Should Adopted Children be Allowed to Say "Mommy" and "Daddy?"

My wife and I are expecting our first child any day now. A beautiful, natural, biological child - just the way God intended children to be.

Impending fatherhood, plus the fact that my home state of California has proven that civil rights are subject to voter approval, has emboldened me to raise an issue that's been overlooked for years: the issue of adopted (or "unnatural") children's rights.

As a parent-to-be, I find it insulting that my biological son will be forced to share words like "mommy" and "daddy" with unnatural children. I feel that sharing cheapens those words, and weakens our natural father/son bond.

After all, if anybody can throw around words like "son" or "daughter" to describe someone they share absolutely no DNA with, where does it end? As far as I know, Kobe Bryant and I aren't related. So what's to stop me from calling Kobe my "son?" Or for that matter, my "daughter?" If unnatural advocates had their way, Kobe Bryant would, for all intents and purposes, be my daughter.

See what a slippery slope we're on here?

In order to protect the sanctity of natural parent/child relationships, I propose a ballot measure requiring unnatural children and parents to use the following terms: "Female Adopted Parent," "Male Adopted Parent," "Adopted Male Child," and "Adopted Female Child."

If you ask me, they're every bit as good as "mommy," daddy," "son," and "daughter." And what's more - those parents and children would still have most of the rights as natural families under my proposal.

Look, I have nothing against adoption. Some of my closest friends chose to be adopted as children, and I respect their right to reject the biological lifestyle. All I'm saying is, keep it away from my kid. Don't go teaching him that it's the same as his natural, God-approved union with his real mommy and daddy.

Besides, we all know that parents don't love adopted children as much as natural ones.

Just ask my daughter Kobe.

Comments

[Pearlswan]

This analogy is sound. Adopted is a charged word in parenting. I married a man who was adopted and his parents were always sensitive to comparisons between my parents' and his parents' relationship to the grandkids. In their eyes, one set of grandparents were "real" grandparents and the other set were "adopted" grandparents. As far as I recall, no one ever said this to them or to the kids yet his parents both felt it painfully, like they were second class grandparents or something less than real. We repeatedly tried to reassure them. "What did the kids know and what did I care?" That's what we kept telling my husband's parents but they never quite felt equal because of that term "adoption." The separate term for marriage, civil union, presents a similar problem. It creates a word to differentiate a type of marriage, as adoption is a word that identifies a type of parent created by law rather than biological birth. The words identify; their cultural connotations discriminate. Therefore, the connotations must be confronted, not the words themselves. This article works to reveal the connotations in the word marriage that allows discrimination to take root in our institutions. The point is that just like parents who adopt children, gay parents want families too. Marriage forms bonds that create extended family and its support network. Civil unions are lacking in that regard.

[mlaiuppa]

I think Seth needs to take it farther. In order to protect the sanctity of natural parenthood and natural childhood, adoptions should be forbidden. After all, fostering is almost like adoption. A foster family and foster parents are almost like the real thing. They have almost all of the same rights as real families and parents. That should be good enough.

Right?

[CJM33]

Um, no. Children should have the right to a stable home. If someone loves them enough to adopt them and allow them to be a permanant member of the family, that is what GOD would prefer. Not having children bounced from foster family to foster family, where the "parents" rights to forsake that child are protected. You people break my heart.

[weatherwaxx]

SATIRE, please. And telling other people what GOD would prefer is a bit on the presumptuous side for a mere human, doncha think?

[TRYKER]

Seth, I see what you're trying to do, but it is written a little bit offish.
Go Big, blare it loudly, it would be just as funny, but eliminate the hurt factor that adoptives felt while misreading it.
Then again, whoever felt pain in this regard NOW knows how the gays feel that their rights as equal Americans can be destroyed without any respect for their feelings or the rule of law.

[Archivist1000]

'eliminate the hurt factor that adoptives felt while misreading it' ???? what are you kidding?

Adoptives are more likely to MISREAD than other people? Isn't that a bit dismissive to say that?

[Alethea]

That's a little overly sensitive isn't it? You mean that no one should satarize because it MIGHT offend someone?

You really shouldn't take it personally when it wasn't even really directed at you. If anything, you should take it as an excersice in empathy.

[wendy31]

This is loud. It's great. Not offish one bit.

[southernsepia]

False comparison. Why can't you argue the issue on it's own merits?

[Archivist1000]

It's an EXCELLENT analogy.

[Alethea]

How is it a false comparison? He's pointing out how "natural," "unnatural" and "God-approved" are terms that can be applied to the point of absurdity.

Or are you just taking exception to the fact that children don't have a choice to be with their biological parents or otherwise? If so, then might I remind you that if you're assuming that homosexuality is a choice, then so is religion. And yet religion is fiercely protected under the Constitution, so why not gender preference?

[netrox]

Great article! I have bookmarked it.

[super]

It IS such a slippery slope. Very soon I'll be calling my chihuahua "son!"

[CJM33]

And I suppose your gay neighbor will marry the dog? Please; you are ridiculous and insensitive.

[Veronica]

And you are clueless and embarrassingly literal-minded.

[LeftRight]

Just so long as you aren't calling it's mother "wife" then we're good!! ;)

[southernsepia]

Once again with the equivalency argument. Why can't you argue gay marriage on it's own merits instead of constantly using a false comparison.

Fact marriage is the building block of society it is meant to be and ideal - all marriages are not perfect but they seek to emulate the idea. The purpose of this ideal is to create a stable unit in which to support children and communities.

Please explain to me why me being able to marry my best girlfriend does not diminish this. If gay marriage is allowed why wouldn't I, I am a single woman and would undoubtedly be in a better financial and tax situation if I was married. At that point does marriage not become just a contract between any two people?

[NewYorkLib]

"Please explain to me why me being able to marry my best girlfriend does not diminish this."

Um... You could marry your best guy friend for tax purposes, couldn't you? In fact this sometimes happens, but the potential for abuse is not a reason to limit a person's liberties.

[OrganOfThought]

"""Fact marriage is the building block of society""" and parenthood isn't?

I think you missed the point of the article. Children adopted and raised like biological offspring have in no way been harmful to society or to biological children (even in the same household).

In fact having more people in our society in healthy and happy legally supported relationships tends to make our society a better place for the rest of us.

The ridiculousness of his argument is actually his point. This issue has been argued to death already and will be for the foreseeable future. Any way of making people "see" it differently is helpful.

[raresilk]

if you and your best girlfriend want the responsibilities of marriage, so be it. there are certainly many male-female couples who have entered into marriage without, as well as with, the bonds of love or physical attraction. same-sex couples should also have this right, although i'm sure it would be a small minority.

[Alethea]

I had two friends who got married just so she could go to Japan with him while he taught English to students.

As soon they got back, they divorced.

My guy-friend was gay, and so marriage thus became a tool of frivolous convenience. So is THAT what the anti-gay marriage people were intending to accomplish?

If he had been free to enter into a gay marriage, I can guarantee you that he would have taken it more seriously... Ironic huh?

[ggm68]

Why can't gay marriages be building blocks of society, just like their (ideal) hetero counterparts? Why can't gay marriages serve the purpose of providing stable units in which to support children and communities, just like (ideal) hetero marriages? The FACT is that they CAN, and they DO, where they're allowed to exist. If you want stable communities built on a bedrock of stable families, you should support more people being able to form those committed bonds with each other, regardless of their gender.

How does it benefit society for people to be prevented from creating a stable, committed home life, just because they're gay? How does that promote the "ideal" marriage? It doesn't stop frivolous Las Vegas weddings between drunk people who barely know each other. It doesn't stop people from marrying someone they ultimately grow to loathe. It doesn't stop people from marrying for the wrong reasons (e.g. for the tax advantages). All it does is make second-class citizens of the doctor who sets your child's broken arm, the police officer who protects your neighborhood, or the guy who bags your groceries.

You accuse the author of making a false comparison, and then try to equate the bond between two gay people who want to get married with the idea of YOU marrying your best girlfriend just for the tax advantages? Talk about a false comparison! Seriously.

[southernsepia]

About this second class citizen thing, how does that work?

Why would a civil union not solve this. Is it because you want to say we have the same as you? Is that the second class status you speak of? The semantics of what a union is called?

[Kimeron]

It's humor and commentary Southernsepia. I for one appreciate the lighter side of his compelling arguments.

[Richter]

I get the point of the "joke" -- but the reason it doesn't work is because there actually is a perception among many people that families built by adoption are in some way not as "real" as families built by procreation. Indeed, there are anti-adoption groups that would consider the author's facetious suggestion a fine idea indeed.

It reminds me of Randy Newman's song "Short People" -- an intended satire of the illogic of prejudice that backfired because short people in fact do suffer from discrimination.

I applaud the intention, not the execution.

[mercury613]

It *does* work, for the very reason you just stated: "...because there actually is a perception among many people that families built by adoption are in some way not as "real" as families built by procreation."

There actually is a perception among many people that marriages between people of the same sex are in some way not as "real" as marriages between people of the opposite sex because opposite-sex marriages involve procreation.

Both perceptions are wrong.

[lovethesinner]

Brilliant post, Seth. As a person who was adopted at birth and who had to fight the state of Washington to finally meet my natural parents (children who were adopted were banned from seeing their own birth records, even as adults) I can testify to the effects of bad law.

It sucks. Your comparison here is apt and shows the ridiculous, small minded, and socially degrading situation Proposition 8 imposes on people. It's nothing less than segregation, and the people who continue to defend it are living in a state of denial.

[ESerafina42]

Good for you, lovethesinner, for getting the irony and not being offended. However, I noticed that you still refer to the people whose DNA you carry as your "natural" parents.

[RadicalRepublican]

I was adopted by my step-father. Soooo, I shouldn't call him Dad? WTH?

[VirginiaJeff]

You missed the point. The writer is being facetious, as in the satirical essay "A Modest Proposal."

[Archivist1000]

Oh look! Someone who calls himself a Republican proves once again, that Republicans can't read !

Reading Comprehension .... why don't Republicans have any???

[marcain]

You represent Republicans well with no sense of humor, sarcasm or irony.

[gotborked]

If it were just about civil rights, the gay marriage activists would by happy with civil unions--where same-sex relationships can enjoy the same rights/entitlements that married couples do. I guarantee you that a large chunk, perhaps a majority, of the Yes on 8 voters would just as quickly vote yes for civil unions. On this, Elton John has a pretty reasonable explanation: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm .

But it's not about the civil rights. It's about inflicting a strike against religious institutions and people that teach that it is sinful to engage in homosexual acts. Changing the definition of marriage is one major step toward marginalizing and being able to enforce hate laws against religious groups and people.

[lletaa]

civil rights to the god squad would be to outlaw homosexual activity just like iran who doesnt have any homos. what do you think are homosexual acts? I assure you hetros do alot of sexual acts simular to homo-lesbian couples. does this also put religion in danger? Sodomy, its not just for queers anymore."GOT SODOMY" my new bumper sticker.

[gotborked]

Sure, most traditional religions teach that all kinds of sodomy is sinful. What is your point? It's not like the call to be holy and a religions teachings are only aimed at homosexuals. They are aimed toward all of humanity.

[ggm68]

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. It's not the gay community that's been on the attack, here. They just want to be treated EQUALLY under the law, and I'm sorry, but no matter what Elton John says, civil unions are NOT equal under the law. Who's trying to enforce hate laws against your church? NO ONE.

I'm pretty sure that with the exception of a few people who may have an axe to grind, the almost unanimous position of gay marriage supporters would be this: YOU are free to worship God any way you see fit, and your church is welcome to preach whatever beliefs it wishes, and if they want to say homosexuality is a sin, that's their business. We just won't be members of that church. All we ask in return is that you MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS when it comes to how people who are NOT of your faith live their lives. You need to take a good hard look at who is attacking who here. We'd all be a lot better off with a live-and-let-live approach to each other, which would mean your church not trying to codify their belief system into the laws under which ALL of us must live.

[mercury613]

Stop with the Rovian nonsense. This is about religious people marginalizing gay and lesbian people.

[Paulied]

Yeah! If it were just about civil rights, the black activists would be happy with their water fountains - where they can enjoy drinking water just like everybody else. ... But it's not about civil rights. It's about inflicting a strike against white institutions and people.

Separate but equal is NEVER equal!!!!!!!!!

[JohnIII]

One question that I don't think has been determined yet are the legal implications of gay marriage.
At the moment, most divorce laws are skewed towards women, as far as alimony and custody are concerned (At least the people that I know that have been divorced). How will this be determined in a divorce situation between two members of the same sex? Will there be a different standard? I'm not trying to state an opinion either way. Just curious.

[melpomene1]

My friend -- a female -- pays alimony to her ex-husband. She has to pay a percentage of the difference between their salaries. Since he isn't working, it's a huge burden on her.

Personally, I don't see why anyone -- male or female -- should pay alimony.

Child support is another story, but I still see no reason why it -- or custody -- should be "skewed towards women." Make both parties equally responsible; then it doesn't matter whether the couple is gay or not.

[Archivist1000]

Your question implys that it SHOULD be skewed, but now you don't know which way ........ lol

[propitiousmoment]

It's not that the laws are skewed towards women, it's that they are there to protect the less economically advantaged party. In the case of children, the laws are there to protect the interests of the children and the parents, so that one parent cannot wrongfully be shut out by the other, and the children get to have continued relationships with both parents. It doesn't always work that way, but that is the intent.

[EngineerBill]

Why stop there. I think congress needs to pass the Defense of Natural Children Enaction(DONCE). Allowing states not to recognize adopted children as children of their adopted parents from other states. I also want to know if our politicians is Pro-DONCE or anti-DONCE. It is important that we elect pro-DONCE politicians.

[RagingLiberal99]

To the people that are offended by this article. Its not disrespectful to adoptees. Its mocking people who are against Gay marriage who say they should just call it civil unions.

Not sure why you didn't pick that up.

That said, this is an amazing article and I look forward to reading more from Seth in the future.

[JibCT]

I get where you are going with this piece. Taking the point to the extreme and absurd can sometimes be very eye opening. I also see you degrading another group to support of your argument. For there to be truly be humor what you are saying has to be far removed from reality and in fact is it is not.

Sadly there are plenty of people out in the world that do not see my role as "mother" in my adopted daughters life to be as real as a biological connection. I am a second class mother. I can not possibly feel the same for my child that they feel for theirs. What I have with my daughter is not as valued as what they have with the child they gave birth to. Period. I have been asked to my face where her "real mother", and it never stops stinging no matter how big of an idiot that person is.

So although I commend on the cause you are taking up, your article truly hurt.

I'm sure many will think that I just have no sense of humor and I need to lighten up. Perhaps so, but I would be remiss as an AP to not stick up for myself and my daughter who is loved by her parents very much.

[Steph 66]

I have a friend who refuses to distinguish his "birth" children from his "adopted" children. It's REALLY funny because he and his wife are white, and some of his kids are black or biracial. He gets the same garbage that you do, and he responds with, "What makes you believe that (whichever child) is not mine?" Then he gets the "sad look" and asks the person (usually a complete stranger) if he or she believes his wife was having an affair. Yes, it's fun.

[DMSmith]

"I also see you degrading another group to support of your argument.'

You seem to have missed that this IS the point. If you think I'm not hurt every time someone claims i am less equal than they, you are crazy.

Now YOU know what it feels like. Good.

[toypiano]

And don't forget the civil rights of the adoptees while you're at it. In many states, even adult adoptees are NOT entitled to their original birth certificates or ANY factual information about themselves or their kin. The state forever tells them that everyone else is allowed to know about themselves and their ancestry, but not adoptees -- all because of the decisions others made for their own selfish reasons and the laws that uphold discrimination. Outrageous! So I'm just guessing that you yourself are not an adult adoptee? If you were, you might understand something about where those questions come from. Sorry, but there is no substitute for DNA.

There's nothing quite as exquisite as having no clue about your medical history, your name, your siblings or parents, grandparents, etc. because of laws set up to forever keep adult adoptees from their civil rights. Adoption keeps one class of people separate and definitely not equal. It's our culture's dirty little secret that there are many thousands and thousands of adoptees whose identities are closely guarded state secrets.

I think Grahame-Smith's piece is a brilliant way to illustrate how what one group thinks is sacrosanct is another group's civil rights infringement. I hope we'll see more pieces about the fight for the civil rights of adult adoptees, too.