I am nine months pregnant with my first baby, and my doctor says that I am going into labor any day! Two days ago I went to the hospital to fill out all of the pre-admittance paperwork so that when I arrive at the hospital I can merely concern myself with birthing a baby. During the course of the interview the nurse asked lots of questions, much what you would expect. But then she asked one question that really rubbed me the wrong way - "are you single, or married?" My first response to this . . . neither.
A little background. My partner (Dan) and I have been together for a little over five years. We followed a fairly traditional trajectory in the relationship realm (at least what is the expectation of middle class white folk living in the pacific northwest). We met in college, moved in together when we graduated, bought a house, and then decided to have a baby. We simply decided to skip the marriage part. We made this decision for numerous reasons, but mostly because we are the way we are and see no need to get a piece of paper to solidify our relationship. We are very frequently mistaken for married, and we long ago stopped correcting people when they refer to us as husband and wife. It was just getting tedious answering their questions about why we weren't married. Dan was unable to come to this meeting because he had an important meeting at work. Also, he is saving his time off for after the baby is born.
So, when posed with these two options I responded with what Dan and I have agreed is the best option in such scenario: married. Why is this the best option? We have found that we generally receive much more respectful medical attention when we present ourselves as a married couple rather than a "dating" couple. Which leads to my frustration. Why is there no third option of something along the lines of committed life partners? I know many couples who have known each other for four or five months who have already gotten married, and their relationships are for some reason given far more validation than mine simply because they are married. Why all the emphasis on marriage? I have always felt that signing a 30 year home loan was far more of a commitment than a marriage certificate! (for me, anyways)
Now, when I arrived home and continued to think about how frustrating it is to be given these two options, I realized that in this particular situation the reason you have to choose one or the other is for issues of paternity. If you are not married then the father of your baby has to sign a paternity affidavit claiming ownership of the baby. If he does not sign the affidavit, then they will not put him on the birth certificate. So, I was doing some research on paternity affidavits and I was appalled at what I found on the government websites. Basically, these are merely one more form of slut shaming on the part of the government. If you are married, then it is assumed that your husband is the father of your children. If you are not married, then the man has to accept responsibility by signing the affidavit. OK, that seems simple enough, but why can't my partner just put his name on the birth certificate and call it good? Doesn't this indicate that he is accepting "ownership" of the child? Why is there a need for another form? Slut shaming. All of the websites have sternly worded warnings aimed at men, telling them to be sure not to sign the affidavit unless they are positive they are the father. It also includes a lot of information about how to get a paternity test. OK, I understand that this may be necessary in a lot of cases. But why is it that married men get no such warning? It is just as likely that a married woman is sleeping with multiple men as it is a woman in a relationship is. It seems as though the government is making the assumption that if you are not married, and you are pregnant, you must be sleeping with multiple partners.
This may sound a little bit like a rant, and it probably is. I am just eternally frustrated that our society is stuck in this relationship model. Why can't we have more than two options for relationship status? I am not married, but I am not single, and I would appreciate an option that fits me and my relationship. I am sure that many other couples out there feel the same way. Dan and I are committed to each other. We have chosen to spend our lives together. We simply do not want to get married. When everybody can get married, we will consider it. But until then we need a third option.
*I am in no way suggesting that people who are married have less valid relationships. I am simply saying that I am tired of MY relationship being invalidated because we are not married.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Politics of Paternity .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13954
I agree! I'm in a similar situation, minus the baby on the way (congrats!) as I've been with my male partner for almost 6.5 years and we don't have marriage plans. In the last few months I've had to check off "single" on my state & federal taxes and on forms at the Dr's office and radiology office. I feel horrible each time I do it because I am deeply committed to my partner but there's no option to recognize that unless I marry him. And of course same-sex couples in most states don't even have that option. I hope in time there can be additional boxes. We are considering having kids one day and I had no idea how crappy the process will be to make sure he has paternity rights if we do, so thanks for sharing.
I might give some insides on the marriage -> getting children connection.
In my country the word for marriage is derived from pregnancy. I think the original reason for 2 persons to get married was to raise children.
Something more from Germany, here getting married is not necessarily seen as something religious, but rather as something that the state aknowledges (you sign a contract and before you do you are not allowed to get married in a church). I believe it is the same in your country as well as the laws that surround it. By being married, you state, you want to have children together and therefor the state assumes the husband is the father. If two persons are not legaly married for all the special rights and privileges that apply a father must be aknowledged.
This is how I understand it. In Germany we have a different kind of relationships as well which are called marriage-like relationships for long term couples that aren´t married. I believe that doesn´t change the fact that he has to sign formulars for the child (a lot of couples don´d do this though and the birth certificate just includes the mother)
As you could maybe imagine this ruling is a concern to the fathers movement as well. Especially in Germany the father has to be aknowledged by the mother if they are not married which means he can´t have custody of his kids if his partner doesn´t want him to.
An interesting change of this law is currently happening in Switzerland where fathers might have more rights than anywhere else in the world. As far as I understand unmarried fathers get custody automaticly as well as some laws not allowing to keep the child away from another partner which is punished the same way someone is punished for not paying child support. Plus custody for both if a divorce occurs. But well I am extravagating...
Kinda strange how attitudes take time to catch up to behaviours. People have been having kids without being married more and more while in a committed relationship. Some people don't realize this it seems.
This isn't the main point of your post, I know, but from a legal point of view, the reason to have a paternity affidavit is to ensure that there will be access to child support, if necessary, for the mother, assuming she keeps the child. Or that custody can be transferred to the father, without the need for a separate hearing to determine paternity.
The "if you're married, it's yours" presumption/tradition is outdated, true, but it also provides a guaranteed (generally) means of support for the child. Again, this may all be outmoded, based on a tired patriarchal model, etc etc., but the major concern is money. For the kid. Which is fine by me.
That being said, I totally agree with your main point, and I'm sorry that you've been subjected to less than great medical care because of your marital status. That is truly and stinking bad, and any providers who's done that to you is not performing their duty correctly. But congratulations, and I wish you a safe and short delivery.
i agree. "marriage" is a matter of the heart. my partner and i have made our (private) vows to each other, we have exchanged wedding rings (privately). but we are not legally married. i guess you could say we are "common law" married.
none of our friends have an issue with this; they all acknowledge that we are "married." but i get antsy when i have to fill out paperwork and it asks my marital status (and half the time it doesnt even matter! like, why the hell does my dentist need to know if im married?!) i never know what to put, married or single. there is no third option. i usually check the married box...
technically, he is my fiance. we are making it "legit" next fall is a simple, small ceremony with our families in our backyard. it really wont be a big deal. we are doing this mainly for legal reasons. insurance, wills, children (i worry about the same issues you talked about.)
honestly, if domestic partners got the exact same benefits as married spouses, and were held to the same level socially, we'd probably go down to the court house tomorrow, sign them, and be on our merry way. *shrug*
honestly, if domestic partners got the exact same benefits as married spouses, and were held to the same level socially, we'd probably go down to the court house tomorrow, sign them, and be on our merry way. *shrug*
I've heard that a lot of people are doing that in France-- they added some sort of civil union option with gay couples in mind, but lots of straight couples are now using it too because its easier than the traditional marriage process in France.
France is very big on church and state being separate and so they stopped using the word "marriage" for those unions from the government, instead choosing the equivalent of "civil union". This allows the French government to not be pushed into maintaining the "sanctity of marriage" because some religious people are claiming it's a religious issue. This also allowed the French government to give out civil unions to LGBT people because there was no logical reason to deny them.
Marriage grants a lot of legal benefits and entitlements, like access to your bedside if you are hospitalized. Granted, there is not much that can happen at a dentist's office that will land you in the hospital unconcious, but in the event that something does, they want to know who they can legally allow to see you. Anytime you find it strange that you are asked your marital status, consider whether some situation could arise that would entail another person having access to you or your assets. If you want your partner to have that access, I suggest checking the married box. It's not like they ask for a marriage license as proof.
Maybe marriage shouldn't be as important as it is, but with the current system there are a lot of legal and financial benefits to being married that you might find yourselves missing out on as your kids grow up. I think that if I didn't want it to be a big deal I might still just go get married quickly at city hall, to be sure that we're safe in terms of healthcare and medical decisions and inheritences and child custody and that kind of thing.
I had a baby last year and my boyfriend and I weren't married. He had to fill out the paternity paperwork in the hospital. We have since gotten married. Our decision to tie the knot was prompted by his need for medical insurance - which comes from my job. It makes father-related discourse a little easier because I can just say "my husband" which apparently entails "father of my child" rather than "my boyfriend, who's the baby's father" (because if I'm not married it's apparently more likely that I'm not with my baby's dad). We don't wear wedding rings which I think causes some consternation. ONce in a doctor's office the doctor asked obliquely (addressing neither of us or both of us, it was hard to tell) who the baby lived with. I thought "With us, you moron." I think because we didn't have rings she assumed we weren't married (and therefore the baby might not live with his father?). We both found that irritating - why was it her business anyway? ANYWAY, it sucks that unmarried couples (especially those with kids) get second class treatment and condescension but that's the way it is. Get married to the father of your kid and the world will love you. It sucks but I don't see it changing any time soon.
> But why is it that married men get no such warning?
I am not sure but maybe in your state once unmarried man signed voluntary the paper he is not able to object paternity anymore. And for husbands (as far as they are automatically consifered fathers)... well they might object paternity within several years (depends on the state).
Congrats on the impending birth :)
My now husband and I lived together for a couple years before we got married and his religious brothers and their wives did not like it one bit. But I think that people who aren't married sometimes show more of a commitment to each other than some married people. It's much easier to leave a relationship you're not legally bound to. My parents divorced a few years ago and did not have any assets to split up besides debt. It still cost them hundreds of dollars just to get a piece of paper recognizing them as divorced.
She asks that question for multiple reasons, primary being that husbands have rights that partners don't, especially in regards to hospital rights. The reason why the husband is just "assumed to be the father" isn't so much because of DNA but because the husband will be raising the child. If we agree that what's more significant in the life of a child is who is raising it rather than who's sperm helped create it means that the husband is going to be important regardless of whether or not the child is his. I really don't think the whole birth certificate/marriage thing is slut-shaming, I think it's about protecting people's rights and making sure that the responsible people are actually being held accountable. If you don't have a marriage, the government doesn't know who you're dating or sleeping with. They don't have a name in their records to put down as the non-mother significant person raising the child so they have to ask you. And because there are crazy people out there, they have to have the non-husband father know what's going on in his name so that he isn't named the father of somebody he never actually created.
I respect your decision to remain unmarried, but my impression of your post is that you're ignoring the significance of a legal marriage. Why is a marriage given so much weight, regardless of how long it's been or how long you've been together with your partner? Because it is a hundred times more difficult to divorce than it is to break up. Marriage comes with a whole bunch of rights and responsibilities. It has to do with taxes and laws and bank accounts and who can make decisions about medical problems. There's a reason why so many people in the US and other countries are fighting for the right to get married - because it comes with so many privileges and is recognized by the government.
Again, I'm not dismissing your relationship, I'm just trying to point out that a marriage is a lot more than just writing your name down on a piece of paper.
I don't see the level of difficulty in obtaining a divorce acting as a huge deterrant for people who are married after they have decided to get one. Sure, Dan and I wouldn't have to go to court to file a divorce, but if we did split up it wouldn't exactly be easy. Like I said, we own a home together, a car together, we have taken out other loans that have both of our names on them. I am also listed on Dan's life insurance policy as the beneficiary, and we have each filed living wills naming each other as executor. Now that we are having a baby, there would be custodey issues. I don't thinkt that the level of difficulty in splitting up should have any bearing on the way people view your relationship. After six years together, we will suffer the same emotional damage that anybody in love would.
I'm sorry, I just don't see marriage as being some superior state of relationship. We won't marry until everybody can. Simple. My point is that it shouldn't be us who have to change, the government and society in general need to change their attitudes about relationships and marriage.
Wow, where do you live, darcigraves? Where I live (British Columbia, Canada), you just have to be living with the same person (sex/gender doesn't matter) for two years in a "marriage-like relationship" and 'POOF!' you are common-law with almost as much rights as a married couple. In fact, so many couples here don't bother getting married because it doesn't change much or give them any extra benefits (unless maybe one wants to get citizenship, but that's a different matter).
I'm just surprised that common-law relationships are that common in other places.
oops. I meant "are not that common".
I'm in the same boat as tan... I live in Ontario Canada and as far as I can tell common law couples have the same rights as married couples (although I could be wrong as I do not have kids, so I don't know about how that would affect things). In any event on virtually every government form etc. there is a "commonlaw relationship" option to check off. It just varies from thing to thing how long you must live with the person to be considered commonlaw-- usually it is for one or two years.
Even through my college I was able to get dental and drug benefits for my partner even though we are unmarried. We've lived together for three years and have been together for about 5 years-- a lot longer than some marriages last!
I sincerely hope that the US will modernize their views on nonmarried couples one day soon.
I manage a medical recods department for a hospital. I have seen every case scenario you can and can't imagine. I'm sorry that you feel so put upon and insulted by the Affidavit of Paternity, but it is a double edged sword. This document also guards against fraud, and also provides for the support of a child which is due them. Let me say first, you are lucky to have such an admirable partner in your life as you describe, but not all people have those ethics, integrity, and character traits that you have described in you and your partner. An unweb mother, when filling out the birth certificate can give her child any name she so chooses, even to go as far as naming the child after someone (i.e. John Doe Jr.). It was not so long ago that any child born out of weblock, the birth certificate was not filed in the local city, but was sent directly to the State govenment and locked up. Talk about being branded... We have come a long way since then. The Affidavit of Paternity protects the mother, the child, the father, and the State, from abuse, false statements, and abandonment of responsibilities. The hospital and the Government are doing their best to communicate and inform soon to be parents. It is important to read these documents with an open and objective mind. Remember, they were written by lawyers who have had to defend cases regarding false claims of legitimacy and financial obligations.
I manage a medical recods department for a hospital. I have seen every case scenario you can and can't imagine. I'm sorry that you feel so put upon and insulted by the Affidavit of Paternity, but it is a double edged sword. This document also guards against fraud, and also provides for the support of a child which is due them. Let me say first, you are lucky to have such an admirable partner in your life as you describe, but not all people have those ethics, integrity, and character traits that you have described in you and your partner. An unweb mother, when filling out the birth certificate can give her child any name she so chooses, even to go as far as naming the child after someone (i.e. John Doe Jr.). It was not so long ago that any child born out of weblock, the birth certificate was not filed in the local city, but was sent directly to the State govenment and locked up. Talk about being branded... We have come a long way since then. The Affidavit of Paternity protects the mother, the child, the father, and the State, from abuse, false statements, and abandonment of responsibilities. The hospital and the Government are doing their best to communicate and inform soon to be parents. It is important to read these documents with an open and objective mind. Remember, they were written by lawyers who have had to defend cases regarding false claims of legitimacy and financial obligations.