</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

Originally posted by stunned-dad-fast
Liquor....Licker..... well guess I didn't do a very good job of steering this thread away from the Lesbian thing!

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Mr. Pep likes to say he used to frequent a bar that had this sign over the door:

Poker in the front, liquor in the back
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

.... but, he's full of nonsense most of the time.

P

[QUOTE]

Originally posted by Just J:


Of the rules, the two most important in my daily life are honesty and love.

Here is some honesty lovingly offered to you....

I think I said before that I shouldn't have called my marriage a test. I guess all I want to add about it is that all in all, I think it was a successful one with one fricking HUGE mistake in it. But for 12 years, we had a really good time.

In all honesty, you were not married.

You had a wonderful, loving, long-term commited but non-monogamous ..."open'" relationship .... but it was not a marriage unless you were legally married. It was "like" a marriage in some ways, and not like a marriage in other ways. This is NOT to say your LTR was not perhaps a better quality R than many MB marriages .... I am NOTsaying that what you had was not fantastic, but calling it a "marriage" when it was not, does not move you forward, in my opinion.

It is not a fact .... in your mind it was a marriage, but, factually, it was not.

I have more thoughts .... but I want to hear how you respond before I continue ..... cuz, I don't want to argue .... but explore something deeper.

Love, Pep



<img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In all honesty, you were not married.

You had a wonderful, loving, long-term commited but non-monogamous ..."open'" relationship .... but it was not a marriage unless you were legally married.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You're correct and also incorrect. On one level, it is a legal impossibility in the United States for two women to be married. Period, end of story, no need to look for the postscript. If you want to use that definition, then we agree and there's no need to debate at all. I'm not sure what relevance that has to the discussion your headed for, though.

On another level, things are murkier. For a long time, WP refused to have a wedding ceremony (legally sanctioned or not, both our religions would have blessed a same-sex union), though I wanted one.

It was when we'd been together for nine years that she finally decided that we were, in fact, married in her eyes. We took vows and started wearing rings; we did both those things in private. And then we threw a giant party for all our friends and family to help us celebrate our tenth anniversary.

So while I say that we have been married for thirteen years, perhaps it would be better to say that we have been together for thirteen years and married for four. Assuming you're willing to say we were married at all, of course.

Throughout our relationship, we had to work to consciously bind ourselves together in the legal, financial, and practical ways that married folks are bound automatically. Does it make us more married than everyone else to take conscious actions in that direction when other married folks don't even have to think about it?

At what point does action like that count, if ever? When we created a joint checking account? When we named each other beneficiaries on all of our insurance and retirement plans? When we wrote our wills and bought our houses with consideration for the laws of marriage and attempted to emulate them as closely as we could in society at this point? How about when we drew up a domestic partnership agreement that mirrored the marriage laws in our state?

In the end, we are not legally married and cannot be at this time. And we did everything we could to bind ourselves in marriage in spite of the legal framework around us.

So, in the end, we're not married and we did our best to be married anyway.

(The "open" relationship question is not, in my mind, a criterion for whether it's a marriage or not. Plenty of people who are married under the law and in the eyes of their religions also have relationships with other people. Sometimes their spouses know about it (in which case it's an open relationship) and sometimes not (in which case it's an affair). One may question the wisdom of those additional relationships (and I certainly do at this point, and have a lot of thinking to do there), but it does not negate the fact or lack thereof of the marriage itself.)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">...but calling it a "marriage" when it was not, does not move you forward, in my opinion.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So, what direction is forward, here? Shall I decide, after 13 years of commitment, vows, a big party (and nice presents <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> ), a daughter, two houses, a cat, combined finances, two houses, two cars, meeting each other's needs and doing what we knew how to do to make our relationship a happy marriage, that I can and should just shrug and walk away?

Should I decide (as I almost did when I first looked at them) that the MB principles simply cannot apply to us even though they are entirely logical and sensible from every angle I can find to look at them?

Or are you thinking that there is enough of a marriage here to treat it as a marriage and continue to honor my vows and commitment to it? And if so, what direction is forward?

I am certainly "allowed" to just walk away at this point. Still, I take my vows and promises seriously, whether anyone else does or not. I committed to WP for the rest of my life. I want to keep that commitment. Straight from the Plan B letter standard, sure. But also true.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It is not a fact .... in your mind it was a marriage, but, factually, it was not.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm curious, here. Given that we were two women living in a society that's backwards about these things <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> , under what criteria would you be willing to define it factually as a marriage? And why does it matter?

Could we, for example, go have a civil union ceremony in Vermont and be married in your eyes? How about the marriages that are now legal in Canada and the EU? Or a big shebang in which we repeat vows before friends, family, and deity?

Explore away, Pep. I'm curious to see where you're going.

Oh, and while I could attempt to figure out whether WP considered it a marriage or not, well, fogtalk from the last year gets in the way of me being able to see what she thought before that. I honestly don't know what it was in her mind; for years she referred to it as our marriage (and before that our partnership or relationship). In the last year, it's been everything from we're married for life to I never married you in the first place to ... well, everything in between and on both sides and around and around and around.

I also don't know whether it's relevant to where Pep's going or not, either.

Throughout our relationship, we had to work to consciously bind ourselves together in the legal, financial, and practical ways that married folks are bound automatically. Does it make us more married than everyone else to take conscious actions in that direction when other married folks don't even have to think about it?

I kind of thought you might say something like this .. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

NO, it does NOT make you "more married". We are not "more parents" because we had to do all the adoption planning and effort, while other people become parents simply by joining an egg and a sperm!

We are parents. I am a mom. Legally, I have papers to prove that.

But, I can never say I was pregnant.

So, facts are facts.

I was never a birth mom.

Pep <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />

Now, onto the "open" relationship. I think having an open relationship defeats the purpose of "Marriage" with a capital M.

I did this. I had a LTR in my 20's ... it lasted 14 years. We decided to make it an "open" relationship.

It was a mistake. I think it is generally a big strain on any love relationship. I read a book in the 70's "OPEN MARRIAGE" .... and I bought the premise hook line and sinker .... and the couple who wrote that stupid book, well, they broke up because of the "other" relationships.

This is totally my point of view, learned the HARD way. If you think of sexuality as a gift of such unique specialness, a gift that has great power to convey love, then the sex act has more spiritual meaning.

When the relationship is "open" and the sexuality of both partners is shared, the spiritual value of the sex, the specialness ... leaks out.

It becomes sex. Love is slowly evaporated from the sex act. And the specialness of sexual love is given away to outsiders. And there is less and less value ... when we give things away.

The "other" sex partners in an "open" relationship .... have an opportunity to steal the spirituality of the union, via the importance of the sexual encounters. If there is an emotional connection, the sex is better .... and that emotional connection then leads one's heart away from the primary relationship.

I was a hippie. We gave "love" away like flowers. It was like passing a joint ... sharing the goodies with others. And, the value of sex came in the currency of pleasure, rather than spiritual union with God and the partner.

What makes a baseball signed by Babe Ruth valuable? It is, after all, only a baseball. Would it make sense to toss that baseball around with acquaintences? Risking dirt or wear and tear to that special baseball?

People treasure things that have value and importance to them. In my opinion, "open" relationships cannot help but eventually fall apart, because there is a de-valuing of what was once special between two people.

I did that. It had a horrible outcome.

Pep

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />

Whups, duplicate. My internet connection is a bit hosed today. Sorry!

<small>[ October 13, 2003, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Just J ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, not knowing your "wife" .... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> .... I can only make guesses.

Here's some guessing ...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And my response is also guesses, though perhaps slightly better informed.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Is my understanding of the timeline correct? .... she started to get involved on a deep emotional level with a man about the time she was pregnant?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The relationship had been developing for some time before she got pregnant. To use MB terms, it was an EA for six months to a year before WP got pregnant. It became a PA about four months before she got pregnant, with a steadily increasing level of phyiscal contact from then throughout the course of her pregnancy and afterwards.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Is it possible that she started thinking she wanted something else for her child .... a 2 parent family that included a man and a woman rather than 2 women?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't know. It's possible that she did, but she never mentioned any such desire to me. For a long while she was adamant that she and I were the only two parents DD would have; much moreso than I was originally, in fact.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Is it possible her needs changed with the pregnancy, and she started envisioning a house with a picket fence ... and a husband ?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Heh. Well, I've got the picket fence. Yes, it is possible that she started envisioning that. She did once mention that she felt that she had some internalized homophobia that she felt she should deal with, and that it was much easier for her to be affectionate in public with OM than it was with me. At the same time, when I compare the things she said about him last year with the things she wrote to me (about me) when we were first getting involved, well, they're eerily similar.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And, if there had been a legal marriage between you, her leaving you (with your baby) would have meant getting a divorce .... and your rights as a parent would have been more protected.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yep. The laws in this country are better than they used to be, but they still suck. This is one of the reasons that I support civil union/same-sex marriage. With marriage come certain responsibilities and protections for each memeber of the family. Same sex unions do not afford that protection to the members of the family, and that places a burden on society that society doesn't need.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Let me know what you think.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm with you so far. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Pepperband:
Throughout our relationship, we had to work to consciously bind ourselves together in the legal, financial, and practical ways that married folks are bound automatically. Does it make us more married than everyone else to take conscious actions in that direction when other married folks don't even have to think about it?

I kind of thought you might say something like this .. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

NO, it does NOT make you "more married". We are not "more parents" because we had to do all the adoption planning and effort, while other people become parents simply by joining an egg and a sperm!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Good. I'm glad we agree on this one. And yeah, WP and I went through a ton of stuff for DD to be born. It doesn't make me more or less a parent.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">We are parents. I am a mom. Legally, I have papers to prove that.

But, I can never say I was pregnant.

So, facts are facts.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So, how are you defining marriage, exactly? I'm not at all clear on which "facts" you're trying to establish at this point. Would you prefer that I call it a partnership instead of a marriage? I don't have any problem with that, though many of my friends, family, and even WP corrected me when I used that term.

Oh, and by the way, under your rules, it appears to me I should also refer to DD as something else, though I'm not quite sure what. "Dear-baby-who-thinks-she's-my-daughter-but-who-is-really-just-a-ward-of-mine" is a little cumbersome. And really, I think Mama is probably easier for her to say. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Is it only the piece of paper that makes you a mom? Or is it the care and feeding and bathing and raising and crying and laughing and hugging and changing diapers that makes you a mom? I've just been through this one in spades and spades and spades and SPADES.

Under the law, I have not adopted my daughter. However, there is a custody agreement in place that recognizes that I function in all ways as her parent, and have since the time of her birth. According to the experts, I am already her "psychological parent" (which means that SHE thinks I'm her Mama, no matter what any piece of paper says). What does that make me? It makes me -feel- sort of like a ghost-mom. But what does it really make me? I have no fricking idea.

I know that the adoption is important to me and that WP and her committee believe that it is not important. I think they're fricking nuts, but that's just me (and my committee).

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I was never a birth mom.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Me neither. And I would just like to say that I have this odd sense that you're me, just 20 or so years older. If I have more kids, no matter what my marital situation, I'll be adopting them. (If you say you have Premature Ovarian Failure, then you -are- me.)

<small>[ October 13, 2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Just J ]</small>

Would you prefer that I call it a partnership instead of a marriage?

Quite frankly, you can call your R whatever you want ... But it's what your WW thinks about it that matters. What I think doesn't matter.... but I am exploring some thoughts, and you are a doll to allow me latitude!

I don't have any problem with that, though many of my friends, family, and even WP corrected me when I used that term.

That's interesting.... Your WP wanted to "be married".

Oh, and by the way, under your rules, it appears to me I should also refer to DD as something else, though I'm not quite sure what. "Dear-baby-who-thinks-she's-my-daughter-but-who-is-really-just-a-ward-of-mine" is a little cumbersome. And really, I think Mama is probably easier for her to say. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

OK .... how about TCBITW??? (The cutest baby in the world)

Is it only the piece of paper that makes you a mom? Or is it the care and feeding and bathing and raising and crying and laughing and hugging and changing diapers that makes you a mom? I've just been through this one in spades and spades and spades and SPADES.

BOTH! I know pleanty of nannys, who do all the work, but they are not the mom under the law.

Under the law, I have not adopted my daughter.

Why wasn't this done legally when the sperm was being ordered? Why were your potential rights as a parent not protected in advance? Certainly, you are not the first woman to whom this has happened.

However, there is a custody agreement in place that recognizes that I function in all ways as her parent, and have since the time of her birth. According to the experts, I am already her "psychological parent" (which means that SHE thinks I'm her Mama, no matter what any piece of paper says). What does that make me?

Her emotional Mama <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

It makes me -feel- sort of like a ghost-mom. But what does it really make me? I have no fricking idea.

The only thing I can personally relate to here is that during the adoption process with our eldest, we were foster parents for 2 years!!! There was delay because there were 2 potential bio-dads, and they BOTH had to sign away parental rights. And one of them was very hard to locate. This fuzzy area puts one in a fragile position. That's for sure.

I know that the adoption is important to me and that WP and her committee believe that it is not important. I think they're fricking nuts, but that's just me (and my committee).

Then, stick to it.

Pep <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />

Difficult point to consider....

If your WP suddenly died .... what happends to TCBITW?

Who decides where that baby lives?

Pep

<small>[ October 13, 2003, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Pepperband ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Now, onto the "open" relationship. I think having an open relationship defeats the purpose of "Marriage" with a capital M.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I haven't yet come to that conclusion, but it's certainly a theory that has many proponents and which I may very well come to view as correct.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I did this. I had a LTR in my 20's ... it lasted 14 years. We decided to make it an "open" relationship. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Was it an open relationship the whole time? If not, how much of it was open, and under what basic guidelines did you work the relationship, if any?

Also, was the relationship with a man or a woman? If it was with a man, I take it you weren't married? Why not, if that's the case?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It was a mistake. I think it is generally a big strain on any love relationship. I read a book in the 70's "OPEN MARRIAGE" .... and I bought the premise hook line and sinker </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I was coming to the conclusion that it was probably a mistake when WP got involved with OM. But she hadn't had a relationship that she really wanted to follow up on before (I had, but was finding them less satisfying than my marriage, and was tired of the juggling the whole mess required), and it "wasn't fair" for her not to be able to do what I had already done. *Sigh*

Anyway, the most popular books in the genre these days are "Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits" and "The Ethical Slut."

They're interesting reading. One of the things that struck me in both cases was how similar their basic concepts for a good relationship were to the MB principles.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">.... and the couple who wrote that stupid book, well, they broke up because of the "other" relationships.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I really would like to see a study of polyamory in all its different forms and see how those relationships compare in terms of longevity and happiness with standard monogamous marriages. I've looked for such research and have been unable to find anything that strikes me as even mildly rigorous science.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This is totally my point of view, learned the HARD way. If you think of sexuality as a gift of such unique specialness, a gift that has great power to convey love, then the sex act has more spiritual meaning.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yep, I appear to be learning it the hard way, too. Still, given that you're 20 or 30 years further along in this thought process than I am, I have a question. If you'd come to MB during the time that your LTR was falling apart and you had chosen to try to implement the MB principles as well as you could, what do you think would have happened? Could you have reconciled and recovered the relationship, and turned it into the marriage that you (I assume) ended up wanting?

And what should you have learned about love and marriage in that time that would have helped you in your current marriage and avoiding the pitfalls you met in it?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">When the relationship is "open" and the sexuality of both partners is shared, the spiritual value of the sex, the specialness ... leaks out.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm not sure that it's the sexuality, completely, that causes this leakage, though I do agree that -something- causes it. EAs are so powerful that they destroy marriages without ever becoming actively sexual. So do various other factors -- the arrival of a first child, for example. It seems to me that the "specialness" can come in a lot of different forms for different people. For some (perhaps most) it's wrapped in sexuality, but I suspect that it also comes down to feeling like you come "first" in someone's life, that there's something that's most important and precious to both of you, and without that your relationship just isn't the same.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It becomes sex. Love is slowly evaporated from the sex act. And the specialness of sexual love is given away to outsiders. And there is less and less value ... when we give things away.

The "other" sex partners in an "open" relationship .... have an opportunity to steal the spirituality of the union, via the importance of the sexual encounters. If there is an emotional connection, the sex is better .... and that emotional connection then leads one's heart away from the primary relationship.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think you're probably thinking along exactly the same lines I am, and as I said, while I haven't fully decided what my conclusions are, I lean toward agreeing with you at this point. I do question what would happen in a multi- (more than two) member marriage, but that's an experiment for someone else, in some other life, at this point.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I was a hippie. We gave "love" away like flowers. It was like passing a joint ... sharing the goodies with others. And, the value of sex came in the currency of pleasure, rather than spiritual union with God and the partner.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Interesting difference, here. We had negotiated a set of rules that went with our other relationships. One of my rules was that I would never sleep with someone I didn't already deeply love. I've never broken that rule, and neither has WP. Was it like passing a joint? Not really, no. But that doesn't negate the effects of sharing that power with more than one person, I don't think. It's something that's very dangerous to relationships, I think.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">People treasure things that have value and importance to them. In my opinion, "open" relationships cannot help but eventually fall apart, because there is a de-valuing of what was once special between two people.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yeah. I think you tie it too closely to the sexual aspects of the specialness, but other than that, I'm with you on this.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I did that. It had a horrible outcome.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sounds like a very painful experience, and probably one that I would identify with all too well. Want to say more about it?

Pep

[/b] <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" /> [/QB][/QUOTE]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I did this. I had a LTR in my 20's ... it lasted 14 years. We decided to make it an "open" relationship. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Was it an open relationship the whole time? If not, how much of it was open, and under what basic guidelines did you work the relationship, if any?

Also, was the relationship with a man or a woman? If it was with a man, I take it you weren't married? Why not, if that's the case?

Lets see.... It was my highschool boyfriend. No it was not an open relationship until the last 2 or 3 years. He was my first. I was his first. We thought we needed to experience others.

The basic guidelines .... we could have sex with other people, either alone or as a couple, and THAT would not diminish our love for each other at all. We would simply tell each other everything that happened.

It was gruesome!

It was painful.

We both began to lie to the other about how attracted we were to other partners, and the sneaking began.

We never married because we were pretty young in the beginning. Then he did grad school, then I left and began an airline career, then he did not want to get married. Then I did not want to marry him. Then we both did not want to marry each other. Then one of us changed out mind, then reconsidered.... It was a very long break-up! LOL

This was pre-AIDS .... nevertheless, my infertility is most likely a result of all those shared viruses and bacteria <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" />

I began to get emotionally drawn to others during those terrible days .... and so did he.

It just doesn't work to stay committed in an open relationship. The specialness is thrown away ... and the effortlessness of having sex with others erodes a sense of personal purity.

Imagine .... thinking personal sexual purity was an asset in the 60's!!! Impossible!

MB principles would have been lost on me .... I was far too arrogant, and sure that I could beat any system of rules and values if I put my mind to it.

I thought I could drive fast and control my car at any speed too. I had one major accident on the freeway, where I was struck by a semi truck moving van, spun across lanes and hit by 3 other cars. So much for my arrogance!

My point is .... about your lover..... once children are introduced into the mix .... suddenly "THE RULES" seem so much more relevant. And perhaps she wanted to play more closely by society's rules once she became a birth-mother. That wild and crazy life just doesn't seem relevant with a babe needing to be raised.

Pep

Quite frankly, you can call your R whatever you want ... But it's what your WW thinks about it that matters. What I think doesn't matter.... but I am exploring some thoughts, and you are a doll to allow me latitude!

I find that I learn things when I explore stuff with folks who have different experiences than I do. And since I'm not (thank goodness) in one of the roller-coaster periods of this mess, it looks like a good time for introspection.

That's interesting.... Your WP wanted to "be married".

Yep. And looking at it as objectively as I'm able to at the moment, she also wanted as much freedom as she could get while still having me to come back to as a grounding point. Which worked for a long while, but then didn't work.

OK .... how about TCBITW??? (The cutest baby in the world)

Heh. Well, THAT is certainly true. The pictures tell the story quite well. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

TCBITW was drinking her bottle on my lap the last time I posted. Her commentary was, and I quote, "BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA." All in all, perhaps one of the most thoughtful of all the comments I've heard about the whole situation!

BOTH! I know pleanty of nannys, who do all the work, but they are not the mom under the law.

Yeah, I agree with you. I'm about, oh, 3/4 of the way there. And as time goes on, it wilil become more and more so, even if I don't adopt her.

Why wasn't this [the adoption] done legally when the sperm was being ordered? Why were your potential rights as a parent not protected in advance? Certainly, you are not the first woman to whom this has happened.

Hm. If I told the full story, I would give enough information to be easily identifiable. Rather than do that, I'll give a somewhat limited version, and will tell most of it in terms of the standard alternatives that same-sex couples have.

So....... First off, the laws of the United States are terrible in this area. One can't adopt a child who has not yet been born anywhere. There are a very few states that have something called the Uniform Parentage Act, which allows for children born of same-sex unions to automatically be treated as the child of both parents. (Just like, in some states, if a couple is married, the man is the father of any children born into the marriage, biologically related or not.)

Other states allow what's called second-parent adoption. This is an action that allows, for example, a stepparent to adopt a child when the biological parent has died. It is used in the case of same-sex couples to do essentially the same thing -- to bring two people who want to raise a child together into an equal status under the law.

Second-parent adoption is not available to same-sex couples in many states, however, which leaves the child in the dangerous position of having two parents with different legal statuses.

This entire class of children (the number is currently estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands in the US) is at risk from the fallout of their parents' conflicts. Since society at large has a prejudice towards biological relationships and against same-sex unions, it commonly happens that a child who grew up knowing two people as her parents is suddenly completely and totally cut off from one of them.

And often, the parent who exercises such an action is not actually the parent who is best suited to have sole custody of the child. It is devastating both for the child and for the parent who has lost the child.

There are many, many children who have been taken away from their non-biological parent in such a situation. It happens so often in the lesbian community that many of the people I have met recently patted me gently and said, "I'm so sorry." And followed it with, "Are you going to try to adopt another child?" or some variation on that theme.

LIKE SHE WAS A KITTEN OR SOMETHING?!?!?!? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="images/icons/mad.gif" />

Anyway. There are many methods that are used in order to create some protections for these unprotected children and their nonbiological parents. None of the other protections are perfect, but they allow for some greater safety.

In many states where adoption is not allowed, the non-biological parent can be appointed as a legal guardian and awarded joint, co-residental custody. (I think that's what it's called, anyway.) Also, same-sex couples draw up co-parenting agreements and have them enforced as "consent orders" by the court systems. Co-parenting agreements are more commonly used in divorce, but in a broader sense they are a standard document by which people can agree to raise a child together. A consent order means that both parties have asked the court to order them to do what they have agreed to do. This gives the agreement much greater force in the legal system.

So. We began trying to get pregnant several years ago. At that time, we put in place the documents that we could put in place prior to the conception of a child. We were also advised that we lived in one of the worst states in the country for same-sex couples and their children, and were told that we would be much better off living in another state. We live in an area where three jurisdictions are close together, and both of the other two were possibilities.

Once WP became pregnant, we started looking for a house in one of those places. Unfortunately, we also live in an area where the real estate market has gone insane. After nearly four months of looking and three offers where we were outbid, we finally found a house, made a successful offer, and closed. We moved the week before the baby was born. (She was born nearly three weeks early.)

We then immediately began the process of protecting my rights as a parent further. We met with our lawyer the morning that we found out that there was a problem with the pregnancy and had her start drawing up the documents. We would have had them finished before TCBITW was born, but that afternoon we found out that there was a problem with the pregnancy and WP had to be induced. (Have I mentioned that it's been a very very busy year?)

Thereafter, we had this almost-premature, almost-too-small-to-go-home baby to deal with. She was wonderful, and it was completely exhausting. As I've said in other places, we didn't really make it through that first three weeks.

But we did proceed with the adoption papers slowly. In parallel to all of this, WP's relationship with OM was eroding away the foundations of our relationship, and things were getting awful. On one terrible weekend in March, they -almost- managed to split again, we signed the adoption papers (and a bunch of other things), and the next morning, WP told me she wanted to leave and take the baby with her. She "needed time to think."

Things went pretty much straight to hell then; I was inconsolable and completely irrational that night, and continued in the deep downward spiral that wandered through her saying that she was ambivalent about me being a parent, her deciding that she didn't want me to use the parental name that we'd picked out, her starting to deny me access, and... well, a number of other really unpleasant things. It culminated in me leaving at the end of May, and WP revoking her consent two days later.

We spent the entire summer coming back from that. We've come a long way, and we obviously have a very, very long way to go.

How's that for a long answer to a short question? Anyone out there still awake?

Her emotional Mama <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

*snicker* Even though I'm the calm one between me and WP, yeah, that's basically true.

The only thing I can personally relate to here is that during the adoption process with our eldest, we were foster parents for 2 years!!! There was delay because there were 2 potential bio-dads, and they BOTH had to sign away parental rights. And one of them was very hard to locate. This fuzzy area puts one in a fragile position. That's for sure.

Yeah. And I'm in a similarly fuzzy and fragile position. It's not pleasant. (She said, using her very best skill at understatement.)

Whew. This is what I get for having dinner in the middle of a post. I come back and have gotten my second wind!

Going back to the question of facts and what they are, I was reminded today that the correct term for my parental status is "de facto parent." I am a parent "in fact" or "in reality." I am a parent "in fact, whether with lawful authority or not."

The opposing term is "de jure." I am not a parent jure. I am not a parent by a right granted under law.

Them's the facts. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

I suspect that a similar argument could be made for our marriage. As with a common law marriage, we may be "de facto" married, though not "de jure" married.

By the way, if anyone wants to read more about all these issues, the Human Rights Campaign's FamilyNet web site has a great deal of information about the nationwide status of laws protecting same-sex couples and their children.

once you get past a certain age, and (hopefully) once you are raising children, you develop an understanding and appreciation that RULES are, for the most part, protective.

Are they? How about "women don't work outside the home?" and "girls don't do math" and "women don't get educated" and "women don't vote" and "women can't own land"?

Are they? How about "blacks don't vote" and "blacks can be slaves" and "blacks aren't allowed to live in this neighborhood" and "blacks aren't allowed to enter this diner" and "blacks have to ride on the back of the bus" and "blacks aren't allowed to own land"?

Are they? How about "gays can't work here" and "homosexual acts are illegal" and "if you love someone of the same sex you can't teach in our high school" and "lesbians can't have custody of their daughters"?

You're right that "the rules" are meant to be protective. The question is, though, do they protect the right people, and do they protect everyone in a fair and equitable way?

The answer changes as society's values change. Hundreds of years ago, the answers would have been different than they are today. Does that mean that society is falling apart, or finally coming together? I don't think we know the answer to that yet.

There are rules and standards that are conflicting as to whom the rules protect. Most of the really great social debates fall into this area. Abortion rights vs child protection laws, for example.

There are certainly some great debates (and that's one of them) over who should be protected and how.

Risk taking can result in personal harm. Often, risk taking can result in harming others as well. Often by accident.

Risk taking can also be benificial. Weighted risk to benifit ratio .... and thinking about probable outcomes is what makes risks doable.

Change is .... change. It is neither good nor bad. It is simply change. Risk-taking is similar, I think, and closely related. Without change and risk, society stagnates and dies. Without change and risk, people die. With change and risk, society may fall apart and die. With change and risk, people die.

Pretty much all societies fail and all people die.

Risk-taking and rules-following can both hinder or hurry that outcome.

If we consider breaking social standards of behavior as a ~risk taking~ event ... then there needs to be an acceptance of the consequences from that decision.

Agreed.

If you decide to break with the rules, and enjoy some sort of freedom outside socially accepted rules of conduct, and there is a price to pay .... who should pay that price?

If you decide to break with the rules, what safety measures are you going to put in place to ensure that the rule-breaking is as carefully controlled as possible with as little possible damage as possible?

If rules are there for protection .... once the rules are disregarded BY CHOICE, is there an expectation that the protection afforded by the rules still exists outside the rules?

If the rules exist in order to protect the ongoing existence of the social institution that created them, does the social institution need to change? If so, how can that social institution and its rules be changed while protecting the greatest number of people from harmful side effects of that change?

If the rules are established to protect us, and we decide to make our own rules up as we go ... why should we expect to be protected by those same rules we decided not to follow?

If the rules are established to protect an institution that harms some while protecting others, and we decide to challenge those rules, why should we not expect the rules to change to protect all who are deserving of protection?

Until you are raising children, these issues are somewhat blurry and not urgent in one's mind. Later, when your little darling child begins to question your rules and your authority as a parent to establish those rules.... suddenly the whole issue of rules being protective become very clear.

And sometimes the rules are not rules, but are simply the drunken pronouncements of a parent who should know better and who should never have had that fourth, or fifth, or sixth martini. And sometimes the child who is suffering under those rules deserves to be freed from the authority that is abusing her.

Bringing a child into the world is a tremendous responsibility. Raising that child to be a healthy and accountable adult is damn hard. Establishing a family outside the rules provides any children in that family less protection.

If a child is born outside the protections of the law, is it the society that are at fault? Is it the child? Or is it the parents? And in this case, who should be protected? The child, the society, the parents? All three? Some? None? What harm is done to society by furthering the protection of children in all circumstances? What harm is done to children by furthering the protection of society in all circumstances?

For instance, on the pregnancy MB board .... OC have less protection in their lives, because they do not have 2 married parents to provide that protection. All due respect to single mothers .... it's simply better for a child to have 2 parents, and specifically a loving and strong father-figure.

All due respect to you, Pepperband, but could you support this last one with specific evidence? The following points are not clear to me:

- How does 2 married people equate to 2 loving parents?
- How does 2 loving parents equate to 2 married people?
- How does 2 loving parents equate to at least one being a strong and loving father-figure?

Which brings me to Terminator's ideas. Here is a similarity ---> NOT following your father's house rules as a teenager.... and getting into trouble ---> NOT following God the Father's rules as an adult .... and getting into trouble.

Which brings me to question why God has to be the Father, exactly? Why not Goddess the Mother? Why not Universe the Eunich?

Oh, wait, right. Christian board. I keep forgetting. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Choices have to be made. We cannot have it all. We cannot have freedom from the rules and freedom from the consequences for breaking those rules....

Choices have to be made. We cannot have it all. We cannot have protection from the rules and protection from the consequences for not breaking those rules.....

Just working some issues out in my own head .... and tossing them like fallen leaves here on Sungirl's thread....

Thanks! I'm having fun with your ideas, and playing the opposing team on some of them. I don't necessarily disagree with your ideas. But I think they have to be handled very, very carefully.

(And I would just like to say that yes, I do intend for TCBITW to be sent to a convent when she's 13, just like all good parents do. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> )

What ever happened to Sungirl anyway?

Sungirl? Are you out there? Did I scare you away? I'm sorry about the threadjacking! Pepperband is just too interesting a playmate!

<small>[ October 14, 2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Just J ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Pepperband:
<strong> Difficult point to consider....

If your WP suddenly died .... what happends to TCBITW?

Who decides where that baby lives?

Pep </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Is this a concern for you currently? Is there some legal protection for you to stay with TCBITW as her parent in the event of something so awful?

My brother and I exchanged agreements .... he and his W would assume parenting our 2 brats if we both died, and visa versa.

Pep

I answered that one up there a ways. Basically the answer is that WP's will names me as the only successor parent if something happens to her.