Peter J Seymour wrote: > David Harper wrote: > >> Lars Eighner wrote: >> >>> Here is the problem: GEDCOM has become the de facto standard for family >>> history and geneology data. And the problem with that is that the >>> Mormons >>> own GEDCOM and thus it is rife with built-in religious limitations. >> >> >> >> That's an unfair characterisation of both the Mormons and of the >> GEDCOM format, in my view. >> >> Whatever you may think of the LDS Church, the genealogy community has >> much to thank them for. Without them, a huge amount of genealogical >> data would be locked away in government archives instead of available >> for us to use. >> >> And this was true even before the rise of the Internet. The LDS >> Church paid to have priceless resources such as British census returns >> copied onto microfilm, and their family history centres were open to >> everyone. >> >> For the record, incidentally, I'm not a member of the LDS Church, or >> indeed any church. I'm just an amateur genealogist whose research in >> the 1980s wouldn't have got very far, were it not for the resources >> provided by the Mormons. >> >> As to the GEDCOM format, it originated with the LDS Church, and they >> maintain the standard, but at least it is an open standard that any >> developer of genealogy software can use without having to pay a >> licence fee or sign a non-disclosure agreement. >> >> That very openness is why every major piece of genealogy software can >> import and export GEDCOM files. >> >>> As you might expect, GEDCOM does not allow you to enter a family >>> created by >>> same-sex marriage or civil unions even where they are lawful. But >>> there are >>> other limitations. For example, in GEDCOM 5.xx, an adopted child >>> does not >>> belong to his family. When he looks up his family in a GEDCOM-compliant >>> file, he is not there. How needlessly hurtful is that? >> >> >> >> There are three separate issues here. >> >> First, adoption. The GEDCOM 5.5 standard includes two different ways >> to specify an adoptive relationship, as well as providing a way to >> indicate both the adoptive family and the biological family of an >> individual. It even includes a way to describe a foster-family >> relationship. >> >> So, it is plain wrong to imply that an adopted child cannot be linked >> to both his adoptive family and his birth family in a GEDCOM file, >> provided, of course, that his birth family is known. >> >> Second, civil unions. There is no reason why a civil union between a >> man and a woman cannot be represented in a GEDCOM file. If you do not >> wish to record it as a marriage, that's fine. GEDCOM provides a >> generic event tag which can be used to describe all manner of events >> outside those specifically catered for. You can add a civil union >> ceremony via that route, if your genealogy application is smart enough. >> >> Finally, same-sex marriages. Okay, you have a point here. GEDCOM >> defines a family unit to be a husband and a wife, plus children. >> >> That's pretty much the only type of family unit you'll encounter in >> historical records, which makes up most of the data in the vast >> majority of GEDCOM files. >> >> Same-sex marriage is still a very new phenomenon, and the GEDCOM >> standard hasn't caught up with the changing zeitgeist. Then again, >> neither have the governments of most of the countries of the world, >> and to be frank, I consider that to be a greater injustice than the >> fact that the GEDCOM standard doesn't allow it. >> >> David Harper >> Cambridge, England > > Just one quibble: In the UK "same-sex marraige" is called a "civil > union" which avoids the inappropriate use of the word marriage. Oops, I think I meant "civil partnership" > "Marriage" in this context may be defined as a male-female partnership > regulating the ownership of property and also usually involving the > begetting and raising of children. A same-sex partnership simply can't > do the latter part. It may have relevance to genealogy, but it is on a > lesser scale of importance than marriage. > > Peter