Welcome to our new forum! All existing NW Cryobank forum users will need to reset their passwords. Click forgot password and enter your email address to receive the link. Email us at info@nwcryobank.com with any questions.
NW Cryobank community boards and sibling connect groups will no longer be available after December 20th, 2023.
Options
Marriage and Children (hot topic warning)
Zen
Posts: 2,942
I wanted to throw something out here but need to preface it by saying it's a hot topic.
A big issue for many states is whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. I'm 100% in favor. What I don't understand though is the pervasive belief that being married would give the non-carrying parent equal rights to a child conceived and born in the marriage. My mind screams no no no to this.
As a single mom, my kids are mine. If I were married and I conceived using his sperm, they'd be ours. If I conceived by someone else, my husband would be the STEP-father. To become their father and/or legal [2nd] parent, we would need to do a step-parent adoption.
I know that in marriage it's assumed that children born in wedlock are both of yours with legal rights automatically conferred. But we've all seen the myriad of court cases with DNA tests exempting the non-bio parent. I don't understand why same sex couples think none of this would apply if they were married.
Again, I wholeheartedly support the option for couples to marry to legalize their partnership. Doesn't matter to me if the couples are men or women or both. But I still think that a 2nd parent adoption is needed to confer parental rights to a child not biologically yours. I am very curious as to why so many in same sex-relationships feel differently.
A big issue for many states is whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. I'm 100% in favor. What I don't understand though is the pervasive belief that being married would give the non-carrying parent equal rights to a child conceived and born in the marriage. My mind screams no no no to this.
As a single mom, my kids are mine. If I were married and I conceived using his sperm, they'd be ours. If I conceived by someone else, my husband would be the STEP-father. To become their father and/or legal [2nd] parent, we would need to do a step-parent adoption.
I know that in marriage it's assumed that children born in wedlock are both of yours with legal rights automatically conferred. But we've all seen the myriad of court cases with DNA tests exempting the non-bio parent. I don't understand why same sex couples think none of this would apply if they were married.
Again, I wholeheartedly support the option for couples to marry to legalize their partnership. Doesn't matter to me if the couples are men or women or both. But I still think that a 2nd parent adoption is needed to confer parental rights to a child not biologically yours. I am very curious as to why so many in same sex-relationships feel differently.
0
Comments
First, I am not quite sure I understand what you are saying. I think what you are saying is that in order for a non-gestational parent to have equal rights to child born into union, whether married or partnered, each parent must have a biological connection to the child. If the non-gestational parent is not biologically related to the child then they must have a judge tell them in the court of law that they can have rights to that child.
(The above statements are what I am assuming that you are suggesting so please disregard the rest of this if it not). So in this view, the only people who would have legal rights to the child I am carrying is me…and the donor (because of said biological connection). However, since the donor signed away his rights then I am the only one who is legally responsible and legally has rights despite having a federally recognized marriage. Correct?
So this would also mean that the male partner in a heterosexual couple who conceives using a sperm bank should also have to petition for a second parent adoption because he is not biologically connected to the child. Likewise, in a couple using both a sperm and egg donor (both heterosexual and same-sex couples), both parents should have to adopt the child in the court of law since neither of them is biologically related to the child, even if one of them carries and births the child.
The problem with these scenarios is that currently heterosexual couples who conceive using a sperm donor or are using both an egg and sperm donor are not required to obtain a second parent adoption because both partners are assumed to have equal rights to the child. These couples are afforded these rights due to their legal bindings to each other through their marriage. It is also assumed that the couples is making the decision to procreate together. Thus it is a joint decision that and each party will take full responsibility for within the marriage and in the event of any pending divorce.
LGBT parents on the other hand have to jump through the extra hoops of the second parent adoption because their marriage is not recognized and are not afforded the same civil rights as the heterosexual couple in the same situation. Thus, the current laws are unequal and oppressive towards LGBT families. So, if marriage is being recognized for all, then all rights need to be equal including granting parental rights to the non-gestational parent in situations where the non-gestational parent does not have biological ties to the child.
It is obviously a different case if one partner went out, had an affair, and tried to pass off the kid as the non-gestational parents….That is where you get all the sketchy DNA exempting stuff. These are really two separate situations that warrant different discussions and laws. With these cheating situations, you have a whole host of issues including lying, betrayal, and the entering of a third party (the person who supplied the sperm and probably did not sign away his rights). None of this applies to two people using a sperm donor to have their child. Also- heterosexual parents are not required to just have a DNA test to prove paternity. So, in order for the sketchy DNA stuff to come about one parent has to take the other to court and ask for a DNA test. Again, this usually has to do with lying, cheating, etc. way, way more than just biology going on here….So why would it apply to any of the LGBT couples who are conceiving via sperm donor and not taking each other court?
Furthermore, a step-parent is another entirely separate issue. A step-parent is a person who enters the child’s life after the conception of the child. Step-parents have zero say about the conception of the child. For example, if my wife and I were to divorce right now and I were to meet someone new and marry them tomorrow….My wife would still be this child’s second parent and the new person would be the step-parent. My wife is NOT the step-parent of this child nor does she deserve to be treated that way.
(The real f’ed up part is that if my wife and I were to divorce tomorrow and I got together with a man…he could be put on the birth certificate of the child I was carrying whether we were married or not……NO questions asked….Yet the person who I planned this pregnancy with will not be allowed on the birth certificate because she has a vagina and XX chromosomes).
Why I believe that my wife deserves to be treated as legal parent from birth: First of all, we planned this pregnancy together. We made the decisions, set a timeline, and picked a donor together. We planned around my ovulation, talked baby stuff for months, and filled our hearts with hope. The purchase of the sperm came from my wife’s bank account. Technically, it is her sperm….because she purchased it. She also inseminated me with that sperm. So for all intensive purposes, she impregnated me. Possession is 9/10ths of the law people and we can prove that the rightful owner of the sperm was my wife through her bank account (I am being funny and serious here). Second, she has been with me through this pregnancy from prior to conception until now. She goes to all my appointments, cried at the ultrasound, worries with me, talks to my belly, and kisses our unborn child goodbye every time she goes to work. To say that she is not this child’s parent or that she should only be entitled to the title of a step-parent is heartbreaking to think about and frankly quite oppressive.
Now my hot button issue…..(Edited to add: This is soley my opinion and others may have a different opinion and experience of the comments). The whole premise of your post displays the covert (and at times overt) discrimination faced by LGBT families around the country (I promise, it is not just you….but your post is here and this stuff is so often overlooked that I cannot just sit by any longer and let it go).
There were several microaggressions within your post that I would like to address. One microaggression was the comment about your mind is saying, “no, no, no” to LGBT parents having equal right in a marriage. This statement falls under the category of an environmental microaggression (discrimination that maintains privilege and oppression through larger systems such as public policy or within institutions) that sends the message that LGBT families are not equal nor should they be.
Another part of the environmental microaggression is saying that same-sex couples who conceive a child should be required to obtain a second parent adoption. Since LGBT families are required to get SPAs for equal rights when heterosexual couples are not….it sends the message that LGBT families are not as important or privileged as heterosexual couples. Furthermore, second parent adoptions are expensive and it is just not fair to make same-sex couples pay for something that is automatically granted to different-sex couples.
An additional microaggression came with the statement, “I don’t understand why same sex couples think none of this would apply to them if they were married.” This falls under the category of a microinvalidation and it sends the message to LGBT families that asking for equal rights is wrong or that they are “asking for too much” by requesting equal rights. It is not that we think that “none of it would apply,” it is that it is an entirely different situation than what you seem to be suggesting.
Finally, saying that you are all for marriage equality but….under x, y, z conditions (i.e., you have to have a second parent adoption) seems to be denial of heterosexism- which is another microinvalidation. This sends the message that you are immune to your privilege and nullifies the reality of the LGBT family.
I am sure people will tell me to chill out….but that will just be another microaggression haha. No worries, I get it a lllll the time. Like I said, high emotions combined with my hot button issues....
TTC #2: since June 2016...
Sue, D.W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Sue, D.W., & Capodilupo, C. M. (2008). Racial, gender, and sexual orientation microaggressions. In D.W. Sue & D. Sue (Eds.), Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
D.W. Sue (Ed.). Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Nadal, K. L. Issa, M., Leon, J., Meterko, V., Wideman, M., & Wong, Y. (2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions: “Death by a thousand cuts” for lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8(3), 1-26.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. E. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for counseling. The American Psychologist, 62(4), 271-286.
Or, you know, you could google.
TTC #2: since June 2016...
Thanks...I was surprisingly nervous to leave my reply, both because I didn't want Zen to feel attacked and I wasn't sure I was up for a debate!
TTC #2: since June 2016...
With regard to sperm donation and use though, you highlighted the clause that would ensure rights of the non gestational parent in my eyes. Ownership of the sperm. If purchased in the context of marriage it's could arguably be considered community property and the child created the same. Outside a recognized marriage, it would need to be purchased by the non-g parent or together with 2 signatures and then that should confer dual rights.
My issue is that LGBTs are not asking for a different marriage. They want marriage period. With different rules. That's where I have a problem. There won't be different rules for different people. So what you want could pose a serious threat to hetero women.
Consider domestic partnerships. The idea was to give rights to unmarried LGBTs. Then I got paperwork from a straight employee to add his girlfriend to his insurance. Eye opener for me!
So with marriage, if you make special rules intended for same sex couples, they are going to apply to heteros too. I'm sorry but I don't like it. If I'm with a man and have a baby that's not his, if I walk away I take my child with me. If I do the same in a relationship with a woman, I also take my child with me. I don't want that to change.
Somehow we (society) needs to find a balance here. Because what same sex couples want in petitioning for the right to marry, and the rights non gestational parents expect to gain from marriage, well they just don't match.
I don't post this as a hetero woman. I am speaking as the gestational parent. And yes, I know that's a whole other can of worms. No micros here - this is a macro statement!
The first type of microaggression that I read about were racial microaggressions. As a white woman, I was appalled at how many microaggressions I unintentionally made. I was also unaware of the harm they cause the victims and knew I had to change. Since then, I have made a commitment to better understand microaggressions and recognize my privilege.
For the record, if you identify as a hetero woman, then you are ALWAYS posting through the lens of a hetero woman, you cannot put down that privilege when it is convenient for you to make a point. Just as I cannot put down my white identity, when discussing racial issues. So you post both as a hetero woman and a gestational parent.
I also want to make sure I understand what you are saying in the rest of your post. In the first paragraph, you say “I would love the rights that LGBT couples don't have taken away from heteros too.” This would be great. It would mean that everyone has equal rights, which is the goal of same-sex marriage. It sounds like you are suggesting it would be wonderful for everyone to have equal rights. However, later in the post, you mention that you don’t like that rules intended for LGBT individual would also apply for heterosexual couples denoting that laws should be separate. So I am confused if you are for or against equal rights? Different rights are not equal. Separate is not equal.
I was also not under the impression that special rules were needed for LGBT marriage equality. It was my impression that we wanted the same rights…and there would not be different rules. Is this not what the fight has been about for the last 2 billion years?
Again, I stress, that if you have kids in a relationship with a man and they are not biologically his but some other man’s (not a cryobank sperm donor or someone who signed their rights away) then yes, you can take your kids with you. That man is not required to take care of the children but the other man (who is the biological parent) is required by law to take care of the children. So you are really taking the kids from one man to another. Additionally, if you and your (hypothetical) husband or partner conceived using a sperm donor and you can prove that you made the decision jointly, then he is required by law to care for that child and you cannot legally just take the children away. The same should go for same-sex partners. If they jointly agreed to make the child using a sperm donation, both parties should have rights to the child.
If you are a single parent, you are not including another party in the decision making process to have the child…..Thus, ANY other person, male, female, whatever, would be considered a step-parent as they are entering the child’s life after the conception the child. Again, this is a separate issue from creating the child together and not talking about the same thing. For example, if you got into a relationship with a woman tomorrow and married her, she would not have rights to your child just because you are in a same sex relationship. You could up and leave and take your kids with you a year later and they would have no legal standing to take your children. She did not help create them nor was she part of the creation process. She would only have rights if you gave her rights through a second parent adoption.
So, I am also not sure how my wife’s rights to our unborn child is taking away your rights as a heterosexual gestational parent. Maybe I am missing something? Equality in this case is not saying that every same sex couple automatically will have rights to children they did not help conceive. It is also not asking for separate rules….at all. It is literally asking for the same exact laws and privileges to be granted to everyone.
For example, you mentioned domestic partnerships. While domestic partnerships were partially created with same-sex families in mind, they were not just for same sex families and heterosexual families also benefited from being able to have some (although FAR fewer rights) of the same rights as married couples. This meant that my step-dad and his new wife (edited to say that I meant girlfriend not wife...they have been together for 15 years now but still not married) could take care of each other without having to get married as neither of them wanted to get married again. How is that somehow oppressing the majority group? It is providing the majority group with even more options on how to have privileges while providing same-sex couples a tiny fraction of that privilege.
If I am not understanding, please let me know. I am not in your shoes as a single gestational parent and may not be able to see your prospective clearly. I am open to discussing and learning though.
TTC #2: since June 2016...
I feel sorry that you aren't able to believe in this possibility for your family. I enjoy sharing my child with my wife, I'm glad that she is my child's other parent and I would never want it any other way.
1. a desire to support all families, whatever form they may come in
2. a desire to be assured that she will be able to protect and care for her child in an environment of social change which may have unintended consequences
If my marriage has unintended consequences for single moms I will be the first one to fight to change that. But for now, our son has been in our hearts for 8 years and our arms for two months. My wife and I love each other and him deeply and our relationship to each other and him is not threatening your family. When gays have equal rights in every state no one is going to show up and take away your kids, I promise.
Follow our journey at: www.potandlidmakekid.wordpress.com
TTC #2: IVF April 2017
BFP: FET Due February 2018
You yourself have children that you did not gestate. These children are less yours? You didn't love and care for them until the court told you to??
Bingo! And Patience is spot on too
TTC #2: IVF April 2017
BFP: FET Due February 2018
Lol! I just saw that you wrote this. I wish I could be real life friends will everyone!
TTC #2: since June 2016...
What I am hearing Zen say is that if two women (or men, but since we are discussing this here let's keep it relevant) have a child together and are afforded equal rights to said child then if I get married tomorrow and divorced next year she thinks my ex husband has some rights to Kate? That is the most insane thing I have possibly ever heard.
Am I wrong? Please tell me I'm wrong.
Patience - there are no words to describe how well you made all of your points and I think your passion came through but you remained well composed and articulate. Well done.
TTC #2: since June 2016...
I think the crux of this issue is this ---
Zen, my partner and I are married in the state of Vermont and have been since 2009. Jointly we decided to have a big fancy wedding in 2011 that was totally fake. (And made all the blogs.)
We then decided to have children. We got pregnant as a couple - go look at all our paperwork with the sperm banks and our RE. We were married when oliver and luca were born. If marriage equality is federally recognized, the thought/hope is that oliver and luca will retroactively become 100% legally her children. (I am the gestational parent.)
IF I was not married to my partner at the time of the birth, I would think this would beore of a grey area where you'd have to show intent. (Thought as Babybaby noted you don't "prove" anything as heterosexuals, however the issue would be to retroactively show your coupledom since baby is already born in my scenario.)
However, if I had gotten pregnant with oliver and luca and no partner and then met someone in a few years and got married - that person would have no legal relationship to my child without a second parent adoption.
The disconnect in the argument is timing. No one will have rights to your daughter without you letting them.
Onto your other points, I see no problem with
Domestic partner benefits being wxtended to two men, a heterosexual couple who are dating, three women, etc. If we solely fight for ourselves and don't see that there are alliances to be made to support all peoples' rights -- then we fail.
And for the record, Oliver and Luca are 110% my partner's kids. No piece of paper recognized by the government needed to prove that. It's necessary due to fear of the other and some sort of belief that progress is somehow eroding our core.
Fear is a dangerous place to operate out of and I read a lot of fear in your post, Zen and in a lot of the threads on second parent adoption. We pay $4000 out of fear that our precious children may be taken away from their parents, just like you are afraid that somehow conveying these rights will take your child away. The difference is-- there is no legal avenue for it to happen to you. My partner on the other hand has zero legal rights to her own children.
Now that's scary.
Lucky Cycle 14: IVF!! Antagonist Cycle with Lupron Trigger
I don't believe in the current marriage assumption (for any couple) that if you're in love, the child(ren) are yours. In an adoption of a baby, if two are adopting, both must sign. If you are married and want to share in custody of a child not biologically yours, I want these same rules to apply.
That said, I hate that $4000 cost factor. The hoops I had to jump through to adopt were incredible. I had legal guardianship for two years. The kids had been adopted at birth by my friends and both parents were deceased. I actually had to file for a termination of their parental rights. If not for the time and money involved it would have been funny.
Two of my friends just had a baby together. J carried but N is just as vested in her baby's life. I believe in love and family. But with divorce at 50% or more, I'm skeptical about happily ever after. I've known J for 10 years and N for 15. Without legal measures in place, if this relationship fails, N loses her daughter. That's inconceivable to me.
However, the fact that she loves and cares for and supports her daughter does not confer legal rights. If married, she still is not a bio parent. Adoption would confer rights of parenthood. I want this for her. But ... I don't want marriage to be the basis of conferred parental rights. I think that the legal right to the child should involve an adoption step. I would be fine with this step being part of the paperwork completed at the hospital at birth along with birth certificate and social security registration. I just don't think it should be an automatic function of marriage.
You seem to have this overwhelming need to own your children and never share them with anyone. I love my daughter. I am thrilled when she loves family members and friends, whether they be biologically related to her or not. She has one person in the world to whom she is biologically related. That's it. This should be her entire family?? Why in the world would that be better than the loving family that surrounds her and cares for her?
And why is it that you feel that paperwork is so damned important? Can you imagine all the unnecessary legal bullshit work it would require if everyone had to petition to "own" their child, as you are suggesting??
Also, on a side note to that.. Yes, when you fill out the birth certificate paperwork you are making a legal and meaningful contract with that child. How would your proposal be any different, except to offer "different" rights to some families.. A special circumstance where, as long as you're willing to fill out paperwork that acknowledges that you're different, you can pretend to have the same rights as "normal" families.
It sounds like perhaps you're not all that much in favor of "non traditional" families as you think you are.
And how dare you assume that your friends wouldn't be able to parent a child together should their relationship fail. I don't know what happened in your life to make it so hard for you to trust other people, and I'm sorry that you went through whatever that was, but just because you can't trust and can't share doesn't mean that others can't make good decisions for their children within loving and committed relationships.
It worked! Two clomid cycles and two IUI's with injectables all BFN, on to IVF! 3dt of 2 perfect embryos on 12/15/14, BFP 7dp3dt! Frederick Lars born at 37 weeks on 8/15/15!! FET for #2 on 9/29/16 - BFP 5dp5dt!! Bertram Wilder and Mabel Moon born at 28.4 weeks on 3/29/17!
Watch me fall madly in love and get married now that I put this out there, haha.
I want the legal right to care for my nonbiological mom in her old age as I have for my biological and legally recognized parents. People are able to care for their step parents easily. I should be able to care for a woman who has spent the last 32 years caring for me.
I knew that I'd come under fire for posting this question and airing my views. I'm okay with that. To those I've offended I can't apologize because this is me. It's not an accident or an error. Just me. Marriage for all is going to happen. The only difference to our generation is when. Now? In 10 years? In 20? To those particularly displeased with my views, keep this in mind when dealing with others who have reservations. We vote. Try not to alienate those whose vote will give you what you want in your parenting lifetime.
This is exactly why same sex marriage should not be on any ballots. You don't have the power to allow others what you have. That's bs and unconstitutional, which is why marriage bans are being struck down all over the country.
I find your last comments extraordinarily offensive. Despite you saying that you would vote for marriage equality, what you are really conveying is "if you disagree with me, I will vote so you cannot have what you want. And there are more of me than there are of you, so good luck keeping your children safe." Thanks for reminder that our rights are not based on equality but based on if heterosexuals can tolerate our "deviant lifestyles."
Up to this point, I really have been trying to understand where you are coming from. I, personally, cannot connect to your reservations, mostly (I think) because like Merilung, I don't understand the why. I am not sure why it is so important to you. I absolutely get that you want to keep your kids safe. We are trying to do the exact same thing. Your kids are safe. Many responses above have reassured you of that.
And, honestly, what difference does it make to you if my wife gets her rights granted to her through our marriage and a birth certificate at the time of birth or a second parent adoption later? Why is the extra paperwork and judge approval is needed, when birth certificates, consent, and signatures at the time of birth could serve as the exact same thing. To me, it just sounds like a lot time, energy, and money wasted (in cost of court fees, time off work, and hiring a lawyer) to establish something that is already established for heterosexual couples.
I really do wish I could understand but I am not there yet and telling me to "watch it" or my wife may never have rights to her child is not going to get me there any faster.
TTC #2: since June 2016...
Wow. Well if this doesn't scream "privileged"....
TTC #2: IVF April 2017
BFP: FET Due February 2018
But what you really were trying to say was that you thought that biology somehow makes for an instant, better parent. Which is ironic, considering your own family makeup.
f.uck that. My family is not yours to vote on and I don't live my life to appease those who would dare try to dangle my rights above my head like a twisted carrot on a stick. You might want to keep your privilege in check and remember that the big money that opposes marriage equality does so under the umbrella argument that children need a mom and a dad to raise them. They hate you (as a single mother by choice) pretty much as equally as they hate us, and they would love to strip your ability to legally do what you are doing as well. Maybe it is you who should be trying not to burn bridges with your allies?
Again, why would you marry someone if you want to create and raise children by yourself? When you marry someone, you are moving forward in life *together*. That's kind of the whole point, isn't it? So if you want to create & raise children, why would you not want your partner in life sharing in that adventure with you? It's not like you can raise children as a hobby on the side, they kind of consume your life for a good 18 years. I don't understand what the genetics of the children have to do with it at all. If biology was so important, none of us would be here creating children who are intentionally going to be raised without one of their biological parents. Blood doesn't make family. Family - hell, relationships in general - is being there for people when they need you. My wife and I made a legal commitment to be there for each other and to be there for any children created as a result of our union. It is a big responsibility and it is a responsibility that does not end just because of a divorce.