Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), same-sex couples who live together will be defined as “unmarried partners” in the 2010 U.S. Census. Their children will be counted as belonging to single parents, even if the couples are legally wed in a state that permits them to do so. If the partners list themselves as wife and wife or husband and husband, the final results will still list them as “unmarried partners.” (The census will retain their original answers, though, offering a slim hope for being counted through the work of resourceful doctoral students or an organization like the Williams Institute at UCLA.)
That much has already been reported. There are some other difficulties with the Census and same-sex parents, however, that no one has spotted yet. Let’s say you’re a couple in a state that allows both same-sex parents to go on the child’s birth certificate without needing an adoption. (Doing an adoption as well is a good idea for when you travel, but let’s say you haven’t done this yet, or have, but don’t consider yourself an “adoptive” parent to the child you planned with your partner from the start.) Let’s also not forget that adoption is not an option for non-biological parents in a growing number of states.
The 2010 Census questions ask about the first person in the household. For each additional person, they ask, “How is this person related to Person 1? Mark ONE box.” How would you mark this if you are the non-biological parent, answering the question about your child:
- Husband or wife
- Biological son or daughter
- Adopted son or daughter
- Stepson or stepdaughter
- Brother or sister
- Father or mother
- Grandchild
- Parent-in-law
- Son-in-law or daughter-in-law
- Other relative
- Roomer or boarder
- Housemate or roommate
- Unmarried partner
- Other nonrelative
That’s right. There is no appropriate way for a non-biological parent to indicate their child, even if they are legally on the child’s birth certificate, unless they have done an adoption and are willing to identify as an adoptive parent. (Not that there’s anything wrong with being an adoptive parent—far from it—but there’s a difference between adopting a child from outside of one’s family and being forced to adopt the child one has planned from the start with a partner. From a demographic and sociological perspective, that’s useful information.)
[Urp. As S points out below in a comment, the Census only asks about the child’s relationship to one person in the household, so this isn’t really a problem—except insofar as the moms might not know which one is the “biological mom.” I’d argue “both,” but it’s unclear, especially if one of the moms has also had to do an adoption of the child.] Furthermore, let’s consider a situation like my own or Cat Cora’s, where one partner has donated an egg that the other partner has carried. The census will then get data on households with two women, where each rightly claims to be the biological mother of the child. Will they consider those as errors and discount the data? Who knows?
As James Withers notes at 365gay.com, it’s too late to do anything about the 2010 Census, but we can start agitating for the act of Congress that is needed to change the questions for 2020. We need to repeal DOMA, too, of course, but we should separately make sure that same-sex families with children are counted as families, whether the parents are legally wed or not.
Wow. And damn. And lord, the work we have to do.
Good thing love and paternal protectiveness are such powerful motivators.
Not to be nit-picky, but there actually is an appropriate answer the non-biological parent could check off: “other relative.” It doesn’t convey much useful information to the census bureau, and it’s insulting that you can’t check off a box showing you’re a legally-recognized parent, but it would be technically correct. In
2000, the census form included a blank where people could write in what that “other relative” was — strange that they would take out that space for 2010. (Also strange is that they removed the option to indicate someone is a foster child.)
They’d be much better to have an option like “child by birth” rather than “biological child,” to denote someone who became a legal parent by virtue of the child having been born into that person’s custody. Because even a heterosexual couple who used donor sperm to conceive the kids wouldn’t technically qualify to check off “biological child” either, if the dad is Person 1 filling out the form.
To your other point, since families like yours and Cat Cora’s presumably fill out one census form for the whole household, and the census doesn’t even how ask the children are related to the second adult in the household, then the census won’t actually get forms where both moms list themselves as the biological parent. It will just get a list of how the children are related to whichever of you chooses to be Person 1. Which is actually an enormously inaccurate way to gather data about family structure, and not just because of gay/lesbian issues. A family composed of children living with one biological parent and one stepparent, or one biological parent and one adoptive parent, can look exactly the same as a family whose children are living with two biological parents, if a bio parent is listed as Person 1. Alternatively, if the stepparent or adoptive parent is Person 1, then you lose all record that the child is living with any bio parents.
Oh, very good points, S. But I agree: “Other relative” to indicate one’s own child is still insulting, and bad demographics. And yes, it’s very odd they don’t indicate the second adult’s relationship with the child. I suppose they’re presumed a parent if they’re an opposite-sex adult married to Person 1–but that seems archaic in this day and age, as you say.