Who's Your Daddy? Or Mother?

WARNING: This article contains the personal opinions of the author.

Massachusetts became the first state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriages. Now the result is creating lots of problems, one of which is how the state keeps birth certificates. The resolution of this question may involve life-or-death situations in future years. Perhaps a smaller, but equally interesting, question is this: how do genealogists record birth certificate information?

Birth certificates? At first glance, one might wonder how same-sex partners could have newborns. However, nothing is ever simple in today's world. It seems that a number of issues are giving headaches to town clerks and have become a political football for the state's governor, who is strongly against same-sex marriages.

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a devout Mormon who fully supports his church's views on homosexuality and same-sex marriages, has been butting heads with same-sex couples over birth certificates for their newborns.

The problem is that birth certificates, as currently written, reflect archaic notions of procreation: one mother and one father. However, in one recent Massachusetts case, two men, one a sperm donor and the other his boyfriend, became "parents" when a surrogate mother gave birth to the donor's child. The two men wanted their names on the birth certificate, with the boyfriend replacing the birth mother. Governor Romney said "no."

Publicity has magnified the issue, and now gay and lesbian parents have asked the state to replace the designations of "mother" and "father" on birth certificates and all state record-keeping with the non-gender-specific terms "Parent A" and "Parent B."

Romney states that, in fact, all persons do have a biological mother and a biological father. Records should reflect that reality to the extent possible, says Romney. Nevertheless, recognizing that married same-sex couples do have children these days, Romney has been instructing hospitals to cross out the word "Mother" or "Father" and write in "Second Parent' as necessary to accommodate individual cases. The governor's view is that these altered certificates, while not perfect, at least resolve the immediate issue of recording the intended, if not the biological, parents' names.

Problems arose recently when Massachusetts town clerks suggested that certificates thus altered might not pass legal muster in some circumstances and urged that new forms be created. Although Romney has refused, it's probably only a matter of time before the courts are asked to intervene.

NOTE: Personal opinion starts here.

All of this makes for interesting reading. There are rights of the individuals involved as well as the legal requirements of the state. Both sides are loudly talking about their "legal rights." While I can see the two sides of this argument, it strikes me that there is one silent voice in this entire brouhaha: What are the legal rights of the newborn?

Today we see thousands of adoptees petitioning courts to open long-sealed birth records. For years, those whose birth certificates do not reflect biological facts have gone to extraordinary lengths to determine the truth. While some of these searches are done for personal gratification, many of the more heart-wrenching stories involve the search for information about inherited medical conditions. It seems ironic that anyone would consider omitting basic biological information from a birth certificate just as DNA research shows increasing promise of help in identifying and predicting medical conditions.

In case after case, adoptees are seeking to prolong their own lives as well as the lives of their children and grandchildren. They need to know the biological truth in order to save lives. I would suggest that all children born into non-traditional families have a right to learn about their biological parents, especially when critical medical issues are involved.

Shouldn't the children who entered this world in a non-traditional environment have the same rights as adoptees? In fact, aren't they adoptees themselves, even if the legal system does not use that term? Who is speaking for these newborns? Do they have a right to know their true biological inheritance as well as the "facts" as stated by those who raise them?

In the meantime, I have one more question for genealogists: how do YOU keep records of such "families" in your database?

Comments

[Chris Dunham]

I agree that the rights and interests of the child should be foremost. I see no reason why a birth certificate can't include biological parents as well as (for want of a better term) legal parents. The children of same-sex couples are probably far less confused about their situation than are the politicians.

[Drew Smith]

The use of quotation marks around the word "families" in the last sentence of the article implies that what the word refers to aren't really families. I strongly suspect that members of those families would take serious issue with such an implication.

[Matt]

Where will the gay agenda end? As long as we keep tolerating and compromising with them they will keep gaining ground. My heart goes out to the babies born under these circumstances.

[Frank]

Chris,

"The children of same-sex couples are probably far less confused about their situation than are the politicians."

What are you talking about here? You have got to be joking. Politications are not confused they are just bought off. These children being raised in these circumstances will no doubt be "confused" by all the brainwashing the gays like to teach. I hope the God above pays special attention to these children.

Frank

[David Sisson]

My genealogical software, Ancestral Quest, allows me to enter the names of biological parents (by default) as well as adoptive parents and "courtesy parents." In a case of the child of a same-sex couple, I would enter the names of the biological parents (if I have that knowledge) and the names of the one or two adoptive parents or courtesy parents. If one person in the same-sex couple relationship is an actual biological parent, I would enter the name in the father or mother field, as appropriate. I would designate the other as an adoptive or courtesy parent, using either the male or female label as appropriate. What could be simpler or more logical?

[Nancy]

Thanks for bring up the subject of recording this type of family in our genealogy database. I use Legacy Deluxe Edition. Since I began my research with my "adopted" family tree and then extended the research to include my "birth" family tree, I show my adopted parents to have two children; Nancy A and Nancy B. Nancy B has two sets of parents with the birth parents being preferred. My own children and grandchildren are only recorded under Nancy A since I am infact an adopted child. I just haven't figured out how to print a single family tree!

[Chris Dunham]

"I hope the God above pays special attention to these children."

I absolutely agree. They will need all the help they can get to fight the intolerance and outright bigotry they will meet in life.

I look forward to reading the JAMA articles on same-sex-parent brainwashing you cite in your next post.

[Jan Buker]

I have my sister in the file with "committment" instead of marriage, her spouses children from a previous marriage are considered by me to be step-children and very much a part of our family. I am their aunt. I just wish the genealogy programs would allow you to be more generic. It is a bit strange to see a female shown as "husband".

[David PIerce]

I agree that the simplest solution is for the birth certificate to include biological parents and legal parents. This way, children of same-sex spouses/parents can learn about their biological heritage for medical or nonmedical reasons.

[Homer]

This is a difficult issue, one clouded by the attitudes of bigots and politicians eager to promote their political futures. I wonder if the birth certificates of straight adoptive couples list only the biological parents of the child? If this is the case, then the same standards should be used for same sex adoptive parents. It is unfortunate that Governor Romney doesn't fix this "problem" in a dignified manner, instead of trying to gain political points as he thinks about running for president.

One reason I do not use Personal Ancestral File is that it refuses to recognize same sex marriages or relationships. Since this software is marketed by the LDS church, I doubt this will change, despite the opening of marriage to same sex couples in Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, and the Netherlands. As a result I use The Master Genealogist.

[Donald Baisch]

Installed easily. however I was never able to get the "PDF printer" to appear as a printer when I did a File/Print.

Went to the supplier's website and that does not appear to be an UNCOMMON problem. No one seemed to have a solution to be able to make it work

[Steven M. L. Lewis]

As a gay man, histyorian, and genealogist, I have pondered the issue of how do I fit my partner [or ex-parters or deceased partners] in the standard genealogy forms. Having used PAF for many years, I switced to Familt Tree Maker. While still not perfect, it still the best with some modificarions. Now that I am back to MacIntosh, I will around witgh Reuniion to see what it will or will not allow to do.

[Tim]

I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs or same sex "families", though you can probably guess my position. I do believe, however, that birth certificates should only contain the information of the biological parents. Even in a "traditional" adoptive family, the adoptive parents are only relevant from the point of adoption on, not at the point of birth. Same sex couples can not conceive without a third (and sometimes fourth) party. Who they choose to tell the child his/her parents are later is another issue all-together, but the birth certificate should only include those involved in the conception.

In fact, ex- or deceased partners don't need to be in genealogy databases at all. No more than my ex-girlfriend does; if she is not the mother of my children, why put her in?

[Dino (All Dino, All the Time)]

Tim,

I guess that that is the difference between developing a pedigree and developing a family history. As people delve further and further into genealogy, they quite often like to "add flesh to the bones" and include narratives about a person's life. In my database, I happen to list marriages even when they produced no children. Some people do this by adding individuals, others do it through the use of notes.

It's up to the individual to decide who they want included in their database.

I agree with you that a birth certificate should list who the biological parents are, but in this day and age we also have to consider the problems of traveling. When we took our son to Canada recently we had to produce a birth certificate. If both my wife and I were not listed as his parents, we would need an additional letter (from the other person on the BC) stating that it is OK to take the child out of the country. As much as I hate to see people other than biological parents on the BC, there is definately a need for it.

[Chris Dunham]

George and Martha Washington had no children together, but I'm pretty sure that a Washington genealogy would be considered incomplete if George's "partner" were excluded.

Before someone rushes to distinguish "spouse" from "partner," understand that--like it or not--in Massachusetts this distinction has been obviated. The question now is, how do we as genealogists account for this new form of family?

[Dino (All Dino, All the Time)]

Chris,

I think that genealogists don't have to worry about the 'new' type of family since, according to Merriam Webster, genealogy is:
1 : an account of the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor or from older forms
2 : regular descent of a person, family, or group of organisms from a progenitor or older form
3 : the study of family pedigrees

Genealogy is a study of pedigrees, which is strictly concerned with biological matters.

BUT, as family historians, which many of us genealogists consider ourselves, we absolutely have to be concerned with the new family structures. I know that my family history would be poorer if I only recounted the 'begats' and ignored the 'becauses.'

Whatever my morals and views, I will not judge an ancestor becuse his actions were contrary to my morals and views (and from my research, I have found more than a few cases of this.) They all had their reasons for what they did.

The question is how do we manage to wrap our family history software around these new constructs. Does PAF need to release an update that no longer requires spouses to be of different sexes? That's up to them. I don't know if they'll do that since I believe that it doesn't adhere to their teachings. But other software developers should be able to do this fairly easily.

[Chris Dunham]

Fair enough, Dino. I think most of us use the terms "genealogist" and "family historian" interchangeably.

[R. Unrein]

If someone else has mentioned this, I'm sorry, but there are so many responses to this question.
If there is a change to the states birth certificates to accomodate this largely growing number of our population I have a simple solution.
Birth parents a)father b) mother
Intended/adopting parents a) b)
If the birth father/mother is the same as line 2, either enter the name twice or write same in the designated line. If line two isn't necessary, why not just write in NA or leave blank.
A safe, easy & small change to the existing system, without destroying the evidence possibly needed for those needing their medical backgrounds.
I usually imput my information under surname at birth, but also posted with the oldest known ancestor of the line I'm following, male or female, maternal or paternal. It may not do for some, but knowing how I do things, I don't get lost very often when searching for someone.

[Barbara G.]

The genealogy software I use insists that marriages and parents be one male and one female. It won't allow me to enter two same-sex individuals as married or parents unless I "lie" about the sex of one of them. Regardless of the right/wrong debate and HOW to show these same-sex relationships, all software products (either by new product development or updates to older software) need to allow for the data entry of two-same sex individuals, both for showing marriages and life partnerships and for their adoptive parent status.

[Vicky]

I don't know what needs to be done - but I think the biological parents and the parents that have the baby since birth need to be on the certificate.

Myself - my mother had me in 1959 and I am listed as baby girl GIFFORD - this was my divorced mother's last name at the time. I am assuming that no father was listed because Indiana required the Paternity paper to be signed (I think). In 1964 my Birth Certificate was amended to put my Stepfather's name as father. When my mother died - I didn't find any adoption papers and came to the conclusion that they just went to court to have his name put on as Father. So my search for my biological father comes to a stand still and of course he probably is deceased since my mother was born in 1924. All I know is his last name was Remusand his first name is Michael. Hhe was born in PA and lived and maybe had another family in MI. and possibly Catholic. This makes me sad!

[tiffny]

who is my mother and father.

[Stephen]

As genealogists and family historians, one of our primary concerns is separating fact from fiction. Here are a few indisputable and obvious facts about our evolving concept of family and parentage of which some people apparently need reminding, along with a few pertinent questions:

1) Until such time as science finds a way to produce a child without combining materials from 2 persons of opposite sex, children will continue to have 2 genetic parents, one male and one female.

2) Note that I said "genetic parents" and not "birth parents". I refer you to the case of a woman who, for whatever physical reason, was unable to carry a child to full term, and whose fertilized egg was implanted into another woman for that purpose. Which one was the birth mother? The one who gave birth, or the one who contributed the egg? Do we just ignore the contribution of the woman who sacrified to carry the child to term? FACT: Those of us concerned with more than just genetic genealogy need a way to distinguish between "genetic mother" and "surrogate gestator" when recording such events for our family histories.

3) One would think that a birth certificate should tell us who the birth parents are. WRONG! It has long been used to document who the legally responsible parents of a child are. A case in point (and true story): I know of a woman who became pregnant by a man with whom she had an affair (and later married). As she was still legally married to someone else at the time, she had husband #1's name placed on the child's birth certificate so that she could collect child support from him after they divorced. Ethical? Perhaps not, but it illustrates that a birth certificate does not necessarily certify who the genetic parents of a child are, but rather who the legally responsible parents at the time of birth were. This is why birth certificates end up being altered in cases of adoption, etc. - so that it will reflect who the currently legally responsible parents of the child are. It should be needless to say that since we don't require the alleged parents to prove that they are in fact the genetic parents of a child, the use of any birth certificate as proof of the same is open to error. Countless women have named someone as the father of their child who isn't, sometimes knowingly, sometimes not.

4) The mixed purposing of birth certificates noted above is a matter of fact. So long as it remains thus, we have a serious problem - how to ensure that somewhere we have a record of who the child's genetic parents are. The solution? Genetic testing at birth (which it should be noted is not yet scientifically foolproof), combined with a change in the law that requires the recording of who the genetic parents are, permanently protected from subsequent alteration. Some other legal instrument would then be required to document the legally responsible parents when they are not the genetic parents. This of course raises some sensitive issues, such as the potential disruption to families when a father learns he isn't the genetic parent of his wife's latest child. Unfortunately, I've no time to address the social ramifications here. Alternatively, as others have already suggested, there could be a separate place on the birth certificate for recording the names of additional parents, if we're to continue with the multi-purposing of birth certificates.

5) Most of us don't rely exclusively on legal documents, having found that the "official" record sometimes contains erroneous information.

6) Regardless of one's viewpoint on the morality of such situations, people do unite in non-traditional ways to form what the participants consider to be a family. Legal definitions of what constitutes a "family" or "parent" do not necessarily address every situation in which two or more people function together as a social unit, one which may or may not include raising children. Moreover, the First Amendment's protection of free speech allows people to call these social units whatever they like outside legal contexts.

7) The recording of family history is not governed by some body that dictates to us strict rules of how to go about it; what to record or how to record it. We are only limited by our choices of recording tools, the availability & accessibility of information, and our level of skill at locating and analyzing data.

While it is certainly wise and advisable that we agree on some best practices and sound guidelines for evaluating evidence, sharing information, protecting others' privacy, etc., what you as the historian record as a family or parent is pretty much up to you.

The real question is this: Will you leave behind a legacy that is factual and honest without allowing your personal values to interfere and obscure, or will you construct something that omits what you personally find distasteful, leaving behind an incomplete record for those who come after you?

I have personally chosen to pursue the former, though I find myself hindered by the absence of software that combines flexibility with an easy to use interface, speed of operations, formatting of sources in a way that I find acceptable for recording evidence, and able to import from my current program without mangling my data.

I once made the mistake of querying one software maker about the possibility of updating their product to provide more flexibility in the recording of relationships other than opposite-sex marriage, along with appropriate language to describe them (i.e. civil unions, certified domestic partnerships, etc.) I did so in hopes of more accurately preserving the latest developments in a family's history, but received the response that Millennia Corp. would never alter Legacy to accommodate "gender confusion". I don't need moralizing and psychological analysis from a software company - I need them to provide me with a product that keeps pace with a changing world.

Since that experience, it has become clear to me that for all genealogists and family historians have in common, there's a great deal that separates us. Maybe it's time for software makers to develop separate products for the two groups.

[Amy]

In 2004, I emailed numerous companies producing genealogy software and asked whether they allow same-sex marriages. The results were disheartening.

Has anyone done anything like that recently? Does anyone know of any genealogy programs that allow same-sex partnerships and same-sex parentage?

One of the problems I see with creating a new type of relationship or event to keep track of same-sex unions is that they won't (I assume) show up in genealogy charts.

Amy

[Thomas MacEntee]

The divide between genealogy and family history becomes more apparent when you delve into this issue. I've listened to the "hard line" genealogist arguments as to not including anything in terms of a relationship that cannot or does not produce children in the perceived norm of man and woman. Many of them just don't make sense to me. I guess I am more a follower of family history since it tends to be more inclusive. The more we draw boxes, lines, and dividers between the two, the more I see who is inside those margins and who is outside.

Thomas MacEntee
http://destinationaustinfamily.blogspot.com/2007/10/hidden-lgbt-family-members-and.html

[Shane]

I have never posted online before, but reading these comments here I just can't keep from it.

Thomas, I completely understand where you are coming from. Most individuals reading these posts are presumably genealogists and/or family historians (the two tend to overlap at times). Regardless of our personal beliefs, morals, etc., the one thing that should tie us together is our pursuit of the past...facts...in a word, the truth.

The truth in genealogy is rarely just a pretty picture. Some individuals posting here need to get off their high horse and realize a few facts. (1) Personal self-righteous judgments of individuals and their lives doesn't change the truth; (2) passing judgment on entire groups of people in our society doesn't change the truth; (3) bigotry and hatred often BLIND US to the truth...and isn't that what we are supposed to be pursuing.

You may immediately counter by saying to yourself "what I believe IS the truth, it's God's truth, or my church's truth, or, even worse, THE truth. I happen to be a Christian myself, and judging other people doesn't factor into genealogy and family history.

Many same-sex couples provide loving homes to children who would otherwise not have one, despite what anyone may think. On top of that, they have life-long commitments, whether they are legally called civil unions, partnerships, marriage, or just a relationship. That is a genealogical fact, and a thorough genealogist/family historian would want to record it, not hide it. Hiding it, no matter how you might rationalize it, hides the truth.

To address the main point here, biological parents are obviously essential in growing an accurate family tree. I've personally never heard one genealogist (gay, straight or unknown) say that a child should not know who their biological parents are, at the appropriate age. Nevertheless, that doesn't make adoptive parents, same-sex couples, step parents, any less the parent of a child, and we need a way to record this too.

[Ann]

One of our daughters was married to a wonderful woman in San Francisco, during the brief time when that was allowed. Our daughter had a birth child through an artificial insemination clinic. My daughter's spouse did everything she could to legally adopt our granddaughter. I am working with Ancestry.com and I don't see why they don't just use the word 'spouse.' They should wake up and smell the coffee.

[Seymour]

Amy, use brothers keeper. It allows you to make custom fields, such as domestic partner for same-sex partnerships. You need to be a registor user thou and not a trial version. A greast software.