Here is a quick rundown:

The 2006 Census enumerated 45,300 same-sex couples. Of these, about 7,500 or 16.5% were married couples….The counts of same-sex couples are not large, yet growth was still quite dramatic during the intercensal period. The number of same-sex couples surged 32.6% between 2001 and 2006, five times the pace of opposite-sex couples (+5.9%)….Over half (53.7%) of same-sex married spouses were men in 2006, compared with 46.3% who were women….Children were present in the home for less than one-tenth of persons in same-sex couples. About 9.0% of individuals in same-sex couples had children in 2006. This was more common for women in same-sex couples (16.3%) than for men (2.9%).

Two days after our son was born, I remember hanging out in the bathroom with my partner, taking a much needed bath while my mother took care of Dré (it was our first bit of quality time since the birth!). We sat together and put our family down on paper. As we did so, we realized the impact we were having on the face of Canadian families, simply by adding our diverse unit into the mix. As we know, census data can’t capture all the ways in which our families are different (for example, I had to pick a race (and a gender!) for Dré, and I really am not sure I got it right) but it at least shows a growing number of us don’t fit into heteronormative ideas of nuclear families.

Click here if you want to read more!

ETA: Check out this story, which discusses how the numbers representing same-sex marriages are skewed due to the problematic language on the census.

Apologies for ongoing edits to this, I wrote it with my 16 month old desperately trying to get my attention (bad momma!)  

I did, however, want to share this tidbit from your neighbours to the North. A study, (commissioned back in 2003 when Canadians were embroiled in the same-sex marriage debate) recently came out that states:

the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels and qualities of social competence.

It bears noting that the author of the study had to request a copy of it through the Access to Information Act, as he believes the current Conservative government was stalling on its publication. The findings of the report contradict their political leanings on the subject, and they are now distancing themselves from it, stating that there is “very little reasearch in this area”.

Of course, “family” groups are refuting the findings, calling the study biased and wringing their hands, stating that the “natural family” no longer has special protection in Canada. They also want it noted that “women just don’t make good dads”.

Uhg. I sometimes want to get up in arms about this kind of baloney, but I rarely have the energy. I am teaching a course this summer on Motherhood and Mothering, and it just takes 10 minutes of reading to realize that the nuclear “natural” family is a modern invention, and yo, thanks to patriarchy, often men don’t make good dads.

So there you go. In case you were worried (which I know you all weren’t, but just in case), lesbian parents are just as good as straight parents.

Since our son was born, my partner and I have had some of our most heated arguments in the 6 or so years we’ve been together. And what, you may ask, have most of these arguments been about? Well, firstly, the dishes. And sometimes the laundry. Most often it is the bathroom, because no one likes the bathroom. We’ve become obsessed with blaming each other for the state of our home, and each one of us wants to be the domestic labour martyr.

So instead of cleaning the bathroom, I decided to do some research on how others are dividing up tasks in their queer households. As some of you may be aware, many theories abound when it comes to the division of labour in queer/gay/lesbian households. Most theorists proclaim that the division is much more equal than that of heterosexual households. They claim that those of us in same-sex relationships often hold anti-sexist/progressive/feminist beliefs that result in frank discussions about the division of labour, and then the dutiful equal divvying up of the work between the parties.
One theorist (Oerton, 1997) claimed that many of the studies written prior to her research did not take into account that gender and therefore inequality is still at play in same-sex relationships, and that assuming that lesbian and gay households are “gender free” (and also oppression free) is problematic. She asks, how does having children, and resulting parenting/co parenting arrangements, as well as income and race complicate the issue?

Since her article, a number of others have been written about the gay-by boom and its impact on household tasks. I have to say, having lived in our patriarchal world for my 31 years, I am not immune to the forces of sexism and the resulting gendered stereotypes. Even though I know better, I find myself frantically sweeping and dusting before my partner gets home, and I usually give her the “what for” when she leaves articles of clothing on the floor, or breakfast dishes in the sink that I discover upon waking up. In our house, I feel like I’m doing the lions share of the household tasks and the baby care. Yet, I don’t seem to see myself or my experiences reflected in all these academic studies.

So I wonder – what does the division of labour look like in your home? Has it changed since kids arrived? Did you or are you discussing this prior to having kids arrive?
*for those interested in some of these studies, let me know. I have copies of many of them that I can share.

So tell me…

Are you, as a lesbian parent/queer parent and parent to be less invested in normative gender roles?

I ask this question as a few days ago, I was an invited speaker on a session about lesbians planning to have kids. My partner and I talked about our baby and our road through conception, pregnancy and now parenting.

As the last speaker was finishing up, she was asked if she was sad that she was parenting boys (she had 2). She said she wasn’t, and mentioned how many lesbians with sons feel guilty about not having daughters. She suggested that we should mourn the fact that we don’t have daughters and just be happy to raise our sons.

So then I said, “And hey, maybe you will raise a femme boy!”

After that comment the room got silent. Those with kids said, “Well..” and then trailed off. Folks fidgeted in their seats. An uncomfortable silence followed. And then we moved on.

In the comments on gender-specific clothing in Art’s post, some folks mentioned that they wouldn’t put a boy in pink. Some mentioned the fear of being judged as a lesbian parent and that wildly disobeying gender normative rules would make it seem that they were using children to push the “homosexual agenda”.

So, am I naive and ridiculous? Am I setting myself up for something when I insist on pushing that homosexual agenda and playing around with normative gender/sexuality? (And I’m not just talking about clothes here – I often let people call our son “she” and make no moves to correct them, or when folks say that he will have all the “ladies” I make sure to add “and all the guys as well!”).

Am I going to have to eat my clueless parenting words and prepare myself for the gender police to straighten me out (pun intended)? Or is there really a hope to queer his childhood? (and let me be clear, I will be fine if Dre decides to be ultra masculine and heterosexual, but I would at least want my child to have the option to feel comfortable presenting his gender and sexual identity any way he desires).

What do you all think? Are you, as a lesbian/queer parent/parent to be less invested in normative gender roles? Or are the forces of society just too great?

(ps – I’m not sure why I can’t get spaces between my paragraphs, I apologize for the nasty formatting).

I can’t explain how exciting it was to see the program a few weeks later and to see my partner and our son on TV. In that instant we felt so normal and quite proud to be representing one example of queer families in Canada. But even more exciting? That we were a part of national history, we were THERE. The story may fade from the memories of those who saw it (it was in reaction to the decision allowing three parents for a child, something I wrote about earlier) but it may live on in the CBC archives.

I began to think of this as I did a search for media about the rights of lesbians in Canada. This search brought me to this documentary, filmed 27 years ago in 1980. Entitled “Three Women”, this short documentary profiled three lesbian mothers and their experiences. The film discusses how some of these women live outside of the closet, the reactions of their children and other parents, and the very real and scary issue of custody (where a lawyer advised lesbian women to “keep their mouths shut” about their sexuality when it came to fighting the father of their children for custody).

A great quote from the film came from a daughter of one of the women. She was asked if having a lesbian mom has changed her:

I can’t say its changed me, because I don’t know how it would be not to have a mother as a lesbian. So I don’t think I could say that it’s changed me because I’ve had her all my life.

So I offer for you this week the short docuemntary from 1980, to show us where we’ve been and to realize how far we’ve come in Canada (see here for more audio and video clips).

A former student of mine succinctly sums up my thoughts on the month. She writes, “Black History Month (BHM) became a bore for me a while ago, not just because of the regurgitated Marcus, Malcolm, Martin mantra, but because this single gendered “celebration” was never a call to action.” (K. King)

I wish I could say I felt that BHM was really improving the way society views race and racism. I wish I could say that the way BHM is celebrated every year allows room for diversity. I wish I could say that I even remembered this year that February had rolled around and that it was BHM.

A little Kwynne history: When I was in elementary school, my Black principal sought me out (not so hard, I was the only black kid in the school, I kid you not) and told me the wonderful story of Martin Luther King Jr. She decided that I should join her in reading “This day in history” over the PA system every morning for the month of February.

Emboldened by my new knowledge, in high school I made it my mission to educate my 99.5% white student population about the (mainly American) black history we were so desperately missing from our curriculum. It usually took a bit of convincing for the Principal to allow me (and 3 other friends) to put up a small display in the hallway (and to convince him that an assembly where a white guy dancing around in blackface was NOT ok). I also was sorta kinda a feminist (not so cool in high school) so most of my discoveries centred around the women not often found in BHM celebrations. I really bought into the “Black Woman as Queen” ideology, and put my energies into learning about Maya Angelou, Sojourner Truth, and even some Canadian Black icons, like Kay Livingstone, Marie-Joseph Angélique, Rose Fortune and Mary Ann Shadd.

By university, I was so tired of this whole thing. I was also coming out, and realized that trying to find the “gay” in BHM was asking for trouble. Although most of our noted Black Canadian writers and history makers are themselves queer (Dionne Brand, Makeda Silvera, d’bi young, trey anthony) the Canadian version of BHM relies on recycled images from the United States and is full of calls to rebuild the black nation – which is often code for reinforcing boring gender models and the patriarchial nuclear family.

I worry about the implications that BHM has for my family and many other queer and single mom familes. A case in point: Our national media station recently held a town hall, asking the question “What does it mean to grow up without a father?” After sharing staggering statistics about the number of children growing up without a father in the home (and specifically, 40% of black children have experienced this trend) the consensus reached was that young black men find themselves suceptible to violence and young black women become promiscuous all due to the lack of a “father figure”.

As uneven as these statistics are, it is not reason for the homophobia and sexism that result. Listening to this feature over the past week made me so angry. The speakers easily fell for the essential patriarchial model that claims that a young man MUST learn how to “be a man” from someone with a penis. That young men don’t know how to “father” because they themselves didn’t learn some code that supposedly and only comes from a “father”.

Why? Why, once again, are single and lesbian mothers raked over the coals, blamed for the ills of a racist, classist and sexist society? Why are we blaming women for the downfall of young men, intsead of rallying for more affordable child care, eradicating poverty or perhaps rethinking what mainstream masculintiy requires of young black men? And as a friend of mine so importantly stated, even if we do re-insert men back into families, what kinds of normalized heterosexist roles will our children learn from that? What more are we asking from these men if they stick around? Will they continue to expect mom to take on the lions share of household work and child care, all in the name of keeping a man in the house? Will we try to reinvent those historically uneven divisions of labour?

So again, I wonder about BHM and what it means when we continue to fall into simplistic bi-gendered notions of what it means to be a parent. I wonder when that “call to action” will come from my black brothers and sisters, and when we will really begin to rethink our heterosexist assumptions of family. And I want to know why every February I come face to face with this, and the histories of Black LGBT people, of families like ours, don’t count.

So now, I’m on a different mission. As a new mom, I want to build community with others who understand that a one-month-a-year token celebration does not an anti-racist make. I want to figure out how to wade out from under the scary ways racism has made its way into our lives, how it mixes with homophobia and how my child’s future could be grim without alternative views.

And in the name of pro-action (ha ha, like you could forget that long post of “re” action), I invite you to visit a tribute to Audre Lorde, feminist, poet, warrior, mother – remembering her (sometimes controversial, always thought provoking) words is definitely a reason to celebrate black history month.

Yet I did come across some interesting news links and offer them up for you this weekend in addition to Trista’s great weekend reading.

If you missed it, Mombian posted a story last week from the Mail and Guardian Online that asks, Why are Pregnant Lesbians scary?

Across the pond, government ministers in the UK are moving towards a decision that would make Catholic (and other faith based) adoption agencies comply with a new anti-discrimination law, which would require them to place children with gay and lesbian families.

Again in the UK, My So Called Gay Life reports that 3% of gays and lesbians intend to adopt in the next 5 years.

In response to this ongoing issue in the UK, this story states that adoptions by gays and lesbians seems to have become less of a contentious issue in the US.

As many of you may have already seen, US VP Dick Cheney made a few waves this week, responding (or actually, not responding) to comments about his daughter, her partner and his future grandchild on CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer (video included).

For those Oprah fans out there, this Monday, January 29th, her show will feature “Extraordinary Families” including a family with two dads.

In Sweden, a proposal has been forwarded that would allow lesbian mothers equal custodial rights to their children conceived outside of the country or in private arrangements (known donors?). Also, a section would be added to the law allowing for children conceived with donor sperm/eggs to have access to the identities of these donors.

In old(ish) news, a second state in Mexico, Coahuila, has extended legal statues to same-sex partnerships.

In Kenya, LGBT folks have been making headlines, demanding rights and thinking about ways to become parents.

Two recent projects by the NCLR (National Centre for Lesbian Rights) have been launched: to support low income LBGT families, and to provide legal education training for lawyers dealing with same-sex parental issues in Florida.

And finally, a story that characterizes how families are being redefined (the two moms in this story are members of a lesbian moms group in our city).

Happy reading!

Demeter Press is seeking submissions for the edited collection
Mothering and Blogging: Practice and Theory

Deadline for Abstracts: March 1, 2007
Publication Date: Spring 2008
Editors: May Friedman, Shana L. Calixte

Critical mothering and writing about motherhood have, in the last few years, begun to engage with a new form of communication. All over the Internet, mommy bloggers are commenting on the radical act of being mothers and women within a world hostile to both of these identities. What are some of the questions posed by this new context for motherhood? What are the implications for sites of marginalization and diversity within the blogosphere? This new book by Demeter Press will seek to interrogate some of the complexities of the mamasphere through both creative and scholarly submissions. We encourage applicants from a range of experiences, in both community and academic contexts.

Abstracts/Proposals (250-300 words) due March 1, 2007
Acceptances will be made by May 1, 2007
Accepted submissions due September 1, 2007

Completed papers should not exceed fifteen pages (3750 words) and should be formatted according to MLA guidelines.

Please send inquiries and abstracts/proposals to:
May Friedman and Shana L. Calixte
mayf@yorku.ca, shana@yorku.ca
Graduate Programme in Women’s Studies
York University
4700 Keele Street
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

See the call for papers listing here.

This week, I bring you more lesbian legal news from Ontario, Canada.

In July of last year, lesbian parents in Ontario won the right to have both women register on a child’s birth document, called the Statement of Live Birth. Before this decision, the non-bio mom was required to adopt her own child, usually waiting six months or more for this to go through, and often having to pay $1500 to $2500, depending on the lawyer. Our family didn’t qualify for this change for 2 reasons: One, our son was already born (the province had one year to make the changes) and two, we used a known donor (meaning we had to have him sign away his rights or be legally vulnerable if he ever requested custody).

My partner therefore had to adopt our son and just las month we completed our second parent adoption. Even though we were able to complete this before he was a year old, let me tell you, it was a serious pain in the a**. The Ontario registrar general can really rub salt in the wounds when you are trying so desperately to recreate family over here. As the birth mom, I was the only one allowed on the statement of live birth, and when requesting a birth certificate (which is the next step) I received not one, but two requests for his “father’s” first name (not last, because of course, he OBVIOUSLY has his “father’s” last name). Even though we had sent a letter stating why there was no father, even though we had left it BLANK, they still wanted to make sure I wasn’t denying some man’s rights to this kid.

Which brings me to my real point! Last week, after the adoption was finalized we filled out a new statement of live birth, placing my partner’s information in the “father’s” section. I found it odd that the form had yet to be changed, or that there was no alternate form, as same sex couples in Ontario have been adopting children for over 10 years now. On Thursday of last week, my neighbour witnessed the signing of our new statement of live birth, and I sent it off, registered mail.

THE NEXT DAY, I received an email from our friends at the LGBT Parenting Network about the change in language on the forms, due to the decision in July. I couldn’t believe this had come so shortly after having filled out the old form, and resigned myself to the fact that our son’s statement of live birth/birth certificate would be an historical document with his mother as the father. I opened up the document to see the changes anyhow. And what have been the changes? After “father”, they have included a slash (/) and the words, “other parent”.

Pardon? “Other” parent? What’s the deal here? What is “other” about my partner’s parenting? Why can’t she also be a mother?

The case is believed to be the first in Canada in which a child has more than two legal parents, said Peter Jervis, a lawyer for the partner. He said while there have been birth-registry cases in which lesbian couples sought parentage of their children, the fathers in those cases were not active or were unknown due to sperm donations.

In this case, the biological father, a friend of the lesbian couple, remains involved in the 5-year-old boy’s life at the request of the two women. The father would have lost his parental rights if the lesbian partner had been able to adopt the boy under Ontario law.

The lesbian partner brought the case against the biological mother and father, seeking a declaration for parentage. They fully supported the legal action.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruling released yesterday overturns a 2003 Superior Court of Justice decision not to give the female partner legal status as the child’s mother. The judge said the court did not have jurisdiction to grant the title.

Justice Marc Rosenberg, writing on behalf of Chief Justice Roy McMurtry and Justice Jean-Marc Labrosse, found that due to a gap in legislation, the court in this case can exercise its “parens patriae” – the legal term for the state to act as the guardian for a minor – in declaring the partner a mother.

“Advances in our appreciation of the value of other types of relationships and in the science of reproductive technology have created gaps in the (Children’s Law Reform Act’s) legislative scheme,” Rosenberg wrote. “Because of these changes, the parents of a child can be two women or two men.”

I find this very exciting, as it really does challenge traditional family structures and makes all those f*ocus on the f*amily freakos very very upset. Because of course, having MORE parents for a child is a bad idea, right? What about the “village” folks? I don’t think queers made up that saying, but I do know that many of us take it to heart and have a number of people in our chosen families.

Joanna Radbord, who has been a prominent lawyer in many cases affecting gays and lesbian, such as adoption and same sex marriage rights in Ontario, has stated that lesbians with known donors (and also gay men with surrogates) should look to families with step parents as allies. This would be another case where there could potentially be a third person seeking parental rights (the step parent of a child who already has a legal mother and father would have to have one of those parents removed from the official documentation in order to adopt the child and therefore be legally responsible for the child). What is so different from that situation than from queers who may be looking to acknowledge all the people involved in a child’s life? The one major difference between these two scenarios is actually another argument in favour of allowing gay and lesbian redefinitions of the family – divorced couples and step parents usually have been through the breaking up of a relationship, whereas this case is bringing together three people who are actively seeking to be a part of their child’s life.

My partner and I were discussing this news as we watched the telly this evening and the reports on the issue. Of course, the focus on the family opponents were out in full force, with worries that if we allow children to have more than 2 parents, families will fall apart and never be the same. The issue? Custody. If folks break up and partner again, wouldn’t it be really confusing to arange visitation between 3, 4, 5 etc. parents? (As if organizing visitation and custody between two people is always easy peasy). It was obvious that the issue was with the LESBIANS who were involved in this parenting family. If it had been the opposite sex wife of the biological father who was looking for rights, no one would have said a word.

I know that I speak from a position of privilege, as here in Canada my partner had the right to adopt our child and be recognized as our son’s legal parent (and I know many families in the US and around the world are not able to do so). Yet this ruling may mean that we could acknowledge all the people who helped create our son, and who may be interested in being in his life in the future (we don’t have that kind of arrangment with our current donor, but who knows how he will feel in the future, or how our new donor will feel?). I also feel that it could take away the fear of using a known donor, especially if non biological partners can be recognized equally as a parent if the donor does not want to terminate his rights. Or perhaps this is still a scary scenario?

How do you feel? If there are more than 2 people involved in the life of your child that would like to acknowledge (known donor, surrogates, birth mom/dads?) is this a good thing?