View Full Version : The Next Frontier: “Family Equality”?

07-30-2015, 01:59 PM
The Next Frontier: “Family Equality”?

...Hours after the Obergefell decision was handed down, University of California Irvine law professor Douglas NeJaime took to the pages of the Los Angeles Times to lament that “marriage equality doesn’t immediately or necessarily erase cultural and legal attachments to biological, dual-gender parenting.” In other words, those of us concerned about assisted reproductive technologies and their very real harms to both women and children need to simply rid ourselves of such quaint “attachments.” As skeptics in Ireland feared and the naïve in the United States are now realizing, “marriage equality” inevitably leads to the push for “family equality”—almost always by artifice.

NeJaime goes on:

even though marriage equality doesn’t immediately erase all attachments related to biological, dual-gender child rearing, it points us in the right direction . . . the majority [of the Supreme Court] affirmed a model of parenthood based on chosen, functional bonds rather than biology alone.

In other words, the movement for “family equality” will forever diminish the significance of our biological ties. The state must now act in a way that both accepts and promotes a non-biological vision of parenthood and family. Thus, the market for eggs, sperm, and wombs must be expanded.

Many states will soon be under pressure to follow the example of California and Maryland, where the state legislatures have passed laws that would that mandate insurers provide “infertility” treatments to same-sex couples. In 2013, when California enacted its legislation, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano boasted: “Reproductive medicine is for everybody’s benefit. To restrict fertility coverage solely to heterosexual married couples violates California’s non-discrimination laws. I wrote this bill to correct that.” In a recent article in JAMA Internal Medicine, Brown University physician Eli Y. Adashi praised the Maryland bill and encouraged other states enact similar legislation. According to Adashi, “Building a family is a universal human principle shared by single individuals and unmarried opposite-sex couples, as well as gay and lesbian couples.”

As for the children who will be created from these arrangements—the children who long to know and be known by their biological parents—their needs must be sacrificed for the desires of same-sex couples who long to be parents. To confer dignity upon these adults, they demand, the law must privilege those aspirations. The sober and honest-minded reasoning of Irish supporters of same-sex marriage who recognized this threat, along with courageous voices like Lopez, Bindel, Dolce, and Gabbana, serve as a much needed and powerful witness of what the world of “family equality” will ultimately yield—but their warnings cries are increasingly being silenced by powerful forces with great wealth in their arsenal...

07-30-2015, 02:59 PM
When it comes to couples where one of the parents is the biological parent, custody issues are already now on an equal basis. If a lesbian mother has custody and the father wants to take custody, proving the mother is gay is no longer sufficient reason to take custody away.
Grandparents can't claim that their gay child is offering an unsuitable home and get the child placed in their custody solely because the child's parent is gay.

As far as adoption is concerned, gay couples will now have the same rights as straight couples, provided they are legally married. In MI, prior to the recent court ruling, a married couple could adopt, a single adult could adopt, but a same sex couple could not adopt together. Now a married gay couple can adopt, and if one of them dies, the other one gets custody, just like a straight couple.

Does a child have an automatic right to be raised by his or her biological parents? Does a 7 year old have the right to know the mom who sold her for a rock of crack when she was 3, or whatever CPS nightmare case you can imagine? Of course not.

There are basically 3 kinds of adoption:

1. Private adoptions-a mother or couple give up a newborn, a relative adopts a child when the parents die, or some other situation that doesn't involve abuse or neglect.
2. International adoptions.
3. Adoptions through the foster care system (and there are several subtypes-relatives, foster parents, strangers recruited through adoption events, etc.).

I think the first two will be decided by the adoption agencies. Some church-based agencies will refuse to process an adoption by a gay couple-those agencies already refuse to process adoptions by an openly gay single adult, and don't offer foster care licenses to gays, single or married. I could see a future liberal government administration in my state deciding that the state will no longer allow those agencies to have foster care programs due to their discrimination against gays, and limiting them to only being able to do the 1st and 2nd types of adoption, to be honest. That doesn't mean Christians would not be able to be foster parents, they would just have to have their license transferred to an agency that doesn't discriminate against gay foster parents.

But to be totally blunt, the foster care system cannot survive without Christians or Jews. We don't have enough foster parents to meet the need as it is, but if we were to remove all people of faith from the foster parent rolls, we would have very few left and any kid over 6 or 7 would end up in an institution. I'm not sure where it is in the OT, but in the book of James, we are specifically called to care for orphans. Foster kids might not be orphans, but they are in a similar situation.

07-30-2015, 04:20 PM
There are big differences between men and women, I don't care how gay they are.

There is a human reason for forming families from a man and a woman, that goes beyond the so called "love" connection.

My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.”

this is a great article;

The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them—I know, because I have been there.

and this study, that the LGBT community went bonkers over

In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups--with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" (Regnerus' word) in almost every case.