SSM AND PARENTING: Lucia Liljegren replies to Mary Catelli

I responded to Mary Catelli's initial comment on my post with the question, "So, my only real question is: ...Do you think parents who take on the legal responsibility to care for children ought not to be married?"

Ms. Catelli responds with, in her words, a passel of questions: "1. Why do you refer to those people as 'parents' and not as 'people'?"

I use the term "parent" to denote a person who is a parent of some sort. I add modifiers when I wish to refer to a specific sub-group. For example: My sister is my niece and nephew's parent. My sister's husband is my nephew's step-father.

"2. Are you using the word 'legal' to mean biological and adoptive parents?"

By legal parent, I mean "one whom the law holds responsible to care for and raise a child." My sister is her son's legal parent. My brother-in-law is not his legal parent. Biological parents who give up their legal rights are not legal parents.

"3. Do you think that your argument means that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry in states where they are not allowed to adopt?"

I prefer such states to allow homosexuals to marry. A lesbian can give birth to a child in any state. Her child could benefit should its mother form a stable monogamous relationship and marry. Significant benefits would accrue to the child, even if the state blocked full benefits by forbidding adoption. My sister's case presents a heterosexual analog. My nephew benefited when my sister married even though her husband did not adopt the three-year-old boy. My nephew would have been barred from these benefits had the law prohibited my sister's marriage.

"4. Do you think that marriage laws should be changed whenever a judge orders an adoption so that a child is legally adopted by two people who are not allowed to marry?"

I'm not sure what you are asking. I think children benefit when their parent finds a suitable partner and marries. I prefer that the law not block these marriages.

"5. Do you think that 'legal responsibility' trumps all consideration of who is actually raising the child?"

I am not certain what you are asking. Generally, at least one of the parents who is legally responsible for raising their children has physical custody and raises them. Adoptive parents gain legal responsibility, take custody and raise their child. I think it best when adoptive parents are married. In my sister's case, she had legal responsibility and physical custody. Her second marriage provided a more stable environment than single motherhood, and I thought it
wonderful that she married.

"6. That adoption law should not be altered to fit the realities of who is actually caring for the children?"

Don't adoption laws already take this into account? My understanding is that people who wish to adopt file for adoption. A judge reviews the case. My impression is that judges generally grant adoptions to people who intend to care for the children after the adoption. Often, those people are already caring for the child.

"7. And if so, why is adoption law so sacred when marriage law is so malleable?"

Adoption law has changed dramatically in my lifetime; you pointed this out in an earlier post.

I have answered your seven questions and ask again: Do you think parents who take on the legal responsibility to care for children ought not to be married?
posted by Eve at 12:16 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home