My Custom Story is a site where you can order totally customized photo board books. What a neat way to make sure our kids see positive images of their families from a very young age! It would be great if they had gay and lesbian families represented in their example books, but it looks like all of the examples come from the owner’s family, so I guess I can’t expect her to make up a lesbian auntie getting pregnant with donor sperm just to be inclusive!

Speaking of sperm (what a segue!), Sfrajett has a great post about buying sperm, contemplating parenthood, and figuring out definitions of family. It’s been up for a while, but I just read it and found it very thought-provoking. Good luck to you & GF as you venture down this wild and wacky path to parenthood, Sfrajett!

On to my rant of the day.

Smashing, bashing, and crashing… “the 3 important stages of boyhood?”

That’s what Tonka says in a multi-page ad in Parents. “From the way they talk to the way they play, boys are just built different! And Tonka (of course) has the blueprint for the fun they love. The TONKA [no product placement here, thank you] grows with your child so he can sort, walk, and ride to his heart’s content.”

Because girls don’t sort, walk, or ride? Let alone smash, bash or crash?

“Boys don’t just like to be active, they need to be.”

I am the mom to one very very active little boy. One little boy who seems to be determined to conform to every stereotype - whose head whips around when he sees a truck go by, who has never met a ball or a wheeled object he doesn’t like - but that doesn’t mean that the little girls I know don’t need to be active too.

“Enjoy all the wild, wonderful moments and remember, you’re part of a very special group of women - you’re the mom of a BOY!” Gag.

Playing to these stereotypes may sell toys - though not to me - but it also hurts kids. It hurts little girls who want to run and make noise. And it hurts little boys who don’t.

Shame on you, Tonka.

Note that I’m not even mentioning that aside from one possibly-Asian looking kid, there are absolutely NO children boys of color in the whole 8.5 page spread? Oh wait, I guess I did just mention that.

This is a bit off topic for me to be posting, but it is certainly relevant to LesbianFamily.org.

From the Equality Maryland press release:

“The American Civil Liberties Union and Equality Maryland today denounced the divided Maryland Court of Appeals decision upholding a state law that bars same-sex couples from marrying and accessing the hundreds of family protections provided to married couples and their children under state law.

The vote in the case was 4 to 3. One of the dissenting judges said the legislature should either be required to adopt civil unions or marriage. The other two said that the case should be sent back to the lower court for a trial to see if government has a good enough reason to bar same-sex couples from marriage.

The majority opinion rejects the ACLU’s arguments that barring same-sex couples from marriage is sex discrimination. While the court agrees that marriage is a fundamental right, it says there is no fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex. The court says gay people aren’t entitled to special protection from the court because, although there has been a history of unfair discrimination against gay people, as a group gay people are not politically powerless. The court then uses the least demanding form of constitutional analysis to determine if the ban violates the state’s equal protection guarantees, and says that excluding same-sex couples from marriage might rationally be related to fostering procreation, so the state can continue to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry and its family protections.”

Speaking of fostering procreation, I was really hoping that my baby might be able to enjoy some of the benefits of having legally married parents, but bigotry and ignorance have won the day in Maryland.

Like Trista, I had hoped that my return to LF would be with a much longer and interesting post than this one, but alas, it is not.

I did, however, want to share this tidbit from your neighbours to the North. A study, (commissioned back in 2003 when Canadians were embroiled in the same-sex marriage debate) recently came out that states:

the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels and qualities of social competence.

It bears noting that the author of the study had to request a copy of it through the Access to Information Act, as he believes the current Conservative government was stalling on its publication. The findings of the report contradict their political leanings on the subject, and they are now distancing themselves from it, stating that there is “very little reasearch in this area”.

Of course, “family” groups are refuting the findings, calling the study biased and wringing their hands, stating that the “natural family” no longer has special protection in Canada. They also want it noted that “women just don’t make good dads”.

Uhg. I sometimes want to get up in arms about this kind of baloney, but I rarely have the energy. I am teaching a course this summer on Motherhood and Mothering, and it just takes 10 minutes of reading to realize that the nuclear “natural” family is a modern invention, and yo, thanks to patriarchy, often men don’t make good dads.

So there you go. In case you were worried (which I know you all weren’t, but just in case), lesbian parents are just as good as straight parents.

This makes me sick.

Parrott’s ruling ordered Emma Rose to be returned to Deborah Schultz within 10 days, or be declared a “deprived child” and turned over the Georgia Department of Family & Children Services. Hadaway and Shultz met at a truck stop in Jeffersonville, Ga., on Jan. 12, 2007, but Shultz refused to take Emma Rose back to Florida with her, instead reiterating her wish for Hadaway to raise the young girl.  

Prior to Parrott’s Jan. 8 ruling, Hadaway left her longtime partner and moved to Bibb County, 70 miles south of Atlanta, which she considered more progressive and tolerant than Wilkinson County. After Shultz refused to regain custody of Emma Rose, Hadaway said she was encouraged by attorneys and DFCS workers to apply for an adoption in Bibb County Superior Court.  

 

Upon discovering that Emma Rose remained in Hadaway’s custody, Parrott issued two more rulings: a Feb. 12 order to place Emma Rose in DFCS custody, and a March 23 ruling finding Hadaway and her attorney in criminal contempt for not following his order to transfer custody of the child. The two women were sentenced to 10 days in jail, or five days plus a $500 fine, but are currently appealing Parrott’s decision.  

 

Citing a report by Alicia Gregory, a doctor hired by Wilkinson County DFCS to conduct an independent assessment of Emma Rose’s situation, Bibb County Superior Court Judge Tilman Self ruled March 30 that Hadaway be restored custody.  

 

“Dr. Gregory concluded, and in fact was quite adamant, that Emma’s best interests would be served by returning Emma to [Hadaway’s] custody,” Self wrote. “Indeed, Dr. Gregory stated that Emma’s current foster placement was the worst possible scenario for Emma.”  

 

But when Hadaway and Wilkinson County sheriff’s deputies attempted to retrieve Emma Rose from her foster family on April 3, they were rebuffed.  

 

“The foster family would not turn her over to me,” Hadaway said. When the sheriff’s deputies informed the foster family that they had a Bibb County court order demanding Emma Rose be returned to Hadaway, the foster father allegedly called Parrott. The judge told the officer that he was not recognizing the Bibb County order, and if Hadaway wanted custody of Emma Rose she would have to re-apply in Wilkinson County.  

 

 

via Peter’s Cross Station

I can only imagine what kind of foster home the child was placed in…

UPDATE: This is cross-posted over at SoVo!

Babytalk magazine is related to Parenting magazine, but oriented towards parents of babies. (I know you’re shocked.) In the current issue of Babytalk, there’s a survey: “Married Moms vs Unmarried Moms.” Smackdown at the playgroup!

There are so many things that trouble me about this concept that it’s hard to figure out where to begin my critique. But since this is a GLBT blog, I’ll start with how the survey addresses moms like me.

Technically, the magazine has 2 surveys, one for “married moms” and one for “unmarried moms.” They’re printed one on each side of the magazine page (and also available online as separate downloads from this page.

I originally thought that the survey completely ignored lesbian moms when I decided to write this, but I was wrong. That’s because I think of myself as more like a “married” mom than an “unmarried” one, although of course I am legally unmarried. But Question 18 for unmarried moms is, “Do you have a same-sex partner who co-parents with you?” Yes or No.

Why, yes I do! Well, ok Babytalk, I guess I’m unmarried. Let’s look at the rest of the “unmarried moms” survey. (The questions are in regular font, my answers and comments are in italics.)

Question 1: A child needs two parents. Yup, I agree.

Question 2: A child needs two parents who are married to each other. Um. Is this a trick question, since I’ve now been declared unmarried, and under the law everywhere except Massachusetts, I can’t get married? I would have checked “agree somewhat” but now I think I’m forced to “disagree.”

Question 3: Marriage is a sacred institution. Another trick question? I “somewhat agree” with that statement, but not in the “therefore no one but heterosexual couples planning to reproduce should be able to participate” sense of sacred. More in the “when you find the love of your life and commit to each other, that’s a sacred commitment” sense. But to my serious irritation, I think I have to check “disagree” here too.

Question 4: Marriage is just “a piece of paper.” In the immortal words of Whitney, “hell to the no!” It’s a piece of paper that comes with several hundred important legal rights and responsibilities and goddammit, I want that fucking piece of paper. I guess that’s “disagree.”

Question 5: I’m happy I’m not married. See my answer to Question 4. I’m furious that my marriage didn’t come with that piece of paper and that even silly surveys won’t recognize it, much less important institutions like the IRS. Again, “disagree.”

Question 6: I wish I were married. I wish you would recognize that I am married. But it feels very odd to check “agree” here.

Question 7: Many married moms are conventional and old-fashioned. Many? I guess so. Fewer and fewer over time, but I can’t disagree with this. What I do disagree with is the implication that only unmarried moms can be cool. Hell, I’m conventional and old-fashioned in a lot of ways. Certainly more than you think. Does that mean I “agree somewhat?”

Question 8: Many married moms have “settled.” I doubt it. Some, sure. Some people settle. “Disagree somewhat?”

Question 9: Married moms look down on me. Not the ones I know, at least not to my knowledge. “Disagree.”

Question 10: I feel discriminated against because I’m unmarried. Another “um” question. I feel discriminated against because I can’t get married. But I don’t feel like a single mother, and I don’t think I’ve ever been perceived as one. Where the hell does that fall on the options? Disagree somewhat???

Question 11: It’s much harder to be an unmarried mom than a married one. At last! A question where I have a clear opinion. I can’t imagine how single moms do this. (Be moms without losing their shit, not answer silly surveys.) AGREE!

Question 12: If you agreed or agreed somewhat to #11, why? (Pick up to three.)

• There’s no one to share childcare duties with. Or to check my grammar, apparently. Oh wait, we don’t know whether or not the survey author is an unmarried mom. But that is why I think it would be so damn hard. And it doesn’t apply to me.
• There’s no one to take care of/give affection to me. That would be hard too. Again, it doesn’t apply to me.
• It’s more difficult financially. Yup, that too. Again, not applicable.
• There are no in-laws to help out with childcare. Well, my un-laws live 800 miles away, but they are my son’s grandparents. Not sure how to answer this one.
• There’s no long-term stability. The first time I read this, my first impulse was “fuck you, babytalk.” I mean really, how rude. I think unmarried moms can provide stability, and I am 100% confident that my technically unmarried family has long-term stability.
• People look down on me. Well. I guess I have to go with this one. Particularly, it seems, people who write babytalk surveys. And right wing religious radicals.

Question 13: Sometimes it’s easier to be an unmarried mom than a married one. I admit, in the midst of stressful decisionmaking with my partner, I’ve had that fleeting thought. But I 99% disagree.

Question 14: If you agreed or agreed somewhat with #13, why? (Pick up to three.)

• Don’t have to fight with partner over best ways to raise the child.
• My child/children and I have developed such a strong bond; I don’t need a mate.
• Don’t have a marriage to work at in addition to raising a child.
• Saved money on a wedding.
• No in-laws to deal with.
• I’m freer to follow my own dreams.

Yeah, um, I still have to work out child raising issues with my partner. My child and I have a strong bond, but it in no way replaces my bond with my partner. I do still have to work at my marriage in addition to raising a child. My partner and I had a beautiful wedding – less expensive than average, but certainly enough that we don’t get this “benefit.” And I have in-laws. (And grammar enough that I’m not ending my sentence with a preposition. Again.) Freer? When you’re the sole support for a child? Yes in some sense, but no in others. Good thing I don’t have to answer this question.

Question 15: Do you consider yourself a single mom? (If yes, skip to question 19.) Um, absolutely not.

Question 16: Are you currently involved with the biological father of your child? No. We used an anonymous donor.

Question 17: Are you currently involved with someone other than the father of your child who co-parents with you? Yes. My partner, with whom I planned this child and to would be legally married if we could.

Question 18: Do you have a same-sex partner who co-parents with you? HALLELUJAH! This survey does recognize that moms like me exist! Sort of, anyway. answer, YES.

Question 19: Are you divorced? No.

Question 20: Are your own parents divorced? No. In fact, they hit 40 years of being married earlier this year. My partner’s parents have been married almost as long.

Question 21: Was your latest pregnancy planned? Planned, budgeted for, paid for through the nose, medically negotiated – about as planned as is humanly possible. Of course, my partner WHO IS ALSO AN “UNMARRIED MOM” has never been pregnant. If she fills out this survey, should she check yes, or no?

Question 22: How old are you? Oh good, another easy question. Check the box marked 30-39.

Question 23: I work: Yay! Another easy one. Check the box marked “full-time.”

Question 24: How many children do you have? One so far. We’re hoping for another one.

Question 25: May a Babytalk editor contact you for a short interview on this topic? Please! I promise to be friendly and polite on the phone. I’d be happy to talk with you about being a lesbian mom.

Question 26: Fill out the following so that we may enter your name for a $1000 US savings bond. Please fill out the survey including this part. How great would it be if a lesbian mom won?

Question 27: Comments (attach additional pages if you like): Dear Babytalk magazine: I’m sure that setting up a false “us vs. them” between married and unmarried moms gets people all up in arms and sells magazines. But I’m still sorry you did it. And I’m even more sorry that you don’t consider me married, and don’t even afford me the option of choosing how to consider myself.

You happen to have published this right in the midst of what is jokingly called “the gayby boom.” Lesbians all over the country are having babies, and both gay men and lesbians are out there adopting and otherwise working to have children and raise them. Many of us consider ourselves married, and some of us actually are legally married.

For the most part, we’re moms just like the rest of your readers. We’re sleep deprived, eating badly, worrying about our newborns’ sniffles, and fretting about our childrens’ development. But there are a few differences. We can’t legally marry anywhere in the US except for Massachusetts. In many cases, the “non-biological” parent cannot adopt or otherwise provide for legal protection of her relationship with her child.

I would love to see your magazine do an article about lesbian moms. If that doesn’t work, perhaps you could include a sidebar with the article this survey eventually generates.

I would be happy to discuss my experience as a lesbian biological mother, or if you are looking for other potential interviewees, to recommend others based on age of the child. For more information about me, check out my blog. For more on the topic in general, including links to dozens and dozens of lesbian family blogs, check out http://lesbianfamily.org/.

The Utah Supreme Court handed down their opinion on Jones v. Barlow today.

The case involves Keri Jones and Cheryl Barlow.  The two women conceived a child via a.i. and then when the child was 2, their relationship ended.  Barlow now claims that she is no longer gay and doesn’t want her child exposed to that “lifestyle”.  Despite the lower courts’ rulings that Jones be allowed visitation with her daughter, Barlow repeatedly denied visitation.  Jones had to continually return to the courts to get chances to see her daughter.  I’ve written in depth about this case here.

The case was argued before the Utah Supreme Court back in August of 2005.  The decision was handed down today.

We hold that the doctrine of in loco parentis, as recognized by the courts of this state, does not independently grant standing to seek visitation after the in loco parentis relationship has ended. Although this court recognized the right of stepparents to seek visitation in Gribble v. Gribble, 583 P.2d 64 (Utah 1978), standing in that case arose out of an interpretation of statutory law granting such rights, not from an independent common law source. We decline to extend the common law doctrine of in loco parentis to create standing where it does not arise out of statute. We accordingly overturn the trial court’s grant of visitation rights and hold that the common law doctrine of in loco parentis does not independently grant standing to seek visitation against the wishes of a fit legal parent.

  So.  It doesn’t matter that Jones and Barlow planned, together, to conceive this child.  It doesn’t matter that they created legal paperwork to protect Jones’ relationship to their child.  It doesn’t matter that the child considers Jones to be her mother.  None of this matters because Barlow no longer wants Jones to be the child’s parent, and Barlow’s wishes are the only ones that count. Reading the opinion, I can’t help but note that Barlow’s move to Texas (against a court order) actually helped Barlow’s case after all. 

  Because it is clear that Barlow effectively ended the in loco parentis relationship when she moved to another residence and refused to allow Jones to interact with the child

  Barlow stole that child away and has ultimately been rewarded for it.Another gem from the opinion:

 On the one hand, we recognize that mutual bonds of affection can be formed between a child and an adult who does not fit within the traditional definition of a parent and that such a relationship has the potential to enrich the lives of both the surrogate parent and the child. However, in carving out a permanent role in the child’s life for a surrogate parent, this court would necessarily subtract from the legal parent’s right to direct the upbringing of her child and expose the child to inevitable conflict between the surrogate and the natural parents. Such a doctrine raises concerns that a legal parent could be deprived of a portion of her parental rights on the basis of “elusive factual determinations” as to whether she intended to relinquish those rights to a third party.

All the documentation Jones and Barlow created when they were in love that they intended to form a family, that Barlow intended to give birth to a child that she wanted Jones to help parent for the rest of that child’s life, that Jones was considered a parent by Barlow; all those things that we all do to try and establish our families as families in the absence of equal marriage and adoption rights, in the end all of that means nothing to the courts.   No one expects that they will fall out of love with their partners.  No one expects that if they do fall out of love, their break-up will degenerate to horrifying lows of legal nastiness.  No one expects that their partner will turn into the kind of person who would do anything to keep you from the child you planned together, out of spite and anger.  And yet, it can happen.

And now, if you live in Utah, spite and anger will win.

My heart is breaking for Keri Jones and her daughter.  My heart is breaking for every non-bio mom here in Utah, including myself.

You can read the opinion and the dissent here.

This week, I bring you more lesbian legal news from Ontario, Canada.

In July of last year, lesbian parents in Ontario won the right to have both women register on a child’s birth document, called the Statement of Live Birth. Before this decision, the non-bio mom was required to adopt her own child, usually waiting six months or more for this to go through, and often having to pay $1500 to $2500, depending on the lawyer. Our family didn’t qualify for this change for 2 reasons: One, our son was already born (the province had one year to make the changes) and two, we used a known donor (meaning we had to have him sign away his rights or be legally vulnerable if he ever requested custody).

My partner therefore had to adopt our son and just las month we completed our second parent adoption. Even though we were able to complete this before he was a year old, let me tell you, it was a serious pain in the a**. The Ontario registrar general can really rub salt in the wounds when you are trying so desperately to recreate family over here. As the birth mom, I was the only one allowed on the statement of live birth, and when requesting a birth certificate (which is the next step) I received not one, but two requests for his “father’s” first name (not last, because of course, he OBVIOUSLY has his “father’s” last name). Even though we had sent a letter stating why there was no father, even though we had left it BLANK, they still wanted to make sure I wasn’t denying some man’s rights to this kid.

Which brings me to my real point! Last week, after the adoption was finalized we filled out a new statement of live birth, placing my partner’s information in the “father’s” section. I found it odd that the form had yet to be changed, or that there was no alternate form, as same sex couples in Ontario have been adopting children for over 10 years now. On Thursday of last week, my neighbour witnessed the signing of our new statement of live birth, and I sent it off, registered mail.

THE NEXT DAY, I received an email from our friends at the LGBT Parenting Network about the change in language on the forms, due to the decision in July. I couldn’t believe this had come so shortly after having filled out the old form, and resigned myself to the fact that our son’s statement of live birth/birth certificate would be an historical document with his mother as the father. I opened up the document to see the changes anyhow. And what have been the changes? After “father”, they have included a slash (/) and the words, “other parent”.

Pardon? “Other” parent? What’s the deal here? What is “other” about my partner’s parenting? Why can’t she also be a mother?

Susan Estrich recently wrote a column on women’s wages compared to men’s. A lot of you probably remember the buttons from the late 70s and early 80s that said “$0.69″ — the amount, at the time, that women earned for every dollar earned by a man in the same job.

Since then, we made progress. Slow, small progress, but progress, until sometime in the mid-1990s, when we hit $0.75.

However, according to Estrich, more recent trends are cause for concern:

According to Labor Department data, women with college degrees who are between 36 and 45 earned 74.7 cents on the dollar last year, DOWN a penny from 10 years ago.

Women with high school educations are still making 75% of what their male peers make, which is obviously less than what most of us with college degrees earn, but the whole picture is ugly.

The fact that we’re losing ground really took me by surprise.

I assumed that, since the 1970s and the “$0.69″ buttons, we’d been slowly creeping towards equality. I didn’t think we were there yet, but I would have guessed that we were in the high 80s, not less than 75%.

What I really find distressing and hard to think about in all of this, though, is the implications for lesbian families. Are we going to be able to afford things like college tuition etc at the same rate as straight families? How could we?

Let’s do some example math:

Couple A: Mr and Mrs AAA, each college educated. To keep the math simple, Mr AAA makes $100,000 per year. He and Mrs AAA met in college, with the same major and similar grades. She earns Estrich’s average of 74.7% of what he earns, or $74,700, for a combined household income of $174,700. (I never said we were feeling sorry for the couples in this example.)

Couple B: Mrs and Mrs QQQ, actually went to college with the AAAs. They all hung out and studied together. Both of the Mrs QQQ earn $74,700, for a combined household income of $149,400, which turns out to be only 85.5% of the AAA’s household income. (Still a nice income, but are QQQs really worth 14.5% less than the AAAs?)

Over time, this problem gets worse:

If the AAAs were to save that money every year for 10 years, even if they only earned 4% (a very conservative figure), at the end of the 10 years they would have $353,354.87 more than their lesbian friends. In 20 years at 5%, the straight couple is up almost a million dollars: $945,525.50.

That’s a lot of tutors, summer camps, college education, special coaches or classes, unpaid internships funded by parents, etc.

Over the course of a 40 year career, using the average annual rate of return for the stock market between 1892 - 1997, 7%, Mrs and Mrs QQQ under-earn their friends by $5,783,175.90.

I know, they wouldn’t all be earning the same salary over all that time, but trying to figure out the math on that is more than I’m up to right now. And the easy math still makes the point; I suspect that the real world version would actually be more dramatic, because Mr AAAs numbers would keep getting further apart from his wife’s or the QQQs.

Estrich makes two general suggestions for addressing the pay gap:

But there are two obvious answers to this - other than passive acceptance, that is. One is to look hard at the pay scales, and recognize that part of the reason certain specialties make less is not because they’re easier or less important, or even require less training, but because there are more women doing them. Another is to recruit more women to the high-paying ones.

On a societal level, sure. But easier said than done. On a “but what about my family?” level, kinda empty.

What do you think we should do? Either kind of suggestion is more than welcome.

Today, legislators in my home state are meeting for the purpose of deciding whether to send up a ballot initiative that would let the citizens vote on whether same-sex marriage should be legal.

So far, what I wrote could apply to - I think it’s 38 these days? - states.

But today is a slightly different kind of kick in the teeth, because we already have same-sex marriage in our state. It’s not enough to say to 10% or so of the population: your families don’t really count. In this case, if the legislature decides to move forward, they’re telling us that, though we did actually count for a few years, now we don’t count any more… again.

I am so sick of this argument. I won’t waste my breath preaching to the choir on this issue - you all get it. But I’m just amazed that something like 6,000 same-sex couples have gotten married in this state, the sky hasn’t fallen, and WE’RE STILL ARGUING ABOUT THIS. They’re keeping us so busy running in circles over a nuts-and-bolt right that we don’t have any time to focus on other issues that matter to our community. And for that matter, don’t they have something else to do with their time? Shouldn’t they be out burning copies of And Tango Makes Three, or promoting A Silver Ring Thing?

I never thought I would be such a big proponent of marriage. The rights and privileges that come with marriage are pretty fundamental, and it makes me insane that you need a marriage license to get them. And yet here we are, and it DOES matter.

The local GLBT paper is blogging the Constitutional Convention, if you’re inclined to follow along as obsessively as I am. I’ll update here later in the day.

***

1 pm: The Governor-elect just came out with a strong statement urging the legislature to kill the bill. It’s going to be a good four years…

***

2:24 pm: Crap. They’re voting. As we speak. CRAP!

***

2:48 pm: Blindsided! We lost by 11 votes. There’s all sorts of political manuevering going on, so I guess it’s not over until the fat lady sings. But it doesn’t look good - the folks on the other side of this issue just put out a victory statement. Now they’re on an hour break, and then we’ll know more.

***

9:10: She sang. It’s done. Next year they vote again, and if they pass it again than the people of this great state get to make decisions about the legal validity of our families. But these are two big hurdles to clear, so, while it’s not too early to feel like Eeyore about this, it IS too early to panic.

And in the meantime, some of those 61 legislators may find a bag o’ burning shit on their front door.

I spent several hours composing a letter to Heather Poe.  As I wrote it I got angrier and angrier (not at Heather Poe per se, but at the entire situation) and by the time it was finished I was fuming.  I asked Kristin to read the letter before I posted it and after she was done she looked at me, appalled.

“This is too mean to post.”

And she’s right.  I don’t want what I write over here to be full of bitterness and sarcasm.  I wish I could be loving and supportive.  I wish I could.  As someone very gently pointed out (ok, a couple of someones) this really is a groundbreaking development.  I mean, lesbian families are infiltrating even the hallowed ground at the heart of the neo-conservative movement.  That’s big.  I should be happy.  Things could change quicker now.  Obviously Mary and Heather want a child very badly.  I can’t imagine the decision-making process that they went through.  So I guess I can be happy for them that they’re getting their child.  I know how it is to want a child so much that you’re willing to alienate everyone around you in order to get one.  I don’t think their decision to have a baby is wrong.  But still, I’m angry. 

I’m angry that someone who has strategized for the people in charge of the political party that has used LGBTQ issues to divide our country by working up fear against LGBTQ people and our “agenda” (you know, that whole “equal rights” thing) in order to push their own agenda (an agenda that, in my opinion, mainly consists of eviscerating the Bill of Rights, war and profiteering, and the gutting of social services in order to pad the pockets of the rich) could just get pregnant and all the queer families are supposed to be supportive and happy because a high profile lesbian is going to be a mommy.  If this were just an LGBTQ issue, then I wouldn’t have a problem with unadulterated happiness – the more LGBTQ people having kids the better as far as I’m concerned.  But this isn’t just an LGBTQ issue.  This is, at heart, a class issue.  This is an issue of people making (or helping to make, or helping to put into power the people whom they know would make) a set of rules and laws that don’t apply to them simply because they have money and power.

I sputtered for hours over this comment from Family Pride Executive Director Jennifer Chrisler:  

 “Grandfather Cheney will no doubt face a lifetime of sleepless nights as he reflects on the irreparable harm he and his administration have done to the millions of American gay and lesbian parents and their children.”

No.  No he won’t.  In my opinion, if Chrisler is thinking that this grandchild is going to change anything for Cheney, she’s very wrong.  Unlike the supportive parents of lesbian non-bio mothers (LGBTQ parents at all, actually) Dick Cheney will never have someone tell him that that child isn’t his grandchild.  He will never have to worry that if his daughter’s relationship falls apart he might never see his grandchild again.  He will never fear losing access to the child if Heather Poe dies.  There are two reasons for this:
1)      (the obvious one) The child is biologically Mary’s, and thus as his biological grandchild, he has rights through blood.  The grandfather who “will no doubt face a lifetime of sleepless nights” is far more likely to be Grandfather Poe.  Dick Cheney can sleep soundly; he has nothing to worry about.
2)      (the one that gets my dander up) The Cheneys have enough money to make most of these concerns irrelevant.  So many of the worries and headaches that come with legal discrimination and unequal treatment before the law start evaporating if you throw enough money at them.  And we’re not just talking about any rich people here; we’re talking about people with political clout.  Even if Heather was the bio mom, do you think that if the Vice President wanted access to a child that he considered his grandchild (if he was capable of thinking of a child birthed by the lesbian partner of his daughter as his grandchild – a theory that has not been tested and most likely will not) that he would encounter any serious problems?  Even if Heather and Mary were no longer together, even if Heather wanted her child to have nothing to do with the Cheneys?  At the very least the Cheneys have enough money to fund the bitterest of court battles as far as it could go.  All in the best interests of the child, of course.

In truth, I am worried about Heather Poe; she has so much to lose.  And I wonder what she thinks of in the middle of the night and if she ever wakes in a cold sweat thinking about how precarious her place in the family she is helping to create really is.  And I wonder if she thinks about the fact that it is the politics and beliefs of Mary’s family and the people they have surrounded themselves with that have contributed to her precariousness.  And I wonder what class Heather belongs in when she isn’t partnered with Mary.  That’s got to be a lot of pressure on Heather (and Mary, too).  See? I can be compassionate.  Can you imagine living your life surrounded on all sides by such people as what makes up the bulk of Cheney family’s political base? But my worry for Heather is mostly a displaced worry for myself.  I see her and I see myself: a non-bio mom in a hostile state, trapped in a legal limbo and scrabbling for whatever protections the law will stretch to afford. 

But I’m just projecting.  Heather Poe is not me. I am not Heather Poe.  So I shouldn’t be taking this all so personally.  Still.  I am. 

Mary Cheney can work for the benefit of those who would discriminate against us (and her) and dissolve our families because she can afford to.  She can do that AND have a child because she can afford to.  Because she lives in a bubble of money and power and she’s shown herself to be capable of doing what’s necessary to stay there. I’m sure this new family will be fine.  Mary and Heather will use their money to hire the best lawyers they can find and they’ll put themselves together layers of protections that many of us can’t afford.  I would be surprised if they don’t set up a secret second residence in a more friendly state for the purposes of adoption.  And they’ll raise their child in that special class bubble.  And I’m certain that the right-wing zealots around them will be nice to their faces* and venomous behind their backs, as always.  And I doubt the hypocrisy of their situation will bother them one bit.  After all, if you can’t afford to have a child, then you’ve got no business bringing one into the world.
*as long as, you know, Mary and Heather and baby remain discreet and unobtrusive and don’t get all “in your face” about their cough, cough lifestyle.