This story has been the subject of much commentary and surely almost all is said. But this link (included in the Telegraph version of the story) reveals a different aspect of the situation, one that has a great deal to do with gender and very little to do with adoption.That twins unwittingly married is certainly eye catching. It might argue for more openness about adoption records. It might even argue for greater access to information about sperm donors. But it is being deployed in an effort to alarm us about fatherlessness and to restrict women’s access to assisted reproductive technology.
You can see the linguistic slight of hand at work here. The bill at issue would allow unmarried women (some of whom might just be lesbians) greater access to fertility clinics. In other words, it would allow women to raise children without having men involved in their families. Hence, the alarm is raised about legions of fatherless (though obviously wanted and planned) children.
It’s not that there shouldn’t be a conversation about women raising children without men (something that happens often enough event without assisted reproduction). But what exactly did that have to do with the marrying twins?
–Julie Shapiro (cross-posted at Related Topics)
No one has been able to verify that the story is even true. I don’t think it happened, it really makes no sense. Why would some judge tell the details to someone if it was supposed to be a deep judicial secret but not be willing to just verifify that it happened?