The desire to start a family can be an awful powerful one. If someone wants kids, they'll go through a lot to get them. Guadalupe Benitez went through a lot. She went to North Coast Women's Care, a clinic in the San Diego, California area, but was refused service by both her doctor and the clinic's medical director due to their religious beliefs.

The problem was that Benitez is a lesbian and the folks from the clinic didn't approve. In California, however, state law prohibits businesses from denying service to gays and lesbians because of their sexual orientation. The doctors, however, claimed that they were discriminating based on marital status, something the courts had not yet ruled illegal.

State Supreme Court Justice Carol Corrigan, one of the dissenting voices in the recent gay marriage ruling, said that doctors have a choice -- to help everyone or to find another line of work. While that's certainly not a final decision, it's an opinion I completely agree with. It's not up to a couple of doctors to decide who is fit to raise children and who isn't.

This post is part of Blogging for LGBT Families Day 2008.

"When my father explained that (s)he was becoming a woman, (s)he handed me a pamphlet about transgender issues," says Monica Canfield-Lenfest. "I really wanted a pamphlet for me. Ten years later, that resource finally exists." Canfield-Lenfest is the author of a new resource for children of transgendered parents.

Produced and published by COLAGE, an organization that works with children and adults who have one ore more lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and/or queer parents, the guide "seeks to provide an understanding of transgender issues specifically for the children of transgender people." It includes sections on common questions, transition, and coming out as a Kid of Trans (KOT).

The guide has quotes and advice from other KOT's sprinkled liberally throughout, offering comfort to those who suddenly find themselves in unfamiliar territory. The guide (in PDF format) is available for free from the COLAGE website. Check it out if you or someone you know is a KOT. Many thanks to Monica and COLAGE for producing this valuable resource!

This post is part of Blogging for LGBT Families Day 2008.

For the third year, writers from all corners of the internet are joining in to recognize that not all families fit the traditional mold. Many, certainly, will be those who themselves are part of an LGBT household, but other will be those, like myself, who simply believe that a family is any group of people who come together out of love and caring for each other.

Whereever you fall on the vast map of family types, this is a good opportunity to meet others whose family groups do not match your own to get better insight into what's really important and why we all put up with those darling, maddening, ever-so-cute, annoying brats joys we call children. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with one's ability to love and care for a child.

I look forward to the day when this event is no longer needed and LGBT parents are just parents and no one bothers to notice, but until that time, I am very proud to be a part of Blogging for LGBT Families Day 2008.

The California Supreme Court has just ruled that the state has no business checking what's in your pants before allowing you to get married. Yep, my beloved home state has decided that love, not sex, is what counts when making a long-term, if not lifetime, commitment to another. This makes California the second state (after Massachusetts) to allow anyone to marry.

This is wonderful news for the families that have, up until now, had to try and explain why a child's parents can't get married when other parents can. It also sends a positive message to kids that love does not equal sex -- sex can be a part of love, but it's not the only, or even the most important, part.

In reality, the decision (PDF) appears to be limited to saying that you can't call a legal relationship "marriage" for one group and "domestic partnership" for another, solely because of gender and sexual orientation, but the implication is that marriage is for everyone. This is, most certainly, a great step forward.

I suspect I may be going to some weddings in the near future. If this ruling has opened up a new possibility for you and your partner, I can, from experience, heartily recommend Stern Grove here in San Francisco as a wonderful location for a wedding. (Happy anniversary, Rachel! What a wonderful present!)

Generally speaking, moms have a lot of power at home. Some moms, however, wield a lot of power outside the home too, and that takes a lot of effort and determination. Dana over at Mombian has compiled a list of the most powerful lesbian moms in America. These are women who are not only caring for their kids, but are also making a difference in the world.

The list includes a lot of women we hear about all the time -- Melissa Etheridge, Mary Cheney, Rosie O'Donnell -- as well as some you might not have heard of at all -- Lisa Brummel (senior vice president for human resources at Microsoft), Megan Smith (vice president of new business development at Google), and Karla Drenner (Georgia State Representative).

Of course, everyone's definition of power is different, but I think we can all agree that these are women who are definitely higher up on the ladder than most. And if that weren't enough, they're also all moms -- probably the most challenging and difficult job on the planet. Cheers to all of them!

It's happening again, this time in England -- two elementary schools have removed And Tango Makes Three and King & King after parents complained about the books. King & King tells the story of a prince who falls in love with another prince. And Tango Makes Three tells the true story of two male penguins that raised a female chick together as a family.

The schools had been using the books in an effort to prevent bullying of homosexual students. Nearly a hundred parents turned out at the two schools to protest the books, complaining primarily that parents were not notified or consulted before the books were purchased. The schools have pulled the books in order to ensure that the schools are able to "operate safely" -- I guess that there were concerns about possible violence or disruption if the books were not withdrawn.

I still don't get why parents get upset about books like these. The message isn't that the kids should go out and get involved in a homosexual relationship but that there are different types of relationships. Certainly, in the case of Tango, why would anyone want to deny their children from learning about something that really happened?

It seems odd to me that no one has ever protested the use of books that discuss heterosexual lifestyles? Why is it acceptable to put straight-inclusive materials in the classroom without notifying parents, but gay-inclusive books require (almost literally) a court order?

Via Mombian

Personally, I'm not into guys. What with women in the world, I don't really understand why anyone would be, my wife included (perhaps even especially). That said, guys are still kinda necessary for reproduction. For now, anyway. German geneticists have succeeded in creating artificial sperm using embryonic stem cells.

The process is still very much in the experimental stage, however. Of the twelve baby mice born after eggs were fertilized with the artificial sperm, seven died in the first five months "of causes which we have not been able to determine," according to Dr Wolfgang Engel, director of Human Genetics at the University of Goettingen.

In theory, this research could lead to aid for couples where the male is infertile (or there is no male involved), although Engel said his team will not conduct any tests using human stem cells; German law forbids such research. Still, as the technology progresses and attitudes evolve, this may become a viable option for producing children when the traditional source of male chromosomes is unable or unavailable to contribute.

I very much want my kids to be able to marry whoever they want when they grow up, subject only to my approval, not the state's. I care about things like whether or not they smoke (duh, it causes cancer, it will kill you, that's a no-no), how much metal (or other objects) they have stuck in their body (ideally, none), and whether or not they have an acceptable career plan in place. What they have -- or don't have -- betwixt their legs doesn't really factor into it at all. I seriously hope my kids don't get married for sex.

To some, however, not only is marriage all about the sex, they want the state to make certain that everyone else is focused on it too, when they get married. In California, the state Supreme Court has been hearing oral arguments on the matter recently. People trying to explain why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman have taken turns with those who say they just want to get married.

One writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, however, has listened with amusement. He knows that gay marriage is coming, whether anyone likes it or not. His son came out when he was in high school and has faced very little trouble over it. Massachusetts has not turned into a seething portal to hell after legalizing gay marriage.

"It is the normal interaction in everyday life," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera. "It is the guy at the water cooler at work, seeing them with their kids - that's what drives it home for people." Herrera is handling the lawsuit before the court on behalf of the City. The fact of the matter is, as time goes by, homosexuality will become, has become as normal as anything else.

Once upon a time, seeing a woman wear pants was a rarity -- I'm sure people would stop and stare. They did the same in the eighties when kids colored their hair purple or put it up in spikes or mohawks. None of that is seen as especially unusual these days and homosexuality is becoming more and more pedestrian everyday.

As C.W. Nevius notes, the older generation is going on and on about how marriage must be reserved for a man and a woman, but the younger generations aren't listening. They simply don't care. Someday, hopefully soon, gay couples will be no more noteworthy than interracial couples or a couple -- like my parents -- where one is Catholic and the other Jewish. All that will matter is that they are happy together.

My recent post about a circuit court of appeals decision regarding books that acknowledge gay and lesbian families and relationships prompted a lot of good discussion. Continuing with the subject of books, did you know that February is the National Diversity Book Month for kids? Well, it turns out it is.

The folks over at the Family Equality Council have put together a list of LGBT-friendly kids' books you can share with your kids. The list includes some well-known titles such as Heather has Two Mommies, Who's in a Family?, and And Tango Makes Three, as well as some well-known authors, including Marc Brown (the Arthur series), Laura Numeroff (If You Give a Mouse a Cookie), and Tomie dePaola (Strega Nona).

The list also includes books that cover sexual identity, positive self-image, and even single moms and dads. If you're looking to add some books to your kids' library, this might be a good place to start to add a bit of, well, diversity to their reading options.

There is some good and bad news coming from a circuit Court of Appeals in Massachusetts. First, the bad news: it appears I can't complain about my son bringing home a book called "Angel Hide and Seek" when we don't believe in angels. Now the good news: parents cannot force schools to exclude books from their curriculum because of their beliefs (or lack thereof.) As one lawyer explained it, "the courts have rightfully found that parents can't control which books are used in school just because they are in conflict with their personal religious beliefs."

The case involved a pair of families that objected to their children being exposed to books that acknowledge or promote tolerance of lesbian and gay families. The books in question included the well-known "Who's in a Family" which presents many different family configurations and "King and King" which tells the tale of two princes who fall in love and get married (remember that gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts). The parents felt that they should have been informed in advance of the subject matter and been given the chance to pull their kids out of class. The judges, however, disagreed:

The mere fact that a child is exposed on occasion in public school to a concept offensive to a parent's religious belief does not inhibit the parent from instructing the child differently. A parent whose 'child is exposed to sensitive topics or information [at school] remains free to discuss these matters and to place them in the family's moral or religious context, or to supplement the information with more appropriate materials.' . . . There is no free exercise right to be free from any reference in public elementary schools to the existence of families in which the parents are of different gender combinations.

The fact is that LGBT families do exist, whether or not these parents like it. It is up to the schools to teach the facts; the parents are free to help their children interpret those facts however they like.

via Mombian

Jared and Sara are very cognizant of LGBT families. They have a friend just down the street with two dads, as well as quite a few other friends and acquaintances who are part of gay and lesbian families. The kids and I have talked about it and we agree that it really doesn't matter who you love, it's that you love them that matters.

A concerned parent wrote in to the Seattle Times asking what to do when her young daughter asked about a classmate who has two moms. The girl wanted to know how a mommy can have a baby without a daddy. Jan Faull, a specialist in child development and behavior, fielded the question in her parenting column.

Faull's answer is, I think, good advice and well worth reading in case you encounter this situation and aren't sure how to answer. Personally, for me, how a child came to be is not as important as how much it is loved by its parents, whatever their genders.

via Mombian

Does the Court have the right to impose visitation restrictions on a parent for a homosexual relationship?

The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently overturned a ruling from a lower court in which a father was penalized and restricted from leaving the state with his children. The panel stated there was no evidence to show any danger to the children by leaving the state with their father. The members further stated that this restriction appeared to be based on the judge's opinions of the father's lifestyle, including his earlier admitted homosexual relationship.

This decision shows that a parent's visitation cannot be restricted because of an adulterous relationship, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

This couple's divorce was granted in 2004, after the father was transferred to Texas and then Florida with his job, leaving his wife and children in South Carolina. The wife then sued him for divorce and the father began traveling to South Carolina every other weekend to visit his children. In the divorce hearing, the wife stated that she believed her husband was having a homosexual relationship and feared for the safety of her children. The judge awarded custody of the children to the mother with regular unsupervised visitation for the father, but the judge imposed a restriction on the father that he may not take the children out of state for any reason. He did not impose this same restriction on the mother.

This travel restriction was what the father appealed and won. I agree with the Court's ruling, because either parent should be allowed to travel with their children out of state during their visitation schedule. The mother may not like the fact that her ex-husband is now in a homosexual relationship, but that alone does not make him a danger to his children.

Read

As Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter, a published author, and experienced executive, I'm sure Mary Cheney could afford to stay home with her seven-month-old son Samuel indefinitely. Instead, she is returning to work as a Vice President (like father, like daughter!) of Navigators, LLC, a "full-service issue management, governmental relations and strategic communications firm". Basically, they are professional lobbyists and campaign managers.

Mary gave birth to her son Samuel David Cheney back in May of last year. There is no word on whether or not young Sam's other mom, Cheney's partner, Heather Poe, will be staying home. For a lot of mothers, being a stay-at-home mom is not an option. For others, returning to work after giving birth is something they look forward to. Whatever the case here, Cheney got to spend more time with her son than a lot of new parents do and, now, I think congratulations are in order on the new job.

Suppose you were gay. And, suppose you wanted to serve your country by enlisting in the military to protect it. Currently, you'd have to not mention the former in order to do the latter. It's idiotic, I know, ("You know, I used to feel that way too until I found out that Alexander the Great was a fag. Talk about gays in the military!") but that's the way it is. A lot of good, patriotic men and women have made that sacrifice, hiding a part of themselves so that they can be allowed to serve the country they love.

Such choices, however, rarely affect just the person making the choice. There is the whole matter of a partner who may accept the same sacrifice. And then there are the kids. In any situation, one must always consider the effect on the kids. I'm sure it must be a very difficult decision to join the military, knowing that there will always be the possibility of leaving any current or future children orphaned. Perhaps, this makes the decision to serve all that much more noble. For the children of gay and lesbian parents, however, there is more to it.

Dana over at Mombian has written an essay detailing an aspect of service that, I have to admit, I never even considered. Cheryl Parker (not her real name) is a decorated officer in the U.S. Army who has served her country in Iraq. A few years back, Rachel, Jared, and I visited a friend in the Seattle area. After twenty years in the Navy, he was retiring. We were able enjoy a playground on the base and even borrow some rowboats to take out on the lake. Cheryl Parker's two kids, however, are unable to take advantage of such perks because they might tell another kid about their mom -- their other mom.

Cheryl Parker is in a long-term, committed relationship with another woman. Because of that, she could be discharged because of the military's policy of discrimination. Never mind that she is a decorated officer. Forget about the fact that she risked her life to serve her country in war-torn Iraq. Toss out all that training and experience. Who she falls in love with is obviously far more important than any of that.

The big losers, however, are the couple's two kids. Parker can't let them play with other military kids or attend social events on base. "They had this humongous playground on one base that William absolutely loved," says Parker's partner, Donna Lewis. "But if there were a lot of kids around, we couldn't go, because he might say 'That's my mom, my other mom's at home.' That's what kids do. They introduce themselves. If he was going to play by himself, which really sounds sad, then it was okay for him to go to the playground."

She goes on to note that her son is "dying to play soccer, and they have on-base teams for younger kids. We have to find a team off base, away from the area. William can't go to the swimming pool, he can't go to movie day, the things other kids are allowed to do."

During the holidays, they miss out on a lot too. "We had a Thanksgiving function," Parker explained, "where all the other officers brought their spouses and children. The children were running amok in this big banquet area. I can't bring my kids to these wonderful things because I'm afraid of what they could say. It would cost me my job."

Read the whole article; it made me sad, but mostly it made me extremely angry. Here is a person trying to do a lot of good in her job and she stands to lose everything because of discrimination towards something completely irrelevant. Why should anyone have to hide their family? Why should anyone have to be afraid because of who they are? Why should these kids have to suffer because of outdated bigotry?

Non-traditional couples who want to have children have many options. Adoption and artificial insemination are two well known choices. Both of these choices can be expensive. If a couple chooses the sperm donor route, is it a better choice to use an anonymous donor or someone they know?

Four years ago, Tamila Payne and Jennie Ferguson, a lesbian couple living in Texas, wanted to start a family. They approached Ferguson's uncle, Mark Lee, to be a sperm donor for Payne. The situation seemed ideal for the couple, because the baby would have genetic ties to both women. The women also felt like this would avoid the high costs associated with using a sperm bank and the attorney's fees incurred during artificial insemination.

The couple did not consult an attorney, and Payne actually impregnated herself with a syringe at home. In 2004, Payne gave birth to their son, Noah. Mark Lee was even listed on Noah's birth certificate as his father and resided with the couple for awhile in their home.

What seemed like a perfect plan for this family has turned into a legal nightmare. The couple's relationship ended, and Noah continued to live with his biological mother, Tamila Payne. Noah spent weekends with Lee and Ferguson until he began refusing to go and becoming more and more upset with the visitation arrangement.

Lee is now suing Payne for custody of Noah. Because he was listed as the child's father on the birth certificate, it appears that he has different rights than an ordinary sperm donor. Additionally, he has been a part of Noah's life since birth. What is worse is that Ferguson has no legal rights whatsoever, because no legal agreement ever existed between the parties that outlined everyone's role in Noah's life.

The case seems to get more complicated. The court assigned an amicus attorney to assist the court in protecting the child's best interests. This attorney has recommended that Lee be given primary custody of Noah, with Payne having visitation for one weekend a month.

I am conflicted about the facts of this case. First, how in the world did this turn into a mother getting visitation only once a month? Additionally, should Lee be given the same consideration under the law as a traditional father? He is, by all definitions, the child's father, both legally and physically. Third, is it really fair to Ferguson that she has no rights whatsoever because no piece of paper exists that identifies her legal relationship to Noah?

Unfortunately, this family's choice, made in an attempt to save money and do what they felt was best for their family, has proven to cost considerably more than they ever could have anticipated. The court system is supposed to consider what is in the best interest of the child. In such a complicated situation, what is truly in Noah's best interest? Will he be able to continue his relationship with all of the people who came together to give him life? Is there really an outcome to this situation that works best for everyone, especially Noah?


Read