Mary gives birth without having known a man

I was reading this crude (but interesting) response by Dan Savage to Mary Cheney's decision to have a child:

And so long as your party insists on making the fitness of homosexuals to marry or parent—or, hell, exist—a subject of public debate, Mary, your decision to become a parent is germane and very much fit for public discussion and debate. The GOP’s selective embrace of some pregnant dykes—only knocked-up lesbians with powerful connections will be treated with respect—is a disconnect that demands answers. From you, from your father, from your venomous mother, from the idiot president you helped elect. Is that fair? Maybe not. Want to blame someone? Go look in the mirror -- and then come out swinging, Mary -- for yourself, your partner, and your child.

And then the thought hit me. Do we really need to bring homosexuality into this equation at all?

What I mean is this: Suppose that this is the year 1998. (Oh, if only.) And suppose that one of Al Gore's daughters decided to have a child out of wedlock. Let us further suppose that said child was conceived via an ill-considered one night stand with a "Zap Brannigan" type, someone that said daughter would never marry. (Sorry. Couldn't resist the reference.)

Just how would the FOX crowd respond? How would Limbaugh treat the news? How many books on the collapse of American morals would Regnery publish, all pasting Al Gore's face on the front cover? How would the Washington Times react? Hell, how would the Washington Post react? Do you think Wolf Blitzer would have been nearly so gentle and deferential during an interview with Clinton's veep?

As Atrios recently noted:

CNN can segue almost seamlessly from a puff piece on a potential Newt Gingrich run to a discussion about how Gavin Newsom's affair might be a "career breaker."

God damn it, but I am sick of this double standard!