Um...

...why are we still using the term "out-of-wedlock birth" in the year 2009?

First of all, that term is hostile to the millions of Americans who can't get married, by virtue of having the unmitigated temerity to love someone of the same sex, many of whom nonetheless happen to be parents.

Secondly, you've got to be a real full-tilt dunderhead of mythic proportions to still give a flying fuck at this point about whether a child is born inside the confines of a traditional marriage, given the enormous preponderance of evidence that being hetero and hitched doesn't axiomatically mean being a good parent.

What's most important to any child's well-being are security, love, empathy, and the freedom and encouragement to be who they are. The capacity and willingness to provide those things are not limited to people who are hetero and hitched. Those things are not somehow better or more meaningful if they are provided by people who are hetero and hitched. It just doesn't work that way.

It doesn't matter whether security and love and empathy and support emanate from the inside of a traditional marriage, and it doesn't matter if it's two parents or one parent or a mom and a grandma or a dad and an uncle or an older sibling providing that stuff, and it doesn't matter if the person/s providing it are straight or gay or trans or cisgender or biological relatives or a family of choice or any combination thereof. All that matters is that a kid feels safe, and loved, and understood, and allowed to be hirself, whatever that may be.

And maybe, just maybe, "out-of-wedlock" isn't as fucking important as "out-of-a-country-that-cares-about-making-sure-all-its-children-are-healthy-happy-and-well-educated."

Maybe we could more about what happens to a kid after zie's born and less time caring about in what circumstances zie's born. Just a thought.