There's an article in today's NY Times (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/07/gay_marriage_ba.html) about this.  It quotes Mark Silk's blog Spiritual Politics which reports that:

"Six of the eight states where 50 percent or more of the public supports gay marriage are the states with the highest proportion of Catholics, ranging from Rhode Island at 46 percent to New York and California at 37 percent. Meanwhile, the eight states most opposed to gay marriage include six of the seven with the lowest proportion of Catholics, from Alabama at six percent to North Carolina at nine percent. In other words, support for same-sex marriage is directly related to the proportion of Catholics in a given state."

Here in Massachusetts there are a lot of Catholics. An article in the Boston Globe on March 9, 2009 reported that in Massachusetts, there has been a huge decline in the % of residents calling themself Catholic.  "In 1990, Catholics made up a majority of the state, with 54 percent of the residents, but in 2008, the Catholic population was 39 percent. At the same time, the percentage of the state's residents who say they have no religious affiliation rose sharply, from 8 percent to 22 percent." This hold true with what's happening in New England overall.  The same article reported that, the six-state region NE region is now (in 2008) 36 percent Catholic, down from 50 percent in 1990.

So how does this massive decline in people reporting themselves to be Catholic relate to Mark Silk's assessment of support for gay marriage?  Many people attribute the decline in Catholics in NE to be due to the aftermath of the priest sexual abuse scandals.  I'm sure this is partly true.  I left the church for about two years after this.  But, I went back.  I feel that a huge percentage of people who now say they are not Catholic, are still Catholic in their hearts.  Many of these are the people who are now saying they have no religious affilliation.  They have drifted away - the institution of the church isn't working for them.  Then consider the huge number of people who are still reporting themselves as Catholics, but who don't attend church - for the very same reason, the institution doesn't satisfy them.

What isn't satisfying about the Catholic Church?

1. Priests are aging and with that the church as a whole is becoming aged in spirit.  So it's less capable of serving families and younger people. It still acts like it did 25 - 50 years ago.  It's paternalistic, conservative, and authoritative. No one wants this any more.  Local pastors and priests try to do their work in a more holistic and supportive way, and this keeps more of their local parishioners in the pews, but the body of the church above them doesn't support them in this effort.  In fact, they do just the opposite.  So people eventually leave.
2. At most churches the music is a key element of the mass, but the music selected is way out-of-date - it's still back in the 1950's.  One person at the piano or organ, another up front, singing in a high pitched voice that no one can sing along with.  They even look like they don't want you to sing along despite raising their hands in a gesture to pull you in.  They are putting on a show.  The music could be powerful prayers, if it made you want to sing along, or at least didn't make you cringe.  At our church we have powerful music, we sing, clap, and smile.  It's clearly a prayer.  Even a visiting priest filling in for our paster during his vacation last week said at the end of Mass that he'd been practicing singing since getting the call to substitute a few months ago.  He said he remembered from last year how powerful our voices were. 
3. There's not enough community, despite efforts to try.  This is sort of a self-perpetuating problem.  Point 1 above causes drop outs.  As family and friends surrounding you stop coming, you lose your community.  It's hard to rebuild within a group of inconsistent attenders.  Our local churches put on Italian dinner nights, yard sales to raise money for good causes, hold bake sales to raise money for the church and much more. But, very few people attend, as compared to the amount of people who claim to be parishioners. 

Gay people are all about building communities. This is because so many of us have experienced our initial community, our birth families, as rejecting or at least not understanding our lifestyle choice.  Acceptance of gays at Catholic churches rests on the local pastor and priests.  We know that gay lifestyles are not accepted at the center of the church. As more people are accepting of gays and lesbians, more will question the lack of acceptance at the center of the Catholic Church.  Until this questioning becomes stronger, the church's unwillingness to embrace gays will just be another reason to add to the three above, about why people are leaving the church. 

The Catholic population is growing in the south and west - places where acceptance of gay lifestyles is most challenged. I think that a correct assessment of the impact of the Catholic Church on gay marriage should be that gay marriage is having the greatest reception in states where Catholics are leaving the church in the greatest numbers.  

I think that the church realizes this trend.  Recently they have said that they accept gays who have homosexual feelings, but don't act on them.  This won't work - it won't bring people back (and I don't just mean gay people).  That's what same-sex marriage is all about - accepting your own gay feelings, acting on them, falling in love with a cherished partner, getting married, building a family, and living a happy productive life.  Isn't this what God wants for all of us?  I think so. 

A few days ago I wrote a long post about why we might want to wait to push again in California.  My thinking was that we had a lot of educating to do.  And, that some people might even have to develop the level of executive functioning necessary to be able to competently think about this issue before coming around to vote for gay marriage.  I'm happy to say that Freedom to Marry is more than a huge step ahead of me.

They've developed a series of videos to answer some of the most frequently asked questions about same-sex marriage.  See this link for them  - http://straighttalkonmarriage.blogspot.com/2009/07/freedom-to-marry-launches-video-blog-to.html

The second one is especially good to use when opening the door to talking with someone for the first time about why gay marriage is a good and fair thing.  The first one is a good primer too.  The article above even suggests ways to start the equality discussion.  If we all used these videos a few times to educate someone we know is either opposed or on the fence, we could probably turn the tide in our direction.  And, not just in California.

I wish someone would do the same types of videos for gay foster parenting and adoption!!

After a bruising defeat in 2008, gay activists are debating whether to go at it again in 2010.  The decision is a dicey one.  Nothing would be worse than losing in 2010 after the 2008 loss.  On the other hand, there's some good momentum for 2010.  

My personal opinion would be to hold off.  I'm not sure that the blacks, hispanics, asians, and those with particularly religious reasons to vote against gay marriage have been given enough time to re-think their positions. 

How do you outreach to these groups?  I believe that it's a personal push.  People that are part of those ethnic and/or religous groups that are also gay or supportive of gays have to make a personal outreach.  This takes time to organize (can it even be organized??).  And it will take time to execute.  I would aliken it to the time involved for a teenage boy to develop the executive functioning necessary to become an adult - clearly a multi-year effort.  And, even with a lot of effort, a person who needs to garner a new perspective never get there. 

Why do I compare it to executive functioning? 

First, what is executive functioning?
It is the ability to:
1. Initiate and stop actions.
2. Monitor and change behavior as needed.
3. Plan future behavior when faced with novel tasks and situations.
4. Anticipate outcomes and adapt to changing situations.
5. Form concepts and think abstractly.
 
People who oppose gay marriage, gay foster parenting, and gay adoptions need to want and be able to manage against the five core attributes of executive functioning in order to be able to modify their view on gay marriage and vote to support it at the ballot box.  For some, this means developing some executive functioning in the first place.  Others may have the ability to execute against some of the attributes, but they may not be able to conceptualize the true outcome of a successful vote (seeing that some people will now have rights equal to theirs, but theirs are not any less - or realizing that more kids will get adopted or safer foster homes will now be available).

Discrimination is usually closely tied in with ignorance.  Ignorance shares a border with lack of executive functioning.  This is why so many have made the point that decisions about providing constitutional rights to minority groups should be made by courts of law, as opposed to votes by the people or by legislators.  We hope that our judges have aquired adequate executive functioning to see through their own biases.  Sometimes our legislators have.  But, as a whole, have the majority of the people?  I think not.

So, since the CA vote is going to be another vote taken by the people, I would recommend we hold off and get our ducks in order.  There's a ton of minds to change. And in the end, isn't this what really counts anyway.  We can have our legal rights - we should have these anyway.  But, isn't the most important thing feeling accepted as an equal by all? 

I've written before about the inequities of foster parenting and adoption options for gays and lesbians, but the New York Times has a great story on the subject today so I'm writing again.  See the story at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26lesbian-t.html?pagewanted=1&tntemail1=y&emc=tnt

These two women, with a total of six foster - one now adopted - children have been through the ringer.  And all they did was take in children that no one else wanted.  Why is it that lesbians are willing to do this when so many others are not.  I mean, they could have had their own kids (in this case there was some talk of fertility problems).  My oldest son, now 21, was a foster child from the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS).  My partner, now ex-partner, adopted him when he was two (he'd lived with us since he was 3 months old).  He had been exposed to AIDS and they didn't know if he had it - so no one wanted him.  He had other issues as well, like potential hearing, eyesight, and cerebral palsy problems, and he had hydrocephalus - fluid on the brain.  This was probably because his mother was a drug user and a prostitute.

Here's a segment from my memoir, Preference for Love, dealing with the foster care situtation:

Somehow, almost despite ourselves, we started to live the “American Dream.” At least it seemed we were. Collette got a new job and my career took off. Combining our bank accounts, we had enough money to buy new cars and a three bedroom house in a nice suburb south of Boston. Working like dogs, we fixed up the house, painting inside and doing yard work, side by side. It was satisfying and fun. We started talking about having kids, not if we would have them, but how and when. Collette craved having a baby and becoming a mother. I wanted a family.

     We hadn’t gotten too far into planning when Collette came home from the hospital talking about a baby in her unit.

     “I’ve been taking care of this really cute baby,” she told me over dinner.

     There were many, many babies. We’d discussed hundreds of them in the past. I was just keeping the conversation going. “Oh yeah?”

     “Yes, he’s older than the other babies; he’s not a newborn. He came over from Children’s. His name is Michael.”

     “What’s wrong with him?”

       “Well, he has many strikes against him. The biggest one is that he has hydrocephalus. You know what that is, right?” Before I could answer, she said, “Its fluid on the brain. He was born drug addicted. His biological mother was a drug addict who died during childbirth.”

     “Wow, that’s a lot. Is he going to be okay?”

     “Who knows, but I think so. He’s really alert. He sits up on my lap and his eyes dart everywhere, watching everything. But he’s at risk for cerebral palsy or maybe even AIDS. The doctors believe he might be either partially blind or deaf, maybe both, but I really don’t.”

     “How long will he be in the hospital?”

     “At least another few weeks. He has to go back over to Children’s and have a shunt put in for the hydrocephalus.”

     “What is a shunt?” I said, realizing I was getting more and more involved in the conversation.

      “A shunt is a little valve that will go in his head, right at the top. They attach tubing to it and when water builds up in his brain the pressure forces the valve open and water drains out through the tube. Then he’ll pee it out like everyone else.”

     “Sounds like a big deal,” I said, remembering a neighbor we had once, a kid who was in high school when I was in junior high. He had a big head. I wondered if he’d had hydrocephalus too. He had died a few years after we moved away.

     “It is, but years ago babies with this died. Their brains would swell up with fluid and there was no way to get it out. They’ve been using a needle to take the fluid out of this baby’s head, hoping it would correct itself. It doesn’t look like it’s going to, so most likely he’ll have to have the surgery.

     I had a mental picture of a tiny baby lying on his stomach with a big doctor standing over him sticking him with a huge needle. It wasn’t fair. I felt so sorry for the baby. I already wanted to protect him and I didn’t even know him. Changing subjects, I asked, “How about AIDS?  Do you think he has it?” AIDS had already been recorded as the reason for death for many people, mostly gay men (about 26,000 people had already died of AIDS by 1988, the year Michael was born).

     “I don’t know. He’s been tested and it was negative but he’ll have to have tests periodically to see if he develops it,” Collette answered.

     “I hope he does okay. Sounds like he’s going to have a lot to deal with,” I said and the discussion ended there. We moved on to other topics.

     Over the next few weeks I kept finding myself thinking about this baby. One night I asked, “Whatever happened to that baby with hydrocephalus?”

     “He’s okay. He’s back from Children’s. The surgery went well; it seems like the shunt is working. Now they’re trying to find a place to discharge him to.”

     “Doesn’t he have family?” I was aware that a question was lingering inside of me but I wasn’t ready to voice it just yet.

     “He has a biological grandmother and aunt. They came to see him in the hospital a few times right after he was born. The grandmother may want him, but the social worker at the hospital says she’ll have to get approved by DSS first. She may be homeless. I don’t know about the aunt’s situation.”

     “Does the social worker expect this will work out?” My question was coming to the forefront, but I was still too afraid to say it out loud.

     “I haven’t asked. All she told me is that she needs to find a place for him to live because he’s going to be released in the next few weeks. She’s looking at rehab hospitals because they’re having trouble finding a foster home. No one wants him because of the AIDS risk.”

     I stopped and considered this for a few seconds. “You mean people are worried they’ll catch it from him?”

     “Well, it isn’t fully clear how you get AIDS. They say it’s transferred by bodily fluids so with a baby there is pee and poop, they spit up, and throw up; you know, all those kinds of things.”

       “Would you be worried about this?” I asked her. Then I rephrased the question; I didn’t want her to wonder if I might be considering whether he could live with us yet. It was too soon to ask that question. I needed to know more first. “I mean, are you worried about this when you take care of him at the hospital?”

     “Not really, but we wear gloves whenever we touch him.”

     I pictured having a baby and needing to wear gloves to touch him. “Is that really necessary?”

     She avoided the real question, saying, “It’s a hospital rule so we have to wear them.”

     “What’s going on with his eye sight and hearing now?” I was scoping out the entire situation.

     “He looks at people and at the lights. He turns his head when he hears noises. There might be some minor issues, but nothing major.”

     Then there was a long pause. “What would they say if you asked if he could live with us?” I asked tentatively.

     “The social worker already questioned some of the nurses, asking if they knew anyone who might want to take him home. It would just be temporary, so I doubted that you’d be interested.”

     “It would be better if it was permanent but I might be willing anyway. Maybe you can get more information,” I suggested, taking a deep breath. This was a big decision, but I couldn’t get the picture of this beautiful baby in the hospital with nowhere to go out of my mind. Who cared if it wasn’t permanent? He needed our help right now.

      “I’ll ask her more about it tomorrow,” Collette responded, sounding both excited and nervous.

     It took a few days for Collette to re-connect with the social worker, but when she did, they had a really good conversation. The social worker said that there was not any record of Michael’s father. His biological grandmother was a potential future caretaker but she had health issues. His aunt wasn’t interested. If the grandmother hadn’t been in the picture, and if Michael’s health was better, he’d probably have been put up for adoption right away. The social worker said she thought Collette would be a good foster parent because of her background as a baby nurse. They agreed to talk again.

     A few days later I went to the hospital to meet Michael. I’d been to the neonatal unit many times, but I’d never really looked at it this closely. On each side of the room were isolates filled with premature babies. All the babies were hooked up to multiple monitors, feeding tubes, and other attachments. In the center of the room were three or four rocking chairs. Collette was sitting in one of them. On her lap was a baby; he was bigger than all the other babies, huge actually, compared to the others. I knew right away it was Michael.

     He was just as Collette had described him: wispy auburn hair, large brown eyes with long lashes, and plump red lips. His head was a little large for his body and he had to work hard to hold it up. Bright and alert, his eyes darted all over the room as monitors buzzed and alarms went off. As nurses, doctors, parents, and others moved all around the room, he watched them. Occasionally, he’d look up at the florescent lights in the ceiling seeming mesmerized by them for a few minutes. He smiled, looking happy. He was small and his body was slightly stiff but this was all I noticed, other than that he looked like any other almost three-month-old baby boy. He wore a light blue, stretchy, terrycloth, one-piece pajama suit. After a minute, Collette stood up and gave him to me, saying she had other babies she needed to check on. I held him, overwhelmed with excitement and disbelief; we might be taking this boy home to live with us.

     It was 1988, and at this time gay men and lesbians were not allowed to be foster parents in Massachusetts, despite a huge shortage of foster homes. In 1985, the Commissioner of DSS under Governor Michael Dukakis had announced, "This administration believes that foster children are served best when placed in traditional family settings -- that is, with relatives, or in families with married couples, except in exceptional circumstances.”

     Fortunately, this was soon to change; although too late for Michael. In late 1989, the year after Michael was born the Massachusetts legislature passed a bill adding "sexual orientation" to a state law that banned discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, ancestry, and religion. Then in April 1990, the Dukakis administration changed its policy on gay foster parenting, making parenting experience, as opposed to sexual orientation or marital status, the main factor in assigning foster parents for foster children.

     So, in order for Michael to come live with us, Collette had to check off that she was heterosexual on the DSS paperwork. And, when she had her required DSS home visit to show that the environment Michael would be living in was safe, I was just a friend that Collette shared/owned a house with. I remember sitting there while Collette reviewed the paperwork. We had already discussed it and we knew if she signed it she’d be lying. But Michael needed us and we wanted him. It was a risk, but one worth taking, if it meant we could give Michael a home.

     About a week later, on a Wednesday afternoon, Collette got the call from the social worker saying she could take Michael home from the hospital on Friday, in two days. She called me at the office to let me know. Quite the call, but I kept it to myself. It was hard because I was experiencing the anticipation a ten year old has about Halloween.

      That night I called my mom, saying, “Guess what?  You’re soon going to be the closest thing to being a grandmother that you’ve ever been!” None of my sisters had kids, two of them had recently gotten married and one was still single. Collette had gone to these weddings with me even though I hadn’t been invited to the two weddings her family had so far. Collette hadn’t seen me as part of “her” family at the time; we were so on and off again. My sisters invited Collette to their weddings because they knew if they didn’t, I might not come.

     “What are you talking about?” Mom asked.

     “On Friday morning Collette and I are picking up a baby at the hospital and he’s coming home with us as a foster child. His name is Michael.”

     “Is he a newborn?”

     “About three months. He had some health issues so he had to stay in the hospital for a little while.”

     Her next question, “Is he black?”

    “He’s white and very cute.”

     “What happened to his mother? Doesn’t she want him?”

     “She died during childbirth. She was a drug user and she didn’t make it through the birth.”

     “How about his father?  

     “They don’t know who he is. They’ll have to look for him but right now no one knows who he is.”

     She said, “What’s wrong with his health?”

     I gave her the rundown of all the problems.

     “Wow, he seems to have a lot of issues. I hope he does okay,” she said, then paused. “Will he ever be able to play sports?”

     “Who knows? It’s way too early to worry about that.” I was a little frustrated with the question.

     “Will you have to give him back?”

     “We hope not, but he’s only a foster child so we may have to.”

     “Oh,” she sighed. “I think it would be difficult to get attached to a child and then have to give him back.”

     “Let’s not worry about that now. We’re going to get him on Friday, take him home, and make him as comfortable as we can. I hope you can come up and meet him soon.”

    Of course, even though Collette got the call from the social worker and only she signed the foster care papers, we were both taking him home. We were excited and nervous. The last time I’d had taken care of an infant was when my sister Katie was born, about twenty-five years before. I hoped it was like riding a bicycle, something that just comes back naturally. When we went to pick Michael up, we dressed him in a special outfit, a stretchy one piece suit with a tiny little jacket and matching hat. He was so smiley and his eyes were peeking out from under the hat, looking all around, especially when we went outside. We had nothing for a baby at home. Afraid to jinx the situation, we waited until we actually had our hands on him to buy anything. On the way home from the hospital we stopped at Sears and while Collette feed Michael in the car, I bought one of everything.

     That night we talked about what names we were going call ourselves. Michael was too young to call us anything, but as parents we wanted to be able refer to ourselves as something. The social worker told Collette not to use Mom or anything like it because this was likely to be temporary. But we hoped we were in it for the long haul and Collette was dying to be called “Mommy.” So despite the DSS advice, this is what she chose. Since I was not seen as a “parent” and DSS would be visiting, we decided I better be “Betsy,” a choice that would have very long term implications.

**********

      The weekend we brought Michael home, Collette worked 12-hour days. Everything had happened too quickly for her to get the time off. All of a sudden I was at the house by myself with a baby, not just any baby, our baby. I remembered how to change diapers. I didn’t want to put him down so he fell asleep in my arms. He felt so soft, warm, and cuddly. Friends came over to meet him and help me. My parents came to visit on Sunday. In hindsight, now that I am 50, about the same age my mother was at the time, I can see why she had so many questions. But at the time, we were too caught up in bringing home this beautiful baby boy to have any questions.

     I remember how special it all was. I became immediately attached to Michael. Holding him, we’d dance to Anita Baker singing, “Caught Up in the Rapture [of you].” I sang this part over and over to him:

When we met, I always knew
I would feel the magic for you
On my mind constantly
In my arms is where you should be

     I would lie Michael down on the couch and tickle him. I’d try and hold his gaze for as long as I could. I knew that making eye contact was important for our attachment to really gel, but he was so busy and active, always looking around at what was going on, that holding his attention was difficult. I kept at it though, until he regularly looked right into my eyes.

     A few months later, I stopped seeing Ruth. My life was going well. We had a new house, Michael, and after ten years with the same company, I had a new job. I’d read some articles about terminating therapy so I expected it might be difficult. But, we parted easily. It was the right time to end and I knew I could go back if I wanted to. I was ready to live my life without her help. I don’t even remember how our last few meetings went. I left and moved on. In my life, I’d had plenty of leaving and moving on and I don’t recall this as being any different.           

     While Collette was working weekends, Michael and I often travelled to New Jersey to visit my parents. My mother formed an instant bond with him given his background and all he had already overcome (and she loves all babies and always routes for the underdog). My father enjoyed having a baby around too. And, the fact that he was a boy was in Michael’s favor since my parents never had any boys.

     For a long time after finding out I was gay, my parents struggled to connect with me. And, they didn’t develop much of a relationship with Collette until Michael came along. Having Michael showed them that we were parents, just like anyone else, even though we were lesbians. Being a parent was something they could relate to, so our relationships deepened.

     Collette and I both loved Michael and we celebrated all of his successes. But, we also parented in our own individual ways. Collette was easily frustrated when he wouldn’t quickly fall asleep, eat enough, or interact with her the way she wanted. I was less bothered by these things. Michael had difficulties making it through every major and minor developmental milestone and Collette, while great at helping him with all of this, was easily discouraged with his progress. She would get down on the floor numerous times showing him how to crawl, holding his legs and moving them. Same thing with teaching him how to stand up by himself at the coffee table.

     At night, one of us would feed him and after making sure he was burped, rocked, and sung to, we would put him to bed. Standing by the crib we’d pat him gently on his back. The repetition of would help him fall asleep, Collette said. I’d pat for a few minutes and if he didn’t fall asleep, I’d leave. Closing the door most of the way, I’d listen to see if he would cry. He rarely did, so usually I’d go downstairs after a few minutes.

     Collette would pat until she thought he was asleep, maybe a half hour or more. I didn’t have the patience for this, figuring he’d fall eventually. When Collette was sure he was sleep, she’d tip toe out of his room and close the door as far as she could without letting it click fully shut. Then she’d come downstairs and turn on the baby monitor. In a minute or two, he’d be rocking his head and body back and forth, sometimes groaning softly. Collette would go back upstairs and pat some more. Then she’d come back down, assuming he was asleep, and the whole routine would happen all over again. He’d still be awake. After a few times of this, out of complete frustration, she’d yell at the baby monitor, “Go to sleep, you fucking asshole!”

     After a few months, Collette bought the book, “Solving Your Child’s Sleep Problem,” by Dr. Richard Ferber, a famous sleep specialist at Children’s Hospital. We tried several of his strategies, such as not staying in the room after putting him in his crib; instead talking to him gently from outside the room, reassuring him we were there, and only going in after letting him cry for a few minutes (but he hardly ever cried).… Collette felt that none of these were working so she scheduled an appointment with Ferber.

     After a few appointments Ferber told Collette, “Follow your normal routine of feeding, burping, changing his diaper, rocking, and singing. Then put him in his bed and leave. It may take awhile but he will fall asleep. Don’t leave the monitor on. If he cries you’ll hear him. He seems okay to me, happy and healthy, given all his medical issues. It seems like the problem is more with your expectation of what his sleep should be like, versus any real problem with him.”  

     Being a neonatal nurse, Collette had been positive that once she got Michael home and got her hands on him, he’d thrive, be a perfect baby. And he did and was, just not in the ways she expected. He was not the quiet, snuggly baby she’d wanted. He was a busy, precocious baby. Loving to go places and being with people, he was always on the move. Like the Energizer bunny, he was going, going, going all the time. I liked this.

     As a baby and toddler, Michael was physically a little stiff. He had several eyesight issues requiring surgeries (but he’s not significantly compromised). His hydrocephalus required him to be seen regularly by neurologists and neurosurgeons. As a result of the surgery for the hydrocephalus, he had tubing under his skin, tracking from the back of his head, behind his ear, and around his neck to the front of his chest, and into his abdomen. They put extra tubing in his stomach so as he grew, the tubing would expand and he’d need fewer adjustments later. No wonder he ate such small amounts, his stomach was full of tubing.

      We had Barbara, a nurse, who DSS provided on weekdays because of Michael’s health issues and also so we could keep working. She was a third parent, calling Michael “my little man.” Since Barbara had two kids of her own, she had a lot of experience, compared to us.

     With two nurses we had intensive notes about everything Michael did for the first year of his life; every poop, food he ate, everything new he did and practically every breath he took was logged. Collette was relentless when it came to the notes. She’d complain that Barbara’s were not detailed enough. She didn’t complain about mine but I am sure they were below her standards.

     We lived in fear, me more than Collette, that DSS would find out about us and give Michael to his biological grandmother or aunt, or move him to a home with two “real” parents, a man and a woman. We were very attached to him. Numerous social workers oversaw his case because of the high staff turnover rates; each new worker had to make an initial visit. Fortunately for us, the workers were so taxed by their caseloads that we didn’t get much attention beyond the initial visits. With so many kids in challenging home situations, they were happy Michael was safe with us.

    Two years later when Michael was free for adoption, DSS told Collette she could adopt him. I wanted to adopt him too, but under Massachusetts law only one of us could adopt him. Only one woman or one man or a man and woman together could adopt at the time. Same sex partners could not adopt children together until court rulings by the MA Supreme Judicial Court in 1993, only fifteen years ago. Michael was five at the time.

     This same year, 1993, Jessica DeBoar, a two-year-old, was returned to her birth parents after living with another couple since birth. “Baby Jessica’s” custody case was widely publicized; the whole country followed the saga. But no one followed it more closely than Collette and me. I vividly remember the day that the DeBoar’s had to give Jessica back to her biological parents. The pictures of Jessica crying in her car seat while being turned over to her birth parents were heartbreaking. Michael had been adopted for three years but I was still worried that if DSS found out we were partners, they might take him away.

     On adoption day, Michael, Collette, her parents, and I went to court. The judge, who was ecstatic over Michael’s case, invited him to sit on her lap, and he so did happily. I’m sure she had many cases that were heart breaking; here was a positive one. Michael was dressed to kill in a little blue and white checked coat and matching pants and hat. To celebrate, he ate an entire Charms “Super” lollipop shaped like a heart; his entire face was red after. Amazingly, I didn’t even consider inviting my parents. In the eyes of the court, I wasn’t really becoming Michael’s parent, so why would my parents be there? Of course in my eyes and Collette’s, I was Michael’s other parent. I felt uncomfortable having my parents and Collette’s together for this occasion, just the six of us and Michael. It would have been awkward. Our parents met at our college graduation, but they hadn’t seen each other since finding out we were ‘together.’

     After the judge approved the adoption, we went to lunch. We used to take Michael out for dinner a lot, and by the time he was two, he would order for himself. One time when I waved at a waitress asking for another glass of wine, Michael raised his little arm and said, “Another wine too,” but meaning another juice. Often he’d order dessert, saying, “I have mousse.” He’d eat an adult size portion, the whole thing, but half of it would be plastered all over his face.

     Michael’s medical issues required physical and occupational therapy, but he ended up physically fine with some minimal learning disabilities; nothing that’s stopped him from doing what he wants. Extremely intelligent, he has regularly tested in the 96^th percentile for verbal skills. Michael can verbally overpower the best of us. Even as a young boy I told him he’d be a good salesman or a litigator. When he wants something, or wants to win an argument, he is relentless, always needing to get the last word in.

 

I've always wondered why some straight people are exposed to gays and are immediately unbiased and helpful, while others are not.  Here's a video from the CBS studio archives from 1973 when Cronkite's evening newscast was interupted by a gay rights protest.  According to the reporter, from this time forward, Cronkite was supportive of gays.

http://www.365gay.com/video/cronkites-gay-raiders/

On the otherhand, take my parents.  When I came out, they both struggled with my lifestyle choice.  Eventually, my mom became reasonable supportive and my dad just decided to ignore the whole thing.  But, fast forward to this past election.  They live in Florida - my mom voted for same-sex marriage and adoption, and my dad voted against.  How can a father not appreciate that he's voting against his own daughter when he does this?  Why wouldn't he be supportive of my lifestyle.  It's interesting, he makes comments about me coming and living with them as they are getting older - you know take care of them.  But, he can't even support me at the ballot box, let alone in real life.  Thankfully, my mom is there to balance it out - or in the case of the vote, offset his no with her yes.

I hope gay parents, siblings and friends will think about this.  Is it that hard to be loving, caring and supportive?

The District of Columbia will now apply legal parenting status on both lesbian mothers who plan a child using donor insemination. Under this new law, a person who consents to a woman's insemination with the intent to be a parent of the resulting child is a parent of the child. The consent must be in writing. But, if there is no written consent, it is still possible to prove the consent and the intent to parent by the behavior of the couple holding the child out as their own.

I've written before about the travesty that seems to occur with great frequency when two women decide to have a life together - a life that includes children.  First, everyone is happy, the couple is in love, and they decide to have a baby together - this is the operative word.  There is planning, getting pregnant isn't just an outcome of a few minutes of sex.  There's deciding where to get the sperm - a friend (legal impact - what will his role be later?) or a sperm bank (legal impact - what agreements need to be signed and who needs to sign them? - often the nonbiological mother has to sign something stating that if the biological mother dies, the nonbiological mother will take care of the resulting baby and any embryos).  Then, there there's setting up the babies room and the rest of the house for accomodating a baby, making important and necessary purchases, and planning for after the baby is born (like who's going to work or finding daycare).  Through all this, the couple presents themselves as just that, a couple - two women who love each other, who are having a baby -their baby.

You have no idea what this feels like.  After years of discovering how your love is different than other people's love, dealing with your own and other's homophobias, finding a partner - someone you really love and cherish, creating a home together, now you are having a baby!  Who ever thought you'd have a baby?  No one, not even you.  It puts you on cloud nine - you're just like everyone else, you're having a baby.

Fast forward 6 months or a year, or maybe five years or more.  There may now be even more kids.  But, the relationship sours, as many do, and the couple splits up.  What happens?  The biological mother claims that the other mother was never a mother.  She claims she had the kids by herself.  She claims they were never a family.  She claims she never intended, and never did, share parenting.  She denies the nonbiological mother access to the children.  Or maybe she moves far away leaving the nonbiological mother broken and lost without her children - children she loves, treasures, and still craves to nurture.  After all, this is what good mothers do - nurture their children.

The nonbiological mother has to live with this travesty or file a lawsuit against the biological mother - the one who has the kids with her - the one who can turn the kids perspectives of their other mother quickly from positive to negative, despite being the one who is actually damaging the children.  How can anyone expect to separate their children from a parent who loves them (when the other parent is alive and longing for the kids) and not damage them as a consequence.  Everyone loses in this situation.

The DC law is one that every state needs to apply.  And, until they do, lesbians need to do right by their kids.  Once a parent, always a parent.  It might be a bit more complicated.  But, in the best interests of the children, a biological mother should never have the right to keep her child from their other mother. 

My ex-partner tried this but I fought back.  Last night, lying in bed with my nine year old talking and cuddling before he fell asleep, I tried to imagine what my life would be like without him.  I remembered how the huge hole in my heart felt when when she was withholding him from me.  It's bad enough dealing with the ending of a long term relationship - one with a partner you really loved.  But, to have your relationship with your kids come to an abrupt halt at the same time?  It's no right.  People need to stand up against this inequity in parenting.

In most state across the US gays and lesbians cannot be foster parents or adopt children.  We did adopt our son as a newborn, although we had to lie about being gay.  Despite the fact that his mother had died and his father was unknown, the state's plan was to reunite him with his biological grandmother.  She was without housing and she was an alcoholic!  She did care about him though.

This was a time when AIDS was new and no one knew if he might have it.  So, his options for foster parenting were very limited.  We gladly took him, and loved him.  I still remember singing along to Anita Baker, while holding him - "Caught up in the Rapture of You."  He was sdorable.

Lately, he's been more challenging, but I still love him deep down into my soul.  I guess that's what a mother does. 

How come gays being foster parents or adoptive parents is so difficult?  It shouldn't be.  Kids are wonderful and as long as a parent, or any significant other, feels that way, kids are blessed.  It doesn't matter what sexuality the parents are.  Love should come first.

I believe that the first, and foremost goal in parenting gay children is to listen to them.  Actually, this is probably the most important point all parents need to focus on to improve their relationships with any child.  To grow and develop into psychologically strong adults, children need role models to mirror.  A gay son or daughter may not have these role models.  And, even a good parent may not be able to be that model for a gay child, at least not fully, if they are not gay.

This doesn't mean that you need to be gay to be a good model for your child.  You can be a great model in many ways.  What is it your child needs to see and understand?  Children watch everything you do and they pick and choose what they pay the most attention to and the least.  Unfortunately there's no opportunity to make sure they only pick up on your best habits, so they can just a likely pick up your worst.  This gets back to being a good listener.

Gay children need parents who are going to allow them to open up and express their happiness as well as their fears.  Being gay is scary - discovering you are different can be tough to deal with.  Some people run as fast as they can. But then this often brings out other negative problems and coping mechanisms like drinking, doing drugs, or being overly sexually active, for example.  If a parent allows a child's sexuality to unfold naturally, without assuming or forcing a choice, the child will be healthier in the long run.  And, the parent and child will have a better relationship for life.

But, don't get boxed in either way, to gay or straight, too quickly.  You may see some signs indicating your child might be gay and with time, they may discover they are.  Or they may not be gay after all.  Or maybe they'll take a straight path for a while and then fall in love with someone of their own sex.  The opposite can happen too.  There is a lot of fluidity in sexuality.  If you push your child to declare their sexual interest too early, you may block off their other avenues.  These blockages will most likely haunt them later in life.  Isn't it better to help your child live the life he or she was meant to live from the beginning? If you are a good listener, this will be more likely to happen naturally.

Saying that many gay men and lesbians are already ministering in the church, the delegates to the Church convention voted two thirds to one third to support ordination of gay ministers.  

Here is the quote they released, “God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church, and that God’s call to the ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church is a mystery which the church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church.”

See a great article on this at
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/15episcopal.html?em

I especially liked how one of the top officers of the Church spoke about real relationships being built on authenticity.  So, how can relationships with the rest of the Church deepen if gay and lesbian ministers have to hide their true selves, she implies with her comments.  Isn't this true everywhere in life.  Don't people deserve to live their common, decent lives feeling proud vs. having to hide true feelings? 

Here is a poem about genuine and authentic love:

Loving Forever

 

Saying

You will love someone

Forever

Is a promise

A foundation

The footing

Of a relationship

 

When you tell someone

You’ll love them

Forever

They might question it

And if you say

Your feelings are

Genuine and authentic

They might believe you

And trust you

 

Saying you will

Love someone forever

Is a building block

To opening up

Both people’s hearts

 

When you tell someone

You’ll love them forever

Over and over again

They open up their heart to you

Over and over again

And they rely on you

To love them

Over and over again

And they love you

Over and over again

Forever

It’s a promise

A commitment

 

Most people

Have only enough energy

To love

A few people

Forever

In their lifetime

So when you say

You’ll love someone

Forever

Over and over again

You have to do it sparingly

And know

What that promise

Means to you

And the person

You love

 

I said I would

Love you

Forever

And you said

You’d love me

Forever

I trusted you

 

How can you leave me

How can you ignore me

How can you wish

How can you hope

How can you require

Someone you love

To leave you forever?

 

You promised me

I trusted you

How does

Destroying the foundation

Of our relationship

Mean you

Love me forever?

Two great things in one day!  Of course Bill supports gay marriage.  That's not a surprise, is it.  Sorry it took so long for him to make the bold announcement.  But, he's been kept under wraps by Obama and Hillary!!  Finally strutting his stuff a little bit.  I hope it puts some pressure on Obama.

My short story called "So Much to Discover," has been publised by Alyson Books.  Go to  http://www.alyson.com/9781593501099.html and you can buy the book directly from the publisher.  Amazon has it, as does many other on-line book sellers across the globe.  I hope you will buy the book, not simply because of my story, but because of the full breadth of the offering.  The editor, Simone Thorne is terrific. 

My story is based on my memoir, Preference for Love," which is about my life, my long term relationship and my three kids.  I'm looking for an agent/publisher.  If you have any ideas, let me know at MEC@preferenceforlove.com.  Thanks!! 

Here are the nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in their armed forces, as compiled by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara (reported by Gay 365): Australia

Austria

Belgium

Britain

Canada

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Slovenia

South Africa

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Uruguay

I

I think the problem of unrequited love is more prevalent amongst gays than straights.  What do you think?

 

Oftentimes, you love someone who loves you back, but they don’t want to be gay or can’t accept their own feelings for someone of the same sex.  You love them so much that you might even tell them that it’s okay to try, hoping for the best outcome.  And sometimes this works.  But, often it doesn’t, and you are left with knowing in your heart that you are in the other person’s heart, but they just can’t accept it.  Then separating is exceedingly painful.  How can you separate from someone you love, someone you know loves you?

 

Sometimes when the other person doesn’t want to accept their homosexual feelings, they deny that they feel anything.  This may cause the other person in the relationship to question reality.  I mean, if you loved someone, and they said they loved you, and now they say they don’t, and didn’t, did you dream the whole thing?  How can this be the truth?  No matter how many times you tell yourself that you’re sane, you still question whether you just missed something altogether.

 

Back to unrequited love…..I think there needs to be another word for unreturned love….for when two people love each other but one won’t follow through with it.  Unrequited love is defined as love given, but not returned.  Love can be returned but not acted on, can’t it?  Isn’t this different than unrequited love?  It may not make you feel better, but it’s still love.

 

What is the right word?  Help me.

No surprise here.  Why wouldn't Massachusetts be the first state to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act in Federal Court?  Attorney General Martha Coakley has taken the first step to take down this rediculous law. 

According to the Boston Globe, "Massachusetts risks losing millions in dollars for MassHealth, the state’s Medicaid program for the poor, and for veterans’ cemeteries overseen by the state Department of Veterans Services, unless it obeys the Defense of Marriage Act. The federal government has told the state that it cannot provide federal funding for MassHealth benefits given to same-sex spouses. It also informed the state it will lose Veterans Affairs funding if it buries the same-sex spouse of a veteran in a cemetery, as the state does for heterosexual spouses of veterans."

Let the fun begin in Massachusetts. DOMA has already been found constitutional by the courts, but perhaps Martha has some new ideas up her sleeve.  Let's hope so.

My daughter and I are leaving soon to visit colleges. We'll be gone about one week.  As I get ready to leave, my heart is heavy. I'm reminded I'm all alone.  No other parent to think things through with. No partner to carry part of the burden. I know we'll be fine - I'll be fine. But I'm lonely this morning.  My little girl is growing up.  Soon she'll be leaving too.  There's a lot of loss.  Why is life like this? I can take a little bit of loss, but it's getting to be too much. I keep forcing myself to march forward; what other choice do I have? But, it isn't easy to keep hoping for the best. Sorry I'm so down today.

If you click here, you will get a map of the US looking at statutes and constitutional amendments against gay marriage (from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force):

http://thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/issue_maps/GayMarriage_05_09.pdf

It's amazing, but many states have both statutes preventing same sex marriage and amendments banning gay marriage.

There is still a lot of work to do.  I'd like to see the same map showing whether gay foster parenting or gay adoption is allowed. And, let's put the anti-map in color, highlighting in puke green those with anti-amendments and/or statutes!!

I don't understand why this is such a big deal for the gay news?  I mean, I think its awful, that's for sure.  No one should be stalked, if it is even true.  I just don't understand why this news is such a big deal.  365 Gay has this report as one of its top items.  Just because the ex-mayor of DC has come out against gay marriage doesn't mean he needs top billing.  I mean, aren't there more important news items?

With so much happening with social networks, gaming, and other computer/technical matters, GLADD has taken an excellent step to monitor and make recommendations to make sure homophobia is stopped. There are many anti-gay slurs on blogs and on social sites.  If you type in homophobic comments into Google over 1,250,000 come up.  I was actually surprised at how few there were.  Type in homophobic statements and 2,450,000 come up.  A little more believable.  

I see anti-gay comments all the time, so I think one likely issue is that they are not reported on as often as they should be.  This is why what GLADD is doing is terrific.  Bringing light to the problem will probably quadruple the posts in a few months.  And, people will be outed for what they say, and hopefully some of this will be reported on in the mainstream press.  This will bring even more attention to how homophobic some of our society is. 

New Delhi’s highest court has decriminalized homosexuality. Since the mid 1800's its been illegal to be gay or lesbian in India.  Now it isn't. You know when you live here in the bubble of the US, it's sometimes difficult to connect with the details of what's going on culturally in other places. I mean, my impression of Indian people I've met over here is that they are friendly, yet a bit reserved. I suppose since many are first generation living in America, who wouldn't be a bit cautious. I've never been to India but I've known many who have.  I hear back that the people there are very smart and committed to getting ahead. Their world has been changed significantly during the last 10-15 years -- much more westernized with so many US companies putting tech groups and call centers over there.  

I believe that countries willing to go through so much change so quickly -- another one that comes to mind is Ireland and their influx of foreigners and massive growth over the past decade -- these countries have special people.  So, I'm not surprised that India has taken this step to more fully embrace gay people.   

As expected, First Lieutenant Dan Choi was ousted from the New York National Guard. The four person Army panel voted to kick him out.  Now Lt. Gen. Thomas Miller of the First Army Division, and Gen. Craig McKinley, the chief of the National Guard Bureau have to sign the final papers.  This could take a day or a year.  Let's hope they sit on it for awhile. Maybe in a year Obama and the military will come to its senses and get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  It's absolutely crazy that we pay for someone to attend West Point so he can be an officer in the military and then toss him out because he's gay.  Let's change this fast.