Mary Cheney's Blessed Event

Mary Cheney is pregnant and she and her partner Heather Coe are reportedly ecstatic.

Needless to say this causes some of her father's political allies to go ballistic. Here for example is what Townhall.com columnist Kevin McCullough to say about it:

This development prompted some important questions...

1. How did the exclusive sexual union of these two women bring about this conception?

2. What does it mean, from a biological nature to realize that a man WAS in fact necessary for this conception to take place?

3. What does it mean to the supposed "intimacy" that "two people share" which was intended by the Creator to be a function that creates life, to be forced to include a third party?

4. Doesn't it make a rather strong statement that biologically speaking, the sexual union these two women share - is in fact, scientifically speaking - inadequate?

5. Is it healthy for a society to celebrate inadequate sexual unions that lead to everything except what it was designed to be?

6. Knowing from scientific data that children excel best when given the full and natural parental structure of one mother and one father, is it moral to bring a child into such a scenario - purposefully, simply to stroke one's own desire to have a child - sort of like a new handbag, or pair of shoes?

As a wishy-washy Episcopalian (and no, that is NOT redundant) I find this absolutely fascinating. I presume that Mr McCullough is writing a critique from the point of view of his Christian faith. All well and good, but there are some assumptions in these questions that puzzle me, not being at all clear on matters of such faith.

If I understand this right, Mr McCullough is unaware of artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, at least for #1 to make any sense (I assume that Ms Cheney did not get drunk one night with the wrong person or was raped or anything like that). #2 seems to be a given, and one that no one has raised any doubts about, yet. For #3, I assume Mr McCullough doesn't believe that human couples have ever been forced to accept "a third party" as he so carefully puts it. And that the only reason for sex is for procreation. #4 - yes, biologically- and scientifically- speaking. But somehow this seems to make one something of a ... oh, I don't know... a materialist?

Most of that is simply a conservative statement of official Catholic and apparently Evangelical beliefs. I suppose that is fine for Catholics and Evangelicals, at least of the conservative and official sort (although I have some doubts about #3). It does not have much to say to me though. Points no. 5 and 6 are a bit more intriguing.

5. "Is it healthy for a society to celebrate inadequate sexual unions that lead to everything except what it was designed to be?" Hmm. An inadequate sexual union? I don't think he means couples who have difficulty with sex as a process. He seems to mean sexual unions "that lead to everything except what it was designed to be" (for which see #3). Well, since my wife and I got married late in life and children were out of the question, Mr McCullough would seem to hold that our union is inadequate and should not be celebrated*. Same goes for all you others out there who are "uniting" without the expectation of children. Could be very unhealthy.

6. "Knowing from scientific data that children excel best when given the full and natural parental structure of one mother and one father, is it moral to bring a child into such a scenario -" Not sure what to make of this, since I am not sure about the scientific data. On the other hand I know lots of single mothers, and one or two single dads, who seem to have managed. There is, however, a clear implication to this question: if you have children and opt for a divorce, for whatever reason, you are not making a moral choice. I mean since you are damaging the future of the children and all since single parents are inadequate by scientific data. And if they remarry, there's that third party Mr McCullough is so worried about (see #3 again).

Obviously, I keep coming back to number three. If people want to publicly condemn Mary Cheney because she is a homosexual, and they feel this is immoral because of their religious beliefs about homosexuality, they are certainly free to say so. To go beyond that fact though raises a host of assumptions about the rest of us. Perhaps they should say that too.

*although when I had to get married in a Catholic church they sure seemed to be celebrating. And the priest who counseled us was positively delighted that we couldn't have any children. Of course, he did have a nervous breakdown, and had to be replaced for the ceremony itself. I don't think it was anything I said. Long story.