Two of the most famous lesbian-mom spouses in the world are having trouble. Rosie O’Donnell told USA Today that all is not well between herself and spouse Kelli Carpenter O’Donnell, but would not confirm if Kelli had moved out, as some sources are reporting. Here’s the interesting thing about how the story is being reported, though. See if you can figure it out before the end of the post:
The Advocate says: “O’Donnell and Carpenter married in San Francisco in 2004, and the couple has four children together: Parker, Chelsea, Blake, and Vivienne.”
USA Today writes: “The couple married in San Francisco in 2004 and have three adopted children—Parker, 14, Chelsea, 12 and Blake, 9, as well as Vivienne (‘Vivi’), 6, whom Carpenter carried.”
CNN says: “Their family includes four children. The three oldest—Parker, 14, Chelsea, 12 and Blake, 9—are adopted. Six-year-old Vivienne—conceived through a sperm donation—was born to Carpenter.”
Newsday: “The couple married in San Francisco in 2004 and have three adopted children—Parker, 14, Chelsea, 12, and Blake, 9—as well as Vivienne, 6, a daughter Carpenter gave birth to through artificial insemination.”
Daily News: “O’Donnell and Carpenter were married in a non-state-recognized ceremony in San Francisco in 2004 and have three adopted children – Parker, 14, Chelsea, 12 and Blake, 9 – as well as daughter Vivienne, 6, whom Carpenter gave birth to via artificial insemination.”
Yes, the Daily News has to throw in the snide “in a non-state-recognized ceremony,” but that’s not what first caught my eye.
Only the LGBT source, the Advocate, doesn’t care how the children came into the family. Adopted or biological, it doesn’t matter. All of the other sources take the “let’s highlight the breeding habits of the urban lesbian” approach and specify how they became parents to each of the kids.
The worst offenders are CNN, Newsday, and the Daily News, who feel it necessary not only to mention that Vivienne is biologically Carpenter O’Donnell’s, but that there was sperm donation/artificial insemination involved. If she was born to Carpenter O’Donnell, then clearly there was sperm involved. We lesbians have been hoping for parthenogenesis for a while now. Trust me, you’d know about it if there had been any big breakthroughs.
Not to mention that the phrase “gave birth to through artificial insemination” is incorrect in any case. All the women I know give birth through their vaginas (or C-section incisions), not through AI. It’s true that parents’ relationships with their biological and non-biological children may differ in complex (and not necessarily predictable) ways. That is an internal family matter, however. What matters in the current context is not how they became a family, but simply the fact that they are one.
It seems, however, that the two moms are focused on the right things. USA Today reports Rosie’s statement:
“[Our children are] adorable and wonderful and they are by far a priority. Kelli and I love each other very much and we are working on our issues. Those are the only words I am ever going to say. Ever. But everything’s fine and everybody’s good and we’re still both raising them together. We will both continue to parent them and we’re friendly and everything’s all right.”
Yuck. Some of this, too, may be the commonplace ignorance within the MSM about appropriate ways to handle references to children who have joined a family through adoption. For example, when Suri Cruise was born I remember being pissed off when a number of media outlets referred to her as his first child, and then might toss in the fact that he already had two children that he and Nicole Kidman adopted. Or Katherine Heigl’s new baby, who I have consistently seen referred to as her newly adopted baby. It’s practically a parody of how not to behave. Good to see the Advocate getting it ight (though not surprising).
I rarely comment, I know. And, this will be long.
First, you never know what goes on in a marriage to bring it to the point of splitsville. But, I know that living with a person with mental illness is extremely difficult from my own experience with doing so.
My kids are all adopted. Oldest is half-Mexican, twins are black/white. I don’t know if I’d feel any differently about them had any of them been born to me (through my vagina!) but I can’t imagine I would. They look at each other as brothers/sister. Teachers rarely make the connection. People ask me who the children belong to because of the obvious ethnic differences (I’m pasty white Northern European). Their father, my ex-husband, adopted his wife’s son. The kids consider him a stepson. They also have a half-brother. The only two related “by blood” at all are his kids. My kids think of the stepson as a stepbrother because he was kind of shoved into their situation. But, over the years, they’ve still formed a bond as one big family there as we do here. I often mention their adoption because I’m a big adoption advocate and I want people to know that there are other choices beyond AI or remaining without children. My daughter and I were talking the other day and I told her that I have never ever felt less than 100% her mother from day one. And it was true.
Shame on all the news orgs sans The Advocate. It doesn’t matter how we put our families together – this is my family. And, in this country the people who put their families together by alternative methods (remarriage w/kids, AI, adoption, etc.) I would suspect is the rule rather than the exception.
When I die, should anyone bother with an obituary, I’ll come back and haunt the hell out of them if they use the word “adopted” to somehow diminish my relationship to my children.
Thanks, Lori–I really appreciate your thoughts on this. I’ve seen studies (based on U.S. Census data) that show less than 25% of all families consist of a married, opposite-sex couple living with their own (biological or adopted) children—which means even fewer consist of married, opposite-sex couples with only biological kids. So “normal” is really the minority, and people better get used to that. (I think we’re headed that way in terms of race, too, with white becoming the minority.)
(Nice to see you have a new blog!)
I think the media was simply trying to point out potential legal implications (custody issues) that may result from the split.
But the way the media phrased it gave no indication as to whether just one or both of them were the children’s legal mothers. (I believe the family’s legal residence is in NY, not FL, which means they could have done second-parent adoptions.)