Defining the US Family

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Advantages
Disadvantages
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Since the formation of the United States, the family unit has occupied a central position. This unit has been hailed as the most important component of the society and it is considered to be the basic building block of the society. This idea is informed by the fact that the aggregation of families is what led to the advancement of the human civilization.

Governments all over the world have therefore taken a keen interest on the family unit. In the US, there exists a legal definition of the family construct. This definition is provided by State and Local laws and ordinances. The US government has historically provided the legal definition with the aim of maintaining a civil society.

However, there have been recent debates on how the family should be legally defined in the US. These debates have been sparked by the feeling that the government should not have the sole role of defining what constitutes a family. There are already calls for the government to abolish the universal definition for the term “family” in the US. Such a move would lead to a more flexible definition of the term to suit the needs of individuals. This paper will set out to discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages of not having a universal definition for the term “family” in the United States.

Advantages

Not having a universal definition of “family” will ensure that individuals are able to enjoy more meaningful relationships with the people they choose to relate to. When using a legal definition, people are connected to other people they might not even know of. A legal definition binds people to relatives even when no emotional, physical, or economic attachment exists between or among the individuals (De Lamadrid, 2013).

Without a universal definition of the term family, people can form unions based on tangible things. The connections could occur based on the emotional, physical, and economic dependency of individuals on one another. These unions would be stronger and more meaningful than those formed based on blood ties or kinship.

An important benefit of not having a universal definition of family is that it would overcome the current discrimination experienced by individuals who do not fit into the traditional family model. The legal definition of the family contributes to the bias against minority groups such as gays and lesbians. By defining the family unit, the government effectively stipulates what is to be considered “normal” or “acceptable” (Kelly, 2009). In so doing, the authorities inadvertently contribute to the stigma towards these minorities who are regarded as deviant.

Kelly (2009) observes that there has been an increasing prevalent of “alternative” family forms and heterosexual family breakdown. These non-traditional families are discriminated against by the presence of the legal definition of a family. As it currently stands, the same-sex couples who form families continue to struggle with being legally recognized in the majority of the United States. Not having a universal definition would ensure that the bias against non-traditional families is reduced or even abolished.

Lack of a legal definition would increase access by individuals to certain social services currently offered only to units that fit the legal definition of family. In the US, there are many benefits offered to families that fit into the mainstream definition of family (Luppino & Miller, 2012). These include social welfare policies such as social security. However, the same benefits are denied non-traditional families include stepfamilies and even families formed by same-sex couples (De Lamadrid, 2013).

These legal definitions of family can have the devastating effect of denying many Americans access to health insurance, housing, social, and health programs provided by the government. Many individuals who consider themselves part of a family unit are not recognized by the government due to the existence of the legal definition.

Without this universal definition of “family”, these individuals, whom for all intents and purposes operate as a family, would be eligible to the social services provided by the government. De Lamadrid (2013) reveals that there are already calls for the universal legal definition of “family” to be expanded. Not having a universal definition would overcome the inadequacies of the current definition and benefit all members of the society.

Not having a legal definition of the term “family” is more in line with the realities of the modern times. The modern society has been characterized by a changing nature of the family construct. De Lamadrid (2013) notes that according to recent survey reports, only 17% of families in the US fit the definition of the “traditional family, which is made up of a heterosexual couple and their children. There has been an increase in gay and lesbian families, and families created through assisted reproduction technologies (Kelly, 2009).

In addition to this, the number of separated and reconstituted families is on the rise. These factors have led to the emergence of different forms of families not currently covered within the universal definition of a family. Without a universal definition, it will be possible to accommodate the many new forms that the family unit has taken in modern times.

Disadvantages

Without a universal definition for the term family, it will be hard to determine who is eligible for some of the legal rights enjoyed by family members. The family unit by default provides some legal rights to the family members including inheritance, guardianship and power of attorney (Holtzman, 2006). This default provision of legal rights is important especially when an individual is not in a position to make decisions on his/her own.

The government resorts to the default rights attributed to the people included in the legal definition of “family”. This ensures that decisions on important issues such as inheritance and custodianship to children after the death of the parents are easily resolved (Holtzman, 2006). The legal definition ensures that property can be allocated and transmitted successfully from one generation to the next. Without the universal definition, it will be hard to make these decisions since court officials will not have a strong basis for ruling in favour of particular individual.

The lack of a universal definition might be detrimental to the well being of children. The importance of children is well articulated in the law with their position in the family being well established (Solomon-Fears, Falk, Fernandes-Alcantara, 2013). The law is constructed to ensure the best interests of children are always taken into consideration in cases of disputes or loss of parents. By having a universal legal definition of “family”, the government is able to dictate the rights of children in the family setting.

Holtzman (2006) states that the protection of children’s rights is one of the main reasons for maintaining a legal definition of the family. The definition ensures that every child can have a set of legally recognized parents who are responsible for his/her well being. When contentions arise in the family, the government, through law courts, can intervene and take measures in the best interest of the child. Without a legal definition of “family”, it will be hard to ensure these rights for the children.

Another significant demerit from the lack of a universal definition of family is that it would damage social stability in communities. The traditional family unit was a source of stability in the society due to its static nature. Holtzman (2006) explains that this static nature of families was due to the emphasis on the social and material benefits of the unit to all its members.

Without a legal definition, people are likely to form unions based primarily on emotional attachments. Such unions are unlikely to last especially during hardships. The emphasis on the emotional side of relationships in modern times has been the greatest contributor to the large number of divorces. Having a legal definition ensures that the family unit is mostly made up of individuals who are together for social and material reasons.

Conclusion

The Family unit continues to be an important construct in the society. However, its composition has changed and this change is not reflected in the universal definition for the term family in the US. This paper has highlighted the merits and demerits of not having a universal definition for the term “family”.

For many people, the issue of family is a personal one and as such, the legal definition should not have primacy. From the points made in the paper, it is clear that not having a universal legal definition would have many advantages for Americans. Such an approach would ensure that the numerous limitations created by the universal legal definition of family are overcome.

References

De Lamadrid, M. (2013). Expanding the Definition of Family: A Universal Issue. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, 8(1), 170-179.

Holtzman, M. (2006). Definitions of the Family as an Impetus for Legal Change in Custody Decision Making: Suggestions from an Empirical Case Study. Law & Social Inquiry, 31(1), 1-37.

Kelly, F. (2009). Producing Paternity: The Role of Legal Fatherhood in Maintaining the Traditional Family. Canadian Journal of Women & the Law, 21(2), 315-351.

Luppino, G.A., & Miller, J.F. (2012). Family Law and Practice: The Paralegal’s guide (3rd ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.

Solomon-Fears, C., Falk, G., & Fernandes-Alcantara, A.L. (2013). Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers. Washington: Congressional Research Service.

Click Here To Order Now!