NOM BLOG

U.S. Passports blur "mother/father" terminology

 

Over the weekend the news broke that the U.S. state department was planning to remove the words "mother" and "father" from our passport applications and replace them with "parent 1" and "parent 2."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's spokesman says she was unaware that the changes she authorized would completely remove the names "mother" and "father" and so the new solution is to split the baby. According to the Associated Press, "the form will now ask for the names of the child's "mother or parent 1" and "father or parent 2."

Efforts to remove state recognition of mothers and fathers remind us of the dangers of alienation faced by children in a post-marriage culture. Reuters reported back in 2007, for instance, that in Ontario, a child may have three parents on their birth certificate:

In a ruling released on Tuesday, the Ontario Court of Appeal said the female partner of the child's biological mother could be legally recognized as the boy's third parent.

It is not inconceivable, following this sort of logic, for a child to have five parents legally recognized: what if two men hire a man and woman they know to conceive a child through In Vitro, and then ask another woman to carry that child to term?

14 Comments

  1. Kyle
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    Can you imagine a child lucky enough to be loved by FIVE parents??? I wish I had had that as a child!

  2. Don
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Kyle wrote: "Can you imagine a child lucky enough to be loved by FIVE parents???"

    Kyle, can you imagine a terminally confused child?

    Kyle wrote: " I wish I had had that as a child!"

    I wish you had some love as a child too. Perhaps you would have grown up to be normal.

  3. ConservativeNY
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    Kyle, is that an endorsement of the legalization of polygamy?

  4. leslie
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    What do Ontario statues have to do with U.S. immigration rules again?

  5. Kyle
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    I don't think a child having multiple guardians equals polygamy but I can see the fear-mongering is still hard at work here at NOM!

  6. ConservativeNY
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    How can you have more than two parents without polygamy?

  7. ChildrenDeserveBetter
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    How can you call a family with children and exactly two parents who are committed to each other for life and to raising the child anything but a marriage?

    Oh, that's right, because you feel that being raised in a marriage is a privilege that is granted to "special children" who only have two parents of the opposite sex.

  8. TC Matthews
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    A grandmother raising her grandkids is also great and wonderful, but it's not marriage.

  9. ChildrenDeserveBetter
    Posted January 11, 2011 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    That is true - a single mother (grand or otherwise) raising a child is not a marriage.

  10. Chairm
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 7:56 am | Permalink

    Grandmother and daughter ... CDB? If not, why not? there are millions of such scenarios in the realworld.

  11. Chairm
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Leslie asked:

    The answer is right there in the original blogpost above:

    "Efforts to remove state recognition of mothers and fathers remind us of the dangers of alienation faced by children in a post-marriage culture."

    The cited Ontario case was based on a same-sex union and the court's opinion reads a lot like the comments of the b'crat who explained the attempted change to the US passeport application.

    There are other cases like the one in Ontario.. Pennsylvania had one around the same time, in 2007, if I recall correctly.

  12. leslie
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    Chairm - I understood the implications of the post prior to mine. What I did not (and still don't) understand is why it has anything to do with statues in this country. If the comparison case was in Pennsylvania then why is it not the topic for debate instead of this case?

  13. John K. Noe
    Posted January 12, 2011 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    Hmm we have an ultra liberal president who wants to push the homosexual agenda down our throats. I do not think this is a coincidence that this was done by the state department under this administration. This looks like a backhanded way of the homosexual agenda being rammed down our throats again.

  14. Chairm
    Posted January 14, 2011 at 1:09 am | Permalink

    Leslie, I referred you to the original blogpost, not to the comment prior to yours. The blogpost is entitled, U.S. Passports blur "mother/father" terminology.

    The author, Thomas, merely cited a case that came to mind, I imagine, and probably could have cited the Penn case as well. But only as examples of the point about which you had asked.

    Both cases, if I recall correctly, have been blogged about and discussed on this blogsite and in the comment sections. Perhaps try a search for more.