No politics in this post. I promise.

The L Word is spawning a pair of books this spring. The L Word : Welcome to Our Planet is an “official guide” to the show, with interviews, photos, peeks “behind the scenes,” and a ranking of sex scenes. Reading The L Word : Outing Contemporary Television looks to be a more academic work, discussing how the show deals with various social and political issues, how it is marketed, and what viewers think about it.

Amazon is taking pre-orders for both books. Welcome to Our Planet will be released March 7, and Reading The L Word on March 30. Perfect for spring birthdays or just to treat yourself.

France’s highest court ruled Friday that same-sex partners both have parental rights, even if only one is the biological parent of a child. Same-sex couples cannot currently adopt children, however, but they can register for civil unions. PlanetOut speculates that the new ruling could trigger changes in these laws. Vive la France!

I was really trying to avoid the serious politics for a few days. Then the South Dakota legislature passed a bill banning almost all abortions, even in the case of incest or rape. The only exceptions would be if the mother’s life was in danger. According to the Associated Press report, the governor is “inclined” to sign the bill, making it law on July 1, 2006. A legal challenge, however, such as one promised by Planned Parenthood, will likely mean a judge will suspend the ban unless the state takes the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and wins, which could take several years. Delayed or not, this is still a move in a scary direction.

Yes, lesbians are less likely than sexually active straight women to suffer a birth-control “oops” and have an accidental pregnancy. Rape tends to ignore sexual orientation, however. I also believe we have a duty as women to uphold the right of choice for other women, lesbian or straight.

If you’re not convinced and angry already, consider this:

If a rape victim becomes pregnant and bears a child, the rapist could have the same parental rights as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.

Yes, that’s right. A rapist could soon have more parental rights than a loving non-bio lesbian mom.

If you want to donate to one of the organizations fighting this ban, you might consider Planned Parenthood or NARAL.

Keeping with the theme of political satire today: Ohio senator Robert Hagan is seeking sponsors for a bill that would forbid households with one or more Republicans from adopting children or becoming foster parents. He cites “Credible research” that suggests such children “. . . are more at risk for developing emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, an alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves.” He’s not serious, of course, but one hopes that his more conservative colleagues get the point. (Courtesy of PlanetOut).

I’ve written a lot about politics this week, so in lieu of the weekly political roundup I’ve been doing, I’ll point out a hysterical satire on educational testing by Anna Quindlen in Newsweek. I’ve written before that I take a dim view of “teaching to the test”; Quindlen, however, dares to dream what might happen if standardized testing continues to spread and we implement federal tests for waiters, plumbers, moms, members of Congress, and even the president.

The Christian Science Monitor wrote this week about healthy snacks for kids. It’s pretty common-sense stuff, but has a few recipe suggestions if you’re at a loss for ideas. One thing the article doesn’t mention, however, is what I consider the most important factor in establishing kids’ eating habits: a good example. Kids who see their parents eating junk will be more likely to eat it themselves, especially if the pantry is full of cookies and the fridge full of soda. Of course, if your family eats healthily most of the time, it can be even more fun–and bonding, too–when you once in a while indulge together in a batch of double-fudge brownies.

New research from UCLA indicates that the mothers of multiple gay sons tend to process X chromasomes differently from other mothers. This provides further evidence that sexual orientation is genetically determined. The results aren’t conclusive at this point, and other researchers caution that further study, with a larger sample, is needed, but it’s still an important step towards explaining sexual orientation.

Funny, but just a few days ago I referenced a post by Steve at Adamant Sun, in which he explains why the question of choice vs. genetics is at the heart of the ultra-conservative war against the LGBT community. Research results like the above will give us ammunition to fight back.

That’s the very tongue-in-cheek premise of a scathing article in the Hartford Courant, in response to a request by the conservative Family Institute of Connecticut to weigh in on same-sex marriage before the state Supreme Court. The Institute claims that children are “disadvantaged” living in same-sex households, and thus same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry. The Courant asks whether we should at least permit marriage for same-sex couples who don’t have or want kids.

They go on to suggest the flip side: that we require any unwed or divorced parents to give up their children until they find an opposite-sex partner. A widow or widower with young children should “find a partner or turn them over to the state.”

It’s a nice short piece highlighting the ridiculousness of the Family Institute’s arguments, but also raises the spectre (as I’ve mentioned before) of what could happen to both straight and LGBT couples and families if such groups get their way. It’s not just a “gay issue.” It’s an issue of who defines your family, you or the state, as represented by an ultra-conservative constituency. Talk to your straight friends and relatives. Make them understand. Ask them to vote.

A new IVF method that lets fertilization and embryo development occur inside a woman’s body, rather than in the lab, could mean more options and cheaper IVF treatments. (Thanks to Blogging Baby for the sighting.) Egg and sperm are placed in a special vial and inserted into a woman’s vagina to develop into embryos, when they are then removed and transferred to her uterus. Because doctors don’t need incubation equipment for this process, it could be cheaper than traditional IVF.

Whether you’re using IVF because of infertility, or (like my partner and I) because one partner simply wants to donate an egg to the other to create a family, this is a development to watch. The procedure is still undergoing testing, though, and success rates and hazards are not yet known.

USA Today has just published a piece on same-sex adoption, noting that 16 states have now taken action to pass laws or create November ballot initiatives to ban it. One member of a conservative “pro-family” (gag!) group sees this as an extension of same-sex marriage bans: by preventing same-sex marriage, and then defining marriage as the best place to raise a child, it follows that same-sex couples shouldn’t adopt.

This is a hideous argument, as I’m sure most of my readers would agree. If you need convincing, or simply want to gather some well-put arguments, Shannon over at Peter’s Cross Station wrote an impassioned post this week on the negative effects–legal, financial, and emotional–of not permitting same-sex adoption. Worth reading the post and all its comments.

The truly frightening thing, though, is how this percolates down into other social issues, even beyond the LGBT community. As USA Today notes, Utah has also banned adoption by any unmarried couple, gay or straight. (Though strangely, they will allow single LGBT people to adopt.) While I think the legal and financial protections of marriage can make it easier to raise a child (one of the many reasons I want to marry my partner), it’s not my place to say why a couple might choose not to get married. We as an LGBT community have to do more to help people realize that bans on human relationships and families are more than just “gay issues.” They start us down the path of basing any permitted relationship on a narrow, conservative view of what should be.