On the second anniversary of the national redefinition of marriage, today the US Supreme Court struck down an Arkansas law that kept same-sex couples from listing their spouse as a parent on their child’s birth certificate. Why? Because, as many of us argued prior to the SCOTUS landmark decision, redefining marriage redefined parenthood. We pressed that government’s interest in marriage isn’t adult’s feelings, it’s children and the ramifications of focusing on adult emotions would, in turn, be devastating to kids. Well, here we are exactly two years later with an “I told you so” that brings no one on our side any satisfaction.
The court said Arkansas has chosen “to make its birth certificates more than a marker of biological relationships: the state uses those certificates to give married parents a form of legal recognition to unmarried parents.” Based on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision on same-sex marriage, the court said, Arkansas cannot deny married same-sex couples that recognition.
When they redefined marriage, the Supreme Court mistakenly equated gay relationships with heterosexual relationships. While there may be no differences in the level of love and commitment between gay couples and heterosexual couples, there is a major difference in what these two pairings offer to children. The battle over a child’s birth certificate underlies those difference.
The two lesbian couples in this case contend that the same-sex spouse of the biological mother should be considered a parent on their child’s birth certificate. They argue that women who are married to men can opt to name their husband as the father on their newborn child’s birth certificate, even if in rare cases the man is not the father. This widely accepted practice, known as the “presumption of paternity,” assumes that the husband of a new mother is the father of her child. With heterosexual couples, the presumption of paternity connects both biological parents to their child nearly 100% of the time. With same-sex couples, the “presumption of paternity” would connect children to both biological parents… never.
In other words, in the name of “equality” for adults, today’s Supreme Court ruling denies children both the right to their mother and father and the right to their biological identity. “Equality” for same-sex couples comes by way of children’s inequality. Here’s why.
Children raised by gay couples will always be missing a biological parent as well as the dual-gender influence that children crave. Studies tells us that children with same-sex parents will suffer as a result. Many of those children will also struggle with identity issues as a result of being donor-conceived. But those challenging the ban were not concerned about actual outcomes for these kids and instead argued, “When it comes to same-sex spouses, the state’s refusal to list both of them on the birth certificate “causes those children to suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser…”
But when we listen to the first-hand testimony of children who have been intentionally denied a relationship with their father and half of their biological identity, we see that “stigma” is not the primary reason that these children suffer:
I don’t really know if people understand how kick-ass it is that moms like mine had the strength to bring a child into this world on their own. You know, at first, that’s the only way I would look at my situation, that way things were more positive. But in reality, my kick-ass mom never knew and never will know the damage that not having a father has caused me.
Am I the only one who feels this way? Am I a bad daughter because I wish I had a Dad? Is there anyone else who has 2 Moms or 2 Dads who wonders what it would be like if they were born into a normal family? Is ther anyone else who wants to be able to use the word normal without gettin a lecture on what is normal??? I dont know my real father and never will. Its weird but I miss him. I miss this man I will never know. Is it wrong for me to long for a father like my friends have? She has two brothers I play basketball with all the time. It feels so amazing to be included in their family. When I am there I think this is what its like to be in a family that has a Mom and a Dad.
I am a donor-conceived child of lesbian parents. I stand here with the support of all three of my parents. This is a testimony that it is, safe to say, unheard of because nobody wants to hear about the other side of the rainbow. . . Growing up, I wanted a father…. I felt it within me that I was missing a father before I could even articulate what a father was. I knew that I loved both of my parents, but I could not place my finger on what it is I was missing inside myself. When I hit school I started to realize through observing other children and their loving bonds with their fathers and I was missing out on something special. I was lied to throughout school; I was told I didn’t have a father. . .it was very difficult for me to affirm a stable identity because of this. And my behavioral and emotional stability suffered greatly because of it… –Millie Fontana
Chief Justice Howard Brill of the Arkansas Court, quoted Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin” to argue for why two moms or two dads should be listed on a child’s birth certificate.
The times may be changing, but these things haven’t:
- It takes a man and woman to make a baby
- Children have a right to (at the very least) know the identity of that man and woman
- Children long for the love of their mother and father
Until these fundamental child realities change, the law ought not to.
What’s more concerning are the attitudes of these same-sex couples and their supporters. They are, by law, preventing their child from discovering their origins. The one sample you offered where the daughter felt as if she were ‘bought and paid for’ by her gay fathers is just a peek into this mentality: children are bought and sold as commodities, not a product of a loving creation.
Dr. Lisa Diamond, a lesbian, noted that the arguments used to legalize same-sex marriage were NOT based on biology, but feeling. The judge is doing the same here; he assumes that children are a Blank Slate, and that the sex of the parents don’t matter.
Today we consider marriage to be an alliance based on love and commitment. But what if that’s not what it is? What if the premise is wrong? Marriage is certainly an alliance based on love and commitment but what if it’s an alliance that is specifically for the most disparate members of society, namely, man and woman? What if marriage is the necessary “greenhouse” for bringing the two together? All civilizations known to us believed marriage to be between men and women. Coincidence? Or proof that they knew that marriage was something more than an alliance? I think that marriage is actually a concerted effort on the part of civilization itself to protect and nurture the most vulnerable and tenuous, albeit fruitful relationship, the one between man and woman. By “fruitful” I do not refer necessarily to children. NOM forgets that the example of a loving marriage is needed by society, not just by the children it does or does not produce. In the article above the focus is on children, this stems from Catholic theology on marriage. I love my Catholic brethren and respect them, but I am afraid that natural theology will not be an adequate defense against the confusion of our age. It turns out that in the Bible, marriage and even romance is not a “side issue” subordinated to the great theological concepts like justification and sanctification. Rather it is, to put in headline form, the gospel itself. The gospel (Isaiah 52) is when a man marries and woman and makes her happy (Isaiah 53 and 54). Adam and Eve are the glorious imprint of this marriage between the Lord Jesus and his assembly. Romance is not a side issue in the Bible it is the gospel. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel is scandalous for many reasons, one of which is the fact that he does not conform to the philosophical idea of God at all.
Sir Elton John said in an interview that it was “heartbreaking” that his son would have no Mum of his own. But that didn’t stop him from paying not one but two different women to disappear forever, to make certain of it.
How is this not common sexism, and mental abuse of a child?