Despite nearly every study ever
undertaken anywhere in the world showing that kids do better when they have one dad and one mom living together with them in
the same household, it will almost certainly soon be unremarkable for a child
to have three or
more legal parents. Six
states — California, Delaware, Maine, Vermont, Washington and Connecticut —
have enacted laws over the past decade expressly allowing a court to recognize
more than two parents for a child. Many others, including Massachusetts, are
considering similar proposals.
Why? In large part because of the rapidly rising
numbers and public profile of LGBTQ families combined with those
whose children were conceived through assisted reproduction. In many of these
families, one, two-- or more— “parents” are not genetically related to their “children.”
Many states now legally recognize these “intended parents.”
Well, hell, why should any genetic connection be
required for a legal parent-child relationship? Social factors are more
important, are they not? If I intended to be someone’s parent that
should be good enough. The ”intended parent” definition also removes
reactionary, hurtful, and marginalizing notions such as that one should be
older than one’s offspring. I mean, if I happen to be 22-years-old but intend
to be, say, Taylor Swift’s parent, who’s to deny me that right? On what grounds?
If I identify as someone/anyone’s dad or mom, who can reasonably refute
my claim?
Limiting the number of anyone’s parents to two—or any
given number-- seems as bizarre and illogical as putting restrictions on their
gender, sexual orientation, kink, or species, a sad remnant of a bigoted and
thankfully bygone era. What difference does it make if a kid has two—or
twenty—parents? Isn’t it better if a youngster learns tolerance and acceptance
from a parental group of, say, two bisexual men, three lesbian women, one young
girl, two trans men, four pansexual pangender Satanists…and a goat?
What a wonderful world it would be.
No comments:
Post a Comment