Ruth Institute Blog

Oh, come on Ari. This is no more writing fathers out then it is writing mothers out. If the new forms where Mother, and then parent two, yeah there would be a problem. But this is just silly.

Hey, I won’t disagree that child custody laws and the such need to be rewritten and a good deal of reform in general is needed in that area. I just think *this* incident is a rather small and silly in comparison, and vastly unrelated.

Wait, why did these forms ever say “mother” and “father” to begin with? What if the mother and father were dead, and the kid was being raised by grandparents, or an uncle and aunt, or a foster parent? Who would fill out their passport application then? They just couldn’t get one until they were 18? I find it hard to believe that they didn’t just cross out “mother” and “father” and fill in whatever was appropriate. And, what if the mother and father were divorced, and the father was a homeless drug addict who couldn’t be located when the kid needed a passport? It seems ridiculous that this hasn’t come up before.

The fact that they didn’t just add the additional options of Parent 1 and Parent 2, and leave the natural and normal mother and father, shows this is an agenda driven change.

Interesting: up until 2008, the form to get a passport for a minor only required one “parent or guardian” to sign it.

a:Effective February 1, 2008, Public Law 106-113, Section 236 requires that U.S. passport applications for children under the age of 16 require both parents’ or legal guardians’ consent. Read additional information on the Two-Parent Consent Requirement.

I guess that change was because of divorced parents trying to kidnap their child. In fact, there is also now a notification alert service that lets a parent know if anyone else – presumably the other parent – has applied for a passport for their child. Or, maybe the change was made in 2008 in order to make this change in 2010. Why didn’t they stick with the “parent or guardian” language when they made the change to require two parents? Seems fishy to me.

Here is the old form, from the wayback machine. (And the link to that blurb above is here)

I agree, nerdygirl. While some may not like the gender neutral forms, it doesn’t write out either parent.

Actually, I wish it said guardian #1 and guardian #2. This information is not there for creating a family tree but rather for purposes of knowing whom to contact in cases of emergency. Using “guardian” rather than mother/father or parent more closely reflects the reason the information is asked for. Guardian is more inclusive of children with single parents, adoptive parents, step parents, etc. It just reflects the real world.

chrisse: “The fact that they didn’t just add the additional options of Parent 1 and Parent 2, and leave the natural and normal mother and father, shows this is an agenda driven change.”

And that agenda would be ………. ?

I just wish Ari would explain WHY it’s “disgraceful stupidity.” It’s easy to have an opinion; it’s harder to give reasons for it.

Mark :chrisse: “The fact that they didn’t just add the additional options of Parent 1 and Parent 2, and leave the natural and normal mother and father, shows this is an agenda driven change.”
And that agenda would be ………. ?

To replace objective truth with subjective truth as the normative.

Ari, you’re good with reproduction facts! What does that have to do with parenting facts and guardianship facts?

Some other reproduction facts: not all babies are planned by their mommies and daddies. Many babies are slaughtered in the womb because they aren’t wanted. Some are birthed, and put up for adoption. Some are tolerated, if largely neglected. Pregnancy (that is, a baby) is avoided by most couples most of the time.

To equate procreative abilities with parenting is obviously misguided. Just like associating procreative abilities with marriage.

Ari, you should think your arguments through before calling others stupid. Your argument would only make sense if the passport ask for the names of the people who supplied the egg and sperm. It doesn’t. It asks for the name of the parents. For example, your own Dr J has an adopted child — I would wager that Dr J’s name is on the child’s passport, not the name of the biological mother.

So I have to ask again — why is this disgraceful stupidity?

chrisse, not all kids have a dad and mom. Some are adopted, some are raised by grandparents. Please, the 1950’s are over. Not that every child had a perfect “Leave it to Beaver” family at that time. If you have a better solution, by all means, mention it. Until then, your paranoid delusions are just that, paranoid delusions.

Ari, lots of kids have legal guardians who are not their birth parents, and even in the 50’s, sometimes parents died or abandoned their children on doorsteps. The purpose of this form is to make sure the legal guardians approve of the child getting a passport, it isn’t about identifying the child through their DNA. The real issue here is why they changed the wording in February 2008 from “parent or legal guardian” to gender specific words. I understand why they changed from requiring only one guardian to requiring both guardians: because of ugly custody battles where one parent kidnapped the child away from the other parent. But that doesn’t explain why they used “mother” and “father”, that was either a really dumb mistake or was planned in order to have this controversy two years later.

The real issue is cowardly politicians who would never in a million years vote for something like that with their name on the record for fear it would lose them votes. “Re-election” is their primary purpose in life.

But they have no trouble letting anonymous bureaucrats who don’t believe in democracy usurp legislative prerogatives by writing legislation that needs no voting.

Ari, you really need to back off this one. You are very much out of line with what is being done. We are talking about guardianship information on a passport form. Your paranoid delusions of this being some sort of dismissal of fathers is really laughable.

It’s not about facts, Mark, it’s about riling up and fear-mongering.

“That’s why when children need to be adopted, they need an adoptive mother and an adoptive father.”

And if no mother/father combo is willing to adopt them, then they should spend their entire childhood in an institution or in foster care rather than have the benefit of a loving, stable family headed up by a same-sex couple?

Rob, don’t diss foster parents, or take away the identity and dignity of orphaned or abandoned children. I would say that kids whose parents have died or neglected them and who need a safe and stable home ought to be taken in by a foster family instead of being adopted, even by a heterosexual couple. I think adoption is a cruel lie, and should be abolished. I know if I had a kid, and neither I nor his or her mother could take care of it, I’d want my name on his or her birth certificate and my family legacy in his or her heart, and would roll over in my grave forever if my child was raised by strangers who claimed to be his or her parents. I’d much rather my child be taken care of till adulthood by a caring person who didn’t claim to be anything other than a care giver, and who preserved my child’s identity. I’d hope they share a loving relationship for the rest of their lives, sending greetings on the holidays and always remembering each other, but not as if they were related. That place in their hearts I want reserved for me and their mother. Adoption should be abolished, it has run its course and failed, it is a legal lie.

Ari,

Then what EXACTLY is the point of those lines on passport application? Is it to determine the natural birth parents? Is it to provide information on guardianship?

And, truly, get over this paranoid delusion of some mysterious group trying to “eliminate the real family and substitute fake families”. It makes you sound, well, a bit crazy.

Ari, did you see the link I posted to the old form, from January 2008? It DOES say “Parent or guardian.” That IS what they are talking about. When they switched to requiring two guardians, they used relationship-specific terms that don’t apply to all minors. I think this was a dirty trick by the outgoing Bush administration, because the change happened too soon in Obama’s term for it to have been initiated by them.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has taken action that agrees with Ari’s assessment of the attempt to remove mother and father from the form.

Score for Ari.

And, contrary to the defenders of that attempt, the form is entitled: Consular Report of Birth Abroad. Ari’s knowledge of the facts of human generativity are highly significant to the issue raised here.

Score for Ari.

Also, as Ari noted, the change was symbolic and politically so. The GLT group that had applauded the attempted change conceded as much. Reducing information on the form was not a constructive way in which to improve a form that reports birth abroad.

Score Ari.

Three out of three ain’t too bad, Ari. Heh.

@Ari

Did you just call gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and other queers orientationaly challenged?

Hahahaha, you straight supremest. I am not surprised at all; of course you would think that one has to be mentally challenged to find greater love in the same sex than the opposite. Heck, it seems weirder to me that people would date those of the opposite sex than of the same.

Read a book, we aren’t challenged.

I love how insignificant changes causes an uproar, and big issues, like divorce, go unnoticed.

John Howard, whose web page does your avatar link to? Is it yours?

Chairm: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has taken action that agrees with Ari’s assessment of the attempt to remove mother and father from the form.”

What kind of proof do you have that the action agrees with Ari’s twisted assessment?

“Also, as Ari noted, the change was symbolic and politically so.”

And your proof is … what exactly? Even in the story the spokesman says it is not politically motivated.

“The GLT group that had applauded the attempted change conceded as much. ”
Uh, do you mean GLBT group? For goodness sake, at least get that much right!

“Reducing information on the form was not a constructive way in which to improve a form that reports birth abroad.”

Uh, the story is about passports, not foreign birth certificates. What exactly are you talking about?

Rob

Rob Tisinai :
John Howard, whose web page does your avatar link to? Is it yours?

Yes, I started that site in 2004, as well as the blogspot blog.

Well, that’s curious. Above you wrote:

“I think adoption is a cruel lie, and should be abolished.”

In your blog, you write:

“Adoption is great, and is one of the reasons to oppose research into creating people through these risky experiments: there are too many children that need loving homes.”

Which reflect your true belief? Is adoption a cruel lie that should be abolished, or is it great?

Adoptive parent Jennifer Roback Morse might be curious, too.

I would think adoptive parents would be thrilled with the new forms: they don’t have to hesitate on how to fill them out. Do they put their children’s biological parents? Themselves? I got my first passport at 13 years of age, and remember the heated discussion between my father and stepmother about what to put in the “mother” section: my stepmother’s name or “Deceased”.

Jennifer Roback Morse is an adoptive parent? I hope she’s not married, because marriage is only for procreative couples. Marriage, evidently, is null and void if there are any non-biological children present! Isn’t that the mantra here, that marriage is to bind biological parents (only) together?!

Ha, so that’s why you asked! Cute. Those Frequently Asked Questions used to be printed on the back of fliers that I used to hand out, because I found that people often asked me when I handed out my first fliers was “what about adoption and other ways gay couples raise families?” I think they were thinking that when I referred to “same-sex procreation” I was talking about same-sex parenting in general. To those people, I explained that that wasn’t what I was talking about, and I wasn’t trying to get a law passed against gay adoption. I am still not trying to get a law passed against gay adoption, and in the context of my fight against genetic engineering, “adoption is great” reflects my true beliefs.

You raised adoption in a different context, by comparing it to foster care. In that context, I think foster care is better than adoption, and that we should end the legal lie of adoption, and stop the baby trade. There should be no demand for children, whether it is for existing children or by making new ones. Children that need someone to take care of them deserve the state’s assistance in finding them the safest and most caring and moral home, where they can learn good values. I think JRM’s home is probably a great place, and I bet she didn’t do it because she wanted a child to parent, but because a child needed a permanent home. I bet she’d be a foster parent without complaint, too.

Sean, I question your story. I’ve shown proof that the old forms prior to 2008 only required one “parent or guardian.” Maybe there were even older forms that were as you remember, or maybe you’re fifteen. But you do raise a good point about why the 2008 forms were bad.

Mark,

Clinton learned of it and nixed the change because she disagreed with the removal of mother and father from the form. She was not aware the change had been attempted.

The now-rescinded change was made on the sly — very quietly through the b’cracy — and guess who noticed it and immediately issued a statement applauding it? That’s right. The same GLT group that acknowledged the symbolism and reiterated the political goal. Nothing that group has said about practicalities is stronger than weak dishwater as they try to wash-up the politically-motivated mess that was made.

As for births abroad, the form’s title is as I said in my previous comment.

What on earth are you thinking, Mark, with such naive questions?

Sean, you were being snide, I suppose, but your comment regarding so-called ‘non-biological children’ is a blatant misrepresentation of the stated views of Dr J. Please acknowledge. Thanks.

Mark, no I did not mean the GLBT group since the group is described in news reports as representing GLT — Gay, Lesbian, and Transgendered people. Don’t get all acronymn-politically-correct on me. Its an ongoing joke even amongst the gay folk.

John, that didn’t make any sense to me at all. You will think the fault is mine. I think the fault is yours. That’s one disagreement we’ll never settle.

Chairm, you keep repeating your “assertions” with no proof shown. I realize that your ilk believe if you repeat it over and over long enough, it becomes truth but I fear that is not the case.

Chairm: “Mark, no I did not mean the GLBT group since the group is described in news reports as representing GLT — Gay, Lesbian, and Transgendered people. ”

In the article sited above? I do not see a reference to a GLT group. The group that is mentioned, Family Equality Council, has LGBT on it’s website.

Let’s compromise and say it’s Sean and Mark’s and Ari and Chairm’s fault.

Chairm, I do not know what “Dr. J’s” views are on adoptive parents and marriage. NOM believes that marriage is to bind biological fathers to their children’s mother. Adoptive parents are not biological parents.

I consider the Ruth Institute and NOM the same organization, with the same views. By adopting a child, Dr. J. is defying NOM’s belief that marriage is to bind biological parents of a child together.

Neither Jennifer Roback Morse nor Maggie Gallagher practice traditional marriage, while earning a living trying to impose traditional marriage on gay people. This amuses me greatly.

@John Howard
Please try to take personal responsibility rather than throwing it off on others. It’s really pathetic.

Mark, read the The Washington Post report:

1. “The State Department said Saturday that Clinton had instructed the department to retain ‘mother’ and ‘father’ in a form known as a ‘Consular Report of Birth Abroad’ that U.S. embassies use to document the birth of a child to expatriate Americans.”

2. Note: “Consular Report of Birth Abroad”.

3. “The changes to the form were made public on Dec. 22 but not widely noticed until earlier this week when the Family Equality Council, an advocacy group for gay, lesbian and transgender families, hailed the revisions as a victory for its efforts and thanked Clinton for making them.”

Note: “an advocacy group for gay, lesbian and transgender” (i.e. GLT).

Also: In a Jan. 5 statement, it [this GLT group] said the change “carries significant tangible and symbolic consequences for same-sex headed families, and increases governmental efficiency by alleviating the needless confusion, delays and denials caused by outdated gender-specific forms.”

As the outcome illustrates, the political symbolism clearly outweighed the tangible, as I said, despite the group’s PR efforts to cite imagined efficiency in dropping mother and father.

@Chairm

Its still LGBT, it just obviously can’t really support bisexual families? In marriage, you are either married to someone of the same sex or of the opposite sex. Don’t display ignorance by supposing that there are LGT only groups please.

Like I said at the outset, Don’t get all acronymn-politically-correct on me. The report did not refer to bisexual families. Complain about AP, not me.

Any, Ari scored thrice and the naysayers flubbed big time.

@Chairm
It would be nice to know which Washington Post article you are making referencing. From this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010706741.html) it is clear that we are talking about U.S. passport application forms. As the story states, “The announcement of the change was buried at the end of a Dec. 22 news release, titled “Consular Report of Birth Abroad Certificate Improvements,” that highlighted unrelated security changes.”.

Another article seems to explain this whole snafu: http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=2227210. It appears, as with most things in government, that there is an overlap in language on forms for different purposes. While the change makes sense for passport applications, it does not make as much sense for the Consular Report of Birth Abroad (a form documenting the birth of a child to expatriate Americans) which would also be affected. However, this article states that it was more the outrage by conservatives who would have dragged this out into a huge fight that put the pause on the change.

I have yet to see a group labeled as “LGT”.

Actually, Mark, the circumstances of birth are highly relevant to passport applications issued to, you know, citizens of the country.

What is your objection to the reporter describing the group as I quoted? Take it up with the reporter if you must. Heh.

@Chairm
Well, since you haven’t given a link to the source you quoted, i can only assume you made it all up (as you do most things).

“Actually, Mark, the circumstances of birth are highly relevant to passport applications issued to, you know, citizens of the country.”

Of course they are, they are just irrelevant to this discussion. What the passport forms are more interested in are the child’s guardians, not who gave birth to them.

If straight people would take care of the children they produce, none of these alternative parenting arrangements would be necessary. So many kids up for adoption, foster parents, adoptive parents (straight or gay). It’s hard to keep track of it all!

Mark you have again hurled a false accusation against someone you disagree with. This is a definite pattern in your commentary. Try to be a little more generous. Readers can readily check The Washington Post (which I did cite and quote) and confirm what I have said.

And readers can judge for themselves the relevancy of your flubs and the relevancy of the points that Ari made.

@Chairm
Only false if you can disprove them, Chairm. You fail to cite the article you reference. The article I reference says none of the things you claim it does. I can only deduce that you are making the stuff up you type because it isn’t in any Washington Post article I have seen.

It’s really pathetic how seem to make you stuff up and post it. Then when someone asks a simple question, such as asking you to cite what you claim is truth, you are rude and insulting. It shows a true lack of civility and logic on your part.

charm,

copy paste. let’s see it. i can copy and paste the apa and the aap, current information that is, and it will more than explain your views of homosexuality and homosexuals parenting skills as they compare to heterosexuals.

those organizations have positive influence in court for homosexuals. do you think if this goes to scotus the apa and the aap won’t be present to testify, running scared like three quarters of the prop h8 defense witnesses who clearly didn’t want to bee seen in concert with that pathetic hak. what a joke.

“it has always been this way”-no it hasn’t and that still isn’t gonna work for you.

“we don’t want it that way”-again, why and, if you guys were honest, that reason would almost end up in contempt of court for such a bs reason to waste scotus time and money.

“that way is bad”-prove it in reality.

The article I referenced does what you are looking for, Mark. If all the stuff in The Washington Post that you haven’t seen is false, well, okay for you. Heh. I politely demure to your ignorance.

@Jamie

Hey, thats my username :I find a new one dood

@Chairm
LOL, you haven’t referenced an article, it probably doesn’t exist! Even Jamie commented on the fact you haven’t provided the article. If you have an article, give the reference so we can all read and respond to it. But, as you usually do, you have posted your lies and will now be unable to show any proof of your false claims.

But keep it up, the readers of this blog can see right through you.

Hey, schwerin mccharmersen,

The day you start showing homosexuals some much deserved respect, absent your prejudicial and discriminatory condescention, I will be more than happy to call you whatever you want. Until then, you are acting like a bigot and will be referred to as such. All you have done is belittle homosexuals as though they weren’t even real people. We are, regardless if your immature views of human sexuality.

You want us to stop calling you what you are, a terrible trait for an individual to exhibit, but you think you have room to demean us as you do. What the heck is wrong with you. Prince Charming, you have shown you are no different than a bully who cries wolf when someone proves your allegations replete with lies, distortions and bigotry. This has gone way beyond who is right or wrong. One must prove their point with concrete evidence to be taken seriously as a rational thinking person, which you repeatedly don’t do and rely on the contrary. Why? What do you really think is going to happen if the l/g couple down the street marry? Real world negative consequences. The one you fear is it will be incontrovertible that you are what you are, and everyone will know it. How such a worry must gnaw at you to create hyperbole as you do. Legislating your insecurities is so not a convincing way to present concern, care of children or preservation of an institution or anything dignified.

Mark, in an earlier comment I did quote the news story that appeared in the paper version of The Washington Post. You are wrong, again, to say that I did not reference it.

The Associated Press has the story in other publications, too, and many of those are online.

-30-

End of story.

DavidKCMO, my moniker is Chairm. If you wish to engage in an exchange here, please address me as such. Thanks.

@Chairm
I am really sorry that you spend time writing on this post and can STILL not cite the article you reference. Sad to spend SO much time defending yourself when a simple reference (one line) would clarify things. But, deception is apparently your forte.

Mark, I quoted it and you clearly have read it. I know because of comments you have made in this very discussion. You can continue to harp about this but it is a waste of pixels given that you know the news story, have read it, and do not need me to write a citation for you.

@Chairm
Blah, blah, blah. If you really had an article, you would cite it. But, since you fail to do so, and the quotes you use are not found through a google search, it is clear you made it all up.

If you didn’t, simply post the reference.

Retrace your own steps, Mark, and discover the news story you clearly have read and which I have referenced by quoting it and which has appeared in newspapers across the country.

You are whining about nothing and making a fool of yourself doing it.

As I said in another thread in response to your antics, I will leave the last word on this to Mark.

@Chairm
“As I said in another thread in response to your antics, I will leave the last word on this to Mark.”
I think that’s best, Chairm. When one cannot defend their own argument or justify their own lies, it is best to step away.

I can and have defended my comments, Mark, and with the false accusation of lieing you have abused the honorable offer for you to have the last word.

@Chairm
LOL, KNEW you were lying (again) when you said you would leave the last word to me.

And I am still waiting for you to produce the article reference.

You abused the offer to have the last word, Mark, and that says a great deal about your participation in the public discourse.

Your further taunts will be wasted pixels.

@Chairm
“You abused the offer to have the last word, Mark, and that says a great deal about your participation in the public discourse.”

Not at all, Chairm. You said I could have the last word and then went back on your word. This is very reflective of your inability to have a public discourse.

But, again, no reference article cited. What can one assume but that you made it all up?