CQ: A New Definition For “Family”

April 11, 2011 by 4 Comments

Having been brought into a rather eccentric household (whom I adore), I of course grew up understanding the importance of loyalty blah blah blah. But I also grew up to clearly see the ties which occur whether there is the same blood flowing through the other people or not. I call this the ‘unconditional gene.’ And whether you are family or not, and if you and I to choose to like/love one another unconditionally, as far as I am concerned, you are my family.

tcg CQ ClareMunn Sepia TakeTwo Giraffe 300x126 CQ: A New Definition For Family
© Sonja Nuttall 2008-2011

The Oxford Dictionary tells us:
1. [treated as singular or plural] a group consisting of two parents and their children living together as a unit.

  • A group of people related by blood or marriage:friends and family can provide support. I could not turn him away, for he was family.
  • The children of a person or couple being discussed:she has the sole responsibility for a large family.
  • Informal a local organizational unit of the Mafia or other large criminal group.

2. all the descendants of a common ancestor: the house has been owned by the same family for 300 years

  • a group of peoples from a common stock.
  • a group of related things.

Look at the first bullet point – “I could not turn him away, for he was family.” What utter nonsense. Do you have any idea how many times I have hosted a dear non-blood unconditional friend because they are in need, and vice versa? Many.

So, what are we to do with this ‘new family’ definition as it clearly doesn’t help us with hospitals or taxes or practically any legal nuance that requires a ‘blood relative’ to approve. Do we shout it out a little louder? I think so!

I do believe all the respective parents of my god children would trust me if I had to make a decision about one of their children, but as a mere god parent, would I be allowed to? What about inter-racial couples? Which culture ‘wins?’   What about our gay fellows? How are gay people to make any legal decisions when ‘gay’ is not deemed ‘legal?’  As a friend, how would I be allowed to make a life and death decision with my three very closest girl friends on the planet? I would allow them to make a decision on my behalf in a nanosecond instead of some well meaning Doctor or nurse who has never set eyes on me before.

So… what are we as a strong, outspoken, and forward thinking nation going to do about this?

  1. In the short term, make sure your Will is in place and your advocates are listed. There are numerous simple and non-expensive solutions out there.
  2. My next suggestion is talk about this amongst your own families.  Hear and share your thoughts and keep the conversation going.
  3. And all you activists out there, get the conversation volume turned up high.  Let’s work on making sure that a new definition for ‘Family’ is voted for. Some budding politician who is smarter and less angry needs to take up this banner again and again and again.

We are all interconnected.

We are all family.

The television series, Modern Family, shows an interest in this subject.  Perhaps the time is now.

Thank you.  Be well
– c

Comments

  1. Kristin says:

    Clare, I love this post in particular! The first thing that came to my mind was the Disney movie, Lilo and Stitch. Disney teaches children that “Ohana means family. Family means nobody gets left behind. or forgotten.” These are important ideals for children, and anybody for that matter, to be taught. Family does not necessarily have to mean blood-related. It can take on many definitions. If a little blue alien can find his own family, why can’t everybody else?

  2. Lisa says:

    Almost forgot! LOVE the picture of the giraffe… props to Sonja Nuttall on that one!

  3. Lisa says:

    Great post Clare… this specifically hit home for me about 2 years ago. Very important to have that will in place!!! I too would trust my friends to make nanosecond decisions for me, sometimes they know me better than my own blood-family!

  4. Kate says:

    V. interesting points raised here. Why today are laws so strict in terms of who we classify as a significant other? What harm is there in having a union with someone that while legally binding, is based on an emotional connection which is more platonic than anything else.

Speak Your Mind

*