And Baby Makes. . .Five?
Buried in this NYT story on the financial benefits New Jersey gay couples may get, is this remarkable story (check out the photo) of
four gay people raising one child together. . .except the fathers' role has been to surrender all rights to the women. Here's a few adults making diverse choices:
"But for Cynthia and Lucy Vandenberg, the landmark ruling is also about another M-word: money.
The Vandenbergs, who have been partners for 12 years, have been forced to open their checkbooks repeatedly over the years to pay thousands of dollars in taxes on health benefits and for legal transactions that married couples rarely face.
There was the $1,500 to change their surnames, for instance, the $1,400 or so in taxes they paid annually for additional health benefits, and the $1,000 they spent so one could adopt the biological child of the other. . .
Now they wonder how the court’s decision will affect their next child, a son Lucy is carrying. Will Cynthia Vandenberg have to pay to adopt him?
The Vandenbergs, who live in Mill Hill, a gentrifying neighborhood in downtown Trenton, have formed a family with another gay couple, John Hatch, 44, and David Henderson, 48, who live a block and a half away and have been together 18 years.
In a 20-page parental contract signed by all four of them, Mr. Hatch and Mr. Henderson each agreed to be the biological father of one of the Vandenbergs’ children, to give up his parental rights so the biological mother’s partner could adopt the child, and to share in parenting responsibilities. . ."
UPDATE: Follow along as two
gay men shop for a biomom, here.
posted by maggie at
11:54 AM | link
Over at the Corner, Stanley Kurtz is linking to this with the headline "Our Polyamorous Future?" Which is obviously bogus since there is no sexual relationship between the two couples.
Anonymous makes this comment, which I edited slightly for tone:
"Because there is no sex between these 4 'parents' this somehow renders his larger point null? What kind of critical thinking is that?
What you have is 4 people who've entered into a parental agreement whereby the guys 'impregnate' the women (no sex though. nope. none at all) so they can have a child. They give up their rights as fathers so the 'mothers' can adopt their partners child.
Can you identify exactly what precludes NJ from recognizing this 'family' as just that under the logic of the current court ruling?"
The NJ court could identify this "family" as a "family" before the ruling. The current ruling doesn't change that a single iota.
BTW, this isn't polyamory or polygamy. For that, you need to look much further to your right to Nevada and fundamentalist Mormons (who are already arguing their religious liberties are in jeopardy) or to fundamentalist Muslims.
Seems like alot to expect from a kid (not to mention your neighbors), all because of some "girls/boys are gross" factor.
And alot of people going to absurd lengths to reproduce themselves because of a persistent gender bias.
This really doesn't sound healthy for anyone involved.
My idea for a house with two master bedroom suites is looking better all the time.
The post links to an article by Elizabeth Marquardt who remarks, "what a dream childhood that would be, ..." growing up in a home with more than two parents. How would the family she describes there be any different than one with a gay couple, a lesbian couple and their children as described here? Beats me.
Post a Comment
<< Home