COMMON GROUND

The last issue I was trying to resolve with our would-be recipients was how they, as Christians, could foster a sense of Jewish heritage in the genetically Jewish children who might come of my embryo donation.

With great hesitation, I had written them to make some suggestions as to how they might accomplish this. Were they open to my concerns? Jenny and Erin wrote back immediately:

"Of course without hesitation we would let our children know of their bloodline and the history of their ancestors and how they are a part of that history and future."

I stopped reading here. I was struck by the fact that they looked not just to the past, as I had, but forward to ways their child(ren) from this donation might bring their Jewish heritage into the next generation. If this was their perspective, or at least their intent, they were the right recipients for us, despite being Hebraically-impaired.

They went on to specify which activities they thought would work within their own family:

"Reading storybooks about Jewish holidays and history would be no problem at all. I hope that our children are inquisitive about their heritage and we would foster that at an early age. Erin and I are both open to the idea of participating in the occasional Jewish holiday with our children. While we do not have any personal friends here that are Jewish, Erin’s parent’s next door neighbors (who they are fairly close to) are Jewish."

It sounded like these recipients were open and responsive to my concerns. I didn't even mind the standard reference to the only known Jewish person in each Southerner's life: their dentist's third-cousin's mail carrier. At least they had some kind of resource for knowing which end of the Hannukah candle to light.

This was the final hurdle I had put up for myself. The recipients had leaped it gracefully by turning my gaze to the future. I was wasting my time looking sadly into the past.

The rest was details. Jenny and Erin were the right recipients for us and we would give them our embryos.

LEAVE MARY CHENEY ALONE

Why do we even have to keep repeating anything this obvious: gay couples have children for the same reasons, and with at least the same success, as any other family.

In fact, I'd argue that we're better parents, on average, because we self-select to become parents, are willing to surmount the obstacles in our path that don't exist for heterosexual couples, and do not have our babies by accident.

There is no way to stop lesbians from having children, except, perhaps forced sterilization or stealing children from their natural

parents. Is this a democracy? The last time I read our Constitution it said every citizen has a right to pursue happiness and have privacy. Where do right-wing zealots get the right to decide who gets to have children? And why should they get to base it on their incredibly creative reading of scripture? The bible says absolutely nothing about gay women.

Do you remember when you dreamed of having a child? Did those dreams include being attacked in public by religious and political ideologues who called you names and damned your family? Poor Mary Cheney knew she and her partner's joy would be diluted by cruel attacks. If you don't like lesbian parents, don't let one adopt you. Otherwise, worry about something that actually affects you or your family in some way. If Mary Cheney's partnership or pregnancy threatens your marriage you need a couples' counsellor, and soon! Seriously, get a life.

From the NY Times Department of "Duh!":

"Decision to Have Baby Isn’t Political, Mary Cheney Says"

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: February 1, 2007

Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, for the first time yesterday publicly defended her decision to become pregnant and asserted that same-sex couples were equally capable of raising children as heterosexual couples.
Skip to next paragraph
Andrea Mohin/The New York Times

Mary Cheney, at a Glamour magazine panel at Barnard College Wednesday, said of her baby: “It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate, on either side of a political issue. It is my child.”

“When Heather and I decided to have a baby, it was not going to be the most popular decision ever,” Ms. Cheney said, referring to her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe.

She then gestured to her middle — any bulge disguised by a boxy jacket — and asserted: “This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate by people on either side of an issue. It is my child.”

Ms. Cheney, 37, was speaking at Barnard College in Manhattan in a panel discussion sponsored by Glamour magazine. The baby, whose sex she has not revealed publicly, is due this spring and will be the sixth grandchild for the vice president and his wife....

He wrote in Time magazine in December that years of social research “indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father.” He also wrote that his group believes that “birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples.” Two of the researchers Mr. Dobson cited have complained that he distorted their views and said they disagreed with his conclusions.

Ms. Cheney agreed the research was distorted. “Every piece of remotely responsible research that has been done in the last 20 years on this issue has shown there is no difference between children who are raised by same-sex parents and children who are raised by opposite-sex parents,” she said. “What matters is that children are being raised in a stable, loving environment.”

The audience, of about 100 people, most of them Barnard students, applauded her warmly. So did her fellow panelists, including Gloria Feldt, the former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Kathleen Turner, the actress.