BASTARDS AT THE BELL

BASTARDS AT THE BELL

Philadelphia, PA
November 8, 1997
Address by Marley Elizabeth Greiner, Executive Chair, Bastard Nation
maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net

(This article first appeared in the Winter 1998 issue of the Bastard Quarterly.)

Good Afternoon, Bastard Nationals and Friends of Bastard Nation - and welcome to Philadelphia and to the Liberty Bell, one of the great icons of the American spirit. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Marley Greiner, co-founder of Bastard Nation and its Executive Chair, and I want to tell you, it's good to see so many happy, smiling, squeaky clean Bastardly faces out there today. There was a time, not too long ago, when nobody in their right mind would have admitted, except to his or her most trusted confidant, that they were adopted, much less shown up at a national rally and proclaimed themselves a Bastard in front of God, family, and country. But those days are over.

I'm not sure how many people are here today, but I have a list of states that are represented. I'm going to read them off, and when you hear your state, let us know who you are-- and if I leave you out, let me know.

Pennsylvania. Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, California, Oregon, North Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, ......

Several years ago, way before Bastard Nation was a gleam in her parents' eye, I had this "vision" of an Adoptee Day of Rage, where adopted people from all over the country--maybe even all over the world--would come together to protest the second class political and social status that has been imposed upon us simply because of our birth and adoptive status.

Well, this is it. But instead of a Day of Rage, this is a Day of Celebration, when we can meet and talk and make plans. This is where we set the record straight, and we send the message out to those persons and organizations across the political spectrum that seek to deny us our rights and our records that we will no longer tolerate the secrets and lies and the subsequent shame of the closed records system.

I don't know how many of your have read Doe v. Sundquist. In his affidavit to the court in this case, our NCFA friend Bill Pierce argued, without any basis in fact, that Open Records for adult adoptees will:

cause women to abort rather than have their dirty little secret show up on their doorstop 20 years later (of course he didn't use those words, but that's what he meant), despite statistics from Kansas, Alaska, Australia and England, which indicate that just the opposite is true: where adoption records are open, abortion rates drop and adoption rates rise;
renege on promises of confidentiality and anonymity made to birth mothers, promises which few birthmothers remember ever wanting or receiving. In fact, an alarming number of birthmoms say that they were told that records would be open to their children when they reached the age of majority. No one seems to care about that.
let birth parents, especially those pesky birth mothers, show up on the proverbial doorstep and take the adopted child away at any time, conveniently ignoring the fact that open records are for ADULT adoptees only and that under Doe v Sundquist, particularly, birth parents would not be given identifying information on their adult children. (I sat in on a hearing in Ohio where legislators, between post- lunch snoozes, telephone calls, and note-passing, seriously argued that if Open Records for ADULT adoptees was the law of the state, that adoptive parents would be plagued by an onslaught of crack-smoking, prostitute birthmothers and pimping junkie birthfathers spiriting their adopted children away from the good life in suburbia. I'm serious.)
interfere with the integrity of the adoptive family, i.e., adoption would become nothing more than a long-term baby sitting service, with adoptees returning to their original families when they turned 18.

And finally,

that Open Records would interfere with discipline within the adoptive family. Figure that one out yourself. I'm still working on it.

Note that Dr. Pierce is very fond of the term "adopted child." He likes to think of us this way--all warm and fuzzy in our pink or blue blankets just waiting for a nice home in middle America with a white picket fence and a chicken in every pot. His friend, writer Bruce Dold (or is that Dolt?) at the Chicago Tribune, in an editorial against open records, referred to adult adoptees 13 times as "adopted children." Gee, it's a little chilly today. I hope you all brought a warm pair of Doctor Dentons to keep you warm tonight.

To Pat Robertson, Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice (who has a really hard time distinguishing between Open Records and open adoption), to The Christian Coalition, to The American Life League (which in some convoluted thinking claims that relinquishing a child for adoption is an affirmation of femininity), to Right to Life, to Planned Parenthood, to the ACLU, to The Gladney Homes and Smithlawn, to the numerous LDS/NCFA agencies, to the Catholic Charities organizations that uphold closed records (and a hearty thank you to those that don't) , and, of course, to our friend, Bill Pierce and the National Council for Adoption, without whom all of this would not be necessary, I say that the sealed records system which they advocate and uphold is demeaning, infantilizing, illegal, unethical, and unconstitutional.

And I ask, wouldn't they rather spend their time and money doing something useful, like finding homes for children who need them, rather than sticking their pointy noses in the business of adult adoptees, and abrogating the civil rights of 6,000,000 adopted persons in the US? One really has to wonder what they are so afraid of that they see nothing wrong with advocating, through the Uniform Adoption Act (UAA), the sealing of adoption records for 99 years and the possible felonization of those searching for original families through perfectly legal means. Anybody have any suggestions?

To those within the adoption reform movement who say that Confidential Intermediary (CI) systems, disclosure vetoes, contact vetoes, white-outs and any other compromise that some bureaucrat or reformer may devise, are OK--that they are just a step to getting records open for all adoptees, I say--you don't know history.

Back in Ohio where I come from, back in 1963, in some unaccountable fit of liberalism in the General Assembly, adopted persons whose adoption was finalized prior to January 1, 1964 were granted free, unrestricted access to their original birth certificates and adoption decrees. Anyone finalized after that date, however, got and continues to get nothing except a bill from their lawyer, and a big headache from knocking their head against the courthouse door.

Now a few years ago, our hard-working governor, George Voinovich decided that Ohio's foster care and adoption laws were archaic, cumbersome, and in bad need of repair. To remedy this situation he got up a task force of "adoption professionals"--that is--social workers, adoption lawyers, and adoptive parents (no insult intended) with maybe an adoptee and a birth mother thrown in just for fun.

Open records, interestingly enough, was a big deal for them, but not big enough to end up in the final legislation--especially after the Gov's buddy Dr. Jack Wilkie of National Right to Life threw his thousands of votes in, or more properly put, threatened to pull them out (it was only weeks before the election, you see, and Jack's a Cincinnati boy), which not only kept records sealed for those adoptees who'd been living inside a black hole for over 30 years, but slapped a potential disclosure veto on any adoptee finalized after September 1996. This is what the compromisers call "progress" This is what BN calls BS!

Those who have until recently controlled the discourse on Open Records have not been challenged seriously until now. Agencies and organizations such as Gladney, Catholic Charities, and the NCFA have been able to freely disseminate their lies and half truths with no visible challenge. There are those inside the adoption reform movement who say that Bastard Nation's activist tactics will not work. We say they will.

Politicians are not impressed with people coming to them hat in hand, apologizing for bothering them, apologizing for their very existence. What they are impressed with are the voices of articulate, informed and committed individuals who understand the legal and political system, and this is what Bastard Nation is all about. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote recently (in another context),

"The minute you settle for less than you deserve, you get even less that you settled for."

This should be the slogan of the Open Records movement. We deserve the restoration of our civil rights, and we settle for nothing less.

I want you to go home from this Day of Celebration knowing that each of you is important to Bastard Nation and to Open Records. I want you to know that each of you has unique experiences, talents, insights, interests, and that each of you can contribute to the struggle in your own special way. Never underestimate the power of a letter, a phone call, a casual remark, a meeting. Most importantly, I want you to go home empowered and excited about the certainty of our victory. You are an integral part of an historical movement. Bastard Nation will win, and so will you.

Marley Greiner is Bastard Nation's Executive Chair and a PhD candidate in History at Ohio State University. Marley also heads the MOB - Mid-Ohio Bastards, which has been instrumental in educating Ohio citizens on adoptee civil rights through direct action and press outreach.

(This article first appeared in the Winter 1998 issue of the Bastard Quarterly.)