Friday, January 7, 2011

I am not either

Well, well. The United States Government is removing the words "father" and "mother" from passport applications, in favor of "parent one" and "parent two":

The words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, the State Department says.

The words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father,’” said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services. "They are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’"

A statement on the State Department website noted: “These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.” The statement didn't note if it was for child applications only.

The State Department said the new passport applications, not yet available to the public, will be available online soon.

Sprague said the decision to remove the traditional parenting names was not an act of political correctness.

Like hell it's not.

I'm outraged by this. I am not either "parent one" or "parent two" to my beautiful daughters. I AM THEIR MOTHER. And I have the legal right to be recognized as such by every national, state, and local agency that ever has the authority to collect any such information from me.

If two gay men are raising one or the other's biological child or a child they've adopted, or a child they paid a reproductive prostitute to manufacture for them, they can call themselves the child's "fathers," plural, until the cows come home. The child still has one father. And if two lesbians are raising a child as stated above, they can also insist on being "Mommy One" and "Mommy Two" to the poor child they are raising. The child has one mother--either one of them, or a woman who gave the baby up for adoption, or a reproductive prostitute who was paid to manufacture a child for them. No human being on the planet has more than one actual father and one actual mother; no human being has ever been born as the result of the genetic combination of two sperm cells or two egg cells.

The people doing any of the above remain a tiny minority in this nation--and they always will be. Why in hell should the heterosexual married biological parents responsible for raising the vast majority of this nation's children have to endure the unprecedented insult from our national government of having our irreplaceable role in our children's lives as their mothers or their fathers denigrated down to the slap-in-the-face and utterly bizarre terms "parent one" and "parent two?"

Enough is enough. I will absolutely refuse, as an act of civil disobedience if necessary, to fill out any government form, federal, state, or local, which requires me to state whether I am "parent one" or "parent two" to my beautiful children. I am not either.

39 comments:

L. said...

Funny, I feel exactly the same way here in Tokyo, whenever I have to fill out an official form with "head of household." That is my husband.

I always scribble it out and write "spouse" or "partner" because the idea of him as "head of household" makes me just cringe.

Hector said...

Re: Funny, I feel exactly the same way here in Tokyo, whenever I have to fill out an official form with "head of household."

Ugh. I agree with you, L. I find this idea that the husband should be 'head of the household' to be annoying and dangerous; it's especially grating when it's on a government document.

romishgraffiti said...

Instead of not filling it out, how about scratching out "parent one" and filling in "mother"?

Magister Christianus said...

Unbelievable. I agree with you one hundred percent. I will refuse to fill out any such form. This is absurdity and pandering run amok.

Anonymous said...

"And I have the legal right to be recognized as such by every national, state, and local agency that ever has the authority to collect any such information from me."

Where is this right spelled out? You certainly have a right to tell anyone what you consider yourself to be, but a right "to be recognized as such"?

A claim like that requires evidence.


elizabeth

Barbara C. said...

My first thought is that "parent one and parent two" sounds like something out of Dr. Seuss.

Secondly, I love the quote:
“We find that with changes in medical science and reproductive technology that we are confronting situations now that we would not have anticipated 10 or 15 years ago.”

Maybe someone should have listened to the Vatican 10 or 15 years or more ago...

Jason Cebalo said...

Dear Mrs. Manning,

Hi, I'm a long time reader of your blog but this is the first time I've commented. I like your blog and generally agree with you.

On this issue, I completly agree that the change the federal government is making is an unnacceptable atack on the traditional family. I am, however, a bit concerned by some of your arguments which seem to suggest that only biological parents are the only ones who can legitimatly be called parents. A great many adpotive parents and their adoptees would doubtless disagree with you, as would St. Luke's Gospel which calls St. Joseph Christ's father.

Red Cardigan said...

Jason, thanks for reading, and welcome as a commenter! I've written about this before--see, perhaps, this post for an example:

http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/2010/08/vocabulary-of-depravity.html

The difference between adoptive married heterosexual parents, and even adoptive single parents, is that they aren't pretending a child actually has two fathers or two mothers. They are assuming the role and the parental duties of the failed biological parents--or, in the most tragic of circumstances, of deceased ones. But they don't pretend that their adoptive child never had a biological father and a biological mother; they respect these gender roles, and in the case of married heterosexual adoptive parents do their best to take on these roles and provide their children with a new father and a new mother to take the place of their original parents who could not raise them.

Only same sex "parenting partners" fuss and fume over society's "heteronormative" assumption that children ought to have a father and a mother. They're really fuming and fussing at biological reality, however; and why should the rest of us have to pander to their fantastical pretense that two same-gender parents can produce offspring just like two opposite-gender parents can, or that there is nothing particularly important, despite human history and experience, in a child's having both a mother and a father?

Red Cardigan said...

Elizabeth, my legal right to be recognized as my daughters' mother begins with their birth certificates. That document assumes that each human being has a biological mother and a biological father, and in fact wants to identify each of these people as the unique people they are.

Can I say to my husband, "Oh, I know that mothers usually give birth, but I'd rather you do that instead, especially given my health problems," and simply by suggesting that he do so, make that reality appear? Of course not. But erasing the biological reality of the mother from the passport documentation requires *all* parents to pretend that gender is merely a fluid social construct instead of a rather important thing when it comes to how babies are made, and why we call ourselves parents in the first place.

Now imagine asking a classroom full of third grade children, "Who goes to the hospital and has the baby, parent one or parent two?" Any reasonably intelligent child among them will counter with the question, "Which one is the mother?"

The fact that I am my children's mother is not merely "what I consider myself to be," but a fundamental biological reality, one that carries with it certain automatic legal rights and duties. Imagine if the moment the hospital whisked a newborn off to the nursery for vitamin shots, a government official entered the labor room and asked the immediately postpartum woman, "Do you consider yourself the mother of this child? Do you have any proof that you are? Did you supply DNA for the maternity testing? Did you complete the mandatory home visitation?" and so forth. We'd be outraged, wouldn't we, because we know that the mother's rights in regard to the child (as well as her obligations) proceed from her innate and unique biological connection to them.

Erasing the concept of motherhood from the public square will have grave, dire, horrible consequences. Just wait and see.

L. said...

Now imagine asking a classroom full of third grade children, "Who goes to the hospital and has the baby, parent one or parent two?"

And the adopted kids get to say, "Neither!"

Red Cardigan said...

Don't be silly, L. Every adopted child I've ever know was quite comfortable with the terms "birth mother" or "biological mother," and knew exactly what those terms meant.

In fact, a friend of mine in high school was adopted and had woven some fantasies about how she might be a celebrity's child; she was old enough to have natural teenage friction with her parents, and so romanticizing about her birth parents was a comfortable coping mechanism.

In no case did any adopted child I ever knew maintain the illusion that they didn't have a biological mother or biological father. What does a child being raised by two gay men do about that? Demand to know about her birth mother, only to have the men angrily tell her that two fathers are good enough and that she's hurting them by insisting on this outdated heteronormative construct in which she ought to have a mother?

Anonymous said...

Erin,

Seems like a family lawyer would be helpful here.

From poking around the net ever so briefly, it seems that birth certificates originally were issued for the purposes of taxation and determination of military manpower. In other words, for government rights.

In the USA, birth certificates document the right of citizenship for the baby. They also confer responsibilities of caring for and making decisions for the minor child and the right of access to that child.

Can't find anything about the BC as a fortress of protective presumptions about "the traditional family".

Adoptive children are issued new "birth certificates" that purport that the adoptive parents are the birth parents, which clearly they are not. In that case, it would seem more about rights and responsibilities to care for the child.

Nothing about how whether or not the government perceives you as mom or dad.

Why does a passport application cause this level of outrage - that's what I can not understand. I keep coming back trying to, because I firmly believe that the only way the country will heal is if we try to understand each other.

From what I've gleaned about your views on government (from Rod's old blog especially) it's a little surprising that you care what the government form says. At one point, in a discussion of gay civil marriage, you said you'd forgo your legal marriage certificate if the RC did not require you to obey civil laws. (Which seems odd, as that confers hundreds of legal rights that a purely church marriage would not.)

The persistent uprising of so much outrage just confuses the heck out of me. (And I'm a mom - who also considers myself a "parent.")

Peace.

elizabeth

Patrick said...

I agree completely, Red.

Isn't this how it always goes? First, these folks play fast and loose with the vocabulary, and then it makes it easier for future abuses to occur. You had a post a few months ago where people were referred to as "consumers", as if we were just talking resource-users instead of people created in God's image. Well; it is easy to take advantage of a "consumer" - much less easy to abuse a "child of God". It's easier to sleep at night when we're doing "extraordinary rendition" instead of "torture".

As far as compliance with Caesar - I've always wondered how this applies to this stuff and marriage stuff. Is your status as "mother" for Caesar or God? God, of course. Is marriage for Caesar or God? I'd say God. And that almost urges massive stubborn resistance to this cultural slide, and I mean stubborn to the point of "rudeness" (like always raising an objection when you are introduced to a "married" homosexual ("Impossible!" You say, and make yourself unsociable and a pariah.)

Just speculating; I'm a little off today.

bathilda said...

elizabeth, to answer your question...it is outrageous to red because in her perfect world, the USA would be a hard line catholic theocracy.

L. said...

"What does a child being raised by two gay men do about that? Demand to know about her birth mother, only to have the men angrily tell her that two fathers are good enough and that she's hurting them by insisting on this outdated heteronormative construct in which she ought to have a mother?" --->

The children being raised by the two-daddy families at my kids' (Catholic) school were all aquainted with (some were even in touch with) their birth mothers.

But birth mothers, biological mothers are not parents -- hence the need for their qualifier.

Ian said...

@L You're right. Birth mothers in the case you cite are breeding stock. Sad state of affairs.

Red Cardigan said...

Ian, you're right. For years, one of the epithets gay couples have thrown at heterosexual married couples is that we are "breeders." But they're the ones who are willing to pay for other human beings to engage in reproductive prostitution in order to "breed" the children they have no way of bringing into existence without the reproductive prostitutes' services.

Then, having done this, they turn around and shriek that it is discriminatory for the government to see it as somehow normative for most children to have exactly one mother and exactly one father. Adoptive heterosexual parents have *never* complained about being designated as their children's father and mother, respectively; in fact, they have had to work very hard through the law to become these people to their children.

All of the same-sex "parenting partners," though, somehow can't deal with the idea that heterosexual sex is what produces children, and in heterosexual sex one person is male and one is female, thus each child has one mother and one father. And they're going to stamp their feet and scream until we eradicate such "heteronormative" ideas from the culture lest they get their feelings hurt by having to confront the abnormality of their perverted lifestyles when they fill out a government document.

They don't care if they reduce all parenthood to some gender-neutral nonsense; in fact, that's what they want. Which is why I say, again: I am my daughters' MOTHER, and I will NOT be listed as "Parent One" or "Parent Two" on any form.

When gay men have gone through the pains of pregnancy and childbirth, they can come talk to me about how unfair it is for me to insist on being called "mother" to my children. As for the lesbians: if they want to fight about whether the one who went through the pains and suffering of pregnancy and childbirth should get to be recognized as the children's actual mother or not, that's their private business (or their private hell, if you want to look at it that way). But they have no right to force it on the rest of us.

L. said...

Had my husband and I both died when our children were babies, the friends who would have become their leghal guardians were a lesbian couple, so perhaps I tend to put gay families on a pedestal just because the ones I happen to know are so wonderful.

Erin, I think you should do what I do whenever I have to fill in my husband's name on a Japanese government form and write "head of household:" just cross out "parent" and and write in "mother." I have been writing in "spouse" or "partner" for 20 years -- even on my taxes! -- and no one has ever denied me any official paperwork (despite no dearth of ignorant, narrow-minded civil servants where I live).

I think that the "parent one" and "parent two" designations could solve some of the problems of blended heterosexual families -- when children are being raised by step-parents, and yet still have some relationship with their biological parents that they don't want to completely negate.

And acutally, I DO know some adoptive heterosexual parents who took pains to be designated as their children's step-father and step-mother, in order to preserve the biological relationship for what they thought was in the child's best interests.

But civil disobediance seems to be the best solution here.

Anonymous said...

"The child still has one father." Sorry, but you're just wrong about that. My state allows 2 men to each be a separate, legal "father" to the son they've adopted together. You lose nothing by having to list yourself as a "parent" on your child's passport application.

c matt said...

is marriage for Caesar or God? I'd say God.

I'd say both (God first, Caesar riding the coattalis). But Caesar is screwing it up and we will all end up paying the price.

"The child still has one father." Sorry, but you're just wrong about that.

Red said one biological father. No amount of legal BS changes that, so she is not wrong.

Nârwen said...

>No human being on the planet >has more than one actual father >and one actual mother; no human >being has ever been born as the >result of the genetic combination >of two sperm cells or two egg >cells.
Well, they are working on it. I believe scientists have managed to modify mouse eggs to act like sperm, and have produced baby mice with who have a mother and a female father. If this gets to humans, there would then be girls with two females, and no male, in their immediate genetic background.
Apparently the PC mavens are merely slightly ahead of the scientific curve...
(BTW, I do not think such a thing is a good idea. I'm just noting that appeals to biology may soon not be as ironclad as they appears to be now. )

Anonymous said...

This is about a form the government needs to list on a passport names of the persons who have the right to transport a minor across international borders.

What if, due to deaths or imprisonment of your biological parents, you are being "parented" by your grandma and an aunt, who live together and they want to take you to Mexico for a day of shopping and museum hopping? The lack of a living or free mother or father should prevent them from getting you a passport? Ridiculous. Mothers and fathers are parents. Look it up.

The other thing I want to comment on is the dependence on the government and other people for your identity. I know I'm my son's mother. What other people call that relationship doesn't matter a whit to me.

Two men who want to raise a child together are reaching for the traditional family. Gay people who attacked heterosexuals as "breeders" were reacting to the oppression they had felt - and that was never all gay people, BTW, by any means. A considerable number of the younger gays - but not, sadly, all of them yet - are confident in who they are. They want what the rest of us want. Families. (That makes them destructive due to I know-I know-I've read the past repetitive rants here - no need to keep repeating the need for a sperm and an egg, we all know that.) But still. They want families.

Gay families were sneered at by many members of the liberation generation. They hated the idea. Their own vision of gay people just copulating all over the place has been abandoned. Guess what gay people who don't spend their lives in fear of being found out want? In many cases, its a family.

I see so many wonderful gay parents raising children. Loving mothers and fathers who adore and nurture their children, both biological and adoptive. It's a shame you see a repudiation of yourself when you look at them, Erin.

elizabeth

Anonymous said...

I have to laugh about the person mentioning the Japanese government requesting information about the head of the household. 1. The head of the household is a question asked of citizens of the US especially IN the USA. It's not at all unusual for forms (even the census!!) to ask for the head of household and expect a man's name, or the one that can claim everyone in the 'household' as his (usually) dependents. 2. As I have been the main breadwinner in my home for these past 15 years while my husband cared for our children, I chuckle every time hospital bills are considered his responsibility even though I am the insurance subscriber and sole source of monetary income. 3. In Japan, forms of addressing adults out of respect i.e. use of the 'san' is genderless, and has its pros and cons. One pro is that as an address, 'san' doesn't state whether the female it's used to address is a Ms., Miss, or Mrs., or divorced. Unlike the use of Mr. here in the US where Mr. can be used to address all males above the age of 12 years of age regardless if married, never-married, or eunachs!

In this column, and justifiably so, Red has shown vehemence about consideration of traditional parenting to be something 'just the same' as various other perturbations.

We just don't know what all this lesbianism and gayness impacts in raising 'normal' children, and there are studies that show it's no big deal, that kids raised by lesbian mothers seem 'happier' or some such, but we don't really know, especially when there's the factor of the evil done in the name of gay priests, and kids' minds are not something we want to mess with in this day and age where so much that is unsavory is going on already. Plus, the biblical wisdom seems to suggest that mixing up the sexual identity of people is an abomination for establishing some natural order in society.

But, for the record, Ms. Hillary Clinton has put in her 2 cents and asked that forms use 'mother' and 'father' instead of the sexless alternative as suggested, according the article in the local newspaper.

Zircon

Anonymous said...

@ Elizabeth: Well stated. I kind of love you! But I think it's spelled "refudiation." ;)

@c matt: Our state laws are not "legal BS." What a poor argument.

Anonymous said...

Anon:

Refudiation? I am no Sarah Palin! ;^)

Thanks and love me all you want. I need love as much as the rest of us, oh my.

elizabeth

Red Cardigan said...

Elizabeth, what was wrong with the old "Mother/legal guardian," "Father/legal guardian" standard that used to appear on such forms? Then, if the mother and father were deceased and the grandmother had custody, nobody had a problem. Why, that option even satisfies same-sex couples, right?

No; they're mad that the forms don't offer a "mother/mother" or "father/father" option. Their hatred for the heteronormative family knows no bounds, and they will do whatever they can to eradicate the notion that it's not only normal but usual and ordinary for children to have one mother and one father.

Elizabeth, I'm sorry, but when two men or two women decide they want a "family," they can only have this "family" by choosing to deprive the children they will raise *forever* of the experience of having either a father or a mother, as the case may be. Their children will *forever* lack either a same-gender or an opposite-gender parent (again, as the case may be). Unlike a child whose father or mother dies, the child whose same-sex parents choose to deprive him or her forever of a father or a mother insist that he/she simply shouldn't want to have that parent--and they want to force society to say the same thing, so "their" children will never feel abnormal.

I think it's a tragedy for any child to be fatherless or motherless--that's why I see adoption by heterosexual married couples as an unqualified good. But the little girl being raised by "two dads" is told, "Oh, you don't need a mom! How selfish for you to want one--you're hurting your "dads'" feelings!" Is that really the kind of society we want? Do we really want to kowtow to that by erasing the concept of father/mother from our culture?

L. said...

Is that really the kind of society we want? YES.

I am not out to destroy the traditional family, but I am definitely doing all I can, every day, and in every way, to destroy the notion that every family SHOULD BE traditional, or the children are somehow "deprived" of their rights. It is just one step away from saying every child has the "right" to be raised by a stay-at-home mother, or homeschooled, or raised in a particular religion that is the only path to salvation.

To each his/her own.

Bathilda said...

I ask you, Red, how many gay couples raising children do you know? I'll admit, that I don't know many, but the ones I do know take great pains to find role models of the opposite gender for their children. You say that two Fathers act like their daughters shouldn't want a mother figure. that simply is fantasy on your part. The gay men I know are more aware of their limitations "as men" than any hetero I've ever met! A fact that you have not addressed is that the day is coming, if it's not already here, that more children are born to two unmarried parents instead of married ones. Already, MANY fathers are completely out of the picture. I think that children raised in a loving home by two people of any gender are better off than a child who is unloved, unwanted, or treated as a burden.

Would you rather have children in orphanages than allow homosexuals to adopt? I think that a lot of your bias against gay people results from a lack of your knowing any personally.

Melissa G said...

"But they don't pretend that their adoptive child never had a biological father and a biological mother; they respect these gender roles, and in the case of married heterosexual adoptive parents do their best to take on these roles and provide their children with a new father and a new mother to take the place of their original parents who could not raise them."

As a parent of 3 adoptive children, I take issue with what I quoted above. I am my children's mother, and my husband is their father. Yes, I recogize the woman who gave birth to them, and we have a semiopen adoption to keep connection with them, but I am NOT raising someone else's child - Or just trying to do my best IN PLACE of their biological parents who couldn't raise them- I don't htink you meant it to be, but that is SO INSULTING. The law recognizes me as their parent- their birth certificates have my husband and my name on them. My kids see me as their REAL mom, not someone raising them because the person that gave birth to them couldn't.
I agree with your orginial posting. I don't want to be seen as just "parent 1" or "parent 2". I also don't want to be know as "new Mom", or "other Mom". Just Mom is fine with me.

c matt said...

When you have dealt with laws as much as I have on a professional level, you will then realize that in fact, yes, many of our "laws," particularly in this "PC" area, are a bunch of BS. Sad, but true.

Red Cardigan said...

Melissa, I have lots of respect for adoptive parents and adopted children, and I have known many of both. But what I said is a simple statement of fact. Your children are certainly your children; they also, just as certainly, have biological parents. Every adopted child I've ever known has gone through a period, usually in the late teens or early 20s, of being immensely curious about their biological parents, wishing to know about them or even to find them in cases where the adoption isn't open. This doesn't imply lack of respect for their real adoptive parents--just illustrates that both nature and nurture are important, so to speak.

When I say that you and your husband took over the mother/father role after your children's biological parents failed them, how is that false? I am not using "role" here to mean "acting," but merely to point out how it *is* possible for you and your husband to be mother/father to your children--but it is *not* similarly possible for two gay men to take on these intrinsically important parenting roles for the children they are raising.

I hope that clarifies things.

Nârwen said...

>how it *is* possible for you and >your husband to be mother/father >to your children--but it is *not* >similarly possible for two gay >men to take on these >intrinsically important parenting >roles for the children they are >raising.

That's true with the current state of technology, but, as I said in my earlier post, that may be changing, possibly in our lifetimes. We have mice whose genetic fathers are female. When there are girls who are the genetic children of two women, what happens to this argument ? That's the trouble with trying to get an 'ought' from an 'is' - our ability to change the 'is' keeps getting more and more powerful.
BTW, I'm not in favor of any of this. I'm just warning that supporting a moral argument with 'the way things are' may not cut it in the future - possibly the near future.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Men are different from women. That's why, when we got rid of separate public restrooms labeled "colored" and "white" we did NOT get rid of separate restrooms for "men" and "women." Women can be mothers. They cannot be fathers. Men can be fathers. They cannot be mothers.

L. said...

Siarlys Jenkins, you have obviously never experienced one of Japan's unisex public restrooms -- or had to endure the uncomfortable gaze of a man at a urinal when female moi emerged from doing my business in the stall.

It takes a male and female to create a baby, but then their role is done, and the actual childraising can be done by either gender (it's true only one gender can lactate, but milk can be pumped).

There is the strictly biological defintion of "mother" and "father," but the words mean much more when applied to child-raising.

Anonymous said...

Probably L. did not 'endure' the uncomfortable gaze of a man at an urinal when emerging from defecating in the stall, either, if she lived in that city (or country) any length of time.

Unless, of course, she came from the USA first where there are alot more 'social mores' with regard to issues of nudity, sex, etc. and feels she can never accept the fact that men grunt the same way as women during bowel elimination.

Obviously, open urinals would have to be eliminated if the idea were to be generally acceptable at the many medical seminars I attend where there is never enough restrooms for women compared to men for the 15 minutes break between lectures that we're allowed to use them.

But, that aside. After a certain age, there are certain distinct difference between caring for girls and boys; they're not sexless beings.

Zircon

Anonymous said...

Zircon, women and men in theory can indeed educate and parent children of the opposite gender. For example: I have a son and a daughter, and when the time comes for frank discussions about sex, I know that I will have to do the talking to my son. For, you see, my husband is a cradle catholic who's only "talk" he ever got from his father was on our wedding day. He was told, "Always be a gentleman." That's it. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. I am perfectly comfortable giving facts in a no nonsense way. its natural, and I can tell him what's what a whole heck of a lot better than his father, who is both biologically his father and has been in his life every day as the "man" of the house.

c matt said...

This whole parent 1/parent 2 thing reminds me of the old SNL conehead sketches - remember when "parental unit" used to be a joke because the aliens did not understand the human concept of parenting? Apparently, not a joke anymore.

Maybe under the race/ethnicity portion of the application I will list "Conehead" to see if the humorless drones get the joke.

L. said...

Zircon, I've lived most of my adult life in Japan, and it was always the men who were embarrassed, not me, when a foreign woman stumbled out next to them while they were doing their business. It's impossible to embarrass me -- can't shame the shameless!

And you know, I don't see any difference, raising girls and boys (except for the obvious physical ones).

Anonymous said...

Red,

I can imagine gay men telling a child she should not want a mother - but that's due to having been raised by a mother with borderline personality disorder and a father with a different disorder, not because I had gay parents. My traditional family in that ideal decade, the 1950s, was one sick unit of "family" from which I needed years of therapy to recover. I did the developmental tasks of my teens in my twenties as a result, and married in my thirties because I was simply not prepared by my "normal" family to have a family. I knew I couldn't give a child what s/he needed earlier than that. As it was, I went to parenting groups and read books about each stage/age of childhood because nothing from my upbringing prepared me instinctively for mothering.

There is nothing inherent in a gay family that will make the parents deny the child's desires or shame them for having them. Plenty of sick parents exist in "hetero-normative" families.


Maybe you've spent too much time around (or reading about?) academic gays who use such terms, and not enough just getting to know every day, working world gay people. I've been watching gay couples parent for a quarter of a century now, and they have raised accomplished, happy and to a one, hetero-sexual children.

(Also, I have no problem with the old mother/legal guardian format. Where did I say I did?)

elizabeth