Kid A

David Velleman at Left2Right argues dispassionately against gay marriage based on the (U.N.-recognized) right of children to know their biological parents:

Yet reversing [the practice of omitting reference on a birth certificate to the biological donor in favor of the adoptive parent] would bear differently on heterosexual and homosexual marriages. It would affect only a small percentage of heterosexual marriages, and it would be no more prejudicial to their parental rights than openness in adoption, which is now widespread. But a requirement of openness in donor conception would affect all homosexual marriages as a class. Homosexual marriage would be, by its very nature, marriage that can lead only to qualified parenthood—qualified, that is, by the legally recognized parenthood of donors or birth parents. Maybe same-sex couples would be willing to accept a form of marriage that is second-class in this respect—but I doubt it.

Velleman continues: "My worry is that a purely affectional conception of marriage will tend to favor a purely affectional conception of parenthood." The problem being that it's a little late to turn back that tide now. In his argument, Velleman consistently uses "marriage" when he means something like "parenthood." Consider that birth certification has almost zero bearing on families that do not include children—not just gay couples that don't adopt but the many heterosexual married couples that do not or cannot have children. Furthermore, our society is already asked to navigate the sensitive issues of "qualified parenthood" when heterosexual couples, for reasons of infertility (to cite one example) adopt a child. If we must prevent even the possibility that adoptive parents might violate a child's fundamental rights, then we will have to begin by reversing longstanding rights for heterosexual couples.

I sympathize with Velleman's distaste for the argument, put forth by a Massachusetts gay-rights organization, that birth certificates should replace "Mother" and "Father" with "Parent A" and "Parent B," whether for a child of a straight or gay couple. That's stupid. The suggestion fails to account for the actual world to which it refers, where children don't go about holding hands with A+B. Certainly gay marriage introduces some new questions—what label to put on the form for the adoptive woman who is married to the biological mother? I don't know, but I'll hazard that a reasonable (if not apparent) answer is at least feasible; and that we shouldn't put off the many questions regarding gay couples' legal rights and recognition because another murky question may or may not come up. These questions are soluble.

On a related note: Gail Armstrong has a wonderfully dark post about adoption and, in a sense, how murky every family is. It's a succinct complement to Velleman's sharp, starched argument.

Posted by Kriston at August 16, 2005 1:10 PM