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.

FINDING FAMILY

As I prepared for the visit of my long-lost cousin, I pictured our meeting in my mind. I know what this sort of reunion would look like in my wife Sonia's Southern family. They would make polite small talk but the main event during the visit would be a rousing genaological game of "Now, who's your Daddy again?". Southerners seem to play this game with relatives, friends and complete strangers. They come from areas where they are deeply rooted to the land and often know every family in town. "Now, who's your Daddy" is a fun way to find connections and establish relationships between families, but it might also be an attempt to avoid dating your cousin. Anyway, it always seems fun and light-hearted.

I didn't expect this kind of jolly genaological fun if we raised the topic of our mutual cousins or other family members. By trying to establish how we are related we revisit the loss of most of our family. Simply filling in the family tree meant treading on killing fields.

Why would my cousins and I subject ourselves to such pain? Because Jews, denied our own country, liberty and even lives over thousands of years have only the power of memory to allow our race to continue. We would try to piece together the puzzle of the names of the dead even though their lines had not continued because we owe our ancestors the respect of acknowledging their too-short existance.

This new cousin might not up to having such a chat, or her mother, more than likely, may have declined to revisit painful memories and left her ignorant. Whether we discussed them or not, the missing relatives would hang like ghosts among us as we shared tea and cakes.

It was this realization, that memory is a duty in those who survived, that was affecting my ability to donate my embryos to the wonderful Christian couple I had found who wanted them. Above all else, I knew, from my own experience with adoption and egg donation, that their children from my embryos would not want to remember. Not because it would be painful for them, as it was for me, but precisely because it was not.

I had no illusion, expectation or hope that my recipients' children would see me as a true relative. They would learn about, remember and care about their own family's history, not mine. That is as it should be. But it extinguished one or two more living memories which allowed those lost relatives to remain alive, in some way; to be remembered.

On the other hand, I was not choosing to give life to those potential children. I would not carry them, nurse them, change their diapers or soothe their small hearts. Neither I, nor my ancestors, could lay claim to their remembrance.

The recipients wanted to provide their children with some knowledge of their genetic roots but they neither wanted, nor needed, my awful burden of history. I would make suggestions according to their preferences and they were free to accept or reject them. My Jewish embryos would not become their Jewish children. Yet with the mothers I had selected they would grow into good and well-loved people. That was more important and, at any rate, would have to do.