But now they are a family and I could not be more happy for them.  Time For Families salutes the Cortez-Zuco family and sends them every good wish for a happy and healthy life together!

Born: June 18, 2010 at 5:31am. Weight: 6 pounds, 4 ounces. Height: 19.5 inches long

It has been a long anticipated adoption process with challenges, pitfalls and heartbreak, but with enough perseverance , determination and love we can finally start our forever family.  Our journey has not ended, but finally begun and are excited to welcome our new little girl into our heart and home forever.

While found and both of us being on the board of www.LGBTfamilies.info and beginning the adoption process we gave advice we had heard from many professionals as not to celebrate too early, protect yourself and to use the ‘3x’ factor for estimating time and money. Although we gave the same advise, we failed miserably on executing the same precautions for ourselves.  We posted pictures on Facebook and they were faced with a failed adoption and returning the child to the birthmother.  We estimated the costs to be half, not taking into account a failed adoption may double your original estimate. As far as protecting ourselves, I still have no clue how to do that while holding your potential child in your arms, even before they begin to smile back at you.

We heard many opinions of what is ‘meant to be’, we were given other options (as if we had not explored every option imaginable) and people brought to light other “successful” means of expanding families they have heard of.  As if there was an infallible option.  Facing these friendly challenges showed us that we need more education about non-traditional family expansion and how valuable these lessons will be for our children and our children’s children.

We are, although, very lucky to also have support from our church and were mentioned in an article written by Michele Somerville, a partitioner and writer for the Huffington Post, titled Gay Catholic Ministry and Straight Pride.  There is a place for everyone, every parent, every child, every LGBT person and their families and sometimes you just have to search until you find what you have been looking for.

All in all, I could not and would not change it for the world. I often told my husband had I not had the heartache and loss I had from prior relationships, I would not have been ready for you.  Although I think we were well prepared for parenthood, this has given us such depth to be able to parent that much better and provide enhanced appreciation for the newest member of our family. Welcome to your new world Abigail Elizabeth.  We will strive every day to make it better for you and teach you to do the same.

ALL our love,

Papa & Daddy

By JERRY MAHONEY

AFTER five loving, fulfilling years with my boyfriend, Drew, I suddenly found myself online, looking to meet a woman.

I spent hours poring over profiles, bios and stats, looking at poorly lighted digital pictures and videos of awkward faces uttering tightly rehearsed self-promotional pitches. I narrowed the flash mob of candidates to six. Then I summoned Drew for his approval.

Together we had a decision to make. One of the strangers on this Web site could end up contributing half of our child’s DNA.

“Big nose, bad hair, gross skin, ugh — those eyebrows.” Drew sped down the list and blackballed them all.

I fought for a few: “But she has a 4.0 at veterinary school, and this one teaches autistic kids to tap dance!”

Drew was unmoved.

I shouldn’t have been surprised. As a writer, I’m drawn to characters with intriguing quirks and heart-tugging back stories. But for Drew, who spent 12 years overseeing reality programming for MTV, this was proving to be just another casting session, albeit for the significant supporting role of egg donor.

We’d been instructed by our surrogacy agency not to use the “m-word.” “This child will have two fathers,” the staff member scolded. “He or she will have an egg donor and a surrogate, but no mother!”

Whatever you call these young women, there’s no shortage of them. For all those who are desperate to stop gay couples from adopting, there are others who are eager to help us down a more complex path to parenthood.

And for the most part, they are merely girls — some as young as 19, still in their awkward phases. You click on a face and up pops a video in which an acne-cheeked college sophomore talks about her poli-sci major, her love of soccer and “One Tree Hill” and, eyes wide with optimism, about the corporation she’ll be running in five years. A few write in texting shorthand: “Would luv 2 help u.” Drew and I are nearly twice as old as some of them. If we’d been straight and careless, we might have had a daughter their age by now.

Drew and I found each other via similar means, an online dating site. We used the kind of systemized vetting that, these days, takes the place of destiny. Drew screened out guys who liked house music or who mixed up “your” and “you’re.” I vetoed anyone who in place of a head shot uploaded a crotch shot.

Choosing a biological relative for our unborn fetus wasn’t going to be as simple. There were so many more variables and bigger questions to ponder. Most candidates requested the standard $8,000 fee, but some negotiated their own rates. If she was blond, athletic and Harvard-educated, she thought she was worth 30 grand.

Everybody wants their children to have the best, but this process threatened to bankrupt us even without all the premium options.

Besides, who knew what that money would really buy? If we picked someone with an astronomical price tag, couldn’t we be saddling our child with the greed gene? And how would we explain it to him? “Your egg donor was top of the line, son. We got you, and she got a Porsche.” Or, “We wanted you to be taller, but anything over 5-foot-9 was out of our price range.”

For us, two men who struggle over which Netflix movie to watch, this decision could stretch on long after our biological clocks had run out.

That’s when Susie called.

“You know you can have my eggs if you want them, right?” she said.

It was that swift, that casual, as if we were talking about borrowing her hair dryer or Ani DiFranco CD’s, rather than a part of her womanhood. But with that simple statement, it got even more complicated. Susie was everything an egg donor should be: kind, beautiful, smart, a gifted artist and, at 28, practically at the peak of her fertility.

She was also Drew’s little sister.

Despite being nine years apart in age and on opposite sides of the country, Susie and Drew couldn’t be closer or more alike. They talk on the phone nearly every day, make the same facial expressions, laugh at the same dirty jokes, have the same mercurial temper. Drew was constantly trying to persuade Susie to move to Los Angeles, where we live. He offered to lease an apartment for her, find her a job, do whatever it took to have her close by. With Susie’s offer, I knew generosity was yet another trait they shared.

All along Drew and I had wondered whose sperm we would use. With Susie, the matter was settled: I would be the biological father. Yet for the first time, Drew and I were also able to imagine what it would be like to have a child who had genetic roots in both family trees.

What would she look like? How would he act? How would our respective features merge into one warbling little miracle? We’d grown up when coming out meant putting an end to dreams of fatherhood. Now we were giddy with the possibilities of reproduction that most straight couples take for granted.

But what exactly would Susie be sacrificing?

She was young and unattached. She wanted her own children but wasn’t ready. So was she prepared for someone else to have her child? And how would she explain this particular brand of baggage to a potential husband someday? Most of all, would she be satisfied always being Aunt Susie to this child and never, you know, the m-word?

Drew and I had doubts, but Susie considered it a done deal. This was her brother, and if he needed eggs, damn it, he was going to take hers. She was exactly as stubborn as Drew would’ve been if he were offering and she were the one in need.

She didn’t flinch when the doctor explained the pain and inconvenience she would endure before her eggs were extracted: months of genetic tests, weeks of self-administered hormone injections and the resultant mood swings. Most troubling of all, she’d need so much time off for trips to California that she could risk losing her job. To all of this, she shrugged and asked only one question: “When do we start?”

When the day of the extraction finally came, the hard part was supposed to be over. With the right dose of medication, most women Susie’s age produce dozens of healthy eggs. But for reasons the doctor couldn’t explain, Susie produced only five. Of those, two failed to fertilize.

The outlook was bad for us, devastating for Susie.

The physician spoke about her fertility the way Al Gore describes the polar ice caps: Time is running out, and it may already be too late. He warned that if our surrogate couldn’t become pregnant with Susie’s eggs, it was unlikely Susie ever would, either.

We all agreed the only option was to implant the three embryos and begin an excruciating wait. If this didn’t work, Drew and I would return to the Web sites full of strangers, if we even had the strength to try again. And we didn’t want to think about what that would mean for Susie.

TEN days later, we were visiting Drew’s family in upstate New York. It was two days before Christmas, and we all were trying our best to talk about anything but babies. My cellphone rang, and a hush fell over the room. The nurse on the other end didn’t stall.

“Jerry!” she squealed. “I have some exciting news.” A cascade of cheers drowned out the rest of the call, and Susie, Drew and I shared a tight hug that seemed to last for hours.

A few weeks later, we joined our surrogate for her first ultrasound, where an even bigger surprise awaited. From the grainy soup on the sonogram monitor, two peanut shapes emerged. Drew and I were going to be the fathers of twins.

Our son and daughter are now 10 months old, and when I look at them I see traces of each of us. My nose, Susie’s eyes, Drew’s chin. They’re just starting to invent a secret language to communicate with each other. If we hear one baby cry, it’s a safe bet that the other just stole her pacifier or hit him with a stuffed monkey. But then, when no one’s looking, sometimes they’ll reach out and hold each other’s hands.

Susie gets to witness it all, because her frequent phone calls with Drew have become video chats with our whole family. And as I watch Drew proudly showing off our children for her, I realize the gift Susie has given us is much more valuable than just a genetic link to our offspring. It’s a brother and sister — tiny, perfect and gradually building a special bond all their own.

By Julie Bolcer - Advocate.com, 6.23.10

The Dignity for All Students Act, which would protect LGBT students from bullying and harassment in schools, passed the New York state senate Tuesday evening after years of effort. Governor David Paterson is expected to sign the bill into law, which would mark the first time gender identity and expression are included in state law.

Senators approved DASA by a bipartisan vote of 58-3 late Tuesday night after some 90 minutes of speeches. All three no votes came from Republicans.

The assembly passed the bill in May for the ninth time since 2002.

According to the Empire State Pride Agenda, the statewide LGBT advocacy group, “The Dignity bill creates tools for school administrators, teachers, parents and students to address bullying and bias-related behavior of all kinds that interfere with student safety and learning. Key provisions include: developing rules to prevent and respond to discriminatory harassment and hate violence; establishing teacher, staff and administrative training guidelines; incorporating discrimination awareness into civility and character education curricula; and required reporting of incidents of bias harassment to the State Education Department.”

DASA marks the first time gender identity and expression would be included in New York state law. The approval arrives two weeks after a state senate committee rejected the Gender Expression Non-discrimination Act,  which would add gender identity and expression to state human rights laws.

State senator Thomas Duane, the chief DASA sponsor in the senate, will hold a press conference Wednesday at 11:30 a.m. to discuss the victory. Tune into the New York state senate channel or watch the video below.

New York state assemblymember Daniel O’Donnell, who sponsored DASA in the assembly, said in a news release Tuesday, “The bill’s enactment will be a major victory for the LGBT community. When fully implemented, DASA will afford all public school students an environment free of harassment and discrimination. The law will cover but is not limited to, the broadest categories of students who are the victims of bullying based on actual or perceived race, color, weight, national origin, ethnic group, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, or sex.”

New York City Council speaker Christine Quinn, who advocated strongly for DASA, released a statement late Tuesday that recognized the long drive to pass the bill.

“I want to thank the lead sponsors of this bill - Senator Thomas Duane and Assembly Member Daniel O’Donnell - for their tireless leadership on this important legislation,” she said. “I applaud Senate Majority Leader John Sampson and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver for their leadership on this issue in Albany. I also thank the advocates who worked for so many years to reach this point, as well as the thousands of New Yorkers who called, wrote and met with their Senators about this bill, year after year.”

June 16, 2010 - LATimes.com

It wasn’t surprising that the federal trial on Proposition 8 in January confirmed that the same-sex marriage ban is destructive to family life and discriminatory toward a group that has historically been subject to abuse. What did surprise us: Some of the strongest arguments in favor of same-sex marriage were made by those opposing it.

Closing arguments in the case will be heard Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, more than four months after testimony ended. Even so, it’s easy to recall some of the startling moments of the trial. One witness who had been hired to testify that gay men and lesbians wield significant political power — and therefore were not a group that had especially suffered from discrimination — ended up conceding that at least some people voted for Proposition 8 because of prejudice against homosexuals. The witness, Kenneth Miller, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, also had made statements in the past that minorities were vulnerable to harm from ballot initiatives, and that courts should protect them from such harm — an argument that seemed to weaken the case for his side.

Then there was David Blankenhorn, the founder and president of the Institute for American Values, who testified that preserving traditional marriage should take priority over the rights of gays and lesbians — but then offered no proof that same-sex marriage would in any way harm the institution of marriage, and admitted that marriage would be beneficial to families headed by same-sex couples.

The objective of the lawyers arguing for Proposition 8 before Judge Vaughn R. Walker is to show that voters had rational reasons for approving it rather than being motivated by bigotry. And a key reason, one of the lawyers said, is that children fare best when raised by a married couple of opposite genders.

The premise itself is dubious. A longitudinal study published online this month in the journal Pediatrics found that the adolescent children of lesbian couples fare very well. In fact, they “rated significantly higher in social, school/academic and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive and externalizing problems” than others their age.

The premise also is irrelevant. Just as we wouldn’t propose taking marriage away from heterosexual couples even though their children might not do as well as those of lesbians, there is nothing reasonable about denying marriage to same-sex couples based on judgments about child-rearing or anything else concerning the perceived quality of their marriages. Despite what Proposition 8 supporters have tried to argue during the trial, marriage is not solely about procreation and raising children; for many couples, that’s not even a factor. And same-sex couples who want children will have them whether or not they have a marriage license.

We’re sorry that Walker has even asked for a discussion of this issue at Wednesday’s session. Specifically, he wants to delve into the question of whether voters were acting rationally if they believed the marriage ban was in the best interests of children, even if their belief wasn’t backed up by facts. Society doesn’t force single parents to marry, even though there’s a general presumption that having two parents would be better for the children. It doesn’t force teenagers, still children themselves, to give up their children to older couples, or forbid people with kooky parenting theories to wed. Only gay and lesbian couples are singled out for this judgment of whether they’re good enough to marry and have children.

Walker refused to allow a video broadcast of Wednesday’s closing arguments after defenders of Proposition 8 opposed allowing the session to be aired. It’s a puzzling decision, especially considering that the judge favored allowing cameras during the trial. But the U.S. Supreme Court rebuked him for that decision, agreeing with Proposition 8 supporters that witnesses who oppose same-sex marriage could face harassment or worse if their testimony were televised. Yet the pro-Proposition 8 witnesses already had made themselves public figures.

Prohibiting cameras in the courtroom makes even less sense for the closing arguments, when there are no witnesses to feel intimidated. In this instance, the theory is that lawyers might play to the cameras instead of to the judge. If they were foolish enough to do so, after investing this much time and passion on both sides, they could only lose ground by alienating the judge. The millions of people who have been watching with intense interest as the story of same-sex marriage unfolds have a legitimate stake in seeing and hearing the arguments that will determine whether gays and lesbians in California are granted the basic right to form families with the same legal status as all other families.

BY LEE LOGAN
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau

When voters choose from among five candidates to be Florida’s next attorney general, their decision could have a profound effect on some of the state’s most highly charged issues, from gay adoption to healthcare reform.

Florida’s unique gay adoption ban underscores how the state’s chief legal officer can use the position to advance a personal philosophy while adhering to the duties of the job.

Attorney General Bill McCollum has come under fire recently for advocating the use of an expert witness who has been discredited while defending the state’s ban on gay couples adopting children.

Three Republicans seeking the post — Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp, former state healthcare secretary Holly Benson and former Hillsborough prosecutor Pam Bondi — all say they would continue to uphold the adoption ban.

“The best home for any child is a two-parent home with a mother and a father,” Benson said.

But both Democrats, state Sens. Dave Aronberg and Dan Gelber, say Florida has spent enough defending an antiquated law.

“I don’t think as a lawyer I can make a straight-faced argument that the ban is constitutional,” said Gelber of Miami Beach.

The challenge comes from a North Miami man who wanted to adopt two foster children that are living with him and his partner. A Miami judge ruled the law unconstitutional in 2008. The state’s appeal of that ruling is pending.

McCollum is defending the ban on behalf of the Department of Children and Families. He personally pushed to hire psychologist George Rekers as an expert witness. Rekers was found to have gone on a European vacation with a gay escort.

In public appearances, Bondi refused to say if she would take the case to the Supreme Court if the state loses the appeal. In an interview Friday, she clarified her position: “I will continue with General McCollum’s appeal. If [the Supreme Court] can legally hear it, yes, I will appeal.”

The Supreme Court must first agree to hear the case before any candidate can appeal.

At a Tiger Bay forum in St. Petersburg on Wednesday, Bondi said that as attorney general, she would support whatever law is on the books.

At a May 18 event in Miami Lakes, she mentioned two gay friends before saying that the adoption process as a whole needs reform.

`FIRST DUTY’

“I have friends in Tampa who are in law enforcement who have adopted from overseas, who are in a loving, committed same-sex relationship,” Bondi said.

Former attorney general Bob Butterworth, a Democrat who held the post for 16 years, said Bondi’s earlier comments have some precedent.

“If the Legislature passes legislation, your first duty is to defend it,” Butterworth said. “I’ve handled cases over the years that I didn’t quite agree with, but that’s not my decision.”

Butterworth said he personally disagrees with the law and that judges should decide if a couple is fit for adoption. When the law was first challenged, Butterworth was the head of DCF.

He asked McCollum to defend the suit because he was focused on “turning around” an agency beset by repeated troubles and didn’t want to pick a fight with the Republican-controlled Legislature.

Aronberg, of Greenacres, said the attorney general has wide discretion on appealing cases and that “we have wasted enough taxpayer money” on defending the ban.

A department spokesman said Florida has spent $383,000 on defending the ban, half of which is for attorneys fees. The other half is for general expenses, including $120,000 to Rekers.

The attorney general candidates also split on whether to continue McCollum’s challenge to the new federal health care law.

Republicans have said they will keep Florida as the lead plaintiff in the case, which will likely stretch well beyond November’s election.

“I believe that law is unconstitutional on a number of grounds,” Benson said.

Calling the lawsuit “frivolous,” Democrats said they would take Florida off the list of 20 states listed as plaintiffs. McCollum spokeswoman Sandi Copes noted that even if Florida dropped out of the case, it would continue and another state would take the lead.

UNITED FRONT

One issue did unite all five candidates in opposition — the ballot initiative known as Hometown Democracy, or Amendment 4. An effort to reign in unchecked growth, the amendment would place changes to a local comprehensive plan on the ballot.

The initiative faces strong opposition from business groups and the building industry.

All of the candidates said it would take power away from local officials.

“It would ensure that the only changes to comprehensive plans would be development funded by expensive campaigns,” Aronberg said.

The candidates also are united in supporting the death penalty.

But other issues split the candidates along party lines. Democrats support the Fair Districts amendments that say lawmakers cannot draw political districts with the intent to favor or disfavor a party or incumbent. They also argue the Legislature’s companion amendment is “intentionally confusing” to voters.

Republicans oppose the citizen amendments — Nos. 5 and 6 on the ballot — but support lawmakers’ Amendment 7.

Most Republicans came out against the April 2007 move by Gov. Charlie Crist to simplify the process of restoring civil rights to former felons.

by Juli Weiner

June 7, 2010

A 20-year study, the results of which were released today, has found that children raised by lesbian parents “have fewer social problems, and less aggressive and rule breaking behaviors than other teens,” according to an article on U.S. News and World Report’s health blog. And “even in homes where the lesbian parents had split up, the researchers found that those teens still fared better than teens from more traditional families.” (Maybe this is a 20-year viral-marketing campaign orchestrated by the crafty, polemicist producers of The Kids Are All Right.) Anyway, the author of the study points out that this should put a fork in claims made by anti-gay-marriage activists that same-sex parents make for unsteady upbringings.