Over at The Public Discourse, Professor Emeritus Jameson W. Doig of Princeton began a
dialogue with Professor Robert George also of Princeton on the proper definition of marriage today. Professor Doig’s point appears to be that Professor
George has not been consistent in his views. My point is not to defend Professor George: he is a big boy and can take care of himself. My point is that
Professor Doig’s entire article avoids some important questions. How will redefining marriage redefine parenthood? Are we happy with that redefinition?
And do we really want to change the relationship between the State and the citizen in the way that this redefinition really entails? The problem begins
with Professor Doig’s very first paragraph.
I want to begin with two Vermonters, Ann and Ellen, who have been together as a couple for more than thirty years. They have three children—Bert,
who has graduated from college and is now married (to Maria) and working in a small business in Vermont, and Alison and Beth, who are in high school,
both doing well in their academic work and excelling in soccer. One of the three is adopted, and Ann is the birth-mother of the other two.
Do you see who is missing from this equation? Without knowing anything else about this family, we know that the father of Ann’s biological children
has been safely and legally escorted off the stage. The children will never have the opportunity to have a relationship with their father. Most children
have a legally recognized right to know and be cared for by both of their
biological parents. It is only the children of anonymous sperm donors who do not have this right. What kind of “equality” is that? The adult couples
get to be treated “equally” but children are deliberately treated unequally by the law. This particular form of inequality would not exist without
the power of the law. The law created the category of “anonymous sperm donors,” making the father a “legal stranger” to his own children. Why? So
women can have the lives they wish to have, unencumbered by a relationship with a man. Let me say for the record: as far as I am concerned, the sexual
orientation of the women is not the problem. Separating children from their parents through anonymous gamete donation is wrong, no matter who
does it, no matter how good their reasons seem to be, no matter whether the children are “doing well” or “excelling” in this activity or that. Perhaps
Ann and Ellen have a “known sperm donor” so that the father can have some involvement in the lives of his children. That would be a good thing. As
long as the father never presses for contact with his children over and above the exact amount and type of contact the “intended parents” wish to grant
him, things will go along just fine. Advocates of genderless marriage seldom mention the fact that same sex partnerships sometimes break down. Advocates
like Professor Doig are quick to point out that couples consisting of biological parents sometimes separate. But this is a deflecting move, a rhetorical
strategy for changing the subject. The typical divorce between a biological mother and father does not require a state determination of who counts
as a parent in the first place. Mother Nature answers that question. The entire Gay Legal Establishment is committed to the principle that the only
people who count as parents are the “intended parents.” Their preferred legal doctrine is that biology should not be “privileged.”
This principle applies to mothers as well as to fathers. The fact that Ann is the biological mother of the children does not “privilege” her over and above
the parental rights that the state has granted to Ellen. As long and Ann and Ellen get along, Ann may never have had cause to discover this. But the
fact remains: her rights to her children were granted to her by the state. Just like Ellen’s. So let us ask this question. When conflict arises between
couples such as Ann and Ellen, when the sperm donor appears and asserts his parental rights, what are the principles by which the State will adjudicate
their disputes? As far as I can see, the Gay Legal Establishment wants these two principles:
- Intention trumps biology. The intended parents take priority over “mere” biological parents.
- The State will make a case-by-case determination to figure out what is “in the best interests of the child.”
Our Identity will be Granted to us by the State. This is freedom? Taken together, these two principles redefine parenthood from being a natural
institution with natural boundaries that the State merely recognizes and records, into something entirely socially constructed. The State grants itself
a blank check to investigate, define and enforce its judgment about who counts as a parent in each particular disputed case. Far from checking the power
of the State, this grants whole new realms of authority to the State. Far from creating “equality,” this introduces whole new realms of inequalities,
among adults as well as among children. I do not know how the exchange between Professor Doig and Professor George will end. But if today’s installment
is any indication, I’m guessing these two Princeton professors will spend the week not even talking about the right questions. If you are concerned about the intrusion of the State into the Family due to the breakdown of the Family, join us! Sign up for our newsletter. Like us on Facebook. Make a donation. Most of all, share with a friend!
