My Question For The Candidates

I am 5 months pregnant with our first child. It has been an incredible struggle - emotionally, physically, and financially to get here. One of the many burdens we have endured as a result of not being able to get married is benefit from tax breaks for medical expenses as a married couple could. My partner is the breadwinner, but we could not claim "my" expenses on her taxes. It is not fair.

We live in the state of VA - one of the worst in the nation for LGBT families. Despite the thousands of dollars we have spent securing documents to try to protect our family (again, something a married couple would not have to do) - we are scared to death of what could happen because someone, somewhere will not recognize our family and our rights. The new Marshall Newman amendment is downright frightening, discriminatory, and clearly unconstitutional. Why are such laws even allowed to pass?

I want the candidates to take a long serious look at ALL the ways these laws HURT FAMILIES and I want to know what steps they will take to give MY FAMILY the SAME protections as any other family.

Clinton & Obama to Participate in LGBT Forum

On August 9, 2007, at 6p Pacific, 9p Eastern, leading presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, will join Melissa Etheridge and HRC's Joe Salmonese in a live address to the GLBT community.

Presidential candidates have never before participated in such an address.

Co-hosted by Logo (a division of MTV Networks) and the Human Rights Campaign, panelists will address a live GLBT audience on issues specific to the community. According to the HRC website, issues such as "relationship recognition, marriage equality, workplace fairness, the military, hate crimes, and HIV/AIDS" among other issues, will be discussed in the live, commercial-free broadcast on August 9th.

Live video streaming will be available through Logo's website - LOGOonline.com. The show will be broadcast live on Logo's cable TV channel (out of Los Angeles).

Remote participants will be able to submit questions during the broadcast via HRC.org and LOGOonline.com.

Coming Out....Pregnant (part 2)

In a previous post, I talked about how being a lesbian who is pregnant can remove the choice of coming out when and how you please. The difference being, when you are not pregnant, people do not (usually) take it upon themselves to inquire about your personal life in such a way their questions might spark discomfort or uncertainty. Now that my body is leaving no doubt as to whether I am pregnant or have simply been eating too many chocolate chip cookies and ice cream (which I have, but I AM eating for two!!), we have begun to share the good news with those with whom we come in constant contact.

Not sure how they might react to the news, we volunteered one of our neighbors to share the news with our 75 and 85 yr old next door neighbors. The conversation went something like this:

ML - We are going to have another birthday in December!

H & T - Really? Who?

ML - Tara is pregnant!

H & T - ?

ML - Tara is having a baby!

H & T - Did she get married?

ML - Nooooo.

H & T - ? Why did she do that?

ML - They have been trying for a long time. They really wanted to have a baby!

H & T - So she is going to be a single mother?

ML - Noooo. She has Kristie. The baby will have 2 mothers!

H & T - ?

H & T - Well, what do we say?

ML - Congrats!

H & T - Oh! OK!

And congratulate us (really me) they did. And continue to, every time we see them. Every phone call they ask how I am feeling and warn me to be careful and take care of that baby! I am sure they still haven't quite figured this out. They have yet to congratulate Kristie. And I hope they will be able to see the three of us as a family. But they have not stopped inviting our dogs over for treats (even freshly soaked from a swim in the river!). They still complained to ML about how we never invite them over. So, guess who is coming to dinner tomorrow?

CNN Report Raises Interesting Points about Same-Sex Couples Raising Children

On Monday, CNN spotlighted a news story about gay families, called "Gay Adoption: A new take on the American Family." Not only was this story one of their "Top Stories" for the day, but it was also prominently displayed on the left top of their homepage, with a picture of a gay family and their adopted children, and a paragraph introduction to the story.

CNN highlights stories in this manner to call attention to the news coverage.

The article begins with a story about 5-year-old Jackson who lives with his two dads. The parents talk about their own anxiety about raising their son in a non-traditional family. They admit that at this point, it probably worries them more than it does Jackson.

They also told the reporter that recently, Jackson has been asking about a "mom".

Peggy Drexler found similar scenarios in her "research" on lesbian and "single-by-choice" female families, Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men. One boy being raised in a lesbian household regularly clings to the leg of his male aftercare worker when his moms come to pick him up. Another boy with lesbian moms regularly says he "wants a Daddy." Another boy being raised in a single mom household routinely points to men on the tv and tells his mom, "That's my daddy."

Are the comments these children make the norm for children being raised by lesbian and gay parents? Maybe. Maybe not.

Drexler's research was definitely not representative of lesbian households overall. And while CNN reports a similar comment, little Jackson is not representative of all children being raised with two dads.

Certainly some of the resistance to gay & lesbian couples having children and/or adopting (aside from resistance just being flat out homophobia) has to do with the notion that children need a mother and a father in the home in order to turn out well.

But why? Is it because successful parenting can be reduced to such a simple formula?

Mom + Dad = happy Child

How is it that the attacks on gay parenting have been reduced to this simple notion of what it takes to raise a child?

What about other aspects of parenting - like providing a loving, safe environment; setting boundaries; providing routine and structure; teaching (and modeling) life lessons such as right from wrong, learning from mistakes, problem solving, thinking critically ... I could go on and on.

Why is it that these issues are not up for consideration in this attack on same-sex couples raising children?

Most of us who raise children know there is no right way to raise a child. We know that we have to continuously change our approach, evaluate what we're doing and why, re-evaluate what we're doing and why, change our approach again.... And even then, if we wake up on the wrong side of the bed, or our child wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, we might just have to toss it all out the window and find something new. Or maybe we'll just screw it up for a moment, or a day, and try again tomorrow.

And then, we have to start all over again during the next stage of our child's development because again, what used to work probably isn't going to work the same way now that our child is maturing and learning and developing.

Most of us also realize that no two parents are the same. Even when two parents in a household are basically on the same parenting philosophy page, one parent will handle a situation in their own unique way because of their particular personality, and the other parent will handle the same situation slightly differently.

And most of us realize that no one is perfect. There is no "perfect" way to parent a child. There are numerous ways to approach a common goal - raising a child - and just because I might approach it one way, doesn't mean there aren't many other excellent ways to approach it.

Most of us further realize as parents that we will have absolutely no clue how well we've done for years. And honestly, some of us may never really know how successful we were as parents.

And so, given these realities about parenting and what it takes to be a "good" parent, how can the definition of parent be reduced to the simple formula, mom plus dad equals happy child?

Sure, gay and lesbian parents may or may not hear their children ask about where their mom/dad is. But kids routinely ask about things they are curious about. And kids routinely ask *for* things they don't have.

And certainly single parents get these questions as well. But they're not being attacked in the same manner as gay and lesbian parents are. So what's the deal? Homophobia it seems ....

Jackson's parents responded by talking to him about the female figures in his life. Jackson's response - "Ok." Will he ask again at a later date? Maybe. And his parents will probably address it in a similar, age-appropriate manner, as many parents do when their children ask questions about anything.

Some gay and lesbian parents will address their family makeup as their children ask questions. Some gay and lesbian parents will address their family makeup well before the questions surface.

But all parents do this - no matter what the topic. Sometimes parents prepare their children ahead of time and sometimes they wait until the questions surface. Certainly gay and lesbian parents are well within the norm on this issue.

And the reality is, there isn't a normal family anymore. The "normal" family is like a rainbow - full of different colors and expanding and contracting depending on where it begins and where it ends. And tomorrow it looks completely different.

Normal is abnormal. Every family has something different - some alternative configuration. *That* is normal. So what's the big deal?

Does this mean a gay couple can't be successful without a mom in the picture? Does this mean a lesbian couple can't be successful without a dad in the picture?

Maybe we should be asking this in response, "Why is it so many heterosexual couples aren't successful when there is a mom and a dad in the home?"

We're kind of partial to this part of the story, "We're not moms, we're not heterosexual. We're not biological parents," Rob Calhoun said. But "we're totally equal and just as loving as female parents, as straight parents, and biological parents." "Love makes a family, not biology or gender," he added.

Now doesn't that just about sum it up?

(Please do not misunderstand the point here - We are NOT trying to define a "good" parent. We are simply trying to point out that doing so is quite probably impossible, and certainly we believe any definition should be inclusive of all family units - LGBT, opposite-sex, coupled, not, etc. The closest any parent can get is to do the best they can with good intentions, evaluating their methods continuously, seeking help and guidance when needed, and love and guide their children into adulthood. Obviously this implies that techniques employed by parents do not include abuse of any kind.)

Gay Kiss Blacked out of Newark Yearbook - Hetero Kisses Left Alone

Staff and Administration at East Side High School in Newark, NJ, took the "liberty" of blacking out the above picture in every high school yearbook before distributing them to students.

Teachers sat in one room with markers, blacking out the picture, while students lined up in an adjacent room waiting to pick up their copy of the yearbook.

Superintendent of Schools, Marion Bolden, claimed the picture was "illicit" and provocative. The picture was brought to her attention by Assistant Superintendent, Russell Garris, who oversees the high schools in the district. Garris was concerned the picture "might upset parents."

Bolden, Garris, and other officials at the school, seem to have missed the other "illicit" and provocative pictures displayed in the yearbook - you know, the heterosexual ones. In fact, had staff turned just one more page further in the yearbook, they would have seen precisely this. (Unfortunately, I have not been able to capture a still copy of the heterosexual kissing photos. Please view the Fox News video coverage of this story for pictures.)

Bolden, Superintendent of the Newark Public School District, claims there will be an investigation into who approved the final version of the yearbook, prior to printing.

This is an interesting stance for Bolden, considering the Mission Statement on the District's website claims, "The Newark Public Schools recognize that each child is a unique individual.... We further recognize that each child can only be successful when we acknowledge all aspects of that child’s life...."

Launching an investigation into who approved a picture of two young men kissing does not seem consistent with the claim that the District recognizes the "uniqueness" of each of their students. Nor does allowing heterosexual kissing pictures to remain in the yearbook while blacking out a homosexual couple kissing seem like an "acknowledgment" of this aspect of this couple's life, and denying the display of the picture doesn't seem like promotion of success for this couple. In fact, the act of blacking out the picture sends a message of quite the opposite - East Side High School and the Newark Public School District will not acknowledge homosexuals and will not promote any homosexual student's success.

The East Side High School website makes similar claims as the Newark District website. From their information page, "Our citizenry is a divergent mixture of people and cultures from around the world that makes East Side High School a place for all students to excel and thrive." And part of their mission statement, "We are concerned for the welfare of each individual." Apparently "all students" does not apply to homosexuals; and apparently a student's welfare isn't of concern if they're gay.

While Bolden previously claimed she was going to launch an investigation to find the party responsible for allowing the inclusion of this "illicit" picture in the yearbook, she has just released a public apology; and now she's singing a different tune. In her apology, she claims the picture was, in part, blacked out due to confusion as to whether the boy who purchased the page for the yearbook was actually a student at the high school.

Come on. Do you think we're actually that stupid? If that was truly part of the motivation for blacking out one picture among a series of pictures on this boy's page, then why didn't you insist the stagg black out the entire page prior to distributing the yearbook to students? I mean seriously....

The District claims it will reissue an "un-redacted" version of the yearbook to any student who wants one.

Well that's just famous of you. If you really want to rectify this situation, send each and every family who received a yearbook two versions of the yearbook - one with all the heterosexual kissing pictures blacked out (leaving the gay couple untouched) and one with no pictures blacked out. Or better yet, send them three versions - the 3rd with all kissing pictures blacked out. Let the families decide which version they want to keep.

Or maybe you should put some funding into anti-discrimination classes for your staff and administration. Maybe then the entire district, Assistant Superintendents included, can be consistent with the District Mission statement claims of recognizing the diversity and difference in all their students.