Language Control is thought control
One of my facebook buddies (actually one of our Ruth Institute alumni) is going back and forth about my post on the Washington Archdiocese from a couple of days ago. I posted a reply to them, but thought regular ruth readers might be interested in this issue.
Here is the quote from my original post:
“According to the Washington Post, at the end of civil marriage ceremonies judges will say ‘I now pronounce you legally married,’ unless the marrying couple suggests something different.”
People, both on this blog, and over on the facebook page, seem to be interpreting this as an issue about religious liberty. But I’ll tell you what bothers me about this: the judge is saying “legally married,” in order to avoid saying, “I now pronounce you husband and wife.” This has been the customary formula, for civil and religious ceremonies alike. This issue has nothing fundamentally to do with the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage.
My objection is that the state is requiring all of us to abandon all of our gendered language. No more bride and groom, no more husband and wife. Only Progenitor A and Progenitor B instead of Mother and Father. The state is taking control of the language, which is another way of taking control of our thought. I don’t like that, on principle, the principle that I get to think for myself. I don’t think that is a particularly a religious principle.
We are being steered into believing that we should think of ourselves as generic humans, rather than as men and women. Just one problem: there are no generic humans. There are only men and women, girls and boys. Male and female are two different but complementary ways of being human. Losing gender is not a small loss. I don’t think this is a distinctively religious principle, although most of the traditional religions would affirm it in some form or fashion. I think that driving the idea of sexual differentiation from our minds is dehumanizing to us all. I think it is quite impossible to accomplish this goal, without an enormous amount of state effort, and of human suffering. Our actual identity, that of a gendered being, either male or female, is compromised. Our ability to be in the world as we really are, namely as men or women, is being impaired by the state’s demand that we think of ourselves as generic humans, “spouses” not “wives” or “husbands,” “parents,” not “mothers” or “fathers.”
That is why I’m against the state take-over of the language. If only religious people can figure this out, so much the worse for the non-religious.
Loading ...
It’s a short slippery step then to thinking that kinship – family – is a creation of the State. And by then it will be.
I’m from Iowa. As my husband was working on our taxes the other night, he read aloud this paragraph:
Iowa law uses the terms “husband,” “wife,” “spouse,” and “marriage.” It is not necessary for the actual text of the law to be changed before the ruling is carried out. The terms husband, wife and spouse should be considered gender-neutral to reflect both opposite sex and same- sex couples. The term marriage now also includes same-sex marriages.
http://www.iowa.gov/tax/taxlaw/ssmarriage.pdf
I think this is an even bigger issue related to birth certificates. Julie Shapiro blogs about it here: http://julieshapiro.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/an-observation-about-birth-certificates/
——————
She suggests:
“I can imagine a system where one document records the date/place of birth and perhaps also the identity of the woman who gives birth to the child. All of these seem to me to be historical facts. They could be recorded in a permanent and unchanging record.
Then I could imagine a second piece of paper which recorded the legal parentage of the child. That could be reissued if the identity of the legal parents changed. (I’m fuzzy on a lot of details, like whether state 2 could issue a new certificate upon completion of adoption where the original certificate had been issued in state 1, but nevermind that for now.) ”
————
But she does not mention preserving the father’s name/identity.
I posted more about birth certificates on the Proudparenting blog: http://www.proudparenting.com/node/3377
See – Donor conceived perspectives “Birth Certificates”:
http://donorconceived.blogspot.com/2009/08/birth-certificates.html
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Birth Certificates
Posted by damianhadams
“There is a lot of debate in fertility “circles” about birth certificates and many court cases whereby one or both of commissioning parents seek to have their names put on a birth certificate where otherwise it would have another persons name on it under law.
Rather than address the legal status of each person in relation to the child and their place or lack thereof on a birth certificate I wish to analyse what a birth certificate actually is and what should occur as a result.
A birth certificate is supposed to be a truthful and legal document which describes the progenitors of a child. It is a pedigree that traces our genealogy. It is our heritage. Historically the progenitors of a child were always the raising parents which were traditionally married or in a de-facto relationship. So the people that raised you were also your biological father/mother and appeared on your birth certificate as such. The problem now is that because your biological parents may not be the ones that raise you due to some fertility treatment procedure, the birth certificates can become a fraudulent document when a non-progenitor is placed on it instead.
Just as we use pedigree papers to trace the biological lineage of animals such as dogs, cats, horses etc, we can and do use birth certificates for the same purpose in humans. Historians and genealogists use them to trace a person’s heritage and history. If we replace a progenitor on a birth certificate with a social parent then we create false history and the truth becomes clouded by lies. We are rewriting history with erroneous claims.
It would appear as though the non-biological parent who seeks inclusion on the birth certificate or replacement of the biological parent does so out of fear that the child will then not recognise them as their dad/mum. There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. There is too much emotion placed on a birth certificate when none should be placed on it at all. It is purely a document describing the genetic history of each person, it has absolutely nothing to do with who raises or loves you. They can be two entirely separate things and should be kept separate when it comes to creating a birth certificate.
Those who are a party to a fertility treatment and subsequent rearing of child but are not the progenitors can still be recognised as the legal parent of the child without having to be on the birth certificate. It is time we recognised the truth and recorded the facts on birth certificates rather than play deceitful games with fraudulent documents. It is up to each country/state to decide if they also wish to include the social/non-biological parent AS WELL on the birth certificate, or to create additional documentation detailing the legal parenthood of each child. What they should not be doing is usurping the truth.
My birth certificate is a lie and not worth the piece of paper it is written on, is yours?”
——————
MY NOTE:
While Damian is from Australia and I am from the United States, the purpose of “birth certificates” is really a global human dignity/social issue that we all share regardless of our country of origin. Of course each country handles this differently. I heard in the UK there are both long (noting legal parents names, name of child/individual, gender, date/place of birth and registration) and a short BC (only noting name, gender, date/place of birth and registration). And in Canada, birth certificates only show details of an individual’s birth without any parenting details.
I certainly don’t claim to be very knowledgeable on this topic but this is what I’d like to see happen (here in the US – and everywhere):
I think there should be both a long birth certificate noting both a person’s genetic/biological origins (there by respecting an individuals right to genetic/biological identity) and parenting details AND a separate short “parenting certificate” stating only the legal parents, which would be used for every day and legal purposes.
From what I understand, in the US, BC’s are handled on a state by state basis (I’m not sure about this and really question if that even makes sense)…If that is the case, I would like to BC’s done in a consistent manner – federally regulated/mandated but I think that this currently falls under family law which is state regulated.
Any lawyers out there reading who might like to help shed light on this????
I agree about the power of proscribed language to influence thought. Another example is the generalization and overuse of the term “homophobia.” Is the simple belief that children deserve a mother and father a sign of irrational, obsessive fear and hatred of gay people? In such a brief span of time, especially since the passage of Prop 8, this reflexive branding of all one’s opponents in public policy disputes as “homophobic” really saddens me. Did anyone notice yesterday’s NYT ethicist column? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07FOB-ethicist-t.html