Minnesota lawmakers fiddle with meaning of 'parent'

  • Article by: Ryan C. MacPherson
  • Updated: March 25, 2013 - 11:11 AM

The Legislature’s proposed allowance for up to six adults to claim biological parentage of the same child takes the marriage debate to a new level.

  • 35
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
imichelleMar. 24, 13 6:17 PM

After reading through the statue that is linked to this story, it is obvious the state is vested in making sure that people do not claim parentage and then casually walk away when the wind changes direction. Why wouldn't we all agree with that?

40
11
ericgus55Mar. 24, 13 7:24 PM

Yes, it's awful when the state makes sure that those involved in (and married to those persons) are legally responsible for children. I fail to see the problem when the state keeps better records to keep up with the realities of situations that already are happening. This law change won't make anyone new start having kids in unconventional arrangements (which is the fear the author probably has, or is trying to make you have), just make it easier to figure out everyone responsible if something goes wrong.

35
8
BABloomMar. 25, 13 6:54 AM

Mr MacPherson, these laws will not change the parentage of even one child in Minnesota. What they will do is to acknowledge the situations of families already living in Minnesota.With the brave new world of reproductive medicine the biological and social parts of parenting have been separated as never before. These (mostly boring and ordinary) families need legal recognition of their situations so that their children will be firmly attached to their families.Maybe you've been spared the complications of organizing a family that has been built following infertility or adoption, but those of us who have need your support not your attacks.

31
5
kindaliberalMar. 25, 1310:45 AM

C'mon. Being legally recognized as the parent is different than being the child's biological mother or father. A sperm and an egg from one man and one women is needed to create a child. Those two are the biological parents. A surrogate while providing the needed nutrition etc., for the fetus is not the biological parent, i.e, it wasn't her egg that was fertilized. Unless that is the way it was set up. Then she is the biological mother regardless of any agreement with other parents. She simply agreed to give up her legal rights to the child, no different than adoption. Sure the state has an interest in determining who is LEGALLY responsible for the child. But that is not the same as determining WHO the biological mother and father are. We don't have to re-invent the wheel here.

14
14
phatcatpatMar. 25, 1311:02 AM

Remember when liberals complained that the GOP only focused on social issues instead of jobs? Here we go again, but this time the liberals are silent! They love this stuff. They claim they want government out of our bedrooms, but are completely happy with them in every other aspect of our personal lives.

12
25
alansonMar. 25, 1311:15 AM

I don't think that more than two people at once should have financial responsibility for a child, as much as the state would like as many people as possible to chip in.

12
21
asdfasdfMar. 25, 1311:18 AM

Boy the Catholics are going to need a serious flow chart for this one. So given that Jesus is part of the trinity (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). And Joseph was married to Mary that makes Joseph a bioligical parent. But because all people are Gods children that makes Jesus Joseph's and Mary's Biological parent as well. But because Jesus is part of a trinity i'm assuming parental rights would also be given to The Holy Ghost and the Father (obviously) so exactly how many parents did Jesus have (and does he count himself as his own parent)? Yep it's those darn liberals and their wanting push alternative lifestyles that underminding our society.

22
8
beebee82Mar. 25, 1311:32 AM

I had to read fairly deep into this petty complaint before finding out why the author's beef with this proposed change oozed in his every word. Then I read: "the woman who rents out her womb." How someone can paint the beauty of surrogacy — a gift many of us could never bring ourselves to give — in such an ugly manner is beyond me. The author seems to disagree with gay marriage, adoption, step-families, in-vitriol fertilization, surrogacy and any other form of a family that doesn't involve one man, one woman, having babies (or not) "as God intended." It's about time our laws catch up to reality when it comes to determining who is "family" or not. Why would someone get so pent out of shape that someone's family may actually — finally — be legally recognized? Sad.

25
8
jdlellis1Mar. 25, 1311:41 AM

So frequently the mantra is, "...for the children..." If the masses were truly interested in doing what is best for the next generation, then what is needed is for "adults" to be held accountable when failing to provide security, feed, cloth and shelter a child. Otherwise what will occur is what is occuring, children growing up with the expectation that someone else will be responsible. In other words, "If you keep doing what you're doing. You'll keep getting what you're getting."

14
18
dubbleaMar. 25, 13 2:29 PM

I suspect what this law is about is essentially blood is thicker than water but marriage is thicker than blood. Currently the busybody estranged parents of a child's biological mother can swoop in a seize the child from his or her other mother or father if the biological one dies. Even if neither the deceased mother nor her child nor her partner want that. It may be putting the cart before the horse since we don't have gay marriage yet. Yet. But we will and when we do the law has to sort out the rights of legally married parents and those pushy uninvited grandparents somewhere will be contesting that right. It's not enough for some people just to make Thanksgiving Dinner intolerable.

3
5

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT