This week Catherine Specter starts off strong with a well-phrased dose of withering advice for a woman manipulating her husband with a "did he notice my haircut?" test.  Nicely done.  Could I be wrong about Specter's Carrie Bradshaw ambitions?

Not so much.

In the next letter, a reader asks whether a lack of compliments from a guy indicates a lack of interest.  It takes THREE sentences for Specter to fall back into her superficial obsession with looks, clothes and makeup. 

It's de rigueur to tell your girl how pretty she is, or how nice she looks, but sometimes shyness or inexperience or faulty logic about ego-boosting keeps the words from coming out. Try complimenting him and if the gesture is never reciprocated ...

Wait a minute.  Isn't this passive approach sort of the same manipulation she so tartly ripped to shreds in the previous letter?  Why not talk with the guy?  After all, even pretty girls have the ability to speak.  Last time I checked, they don't even have to wait until they are spoken to.  

What's worse is that this is the gussied up version of the mentality whirling through Mt. Lebanon these days --- girls are objects who should be evaluated on their external characteristics.  Maybe the PG should just print a family-friendly version of the Mt. Lebanon score card right next to Specter's column. 

Why is being pretty or looking nice the default compliment Specter assumes this reader is seeking?  How about complimenting her intelligence, wit or compassion?  Maybe her work accomplishments?  Or her strength, bravery, resourcefulness, loyalty, etc? 

Because, in her own words:

Cat's Call: Never give a woman time to ruminate.

'nuf said.

PG writer Sally Kalson tackles the thorny issues of surrogate pregnancy custody in response to a recent court ruling removing custody of triplets from their surrogate mother.  It is a complicated, sticky mess and certainly deserving of some attention for our legislature.

However, PA plans to establish a legal framework in surrogacy matters will tap into the age-old battle on family values.  Legislation proposed by Senator Jane Earll, R-Erie, permits only an infertile married couple to establish a surrogate contract.  Obviously, LGBT couples are left out since marriage is not an option for us.  At least in Pennsylvania. 

But consider how this legal restriction will impact heterosexuals.  Single adults would not be able to use surrogacy to conceive a child.  Nor would married couples who perhaps have their own reasons for not wanting to carry a child.  As Kalson points out, issues around frozen embryos only make the situation more complicated - what if the the couple divorces?  or one partner dies?  Under this legislation, that would eliminate surrogacy.

My point (and, I hope, Kalson's point) is that when the government legislatively imposes an ideal family framework on Pennsylvania citizens, it usually doesn't fit.  Heterosexual marriage does not automatically confer some special degree of happiness or healthiness on any family unit.  What is does confer is a two-tiered family status: the married, reproducing heterosexuals and all the rest of us. 

Kalson sums it up neatly:

Current law considers gay couples and lone adults good enough to adopt children who are already born. They ought to be good enough to enter a legal agreement to produce a child through surrogacy.

That said, the state still needs a framework to protect the children born of such agreements, and we don't have to reinvent the wheel to get it. The Uniform Act covers the eventualities with sufficient clarity.

From the very beginning, it makes plain to everyone -- sperm and egg donors, gestational moms and their spouses (if any), intended parents and the courts -- what provisions are permissible and enforceable, and who has what legal rights and responsibilities. In Pennsylvania, no such clarity exists.

From The Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights comes word that the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has recessed without taking action on the amendment.

What exactly does that mean?

For one thing,  your legislator is home in your district for the next month.  This is a good time to contact her/him in person AGAIN and reiterate your opposition to this amendment. 

Go here for more details on how you can get involved.  I'll have more later in the week.

It has been one week since the Post-Gazette article on the Rene Portland debacle ran (Penn State's 'Mommy Coach' a bigot?)

Given that women's hoops are fairly popular around here, I expected  ... well, something!  Between the lesbians, the parents of high school players, the Pitt b-ball fans, and those who actively support the criminalization of homosexuality, surely someone mustered enough umbrage to pick up a pen.

Only one person has done so and his name is Bill Earley of Merion Station, PA.  I have no idea where Merion Station is located, but it sounds like at least one resident has his head screwed on the right way.

Bill writes:

Her boorish behavior has grown bolder because university leadership offers no consequences for her actions. Nothing except another verbal warning and a note in her file.

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head, Bill.  Portland gets away with discrimination because Penn State lets her. 

I wonder if the local b-ball parents realize that remaining silent on this issue sends the right message to their daughters.

Who on earth would let their kid go play for this homo-bigot?  Only another homo-bigot, I'd assume.  And God knows we have plenty of those here in Pgh.