I returned to Canada in 2003 and made a career change. I also decided to make more room in my life for volunteer work. It seemed like the right time to join the board of AtMP, one of the only organizations that really fit with my views about family diversity. I joined the board just as AtMP was going through its transition process in 2005. My first meeting was a day-long strategic planning workshop with AtMP supporters in Massachusetts, followed by a board meeting that happened by conference call, despite the fact that we were all in town, due to a blizzard. It has been pretty exciting helping roll out that transition – hiring Nicky Grist, and working with the board to develop the advocacy side of our activities without losing the important information dissemination aspect of our work.

During this time, I have also personally experienced a family-reunification immigration process that is not based in marriage (though it is still very much based on monogamous, conjugal couples). While I lived in the UK, I met my partner and had a child. They both moved to Canada with me and I sponsored my partner for immigration as a “family class relative” (my daughter is Canadian by virtue of being born to a Canadian mother; I just had to apply for proof of citizenship for her). The form is interesting, not least because it demonstrates that even marriage does not guarantee the authenticity of a family relationship for immigration purposes. The questions are designed to “prove” that this is a genuine relationship. Evidence includes everything from photographs at significant “family” events, to joint bank accounts, to phone records, to affidavits from long-time friends. It is possible to have less discriminatory policy in this area.

BEING CANADIAN, I HAVE PROTECTION AGAINST MARITAL STATUS DISCRIMINATON in the provision of public services. I am continually awed by the extent to which discrimination is not only allowed, but promoted, in the United States. This can make serving on the board of a US based non-profit like AtMP quite uncomfortable at times. On the other hand, I am able to bring the knowledge that a better way is possible. The Canadian way is not perfect by any means.

My biggest problem with Canadian cultural attitudes towards marriage and cohabitation is the fact that many people think that unmarried cohabitation is “just like marriage.” People think it is okay to refer to my partner as my “husband” and to me as his “wife.” They are dismissive when we say that we are unmarried. Some people still think that if I refer to my “partner,” it must be a same-sex partner. Personally, I think “husband and wife” carries a lot of baggage from the historical subordination of women and wives. I would even refer to married partners as “partners.” This has become even more bizarre now that same-sex couples can also marry, though they at least tend to use the gender-neutral term “spouse.”

For me, the most important thing that AtMP does is contribute to our collective ability to imagine family differently. How do we genuinely embrace diversity? How can we support people in the many different ways that they support each other without pushing them into the narrow boxes of “like marriage,” “like single,” or something else? How do we oppose abusive relationships, however they are constituted, while defending the right of people to form monogamous or polyamorous relationships? How do we recognize the close ties between people who live in different households, whether or not they have intimate (dare we say sexual?) relationships? These are key questions for a diverse society. AtMP is addressing them in all of the work we do. I am very glad to be this involved, despite the occasional culture clash.

Jo has served on the board of AtMP for four years, and is currently finishing her last term. AtMP has benefited tremendously from her hard work and dedication. She will be missed!