Picking up after the long weekend (and judging from readership, I think everyone must have been off doing something?)
Relating to the earlier post about the new UK legislation: Here’s another news story on the “need for a father” amendment that was defeated. One thing this article makes clear that I had not seen spelled out before: Where lesbians in a relationship use IVF to conceive a child, both will be considered parents from the time of birth. No need for the woman who does not give birth to adopt the child via a second-parent adoption. This is the same presumption that operates generally for married couples, including married lesbian couples in Massachusetts. It also seems similar to a presumption under consideration in Australia that I wrote about a bit ago.
Two things in particular seem worthy of note. First off, the relationship between the two women does not have to be a formal legal relationship, at least if the news coverage is correct. They don’t have to be registered as civil partners, which is the closest thing lesbians can get to married in the UK. That’s a more flexible standard than the original marital presumption or a presumption in favor of domestic partners/those in civil unions. All of those presumptions require a formal legal relationship as a footing for the presumption. I wonder whether a similarly flexible standard is available for heterosexual couples in the UK, or whether those couples have to be married in order to benefit from the presumption of parenthood.
The second thing that strikes me is how clear it seems that the use of ART by married heterosexual couples lays the groundwork for the lesbian parents. When the married different sex couples use a sperm donor, the donor is not the father. Thus, the genetic connection of the donor must be deemed irrelevant. Once that is established (as it was a number of years ago) why would the same genetic connection be important for the lesbian couple? Or for the single woman? And if genetic connection doesn’t give a man a claim to parental status, then what supports the need for a father? It has to be gender role arguments. And that truly is, I think, where the heart of this debate lies. Does the involvement of a male parent bring something qualitatively different than that of a female parent?
Finally, the article is worth reading through just for the tone of the various arguments offered, particularly those of Iris Robinson, towards the end. What, by the way, is a “DUP?”
6 responses so far ↓
surrogate // May 28, 2008 at 8:35 am |
Another good post. I alway like your posts. Keep up the good work.
Mark Lyndon // June 2, 2008 at 7:26 am |
The DUP is the Democratic Unionists Party, which is a political party in Northern Ireland with strong links to Protestant churches.
julieshapiro // June 2, 2008 at 7:35 am |
Thanks so much for the information.
Nelly // June 7, 2008 at 5:22 am |
“Does the involvement of a male parent bring something qualitatively different than that of a female parent?”
I rather think it is about holding men accountible. If fathers are not important, why should they pay child support? Women are forced by biology to invest in their offspring, men are not. Any viable society must adress this asymmetry, one way or another. One way is to send the message: `fathers matters!´. The alternative message: `fathers are not important, but we like to get your money´, would not be quite so effective.
julieshapiro // June 7, 2008 at 12:16 pm |
I think the key in this comment is “one way or another.” I am inclined to agree that men and women must all invest in the next generation–perhaps not each and every one of us, but generally. There are, however, lots of ways to “invest” in children. I’m not sure all of them need to involve assuming rights and responsibilities of a parent.
I can also think about holding men accountable in different ways. Do we want to hold them accountable for having engaged in sex which resulted in pregnancy? That kind of accountability might be better accomplished by some sort of monetary assessment–which I take it is idea behind the “we like the money” comment.
Bill Singer // June 16, 2008 at 10:36 am |
To blow my own horn, I won a case in New Jersey In re Robinson, 383 N.J. Super. 165, 890 A.2d 1036 (2005) which held that a lesbian partner of a bio mom would have her name put on a birth certificate from the moment of birth. The case was cited approvingly in Lewis v. Harris, the NJ marriage case. It is now the law of the State in NJ for any female same-sex couples in a domestic partnership or civil union.
I believe that VT and CA also follow this rule.