The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Lesbian Divorce: Comedy or Tragedy?

Posted on | August 2, 2016 | 40 Comments

For a month in early 2004, the city of San Francisco rushed ahead of state and national law and began performing same-sex weddings. By the time a court injunction stopped the ceremonies, some 4,000 couples had been married, although the legal status of their unions hung in limbo for many years thereafter. In 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage, but that measure — like similar constitutional amendments in 30 other states — was voided by the 2015 Supreme Court Obergefell decision.


During that 2004 gay-wedding spree in San Francisco, writer Cheryl Dumesnil married psychologist Tracie Vickers. The couple subsequently manufactured two sons by having Ms. Dumesnil artificially inseminated, a story that was told by Ms. Dumesnil in her 2013 book:

Love Song for Baby X is the moving and humorous story of a lesbian couple’s struggles with infertility as they attempt to become parents, set against the backdrop of the marriage equality movement.
While poet Cheryl Dumesnil suspects she’ll confront some formidable obstacles on her path to parenthood, she is nevertheless unprepared for what she actually encounters, including navigating the maze of the high-tech fertility business, the emotional conundrum of pregnancy loss, and the gathering steam of the marriage equality movement.
Love Song for Baby X follows Cheryl and her unlawfully wedded wife through four conceptions, three miscarriages, a temporarily legal wedding during San Francisco’s Winter of Love in 2004, a stint as poster children for the marriage equality movement, and finally the arrival of their longed-for son—after twenty-five hours of labor. Along the way Dumesnil fails often (and comically) in her attempts to cultivate inner peace.


Alas, these “poster children for the marriage equality movement” were already on their way to divorce before last year’s Supreme Court decision:

For ten of the past eleven years, my family stood on the front lines of the marriage equality movement. Starting with my marriage to Tracie — with our firstborn attending in my belly—at San Francisco City Hall, during the Winter of Love 2004; through the ups and downs of California’s Proposition 8 campaign; to the celebration of our legal marriage, with our two children as witnesses, in 2008; to this final SCOTUS decision — we have marched, campaigned, donated, and spoken with media, domestic and international, radio, film, and print.
And now marriage equality is the law of the land.
And Tracie and I are starting divorce proceedings. . . .
When Tracie and I first decided to separate a year ago, I felt an acute sense of failure. This is a common stage in the divorce process. The “till death do us part” societal expectation, along with the individual hopes and dreams newlyweds carry into marriage — they can lead people to experience divorce as a deep, personal failure. A few months after Tracie and I separated, that feeling of failure faded to the background, but the SCOTUS announcement brought it back, front and center. . . .
I feel not only as though I have failed to realize my own hopes for my marriage and family, but also that I’ve failed to uphold the “happy, healthy lesbian family” image that has helped open the hearts and minds of the American public to LGBT people.

So, her family was all about “image” — a political public-relations stunt.

Ms. Dumesnil bragged three years ago that she had “built a reputation for dropping well-reasoned, camera-ready sound bites” in favor of gay marriage. Also, Ms. Dumesnil wrote columns about how unnecessary it is for children to have fathers, and I’m sure it did wonders for her sons’ self-esteem to learn that, as males, they have no reason to exist. Males are useless and irrelevant — right, mom? Oh, and then her son came home crying because a girl was mean to him at school:

I don’t know what it’s like to be a boy — what it’s like to be raised in a culture that shames you for feeling vulnerable, alienates you for not excelling in certain activities, or presumes you are a violent species. . . .
But sometimes the learning curve is steep, like when my son was being bullied by a girl . . . at school. . . . I knew she said mean things to him. I knew she had shoved him a couple times. But it wasn’t until I saw tears in my son’s eyes that I really got it: she was bullying him, he was asking teachers and playground supervisors for help, and no one was stepping up for him.
Why? Gender.

No, ma’am — it is feminism that is responsible for the anti-male prejudice in our culture, and if you hadn’t spent all those years so distracted by your campaign to destroy the traditional family, perhaps this problem facing your sons would have been as obvious to you as it is to the rest of us. But when your “happy, healthy lesbian family” image is more important to you than anything else, it’s easy to overlook all the unhealthy and unhappy stuff hidden behind the public-relations façade.



40 Responses to “Lesbian Divorce: Comedy or Tragedy?”

  1. Jeanette Victoria ?????????
    August 2nd, 2016 @ 7:21 pm

    There is no such thing as a “happy, healthy lesbian family”same sex relations by design are abnormal and not healthy .

  2. OrangeEnt
    August 2nd, 2016 @ 7:29 pm

    Yep, your own fault. Your son’s problems are directly traced to you and your activities. Hopefully he won’t grow up to be a psychopathic killer. But, I suppose you’ll blame the donor….

  3. Mike G.
    August 2nd, 2016 @ 7:45 pm

    And its not like they hadn’t been warned, amirite?

  4. DeadMessenger
    August 2nd, 2016 @ 7:55 pm

    “…writer Cheryl Dumesnil married psychologist Tracie Vickers.”

    Physician, heal thyself.

  5. Warmongerel
    August 2nd, 2016 @ 8:24 pm

    During the entire gay marriage debate, I told the gay people that I know to be careful what they wish for: divorce really sucks.

    Of course, they figured that gay people were different and that they would be in a loving, stable relationship forever. Jokes on them.

  6. Adobe_Walls
    August 2nd, 2016 @ 8:35 pm

    Look what feminism’s done for Bernie.

  7. ShadrachSmith
    August 2nd, 2016 @ 8:43 pm

    Happy is a good goal. The greatest thing you’ll ever learn is just to love, and be loved in return. Being nice is a good strategy.

  8. dance...dancetotheradio
    August 2nd, 2016 @ 10:04 pm

    I still love how they legalized gay marriage and forgot to legalize gay divorce.

  9. CrustyB
    August 2nd, 2016 @ 10:50 pm

    Those boys will never know what it’s like to have a father so those two genderless freaks can pretend to be normal.

  10. Steve Skubinna
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 12:34 am

    “Humorous.” “Comedic.”

    Ha ha ha. And there are two young human beings that were brought into existence as part of this goofy fun escapade. Yuck yuck yuck. Does anybody, by which I mean their putative parents, give a rip about their well being and mental health?

  11. Quartermaster
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 3:14 am

    Don’t confuse the left with the facts. They don’t matter to them.

  12. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 5:33 am

    Why’d we do it? Because they told us we couldn’t.

    My three year old operates under the same mentality.

  13. M. Thompson
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 8:51 am

    A lot of shrinks and therapists are marginally crazy themselves. My brother’s future mother in law is one.

  14. Critical Eye
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 9:00 am

    No, she’ll blame the maleness.

  15. M. Thompson
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 10:41 am

    It’s tragic, especially with the two kids involved here.

  16. Quartermaster
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 10:53 am

    Alas, the joke has always been on them.

  17. BooBoo75
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 11:00 am

    It boggles the mind that society accepts without question the use of innocent children as subjects in untested social experiments with the great potential to inflict grievous life long physical and psychological injuries on the unwilling subjects.

    A gay person who actually cared about kids would never ever adopt out of moral caution.

  18. BooBoo75
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 11:10 am

    The vast vast majority of gays have no intention of marrying and those that do most have intention of being monogamous. They want the cake and the party to thumb their nose at us with. It was mainly to humiliate normal society by showing they can manipulate weak people into publicly debasing themselves by playing on their fears of ostracism. People would rather lick the boots of fags and reject reason than be labeled a bigot or homophobe.

    The only reason there was a brief initial period where gay marriages appeared successful is because all the old queers in 20-30 year relationships made an honest homo out of each other.

    Gay marriage for the most part bears little resemblance to heterosexual marriage.

  19. texlovera
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 11:47 am

    Two boys become the collateral damage of lesbian feminazi psychopaths.

    But love wins. RIGHT????

  20. feeriker
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 12:45 pm

    So two dikes use two innocent little boys as pawns in a political-ideological game. If ever any offense warranted the death penalty …

    They might as well prepare either a pair of prison cells or a pair of beds in a psych hospital for these two hapless lads. They’re going to need them in a few years, barring their removal from the lives of these two despicable butches and a whole lot of rehabilitative therapy.

  21. feeriker
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 12:56 pm

    It boggles the mind that society accepts without question the use of innocent children as subjects in untested social experiments with the great potential to inflict grievous life long physical and psychological injuries on the unwilling subjects.

    Well, shit, this society has accepted the wholesale murder of unborn children for nearly five decades now. Why wouldn’t that same society consider those kids who won the birth coin-toss to be fair game for any other barbarism that society chooses to inflict upon them for whatever ephemeral benefit said society perceives it will gain?

    The only thing that “boggles” my mind is that otherwise rational and observant adults still cling to the delusion that this society we live in considers ANY human life to be of value or concern, given the abundance of glaring evidence to the contrary. Children are just as disposable as any adult (more so when considering that most parents who give children any thought at all consider them to be little more than adornments, at best, and just as easily replaceable).

  22. feeriker
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 1:00 pm

    Your three-year-old surely also knows right from wrong and probably also possesses a modicum of common sense. The two “adults” under discussion here apparently weren’t so fortunately endowed (we used to institutionalize people like that, didn’t we?)

  23. feeriker
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 1:03 pm

    Since when have we begun dignifying psychologists with the term “physician?” 🙂

  24. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 1:05 pm

    I’m of the opinion they know right from wrong as well. I think they’re being deliberately contrary, which is a petty way to live your life.

  25. feeriker
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 1:05 pm

    Hopefully he won’t grow up to be a psychopathic killer

    Or if, God forbid, he does, his one and only victim will be the person responsible for putting him in his miserable life situation.

  26. BooBoo75
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 1:34 pm

    Remove God and you can justify any barbarism as the belief in humans sacredness is quickly replaced with the idea that humans are just interchangeable carbon units, totally fungible, and with no inherent worth above an amoeba.

    It shows how susceptible people are to fallacious reasoning that so many people are warped to such an extent that they proudly identify themselves as holding beliefs and values that justifying the killing of babies. They see no appaling lunacy in the idea that killing babies is not just tolerated but a moral good. A virtuous position. It’s sick and crazy and topsy turvy. Every pro abortion argument is total shit, totally reputable by logic and fact (not religion) yet their allegiance to dangerously irrational ideologies is comparable to the most hardened Viet Cong zealot.

  27. BooBoo75
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 1:37 pm

    We truly live in the age where “War is Peace”.

  28. Brian_E
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 2:36 pm

    ‘tragic, especially *for* the two kids’

    There – fixed it for ‘ya…

  29. Neo
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 2:38 pm

    All the more reason to require testing before issuing a marriage license

  30. Brian_E
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 2:40 pm

    And yet… Social Services has been known to take kids from ostensibly normal parent(s) – because of things like: the parents believe is corporal punishment, the parents believe in teaching consequences and holding their kids accountable for their actions, etc…

  31. Neo
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 2:40 pm

    Just because the marriage lies outside the 2-sigma point on the normal curve, doesn’t necessarily mean everything else will too .. but it probably will.

  32. Neo
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 2:43 pm

    Crazy or a shrink/therapist ?

  33. DeadMessenger
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 2:57 pm

    Euphemistic phrase.

  34. Jack
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 4:10 pm

    The disgust with which she talks about her sons entering the “culture of men” is palpable. I sometimes think that lesbian couples choose to raise boys with the deliberate purpose of inflicting them with life long self-hatred. The child is born a boy and for that they can never be accepted as fully human by feminism.

  35. M. Thompson
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 5:07 pm


  36. Quartermaster
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 8:20 pm

    Deliberately contrary = deliberately obtuse. The stupidity is entirely self inflicted.

    God had a statement about the issue as well. You’ll find in Romans chapter 1 verses 18 thru 32. God turned them over to their sin as judgment.

  37. Quartermaster
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 8:20 pm

    CPS doesn’t because the “couple” is a politically protected class. If Christians did anything like raise them to be good citizens, that could not be tolerated.

  38. Quartermaster
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 8:22 pm

    Many of the ones I’ve known were anything but marginal.

  39. Quartermaster
    August 3rd, 2016 @ 8:23 pm

    Such relationships are not within 30 sigma of the mean.

  40. CruisingTroll
    August 5th, 2016 @ 5:59 pm

    Yep, your own fault. Your son’s problems are directly traced to you and your activities.

    No, her son’s problems are not directly traced to her. Has she contributed greatly to them? Undoubtedly. It is, however, the bullying lit’l harridan, and the harridan’s parents, and the school folks who are directly responsible.