Mary Cheney

First of all, congrats to Mary Cheney and her partner. I know what its like to be expecting a child and it is indeed a special time. But, not missing their chance to rain on a parade, a number of conservative columnists and commentators have complained that Cheney's baby will somehow be deprived of its childhood. I have also heard that her pregnancy is a "selfish" act. All I can say to that is anyone who could entertain such a notion has no idea what pregnancy is about. Carrying a child to term is undeniably a self-LESS act. A woman is essentially sharing her lifeforce with another living being. As I finish up yet another book about WWI, let's just say that this is not exactly the M.O. of the world at large.

I think at the heart of all this hand wringing is a sense of helplessness on the part of the Moral Socialists. Since the Moral Socialists thrive on vagaries and nearly always stumble when they wade into the reeds and cattails of their own proposed policies. They feel empowered to oppose gay adoption at every turn because it can be simplified into an abstract evil, but when a lesbian couple actually conceives a child, obviously its a little tougher poitically to advocate removing said child from the custody of its biological mother.

Still, on the adoption issue, I like what Dan Savage has to say. Basically, it's OK if you're going to try to argue that a child adopted by a gay couple is worse off than one adopted by a hetero couple. I don't agree with that statement, but I'm not going to spend my time proving something that would take years and years of study to prove. There probably are studies like that going on right now. And even when the results come out and show me to be correct, let me predict that the gay-haters won't exactly be conviced. The real question to ask is this: since there are more kids than parents willing to adopt them, is it preferable for a child to go unadopted than to be raised in a single-sex household?