child if
(i) the stepparent contributed to the support and maintenance of the child for at least one year, and (ii) the proceeding under this Act by or against the stepparent is commenced within one year after the date the stepparent last contributed to the support and maintenance of the child”.
The couple are essentially asking for the partner to be granted the same recognition as a man would be in a similar situation if that man was ready to assume the mantle of parenthood. Parenthood helps ensure stability and security within a family. Moreover, it is perhaps even preferably to have more than one parent. If a partner (straight or lesbian) is willing to step up to the bat who are we to refuse?
Andrew, thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, after I submitted today's post and re-read it, it occurred to me that it may not be as clear as I had originally thought, so I edited it and reposted. Many of your comments were based on the original post, so hopefully, I've already cleared up some of your concerns. But I will try to respond as best as I can.
On "official recognition", this area of my post was substantially edited. My point overall, as best as I could articulate, anyway, was merely that this columnist had previously opined that heterosexual couples should never feel that their marriages would mean less because homosexuals could now marry, the primary reason being that a marriage's meaning comes more from within than from external factors. But now, this same columnist argues the opposite. I thought it rather convenient that the argument she had discarded as irrelevant in previous columns was now important even though the situation was the same.
Of course I recognize that many familial situations are different. I wasn't trying to narrow the definition of what a "parent" is, but prevent the expansion of the definition in the way the article was suggesting. In situations where the biological parents are not involved, or adoption, or single parent, etc. we have parental roles that are pre-defined, such as step-mother, step-father, foster parent, and as such these definitions only come into play when one or both parents is not involved. What we have here is a mother and father, both involved in the child's life, and a lesbian partner who feels that because she fulfills a role as a parent, should also legally become one. This would give the child three parents, and, therefore, redefine the nature of parenthood.
I think the rest of your comments stem from the fact you don't realize that this isn't a case of a replacement caregiver, but the addition of a third "parent". You state that you don't understand where "third" parent comes from, is this the confusion? Or have I misunderstood your comments.
You state "the couple are essentially asking for the partner to be granted the same recognition as a man would be in a similar situation if that man was ready to assume the mantle of parenthood" Again, I think you have misunderstood. That father IS involved and is already assuming the mantle of parenthood.
I hope I cleared things up. Feel free to rebut.
You wrote: “First, by saying the lover's role as a parent-like figure is somehow diminished because it isn't "officially recognized" gives credence to the position that many people held when discussing same sex marriage: mainly that it would diminish the meaningfulness of a heterosexual marriage. Giese herself, in a previous column, had taken the position that her own homosexual relationship wasn't affecting anyone else's, and therefore, no one had any reason to feel their own heterosexual marriage was any less meaningful.”
-- It would seem Giese’ point is that if someone acts and accepts the responsibilities of couplehood or parenthood then they should have legal recognition accorded to their status regardless of their sexual preferences.
You wrote: “Furthermore, I believe there is a definition that already exists for those who aren't biological parents that fulfill a permanent role as primary or secondary caregiver. Aren't they called "foster parents", or "step-parents"? Is this not a form of "offical recognition?"”
You continue: “Third, while the reality that children have many caregivers may be true, it does not, however, entitle anyone else to be defined as a "parent".”
-- In fact the definition of parent is clear and can be settled with reference to the law as it currently stands. The Ontario statute states in its definitions sections: “‘parent’ includes a person who has demonstrated a settled intention to treat a child as a child of his or her family, except under an arrangement where the child is placed for valuable consideration in a foster home by a person having lawful custody; (“père ou mère”); (Family Law Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter F.3.)”. Therefore, should not official recognition be extended to any person who fits with the above definition?
You wrote: “Will the "third parent" be obligated to make child support payments?”
-- Certainly. A legal role and duty implies legal obligations: court orders have forced adults who are not biologically connected to a child to pay child support in certain cases. Therefore it seems foreseeable that a “third” parent would have the same obligations as any other.
Andrew,
You wrote: It would seem Giese’ point is that if someone acts and accepts the responsibilities of couplehood or parenthood then they should have legal recognition accorded to their status regardless of their sexual preferences.
-You're right. That's exactly what she's saying, and my point is that this proves the social conservatives were correct all along! She is admitting that because official recognition would give more meaning to the relationship, logic dictates that to a heterosexual couple, the inclusion of homosexual marriage as an institution must diminish it in the eyes of heterosexuals.
You wrote: In fact the definition of parent is clear and can be settled with reference to the law as it currently stands. The Ontario statute states in its definitions sections: “‘parent’ includes a person who has demonstrated a settled intention to treat a child as a child of his or her family, except under an arrangement where the child is placed for valuable consideration in a foster home by a person having lawful custody; (“père ou mère”); (Family Law Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter F.3.)”. Therefore, should not official recognition be extended to any person who fits with the above definition?
-Yes, of course. However, as I believe I was clear in stating earlier, this isn't a case of a child without parents, or a missing parent. The child in question already as a father and mother, both active in the child's life. The statute does not exist to assign the term "parent" to more than two individuals (or does it?). And does not the inclusion of both father and mother in the child's life qualify as "family"? If true, I do not believe the above definition would apply because the lesbian lover is not intending to "treat a child as a child of his or her family". She is intending to include herself in an already existing family.
A parent is a parent, and a step-parent is a step-parent, but the live-in lover of a parent should never to be given the title of parent while both mother and father are still active in a child's life.
My mother's husband has given me fatherly advice, has from time to time exercised his authority over me, disciplined me, and has always "been there" for me. But in the end, he is only my mother's husband, or "step-father". He is a "step-parent", not a parent. My father has also been a father "in every possible way", and while he accepts the existence of a "step-father", and accepts that the title "step-father" can be accorded, he is still the only one of two people that should ever be called my "parent".
For the lesbian lover, "step-mother" is fine. "Step-parent" is fine. Parent, however, is a privilege of only two people at a time.
Post a Comment