DEAR AMY: Our daughter and her partner are expecting a baby this summer. My husband and I are thrilled, but I'm struggling with an issue. Our daughter's partner, "Candace," is carrying the baby. We knew having children would be other than "traditional" for them, and we accept that. However, not only is Candace carrying the baby, but they are planning to give the baby Candace's last name. I was hoping they might give the child our last name to give us some connection to our grandchild. Now I'm feeling left out. How can I resolve these feelings of sadness?
-- Feeling Sad
DEAR SAD: Regardless of the child's name, you do have a connection to your daughter's baby -- the baby will be your grandchild.
I understand that because your daughter isn't the pregnant partner, you may have no DNA connection to the child, but the fact is that this child will be hers and by extension also yours.
An adopted child wouldn't share your DNA (or perhaps your name) but that child would be a member of your family -- and you would love that child, just as you will love this child.
DEAR AMY: Your reply to "Happy Father," in which you questioned his definition of "sexually pure," was condescending. Even the high school and college age kids who work for me know what it means. What I find remarkable is how many of these kids intend to remain sexually pure until marriage. It's heartening to see them behaving in a way that is countercultural and emotionally healthy. You should grant the term "sexually pure" a little more respect.
DEAR BRADLEY: I always applaud people making healthy choices. In terms of granting the terminology "sexually pure" more respect? No, I don't think I will. I would consider throwing some respect its way if this term were equally applied to boys (as well as girls), but it never is.