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.

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.

Take Rachel Maddow, host of The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. To me, she epitomizes a second wave of out lesbians in the media, one who didn’t have to come out to the public like Ellen Degeneres, Melissa Etheridge, or Rosie O’Donnell, because she has always been there.

When I mentioned to a close relative of mine that I’ve been watching her show because it’s great to see another Oxford-educated lesbian around, he looked at me in surprise and said, “Oh, I didn’t realize she was a lesbian.”

Now, this is a man to whom I’ve nattered on at length about LGBT issues. He’s as accepting as one could imagine a straight man to be, and reasonably tuned in to LGBT matters. Maddow, however, despite having a haircut suspiciously similar to my partner’s, didn’t register as a lesbian to him.

Maybe it was the eyeshadow MSNBC thrusts upon her, confusing his less-developed sense of these things. Maybe, however, it was the fact that although Maddow is as out as can be to anyone who asks or bothers to read her bio on the MSNBC Web site, she has had no reason to mention her sexual orientation during her show (or if she has, it was an in-passing remark that I missed).

She is not hiding anything; it just hasn’t come up.

I’ve experienced this myself when dealing with the parents and teachers at my son’s school. With my partner employed outside the home, I am the one who takes our son to school, shows up at the parent’s association meetings, and helps coach his soccer team.

Despite a predilection, like Maddow, for dressing “like a first grader” (I shop in the Old Navy boy’s department with my son), to most observers, I’m just another suburban mom. I don’t hesitate to mention my partner when it’s relevant, and I admit to making a point of saying “my partner Helen and I” on occasion, to get people used to the idea.

Sometimes, though, as with Maddow, it doesn’t make sense to plonk it down in the middle of an unrelated conversation.

It has become something of a truism in LGBT parenting circles to talk about how having kids means being out to everyone–teachers, plumbers, cashiers at the grocery store. Kids, as any parent will tell you, can’t keep closet doors closed.

One “Hey, Mommy and Mama!” across the produce aisle, and your cover is blown.

For me, however, the problem is not being outed, it’s assuming everyone knows I’m a lesbian when in fact, I am as invisible as Maddow was to my relative. Even when I try to be open about it, people hear “Alan” when I talk of “Helen” and miss my use of pronouns.

My son once received an invitation to the birthday party of a new school friend, and Helen and I got a doubletake at the door because one of the friend’s parents hadn’t realized we were a two-mom family. Sometimes I think it would be easier if I’d gone to all of the school’s beginning-of-the-year events wearing an “I’m a lesbian” t-shirt. It would save us from those awkward moments.

The other problem is that as a matter of overall identity, I’d rather be known as my son’s mom, not his “lesbian mom.” The commonalities of parenthood far outweigh the differences of sexual orientation.

More importantly, I want my son to be known for his own qualities, not for the fact that he’s “the boy with the lesbian moms.” Yes, his lesbian moms will always be part of his identity, but I want us to be a piece of a much richer whole, not a leading indicator. I hope he never wants to hide the fact that he has two moms, but I also realize, as he gets older, that he may want to come out about his family in his own time and in his own way.

Visibility, however, has its perks.

It may motivate my son’s school to be more inclusive in its materials and curriculum. It may open his classmate’s eyes to the fact that families come in all kinds of shapes and sizes. In an election year, talking with other parents about how the candidates’ differing LGBT policies would affect our family might bring another vote to the side we support.

Being out as a parent is therefore more complex than just dressing our infants in “I love my mommies” jumpers or being outed by our toddlers at the supermarket. It raises issues we may not even have thought of when we started our families or first came out to them. Coming out is often described as an ongoing journey. As parents, it is a journey we take with our children.

We need to be sensitive to each others’ need for rest stops and side trips along the way.

For the moment, with my son still young and unaware that there are those who disparage our family, I will continue with my quiet but firm visibility. Around his school, I do not want to make such a point of being a lesbian that my son feels defined by his parents’ orientation, but neither do I want him ever to see me hide who I am, or what our family is. I know our visibility can do much good, not only for him, but also for other LGBT families and non-traditional families of all types.

It is a fine balance, and I may not always get it right. This week of National Coming Out Day, however, is a good chance to remind myself why I have to try.
Dana Rudolph is the founder and publisher of Mombian, a blog and resource directory for LGBT parents.

Until the day before, I had worked on the top floor of the World Financial Center in New York City, and every morning walked the passageway from the World Trade Center train station to my building. It was pure coincidence I had changed business groups then, but it felt like a message, even to my agnostic soul.

Shortly thereafter, I sat down with my partner of 10 years and asked if she wanted to start a family. I knew her answer, for she had always wanted children, but until then, my career had been my priority. On September 11, however, a heightened sense of fleeting possibilities motivated me to carpe ovum.

Today, our son has just started kindergarten, and I have a different perspective on the debate swirling around Sarah Palin and her parenting decisions than I might have had otherwise. Much as I may disagree with the choices she has made, I respect her right to make them for herself and her family. I’ve seen firsthand the pettiness of mothers criticising each other’s parenting, and I cannot condone it.

I also respect her choice to be not only a working mother, but one who manages a high-powered career while some of her children are still young.

As a parent with only one child, part of me wonders how she can do it with five – but I’ve learned not to underestimate mothers. During the Beijing Olympics, just days before Palin’s nomination, a bevy of mothers with young children earned medals, including U.S. swimmer Dara Torres, several members of the U.S. softball and soccer teams, and a number of athletes from other countries, competing in rowing, kayaking, and gymnastics, among other sports. Clearly motherhood is no barrier to high achievement.

Despite all she represents in terms of the capabilities of modern mothers, however, Palin falls short for me in several ways. First and foremost is her conservative track record on LGBT and reproductive rights. If she won’t recognize my right to form a family when and how I want, or give us the same rights as others, she’s not getting my vote. It’s one thing to make decisions for her own family, but quite another when she starts to make them for mine.

I’ll leave aside for the moment the various arguments about how much falsehood or hypocrisy was in Palin’s statements of her political achievements. Others have dissected them in more detail than I can do here. Even if her assertions were all true (which I doubt), her candidacy still bothers me for another reason.

The McCain team seems to view the vice presidency as training for the presidency. As McCain advisor Charlie Black said about Palin after her speech at the Republican National Convention, “She’s going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years.” Yes, the vice presidency is by definition a secondary role, but one that requires stepping up to the top spot at a moment’s notice.

Barack Obama chose in Joe Biden someone who could do so, a politician broadly equal in stature. One can’t say the same about McCain and Palin. They remind me of a very traditional married couple where, although the woman may be strong, her primary role is to support her husband’s career. If he is incapacitated, her prospects of managing on her own are slim.
Which brings us back to September 11. Should McCain not make it through the next four years, I do not want to risk having our country’s security run by someone who still has the training wheels on. My son–and all our children–deserve better than that.

Even if McCain remains in office, I do not want the future of my son and my country entrusted to someone who defines himself by the war he fought, someone whose campaign logo evokes the star and gold stripe of a naval admiral (a rank he never even held). Both McCain and Obama say their ultimate goal is peace, but I question whether someone self-defined by war will get us there.

September 11 helped guide me along the path to becoming a parent. In this week of remembrance for our country, then, when my son also happens to be starting his first year of school, both national security and motherhood are much on my mind. Although the McCain-Palin campaign is playing up both of these themes, I remain one mother unconvinced that their ticket is right for my family or our nation.

Our challenge now is not to underestimate this national newcomer, this “average hockey mom.” She is energizing the conservative base and making a serious bid for swing voters. Her hockey-mom toughness is real, even if her foreign-policy experience is weak.

Palin erred, however, when she belittled Obama’s time as a community organizer. What is a PTA mom, after all, but a community organizer? Those of us who don’t agree with the McCain-Palin solutions for our country will talk with our friends and neighbors, volunteer at our local Obama headquarters, and get out the vote.

We will put Obama stickers on our strollers and minivans, and pass them out, yes, even at hockey practice. I have no doubt many lesbian moms will be part of this effort, for we are used to fighting for our families and our beliefs. Just call us pit bulls in Chapstick.
Dana Rudolph is the founder and publisher of Mombian (www.mombian.com), a blog and resource directory for LGBT parents. She also writes a regular column on LGBT parenting for several LGBT newspapers around the country. Her column exploring the intersection of politics and parenting will appear every other Thursday at 365gay.com.