Illegitimate children

[Iamme]

I was listening to Mike Gallagher the other day on the radio, rag about David lettermen, how he and his girlfriend, Regina Lasko, will be bringing into this world, an illegitame child, unless they get married first.

This got me wondering about when the institution of marriage began, in our history? To say some child is illegitimate is a tag I would hate to see placed on a child. If the couple love each other...who is to start casting stones here. We put so much into that piece of paper (the marriage certificate). But surely somewhere in the past, there was no marriage certificate. Couples may have 'bonded' in some ceremony. Then again, depending on tribe and culture...maybe THIS didn't even go on.(Maybe Tarzan just took Jane...and that was it.)

They had kids amongst each other and nurtured them. So what is illegitimate about that. Why tag someone as this, under THOSE circumstances, yet not have a corresponding tag to someone who WAS married and ran off and left the partner and doesn't help support the child. That's worse.

What's your opinion on this. And, if you have an opinion of blathering Mike...I'd like to hear that too.

th: ...for you replies.

 

[DanishDynamite]

In this country there is no distinction, socially. I believe there might still be a few minor distinctions legally, though.

 

[kittynh]

as long as the kids are legally protected it's fine.

I would say it's probably nicer for the kids if the parents are married, but I think if the parents are together that's what matters most. By together, I mean both involved in the parenting, even if they aren't together as a couple.

 

[davefoc]

I think there are differences in practice between the US and Scandanavian countries with regard to illegitimate children although I suspect that legally the situation is about the same.

I have read that the incidense of children born to unwed mothers is substantially lower in Scandanavian countries than in the US even though premarital sex rates are comprable.

I am not sure why, but I think that perhaps more careful use of birth control coupled with more premarital sex in committed relationships that culminate in marriage before children are born might be the reason.

In the US there are very large differences between the rate of children born out of wedlock between white and black populations. I think the white rate is around 25% and the black rate is around 70%.

 

[MoeFaux]

I think marraige is a religious institution to begin with, then a lot of governement nosiness thrown in.
It's none of the governments business who I'm sleeping with, and **** the fundies for labeling those who shun marraige sinners.
I just wish that there could be legal rights granted to couples that cover the children as well without them having to undergo this outdated, superstitious tradition.

 

[The Don]

The objective of any organised religion is to maintain the numbers of its believers. A tactic for doing this is to control all aspects of enjoyment for the followers so that the religion can then say "only if you follow us can you do x,y, or z"

In the case of insisting on no extra-marital sex they are:

- taking control of this fundamental human enjoyment
- ensuring subsequent generations of followers

I myself am married but this decision was based upon a desire to demonstrate commitment to my wife and a need to overcome certain immigration obstacles.

 

[Cinorjer]

The term illegitimate just means not recognized as lawful offspring of the man. It has to do with inheritance laws. If your mother wasn't married to the man at the time, you didn't inherit squat, including his last name. Also, the man wasn't legally bound to support you or you mother. Even if the man formally recognized you as his offspring, he'd better put you in his will, because the laws ignored any right to property from the family on his death.

Since in our country paternity isn't dependent on actual married status anymore, it's not really accurate and a moot point. In our country, since Letterman recognized the child as his, it is legitimate. Only if a genetic test later proved it wasn't his could the child be called illegitimate.

 

[Tmy]

In the US there are very large differences between the rate of children born out of wedlock between white and black populations. I think the white rate is around 25% and the black rate is around 70%.

The Black culture doesnt put as much pressure on couples to marry as many other cultures do. Thats a big factor in the numbers. Lots of times people will marry BECAUSE they are pregnant and not because they feel commited. Now we have a divorce rate over 50%

Whats worse? having children being born out of wedlock, or having higher divorce rates cause of shotgun weddings.

 

[Skeptic]

We put so much into that piece of paper (the marriage certificate). But surely somewhere in the past, there was no marriage certificate. Couples may have 'bonded' in some ceremony. Then again, depending on tribe and culture...maybe THIS didn't even go on.

Well, you just answered you own question. The INSTITUTION of marriage--a man and woman raising a family, sharing property, not having sexual relations with outsiders, etc.--is ancient. Whether entering into it is done by signing a piece of paper or by (say) a ceremonial dance is besides the point.

As for the "if two people love each other" issue, I think this is missing the point. Marriage is a social institution, a LEGAL commitment taken by two people towards each other (and towards society as a whole), not a declaration of love.

The reason illegitimate children were pitied was not so much because of any principle of "shame" (the "you're mother's a whore!" thing of popular legend), but because they had no legal rights to the father's property or care and thus were in an ever-precarious position.

It would be a bit like pitying someone who works for a corporation for free because they said to him that they love him and will help him out, without any contract of employment.

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Illegitimate children

We put so much into that piece of paper (the marriage certificate). But surely somewhere in the past, there was no marriage certificate. Couples may have 'bonded' in some ceremony. Then again, depending on tribe and culture...maybe THIS didn't even go on.

Well, you just answered you own question. The INSTITUTION of marriage--a man and woman raising a family, sharing property, not having sexual relations with outsiders, etc.--is ancient. Whether entering into it is done by signing a piece of paper or by (say) a ceremonial dance is besides the point.

As for the "if two people love each other" issue, I think this is missing the point. Marriage is a social institution, a LEGAL commitment taken by two people towards each other (and towards society as a whole), not a declaration of love.

The reason illegitimate children were pitied was not so much because of any principle of "shame" (the "you're mother's a whore!" thing of popular legend), but because they had no legal rights to the father's property or care and thus were in an ever-precarious position.

It would be a bit like pitying someone who works for a corporation for free because they said to him that they love him and will help him out, without any contract of employment.

True Skeptic,

Illegitimacy is an archaic idea with roots in the old feudal system of heredity. The bastard born child was not intitled to the lands and holdings of his father. Being the second son in such a system was almost worse than bastardy...and the sin of being born a woman!... well we need not even go into that!

In short, a completely outdated idea...

-z

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Re: Illegitimate children

Illegitimacy is an archaic idea with roots in the old feudal system of heredity.

The problem with illegitimate children is not the "stigma" but the reality. If you are illegitimate, chances are much higher than for a legitimate child that you would not know your father; that he will not support you in any way; that your mother is poor and skill-less; and so on.

The point of the social taboo on illegitimacy was to PREVENT ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN. If you know your child would be "illegitimate", and that this would have consequences, if you do not marry the girl you got pregnant, you think twice about both getting her pregnant in the first place and about not marrying her if you do.

The illegitimate stigma came from a time when most people were poor, and therefore property and legal rights by marriage were of supreme importance for the well-being of the child. Without this stigma, unfair as it might have been, children would not have be cared for, fathers would not stick around, and society would slowly disintegrate.

Now, in the middle class, this is no longer true: you can have a child out of wedlock and still "care for the children". So the demand is to remove the stigma. The problem is, the stigma is removed among the poor as well... and in the families and communities of the poor, children are NOT cared for, fathers do NOT stick around, and society DOES disintegrate.

It is the law of unintended consequences in action, which is why I always think, when I hear middle-class people asking for more "freedom" from "archaic and senseless laws" due to "conservative society": "what would the effect be on the poor?". Very often, as in this case, the effect is devastating.

 

[Aoidoi]

I think marraige is a religious institution to begin with, then a lot of governement nosiness thrown in.

Back in the day religion and politics were one in the same. I believe the idea was to create societal requirements where the children were provided for and there were recognized heirs (i.e. who does the dead guys stuff go to). The current state of affairs is kind of odd in that one can have a completely secular wedding. I've heard a number of stories of a friend getting made a Justice of the Peace and marrying people (er, you get the idea... that sentence just parses oddly)

So at the moment marraige can be religious (not recognized by govt- like common-law marriages), legal (but not recognized by churches, ex. above), or both (priest does ceremony, people fill out paperwork, basically "normal" marriage). Back in the day this was all rolled into the same thing. Twas binary, you were or weren't.

It's none of the governments business who I'm sleeping with, and **** the fundies for labeling those who shun marraige sinners.

Well, I retaliate against the "sinning" label by not caring in the slightest. Unless and until their views are imposed on me, they can live in their own little self imposed delusion without any input from me.

I think the government only cares for tax purposes. And possibly public health, they were pushing to have marraige licenses require STD tests for a while. I'm fairly ambivalent on that.

I just wish that there could be legal rights granted to couples that cover the children as well without them having to undergo this outdated, superstitious tradition.

Well, as above one can basically avoid the ceremony and all the trappings via the Justice of the Peace route. You could then effectively be married legally only (with the sometime exception of non-citizens using it to get citizenship). I don't know if you can get the legal protections without marraige, perhaps someone more familiar with the law could comment.

Personally, I could care less about the "legitimacy" of someone's birth. I also have no problem with people living together, and only use the term "living in sin" for humor value... though I tend not to any more as fundies sort of ruin the joke by actually believing it. My political philosophy based on "if it's not hurting anyone, leave it alone." The rest is just details.

 

[billydkid]

Hey!!!

as long as the kids are legally protected it's fine.

I would say it's probably nicer for the kids if the parents are married, but I think if the parents are together that's what matters most. By together, I mean both involved in the parenting, even if they aren't together as a couple.

hey kitty, where'd you get that picture of me for your avatar???

 

[reprise]

I think marraige is a religious institution to begin with, then a lot of governement nosiness thrown in.
It's none of the governments business who I'm sleeping with, and **** the fundies for labeling those who shun marraige sinners.
I just wish that there could be legal rights granted to couples that cover the children as well without them having to undergo this outdated, superstitious tradition.

Are there specific legal rights which ex nuptial children do not enjoy in the US, which "legitimate" children have?

 

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What IS still true, however, is that if you are illegitimate, chances are much higher than for a legitimate child that you would not know your father; that he will not support you in any way; that your mother is poor and skill-less; and so on. Her having children outside wedlock and without planning are a major cause of this, as there is much less to keep the father around and much less opportunity for her to advance.

If you go ahead and have a child without planning or a partner things are likely to be tougher for you yes...but why should wedlock make you a better parent?

So while illegitimacy shouldn't be a stigma (and for all intents and purposes it no longer is), bearing illegitimate, fatherless children SHOULD be a source of shame to both parents and should be frowned upon.

So it's preferable to bear legitimate fatherless children? That's the implication in that sentence. The issue is not whether you're legitimate or illegitimate, but whether you are wanted and cared for. It's not the illegitimacy which is the problem. It's more about responsibility, support, forethought and readiness to have a child. Illegitimate is a terrible term, like you're not the real thing or haven't been *endorsed* by the society. The sooner it becomes completely redundant as a term the better.

The illegitimate stigma came from a time when most people were poor, and therefore property and legal rights by marriage were of supreme importance for the well-being of the child. Without this stigma, unfair as it might have been, children would not have be cared for, fathers would not stick around, and society would slowly disintegrate.

Now, in the middle class, this is no longer true: you can have a child out of wedlock and still "care for the children". So the demand is to remove the stigma. The problem is, the stigma is removed among the poor as well... and in the families and communities of the poor, children are NOT cared for, fathers do NOT stick around, and society DOES disintegrate.

You're forgetting quite a few things. In the days when it was a stigma, we had higher rates of infanticide, butchered abortions, women whose lives were shattered and desperate marriages. Along with diminishing the stigma, we now have better sex education, better contraception and paternal child support. I wouldn't want to turn the clock back on this.

 

[LW]

Re: Re: Re: Illegitimate children

Illegitimacy is an archaic idea with roots in the old feudal system of heredity.

Just a nitpick. Illegitimacy is significantly older than the feudal system (at least when "feudalism" is used in its strict sense to denote the social structure that existed in Medieval Europe).