I've been reading some lesbian mommy blogs. On several they refer to the non-birth mom as the "other mother." This really bugs me. It diminishes the part that woman plays in the pregnancy, birth and rearing of that child. And what of couples like us? We are planning to each carry a child using the same donor. In doing so, we'll both be birth mothers, both "other mothers" and the kids will be biologically related.

Which got me thinking about how related relatives are. Since I'm (still!) carrying this child, is it somehow more related to my side of the family than my sweetie's? My answer would be a resounding hell no. When Nat gives birth to our second child, will that kid be tied any less closely to me or my side? Again, hell no.

Take this comparison. My aunt and uncle have two adopted sons and one biological daughter. I doubt anyone in our family gives a second thought to how they're related. I have three cousins, not one complete cousin and two "other" cousins. I mean, how effing ridiculous does that even sound?? To put it another way: If my sweetie was a man, but we ended up using a donor, would the baby be any less his? Would my mother-in-law have any less claim to that child? No and no. Shouldn't the same hold true for us? California recognizes Nat as the parent from the moment of conception, and why wouldn't they? She is a parent, not an "other" parent.

At the end of the day, our Bean has two mommies. Neither of us is more a mom than the other, and neither side of the family is more related to that kid than the other. My sister is just as related to Bean as Nat's brother. Today's mish-mosh, blended families have proven that "relative" has nothing to do with blood ties. Even the microcosm of my family has taught me that, and I think that we're a far more interesting brood as a result.

Labels: Bean, misc