“Even though it’s difficult and society puts lots of obstacles in your way, your work really starts once you have the kids.”

IHI, which specializes in affirmative mental health services for the LGBTQ community and other stigmatized groups, has just begun its second year of “Family Q” workshops for LGBTQ parents and prospective parents. The organization received a five-year grant from the New York State Department of Health to offer the program at no charge, including free follow-up counseling if desired. They hope attendees will come away better able to handle the emotional part of being LGBTQ parents.

Dr. Ehrenberg says many LGBTQ parents and prospective parents “don’t have enough questions” about parenting. They ask about practical issues such as how to conceive, find a surrogate, or adopt, she explains, “but they don’t stop to consider the emotional ramifications.” Similarly, many seminars elsewhere for LGBTQ parents focus on the mechanics and legal issues rather than the psychological aspects of parenthood.

Dr. Ehrenberg feels IHI is in an ideal position to address the psychological side. The organization has trained hundreds of psychotherapists about LGBTQ issues. Its founder, Dr. Charles Silverstein, helped lead the charge in 1973 to have the American Psychiatric Association remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. He established IHI as a not-for-profit therapy center soon thereafter.

“We have tried to construct workshops based on our own experiences and those of our clients who come to us for therapy,” Dr. Ehrenberg explains, “and our knowledge of general issues of child and adolescent development.”

The workshops, which will run on the third Wednesday of every month from October 2009 through May 2010, will address topics such as answering children’s queries about sperm donors or birth parents, coming out of the closet after having children, and how to talk about sex when children begin to ask the inevitable questions.

Most straight parents, Dr. Ehrenberg observes, either don’t have to deal with these questions or can refer to any number of books that explain to children where they came from.

Family Q sessions will also cover some of the negative situations LGBTQ parents may encounter, including harassment at school, rejection by neighbors or relatives, and breaking up when parents don’t have equal legal or biological claims to the children.

The presenters are all mental health professionals with extensive clinical backgrounds. They are also, importantly, all LGBTQ parents who have lived through many of the above experiences themselves.

Developmental psychologist Dr. Elizabeth O’Connor says her March workshop, “What Will the Neighbors Think?” will explore what she feels is the most common concern gay and lesbian parents have when they’re thinking about raising children: are the kids going to get harassed or ostracized because of their parents?

She says there is no guarantee this won’t happen, but adds, “There’s no guarantee they won’t get teased about wearing glasses or losing the baseball game or anything else.”

Also, she says, research has shown that even though children of LGBTQ parents may hear some unkind remarks, “generally speaking, kids [of LGBTQ parents] report they don’t get teased any more than other kids do, that it’s not this huge problem for most of our kids. That’s kind of a relief for parents to hear.”

O’Connor and her partner, Dr. Suzanne M. Johnson, another developmental psychologist and Family Q presenter, are the authors of For Lesbian Parents: Your Guide to Helping Your Family Grow Up Happy, Healthy and Proud and The Gay Baby Boom: The Psychology of Gay Parenthood. O’Connor says, however, that workshop attendees will get something they cannot get from reading books. “I think it’s very helpful just to sit in a room with other people who are going through the same thing that you are,” she explains. “Even if you don’t see these people again, just knowing that they’re out there, that you’re part of a community, I think is a real benefit to parents.”

Practicing psychologist Dr. Adam Benson, who will be conducting the December workshop, “Heather Has Two Daddies” with his partner Graham Parker, wants to reach out to the community of gay fathers. He says many gay dads still struggle with gender stereotypes about what it means to be a father.

“In one of the studies that I completed,” he says, “the gay fathers that had children [through an opposite-sex marriage] would often say that they allowed their spouse to have full custody simply because they thought that the best place for a child is with their mother.”

In his workshop, he hopes to challenge the idea that an involved male parent is simply playing “Mr. Mom,” which still implies that the female parenting role is the touchstone. “Very often, if we’re not aware how the gender stereotypes play a role in what we say or how we act with our children,” he explains, “we’re less likely to be as present as we can with them.”

Michael, a dad who attended several of last year’s workshops, says he plans to return. Last year, he was just coming out to his then-wife and two children. (He asked that his last name not be used so that his teens may control when to come out about their father to friends.) He says he appreciated not only the guidance from professionals, but also the help from other participants, many of whom were already out but not yet parents.

“It’s not the parenting part for me,” he told them, “it’s the gay stuff.” He gave others advice on parenting issues, and in turn learned from them about coming out and being gay. “It was a positive experience for me as a gay man and a parent,” he reflects. “I feel like going back and reporting on how it went.”

Dr. Ehrenberg says she would like even more parents and prospective parents to have the chance to benefit from Family Q. She hopes to continue the program even beyond the five-year grant, and perhaps expand it nationwide, starting with other cities such as Boston and San Francisco.

She expects it will evolve to include additional topics as well, and asserts, “We are ready, willing, and eager to add new workshops as the ideas come out, and as we’re stimulated to do so.”

For a complete list of Family Q workshops, or to make a reservation for any workshop, visit the IHI Web site or contact them at ihi-lgbt@juno.com or 212-243-2830.

Dana Rudolph is the founder and publisher of Mombian, a blog and resource directory for LGBT parents.

Repealing DADT, however, is only the first step—albeit the most important one—towards equality for LGBT servicemembers. Unless the federal government not only permits openly lesbian and gay servicemembers, but also recognizes their families, we are asking those servicemembers to defend our country with a fraction of the support given to non-LGBT personnel.

The military takes family support very seriously. Army companies, for example, each contain a Family Readiness Group, “an official command sponsored organization of Family Members, volunteers, and Soldiers belonging to a unit, that together provide an avenue of support and assistance. This network of communication between Family Members, volunteers, the chain of command, and community resources, is for Soldier and Family readiness.”

Military families get an extensive set of benefits and resources, including medical and dental insurance, group life insurance, higher pay and housing allowances for servicemembers with spouses or children, coverage for family moving expenses, temporary on-base housing until they find a home, and emergency financial relief funds through four private, nonprofit societies that manage these funds for each branch of the service. On an everyday basis, spouses can buy groceries and goods just above cost at the on-base commissary and Post Exchange (PX).

Spouses and children may enroll in the Survivor Benefit Plan, which pays a monthly annuity upon the servicemember’s death. They are also eligible for Family Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance, with coverage up to $100,000 for a spouse and $10,000 for a child.

The frequent relocations of military life make it hard for a spouse to hold a continuous job. Non-military spouses are generally not considered residents of the state in which their active-duty spouse resides, and are thus ineligible for many state benefits like unemployment compensation. Spouses can, however, apply for Military Spouse Scholarships and other financial aid towards training and education for “portable” careers.

Military bases also offer a plethora of support groups and services for spouses and children when a servicemember is deployed, has been injured or killed, or is dealing with the transition back from combat. On a more casual basis, access to on-base facilities puts spouses and children in a community of others who understand the stresses of military life. The military also protects spouses and children with a program dedicated to the prevention and treatment of abuse.

When a family has children, support extends in other ways, such as free New Parent Support Programs, where Registered Nurses and Licensed Medical Social Workers give advice on pregnancy, parenting, and more through home visits, classes, support groups and referrals to community services.

Children of military personnel may also take part in accredited, on-base childcare programs, or in some cases, off-base childcare at the lower on-base rate. (The military runs the largest employer-supported childcare program in the U.S.) On-base schools are not only convenient, but provide a peer group of other children and youth dealing with the frequent dislocations and concerns of life in a military family. The military also offers children a full range of after-school support groups and recreational activities.

There are special college scholarships for children of military families, and free SAT/ACT test preparation. Should the children choose public universities, they pay in-state college tuition rates in either their home state or state of their parent’s duty assignment.

The catch to all this? Spouses must be recognized by the federal government. Children must be legal children of the servicemember. This means that even after the repeal of DADT, same-sex spouses will not qualify for the benefits above. If the non-military spouse is the biological or adoptive parent and the couple is resident in a state that does not permit second-parent adoptions, the children would not qualify for benefits, either.

Soberingly, when the worst happens, only spouses, blood relatives, or adoptive relatives can handle the disposition of remains for a deceased servicemember.

With the repeal of DADT, it is reasonable to assume more lesbian and gay servicemembers will choose to stay in the service longer. They would thus be more likely to have a spouse and/or children at some point in their military careers, making the recognition of their relationships a growing issue.

The wording of final legislation to repeal DADT is still up in the air, but the version currently in the House, H.R. 1246, is clear, however, that benefits for families of lesbian and gay servicemembers are not up for consideration: “Nothing in this Act . . . shall be construed to require the furnishing of dependent benefits in violation of . . . the `Defense of Marriage Act.’”

Hillary Clinton has already agreed to provide same-sex partners of State Department employees with the same benefits and protections as opposite-sex spouses. President Obama has said he will work to repeal DOMA, but has not yet set a timetable.

Let me stress, therefore : We need to stay focused on repealing DADT and not try to work in broader family rights for lesbian and gay servicemembers right now. As much as it hurts to read the DOMA clause in the anti-DADT legislation, it seems a prudent move at this point in order for the measure to have any chance of success.

At the same time, we should be mindful that family rights for military personnel will be an upcoming challenge—and perhaps an opportunity. The repeal of DADT could highlight the need to enact federal relationship-recognition and adoption rights for every American, if only to ensure that all servicemembers have equal benefits for their families.

In 2007, senior Army leaders, and leaders of every Army installation worldwide publicly signed the Army Family Covenant, a pledge to support soldiers’ families. It says in part, “We recognize the strength of our Soldiers comes from the strength of their Families.”

If we are to remain the world’s strongest military power, therefore, we must support the families of all servicemembers. Once DADT is no more, we can do no less.

Dana Rudolph is the founder and publisher of Mombian, a blog and resource directory for LGBT parents. Her column exploring the intersection of politics and parenting appears every other Thursday at 365gay.com.

I have encountered such responses before. It never ceases to surprise me, though, that people I would consider strong allies did not already know this dual nature of married same-sex couples.

All I can figure is that the idea of a person being both married and not married is so baffling to most people that it never crosses their minds. I am likewise amazed that many do not realize that there are states where gay and lesbian people still cannot adopt, or where people can be fired for their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Once again, I realize that the current communication challenge for the LGBT community is as much about better informing our allies as it is about railing against our adversaries. In states where marriage is legal, there is a danger people will think we have it all already. Even in places with lesser rights, where we can still get partner benefits through our employers and certain protections with legal paperwork, people may not understand what more we still lack.

Until they do, true equality will remain beyond reach.

Many in the LGBT community make the point that we should not refer to “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage,” because it implies that those marriages are somehow different, in need of a qualifier, when in fact the idea of two loving, committed adults is exactly the same. I agree, and try to follow this guideline in my own writing. Still, there are days when I want my wedding ring to be shaped like an asterisk, so I can tell people it refers to the fine print: “Void where prohibited.”

How can we begin to educate our friends and colleagues, though, without awkwardly bringing up LGBT rights in the middle of an unrelated conversation? It turns out we have the perfect segue this time of year.

As tax forms begin to hit our mailboxes, lunchtime chatter about accountants and TurboTax offers plenty of opportunities to mention the ongoing federal inequities.

Explain the rigmarole of creating a dummy “married” form for the sake of filling out your state form, the hassle of running multiple scenarios in TurboTax to determine who claims your child as the tax deduction, and the fact that same-sex spouses cannot contribute to an IRA for the other if one of you leaves employment to stay home with your child.

If their eyes haven’t glazed over by that point, you can mention the burden of having to pay income tax on the medical benefits provided to one of you through the other’s employer.

Do a back-of-the-envelope calculation: Take a few hundred dollars a year in income tax on health care benefits, increase it by, say, five percent a year to account for increasing health care costs, assume an eight percent interest rate if one had invested that money, and that’s a loss of over $70,000 after 18 years, a significant chunk of a college fund.

Not all people in same-sex couples rely on a spouse or partner for health care benefits, of course, but parents are more likely than others to have one member of the couple out of the workforce for at least a few years. In a time of high unemployment, too, the likelihood of one person needing health benefits from the other rises even if they do not have kids.

As important as it is to challenge those biased against LGBT families, it is equally important to work towards strengthening our allies. It is not enough that they agree with the need for equality, though that is a start. We must help them understand the specifics of how inequality hurts us and the fact that it still does so, even as marriage equality continues to spread.

We must also make sure to convey that LGBT rights don’t begin and end with marriage equality, but extend to employment protections, anti-hate crimes and anti-bullying legislation, adoption rights, transgender rights, and more.

President Obama has stated on the new Whitehouse.gov site that he believes in a broad slate of rights for LGBT people. We need to hold him to this, and ensure that our allies support us as informed citizens who can reach out in their own ways to spread the word and push for change.

How can we do this? We must talk with our colleagues and neighbors at playdates, soccer games, and in the supermarket. We must be on the lookout for ways to begin the conversation, whether by connecting about taxes, parenting, or the new Obama administration.

In a less personal but still useful vein, we can leave comments on mainstream parenting and personal finance blogs, Facebook groups, and other online forums. As important as it is to educate about blatant homophobia, we must also make sure to convey the less obvious inequities that may escape the view of those who don’t live with them on a daily basis.

We have made much progress, but there is more to be done, and we can’t do it alone. Let’s make educating our allies a key goal for 2009.

Dana Rudolph is the founder and publisher of Mombian, a blog and resource directory for LGBT parents.

You have put hope in our country’s spotlight.

Like all parents, I have known hope. The hope of waiting for a child in my life. Hope that I will be a good parent. Hope that my child will learn and grow and be happy.

As a lesbian mother, I have known other hopes, too. Hope that a court will decide both my partner and I will be recognized as our son’s legal parents, after we planned for months and together went through a rigorous fertility regimen so that I could give her an egg to carry.

Hope that our son will never think his family second class because his parents cannot marry, a hope realized in part by our move to Massachusetts, but put in doubt whenever we cross state lines.

Hope that our son will never be harassed, threatened, or physically harmed because he has two moms. Hope that by the time he is old enough to read the paper or listen to the news, the tales of hate and discrimination against LGBT people will be no more.

I have these hopes above all for my son, but also for LGBT youth and other children of LGBT families. Beyond that, though, I have these hopes because I see LGBT rights as not just a matter of fairness and equality for the LGBT community, but a matter of national interest.

When children are afraid to go to school because of harassment or bullying, they have less chance of succeeding in school and in life. When they have to hide who they are, or hide who their parents are, they are learning to lie, while others are not learning to accept. Is this how we want to raise the next generation of Americans?

Inequality also puts an unfair burden on their parents. Employees who must expend energy hiding their sexual orientation or gender identity at work may be less productive, less willing to network, not seen as team players, less likely to take opportunities that would require relocation and the revelation of a same-sex partner in the household.

Our country is in the middle of an economic crisis. I am not economist enough to solve it, but I do know that unless all Americans are as productive as possible, we stand less of a chance.

When we do not create an environment that gives all people the opportunity to fulfill their potential, we are hindering both their future and our nation’s. This lost productivity starts in the classroom, when our children feel the weight of inequality, and may continue throughout life.

Helping America’s children is more than a matter of LGBT rights, of course.

We must reform our educational system at all levels to improve the curriculum, foster excellence in teaching, and much more. Our schools must be safe and inclusive for all students. All children must have access to affordable healthcare. They must look forward to a clean, sustainable environment.

LGBT rights must, however, be a part of this. We cannot create a productive culture of inclusion and acceptance and still exclude some from the rights of others.

Children learn injustice early.

I do believe you are the most LGBT-friendly president we have ever had, and that you mean it when you say you are committed to LGBT equality. You have not hesitated to appoint openly LGBT people to high-level posts.

Still, I think you have a few more things to learn.

Our relationships will not be equal if they are not called marriage. Inviting homophobic pastors to give the Inaugural invocation is not the way to show your commitment.

You seem a quick study, though, at least with respect to the latter. Asking Bishop Gene Robinson to offer a prayer at the first event of the Inauguration celebration was a smart move. I would have preferred to see Rick Warren removed from the ceremony, and to have Robinson give the invocation together with a dozen or so others of various faiths and beliefs, but I also recognize the political reality of deals made.

Next time, perhaps, you will not make such a mistake.

Should LGBT rights be the first priority for your administration? Not as such. Our economy and the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East are much greater concerns.

At the same time, LGBT rights will further these goals by helping all Americans be as productive as possible. While it is a stretch to say they will lead directly to world peace, they will at least ensure that that any qualified and willing citizen can serve in our armed forces. A strengthened military is more likely to resolve current conflicts and act as a deterrent to further war.

You have already indicated you support most of the major rights the LGBT community wants. What I hope you realize is how all of these rights tie together, and how they impact our country as a whole.

Take the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This must go hand in hand with the recognition of LGBT servicemembers’ partners for medical benefits, pensions, and all other spousal benefits, or you will be allowing LGBT citizens to serve with one hand tied behind their backs.

I know a lesbian military officer and mother, for example, who must bear the burden not only of multiple deployments to Iraq, but also of knowing that her spouse and children will not be taken care of by all of the excellent support services offered to other military spouses.

With that on her mind, will she be as focused as she needs to be while on the job protecting our country?

LGBT rights should therefore not be doled out piecemeal, nor back-burnered in order to solve more pressing problems. They are part of the solution for our country’s overarching issues. They are part of what we need to boost our economy, strengthen our armed forces, and raise the next generation of Americans who will work together for peace, prosperity, and progress.

I will be watching your Inauguration next week with my five-year-old son. I want to tell him you are bringing hope to our country. Please do not disappoint us.

Dana Rudolph is the founder and publisher of Mombian, a blog and resource directory for LGBT parents.

So says the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, which published its final report last week. Although many of the arguments focused on the economic harm of civil unions and the difficulty of equal access to health care and other services, much of the report also discussed the harm that inequality causes to the children of same-sex couples.

Judith Glassgold, Psy.D., President of the New Jersey Psychological Association and a faculty member at Rutgers University, testified:

“Children of same-sex relationships must cope with the stigma of being in a family without the social recognition that exists through marriage. Children of same-sex relationships are the secondary target of the stigma directed at their parents because of their parents’ sexual orientation.

“Such stigma may be indirect such as the strain due to lack of social support and acceptance. Also, some children may be targeted due to teasing in school or from peers. . . . As a result of the lack of marriage equality, both lesbian, gay and bisexual adolescents and children of same-sex relationships face continued stigma. The stigma has negative mental health effects.”

Separately, the American Psychological Association will publish new research in January that also found anti-marriage-equality amendments “have led to higher levels of stress and anxiety” among LGBT adults and their families. The research looked at families from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

A number of teens and adult children of same-sex parents also spoke to the New Jersey Commission and shared personal experiences that support the professionals’ claims.

 Meredith Fenton, national program director of COLAGE and the daughter of a lesbian parent, summed up what many of the others were saying:

“Many youth we work with have reported that one of the common ways that they have been teased by other kids is that kids have questioned the validity of their families because their parents aren’t able to get married.

“Young people often equate the notion of a real family with the idea of a family that has married parents. . . . And denying families marriage equality merely gives more fodder to those bullies who can say, “Your family is not a real family, your parents can’t get married.”

We also find youth in COLAGE who report that hearing that their family can’t have the same rights as other families leads them to feeling scared or confused when they hear that folks are against their families being married. They say that they think somebody is going to come and break up their family.

Youth have also shared that they’re confused about the idea of civil unions and why there needs to be this separate category for their family.

We need to shout this from the rooftops.

The right-wing defined the Prop 8 battle in large part as being about the best interests of the children. It’s time to take back control of the argument and show that the best interests of children everywhere rest with equality. (I have yet to see any demonstrated harm to children who learn that same-sex couples and their marriages exist. They may experience some momentary confusion if they haven’t been brought up knowing this, but that doesn’t count as harm.)

LGBT parents are raising millions of children across the country.

By extension, LGBT families are part of the lives of millions of non-LGBT friends and classmates. If we can broaden the discussion of marriage equality and put it in the context of the needs and well being of all children, we have a message with the potential to resonate far beyond the LGBT community and our close allies.

In building our case, we must find ways to ally with other non-traditional families, including straight single parents, divorced parents, grandparent-headed households, interracial families, and adoptive families, as well as fair-minded traditional families.

This does not mean avoiding specific images of LGBT families or refusing to use the words gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender, but it does mean making the argument about more than just LGBT rights.

We need to talk about ways to make sure that no child is stigmatized and bullied because of his or her family structure, whether it is an LGBT family or some other type.

If we can accomplish this, we undercut the “think of the children” argument that the right-wing has used over and over to devastating effect. Marriage equality will seem less like an outside agenda being thrust upon unsuspecting young minds, and more like a way to give all children the environment they need to learn and grow.

Marriage equality is an important right for same-sex couples regardless of whether they have children, of course (and while the lack of it can lead to the negative effects discussed above, it is not strictly a prerequisite for successful parenting, as the numerous happy, healthy children of unmarried same-sex parents make clear). Still, many in this country make a strong connection between parenting and marriage, and it behooves us as a movement to acknowledge this and use it to our advantage, rather than letting it be used against us.

As we continue to battle for marriage equality and other LGBT rights, therefore, it is the needs of our children that will create some of the most compelling arguments. The New Jersey Civil Union Commission has made a good start at compiling this evidence.

They were only able to do so because LGBT parents and our children have continued to tell our stories, in classrooms and playgrounds as well as courthouses and statehouses. It is these stories of individual circumstances but universal themes – love and family – that will show people how a better world for the children of LGBT parents means a better world for all.

Coverage of this decision has, however, largely overlooked an important point: the boys in fact have two committed, loving parents in their home, only one of whom is now legal. Gill has been fostering the four- and eight-year-old boys with his partner of eight years, whom the court documents call Tom Roe, Sr. Roe’s biological son (now 13 years old) was already in their home. According to the court ruling:

“John and James refer to Petitioner and Roe as ‘papi’ and ‘daddy’ respectively. . . . John and James are closely bonded to Tom Roe, Jr., and their extended family. The boys consider Petitioner and Roe’s parents, brothers and sisters their grandparents, uncles and aunts. The extended family sends the boys gifts for their birthdays and the holidays. Roe’s mother, who lives in Tampa, visits the family regularly.”

The two men decided to pursue an adoption of the foster children only for Gill, though, figuring it would be even harder to get a ruling in favor of a joint adoption by two men. The men plan to try for a second-parent adoption at a later date. (It is unclear if Roe’s biological son has another legal parent, or if Gill would pursue a second-parent adoption of him as well.)

Progress is often incremental, of course. Pursuing a single adoption was most likely the right strategic move. What this case reveals, however, are the many layers of restrictions that still bind LGBT citizens. For every bit of progress, there is more to be made.

Some might argue that if the two men were married, they could have jointly adopted the boys. That may be true, but we must be careful not to extend this thinking too far. Marriage equality is not always the solution to securing same-sex parenting rights.

It is easy to blur the lines between parental rights and marriage, however. Sex and the City actor Cynthia Nixon fell into this trap two weeks ago on Larry King Live (11/14/08) when she spoke out in favor of marriage equality.

Nixon, who has two children from a previous, opposite-sex relationship, said that if she got hit by a truck, her partner Christine Marinoni would have no legal rights to the children, even though she (Marinoni) is currently their stay-at-home mom. Nixon claimed that if she and Marinoni were married, Marinoni would have legal rights as their stepparent.

The fact is, though, that Nixon and the children’s biological father are the legal parents. Even for a married, opposite-sex couple, the stepparent would have no legal rights unless the non-custodial biological parent had given up his rights and allowed the stepparent to adopt the children. Nixon, her ex, and Marinoni could do this even now.

Nixon and Marinoni’s marriage alone would not give Marinoni any legal standing in relation to the children if Nixon died.

Note, too, that Nixon and her male ex never married–but he is still recognized as a  parent. (Thanks to LGBT family law expert Nancy Polikoff for confirming my analysis here.)

At the moment, too, marriage is not sufficient to provide widespread recognition to both same-sex parents in many places. If a married or civil unioned same-sex couple has a child in a state where their relationship is recognized, both members of the couple can be listed as parents on the birth certificate. States that do not recognize the adults’ relationship might not honor that birth certificate, however. LGBT legal organizations such as GLAD thus recommend that even married same-sex parents do a second-parent adoption or get a court order of parentage, which all jurisdictions should recognize.

Broader recognition of same-sex marriages (or civil unions equivalent in all but name) would alleviate this problem. Still, opposite-sex parents are not required to marry in order to gain parental rights. It seems unfair to require same-sex parents to do the same. Canada, which allows same-sex couples to marry, but also gives common-law partners almost identical rights as married couples, might be on the right track here, as Polikoff points out.

Many besides Nixon have argued for marriage equality because of the parenting rights it conveys. This connection is true only in a subset of cases, as we have seen. At other times marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient. It may be desired for other reasons, though, not least of which is to give one’s children a sense of equality.

Marriage rights are important, therefore, but they are not a panacea.

We need to keep reminding ourselves, our allies, and the public that there is more to LGBT rights than that, a message that risks being lost in all the post-election hoopla about the marriage props. The fact that we scored a win for parental rights last week in a state that just passed an anti-marriage amendment should remind us, too, that in many places we will gain parental rights first. (I won’t even get into hate crimes and employment discrimination here.)

We do not know, of course, whether the Florida ruling will stand up to appeal, or if Tom Roe will ever be a legal parent to his sons. If it does stand, it would still remain to be seen whether the increasing number of same-sex parents and their children would shift public opinion on marriage equality. Not right away, perhaps; but I’d like to think it would be a start.

Marriage equality and parenting rights may not be identical, but they will each help the other succeed.

Dana Rudolph is the founder and publisher of Mombian, a blog and resource directory for LGBT parents. She is not a lawyer, and nothing in the above article should be taken as legal advice. Her column exploring the intersection of politics and parenting appears every other Thursday at 365gay.com.

Many LGBT parents, I suspect, are facing similar choices as the community erupts over Prop 8 and the other anti-LGBT measures of the past election. Our children’s immediate needs may often win out, especially when we know there are thousands of others within the LGBT community who will be rallying anyway.

We would be remiss, however, to think that the fight for LGBT rights will succeed without the visibility and participation of LGBT parents. One major mistake the No On 8 campaign made was to eliminate LGBT parents from its ads, when the other side focused squarely on children and schools. No On 8 chose to reach out to straight parents with ads that featured other straight parents, and one in which the California Superintendent of Schools assured parents that Prop 8 “has nothing to do with schools.”

While the last was correct from a curriculum standpoint, it made it sound like no person or influence from the LGBT community would ever come near a school. It hid the existence of the 52,000 children being raised by 26,100 same-sex couples in California, not to mention the children being raised by the nearly 73,000 single LGB parents. (Numbers from the Williams Institute of UCLA, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2005/2006 American Community Survey.)

The result? Sixty-four percent of voters with children under 18 voted for Prop 8, according to CNN exit polls. Among married voters with children, the yes votes rose to 68 percent. Only 44 percent of voters without children (and 45 percent of those married without children) voted for Prop 8.

The grassroots fever that is now sweeping the LGBT community may shift some opinions here. LGBT parents are marching alongside other members of the LGBT community in cities across the country, with rainbow-covered strollers and kids decked out in “I love my two mommies” t-shirts. We are showing people that being pro-LGBT does not mean being anti-children.

It is heartwarming to think of LGBT parents and children marching arm in arm in front of a capitol building, united in pride and committed to making a difference. The truth is, though, that any number of reasons, practical and emotional, can get in the way of joining these burgeoning uprisings. Sometimes there are school plays, soccer practice, and doctor’s appointments. It may seem silly to priortize them over civil rights, but all are part of the grand scheme of family negotiation and scheduling. The decisions may be more complicated than they appear, as any parent can tell you.

As parents, too, we must first and foremost protect our children physically and emotionally. We may not want to expose them to the vitriolic catcalls and placards of anti-LGBT forces if we don’t think they are ready to handle them.

Even without that danger, we must find where the boundary lies between making our families visible and forcing our children to be more out about their families than they feel comfortable with. Abigail Garner, an advocate for children of LGBT parents, explains in her book Families Like Mine that while LGBT parents have usually had practice coming out and dealing with people’s reactions, “What no longer feels like a big deal to them can feel insurmountable to children who have not yet developed the skills or understanding to deflect ridicule and advocate for themselves.” She continues, “Parents and their children will often have different ideas about when to be out and when to be more discreet. It is an ongoing struggle to anticipate and adjust to these differences, especially since parents have full control over this issue for the first few years of their children’s lives.”

What can parents do, then, to be sensitive to our children’s needs and yet remain visible as LGBT families in order to create change?

Above all, we must talk with our children about LGBT issues and civil rights in ways that take into account their own maturity and their environment. Children in California, for example, might need this knowledge sooner in order to make sense of the anti-LGBT rhetoric that has been rampant in their state since the Prop 8 fight began.

If we decide not to take our kids to rallies or if they’d rather be home playing Guitar Hero, we can still wear t-shirts that proclaim our parenthood. We can also skip the rallies entirely and dedicate the same amount of time to another volunteer effort, whether it be helping a local LGBT organization with its outreach, writing a letter to the editor of the local paper, or reading And Tango Makes Three to the children’s group at our religious congregation. Sometimes, being an active PTA member can do more to change minds about our families than more specific LGBT action.

Yes, becoming a parent can make it more difficult to be an activist. At the same time, our children give us one of the strongest reasons to keep fighting for equality. It may take a little creativity to find ways of doing so that fit with our children’s needs and schedules, but many of us wouldn’t even have our families if it wasn’t for a bit of creative thinking.

I believe LGBT parents will be–have to be–a significant force in the future of our movement. If we sometimes opt to watch our youngest perform as a snowflake in the school holiday pageant instead of going to a rally, though, that’s just proving we’re good parents. And isn’t that what it’s all about?

Dana Rudolph is the founder and publisher of Mombian (www.mombian.com), a blog and resource directory for LGBT parents. Her column exploring the intersection of politics and parenting will appear every other Thursday at 365gay.com.

Pundits have written much about the significance of Obama’s win for racial diversity and acceptance, and rightly so. For me, however, Obama also represents a triumph for non-traditional families.

Obama was raised by his mother from the age of two, when his father left them. His mother remarried when Obama was six, but he only lived with his stepfather until he was 10. After that, he was raised by his mother and his maternal grandparents. The right wing has long claimed that children do best with both a mother and a father; Barack Obama belies that claim.

This is not to say that it is acceptable for men to remove themselves from their children’s lives. Obama himself has called for fathers to take more responsibility for their families. The fact, however, that a child – a male child, even – can grow up without a father and rise to the highest office in the land means there are more factors at play than just the presence of someone called “dad.”

Fathers can be of great benefit to children, but the lack of one is not necessarily a tragedy.

Obama is not the first president to grow up without a father. Andrew Jackson and Rutherford Hayes’ fathers died just before their sons were born. Andrew Johnson was three when his father died, and James Garfield was one. Herbert Hoover was orphaned at 9.

Obama enters the Oval Office, though, at a time when the debate about the “right” type of family has reached a new level of vitriol. The fact that his family is multiracial and non-traditional, however, is a testament to the fact that there is more to raising a child than matching some “ideal” family structure.

It makes me sick, therefore, to know that in this historic election, Arkansas voters chose to ban unmarried couples – by definition including same-sex couples – from fostering or adopting children.  How many children of same-sex couples will wake up today in Arkansas wondering if they will be taken away from their parents? (Existing adoptions will stand – but it is easy to see why a child might wonder.)

It makes me sick to think of all the children waking up today in California to learn that their parents’ marriages are – what? Null and void? In limbo? Grandfathered, but only because of a fluke of timing, whereas their friend’s parents down the street can never wed?

What of the children in Arizona and Florida who woke up to learn the majority of voters in the state fear their parents so much that they were not content with making their marriages illegal, but had to make them unconstitutional as well? What of the children in other states who will hear the national news and wonder if their neighbors will soon try to disallow their families?

The Family Equality Council has put together a guide for “Talking to Your Children About Election ‘08.” It is worth a read for those struggling to explain the above issues to your children. The disappointing part of this election is that we have to do so.

John McCain, in his concession speech, said, “A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt’s invitation of Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage in many quarters. America today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time.”

No, not a world away. The targets of bigotry may have shifted, but the underlying fear, ignorance, and hate is the same. The results of the anti-LGBT ballot measures prove that.

What keeps me from despair right now is knowing that we have made progress. An increasing number of LGBT officials and allies are taking office. A new Democratic majority in the New York State Senate means there is a chance the Empire State could enact marriage equality in the legislature, the first state to do so without a court order. New Jersey is another likely state.  President-elect Obama makes the passage of LGBT-inclusive hate-crimes legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and identical federal benefits for same-sex couples real possibilities.

As Obama said in his acceptance speech, “For that is the true genius of America – that America can change.  Our union can be perfected.  And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.”

That is why I let me son stay up far past his bedtime to watch Obama win. That is the message I want to him to hear. That even in the face of defeat, there is always hope. Hope that someday (with a nod to Dr. King) we will be judged not by the structure of our families, but by the values we teach our children.

Dana Rudolph is the founder and publisher of Mombian, a blog and resource directory for LGBT parents.

They cite the state education codes that require teachers to instruct children about “respect for marriage and committed relationships” and “the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood (Sections 51933 and 51890).”

As the No On 8 campaign points out, however, Prop 8 does not mention anything about education. Furthermore, California law gives parents the right to prohibit their children from being taught anything about health and family issues at school.

What needs to be emphasized in the back-and-forth on this issue, however, is that regardless of the curriculum, children will learn in schools about the marriage of same-sex couples, because the children of such couples are in schools.

Even during the tender years of preschool and kindergarten, our children, like all others, will talk about their families in class and drag their parents to school plays and soccer games.

The ultra-right is attacking the curriculum because it sounds better than attacking our children. Those supporting Prop 8 in California, for example, also bring up a Massachusetts case in which two sets of parents tried to stop their children’s school from reading LGBT-inclusive picture books in the classroom. The plaintiffs tried to argue that they have a constitutional right to be notified when schools discuss ideas that are offensive to their religious beliefs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, upholding a lower court ruling against the couples, asserted that since same-sex couples can marry under Massachusetts law, “it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition.” They added that if children are sometimes exposed to (but not forced to agree with) concepts that offend a parent’s religious beliefs, the parent can always teach the child otherwise. The plaintiffs this year appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected the case.

 The right-wing now says that unless Californians pass Prop 8, their children will be taught about the marriage of same-sex couples over the objections of the parents, just as in Massachusetts. They ignore that Massachusetts law does not require children to agree with or even participate in discussions about marriage equality. No On Prop 8 notes, too, that the laws of the two states are different: “Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with.”

If this California law gives comfort to parents worried about the implications of marriage equality on the curriculum, so be it. No On Prop 8 is correct to remind people of their rights here.

No matter how much control parents have over what their children hear as part of the curriculum, however, they will still not be able to eliminate discussion of same-sex couples from schools.

What happens, for example, if a child mentions “when my mommy and mama took me to Disneyland”, and another student asks about her family structure?

Should the teacher, knowing that some parents would object to having their children present at such a discussion, quickly prompt a child of opposite-sex parents to talk about his or her summer vacation instead? What message is that sending? How is that hindering a child’s ability to participate in class and learn?

It is a very thin line between giving parents the right to pull their children out of discussions of subjects they feel are inappropriate, and restricting the free speech of children who bring up those subjects because they pertain to their own families.

The media has also been buzzing for the past couple of weeks about a San Francisco first-grade class who surprised their lesbian teacher by showing up at her wedding. A parent had suggested this field trip and school administrators agreed it was a “teachable moment.” The Yes on Proposition 8 coalition then sent an e-mail to its mailing list on October 13, stating, “These young, impressionable children were taken from the classroom, where they should have been learning reading, writing and math, to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony. This is what anti-family forces have in mind when they apply Section 51933 in the classroom.”

What they do not mention, however, is that the San Francisco Chronicle (10/11/08), in its coverage of this event, spoke with 6-year-old class member Chava Novogrodsky-Godt, and reported, “Chava’s mothers said they are getting married in two weeks.”

Yes, that’s right. Never mind the field trip; there’s someone from a same-sex family in their midst every day. I think there’s a good chance Chava will be bringing in pictures of the wedding for show and tell, not for political reasons but because she is happy and proud of her family’s celebration.

 Is Yes on 8 going to try and stop her from doing so, or require parents to sign a permission slip allowing their children to stay in the room at the time?

What if marriage equality is revoked? Yes, there would be no more risk that schools would talk about same-sex couples getting married, but it would not stop children from talking about their same-sex parents being married in the committed, albeit non-legal sense. It would not stop children from talking about “When my dad and papa were married, before Prop 8.”

With a little Internet searching, too, an industrious middle schooler could easily find which of her or his peers’ parents supported Prop 8 and took rights away from her or his family. Do we really want to divide the school community in this way?

Teaching about LGBT families in schools is not a matter of an abstract, outside agenda being forced into the curriculum. It is about teaching respect for the diversity of family structure that exists there in the classroom, and making all students feel welcome.

Yes, parents in California may have the right to remove their children from discussions of topics they feel are inappropriate. Unless the right-wing wants to expel our children, though, discussion of LGBT families will go on in schools. Our children, without any political agenda, simply wanting to share their lives, will make it so.

With the fate of Prop 8 still unclear, it is their voices that give me hope for the future.

Dana Rudolph blogs on Mombian.com.