By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (bannerlofliberty.com)
January 3, 2002
The Washington Post reported a story about the birth of the first baby of 2003 that could only have been written in our current befuddled culture. "The infant girl, conceived through artificial insemination, will have two mommies," Post staff writer Peter Whoriskey wrote. "Helen Rubin, 33, who gave birth, and Joanna Bare, 35, her partner.
"‘Can we get a picture of the baby with its mother?’ someone from the media pack asked. "‘Sure, which mother would you like?’ Bare responded.
Photos were taken both ways.
I sort of wonder if Peter Whoriskey and the Post editors who allowed that story to be printed ever managed to pass their high school biology course. There obviously was only one mother - the one who gave birth to the baby. Whoriskey even mentioned a regular human father for this baby with two mothers: "the biological father is a family friend whom the couple declined to identify." Just because Joanna Bare failed to comprehend that she was not the mother, doesn’t mean the rest of us should be that confused.
This reminds me of a story about Abraham Lincoln, who, when confronted in a court of law with a witness who seemed to have difficulty telling the difference between fact and opinion, asked him: "If a man were to call the tail of a dog a leg, how many legs would the dog have?"
"Five" the witness replied.
"Wrong" Lincoln replied with a smile, "The dog still has four legs, calling the tail a leg doesn’t make it one."
There have been millions of babies, over the centuries, raised in households were there were two women - one being the mother and the other woman being perhaps a grandmother, a sister, an aunt, a servant, a nurse, a teacher, or perhaps a friend. In this case the other woman is a lesbian. Even Whoriskey noted that: "Census figures and other studies show that a significant number of lesbian couples have children living with them. The fact that a baby touted as the year's first in the Washington area was born into an 'alternative family' reflects the growing trend, some said."
The baby, folks, does not have two mothers. The baby has one mother whose biological father is a male "friend" who "donated" sperm for artificial insemination of the mother, Helen Rubin. The other female involved is her mother’s lesbian sex partner. Calling the extra female in the house a "mother" does not make her a mother anymore than calling a dog’s tail a leg actually makes a five-legged dog.
The two women moved out of Virginia to Bethesda, Maryland before the baby was born because, in the words of Whoriskey, “in Virginia, they said, it would be impossible for the couple to share full parental rights. Bare is seeking to adopt the child, giving her parental rights along with Rubin, the birth mother.
"‘Virginia does not permit second-parent adoption,’ said the couple's attorney, Mina Ketchie of Arlington, whose practice focuses on alternative family law. ‘Quite frankly, in these matters of law, Virginia is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century - and we're in the 21st century. It is not a very gay-friendly state.’"
Virginia must still have a legal system that does not create five-legged dogs because someone calls the dog’s tail a leg.
From a legal perspective, in a nation in which half of all marriages end in divorce, creating all sorts of emotional, physical and legal problems for children, the problems this little baby could face in the future should her mother’s lesbian sex partner gain some sort of legal "right" to be considered a parent, are mind boggling.
For example, what law would prevail, in the event the mother decides to leave the relationship? I know of no body of law that allows the recognition of two mothers, even if one is the legal stepmother of the child. In the event the mother needed financial help, after a separation, would the ex-lesbian partner be required, under any existing law, to financially support the child? Or, would the law track down the donor of the sperm, the biological father, and require him to support the child? Or, as is usually the case these days, would the government step in and act as the father to support the child?
If, for politically correct purposes, we really accept the notion that this particular infant can have two legal mothers, what exactly are we doing that is beneficial for children? Or, have we reached the point where the sexual behavior of adults is more important than the children’s need for REAL parents?
And, of course, if Maryland law really is going to accept the notion that this child has "two mothers," but no legal father, what does that do legally for hundreds of thousands of other children who have legal mothers, but also legal stepmothers, legal fathers, and perhaps even legal stepfathers? Are we moving towards a legal system that would allow non-related step-parents equal rights with blood related parents? If children can have two legal mothers, can they also have two legal fathers? If not, why the discrimination?
In such a system, who would have actual custody of children of divorce? Who gets to decide, for example, where children in such a system would live, what, if any, values or religion they would be taught, or which school they would attend?
I suggest America will open a legal Pandora’s box by accepting the notion this infant has two legal mommies. We don’t need babies with two legal mommies any more than we needs dogs with five legs.
To comment: mmostert@bannerofliberty.com