Split Loyalties and Baseball Angst

The Red Sox are playing The Detroit Tigers tonight. My baseball-addled husband is listening to the game in the other room. I am hiding in here with the computer unsure what to do. I grew up cheering for the Tigers. For my 9th birthday I asked my parents (who are not baseball fans) to take me to a game. I cheered them on in the World Series in 1984 (as in, The Tigers Roar in '84). My childhood is filled with memories of Kirk Gibson and Louuuuu Whitaker and Chet Lemon and Alan Trammel.... But now that I live in Boston, well, I root for the Red Sox...and not just root, I think I've become a true Red Sox fan. The other night, when Mirabelli was up to bat I pleaded with him to please please please hit a home run...and moments later, he did. I told my husband that he had me to thank for that. According to a friend who has spent her life as a member of Red Sox Nation, this psychosis is unique to Red Sox fans. I actually read the sports section of the paper, and have been pontificating on the rise in wins of one-run games. So what's a llama to do when her home team plays her home team?

The SJC Again

Well, another split decision from the SJC in a case somewhat related to the same-sex marriage issue. Except this one goes the wrong way, IMHO. The case, in a nutshell, involved a lesbian couple, one of whom had a child through artificial insemination with the other's consent and financial support. But, they broke up 2 months before the child was born. And, because of this, and because the two had not been married (this was also before the two could have been married, that is, before the Goodridge decision) the woman who did not give birth is not obligated to pay child support. This is wrong on so many levels. The court sites the fact that the non-biological-mom was ambivalent about having the child. And her lawyer thinks that if you're ambivalent, you can back out before the child is born. She contrasts this with having unprotected sex which ends up in a pregnancy. I think there is little, if any contrast here. If anything, the non-bio-mom has at least the same responsibility as an unwed dad who didn't use a condom. She couldn't donate a sperm, so she helped pay for some, twice. And, they were in a committed relationship when she did it. This emphasis on biology (that is, she is not biologically related to the child) is outdated. Many people are ambivalent before they have children, even when they intend to get pregnant. But, what's done is done. You facilitate the conception of a fetus and that fetus is born you have a responsibility to that human being until he or she grows out of those ugly teenage years and even beyond. I applaud the justices who dissented but I'm saddened because this decision is bad, bad for gay and straight alike, and, worst of all, bad for children. (The Globe Article)