Political Commentary: Why Gay Marriage Has Very Little To Do With Children’s Rights…

Posted on by Miss Alternative Opinion
old married lesbian couple
THE SKY ISN’T FALLING!

Ok. So unless you’ve been living under a rock, you probably know by this time that the Supreme Court passed the gay marriage bill and for the past few days liberals all over the globe have been throwing a huge internet party, while conservatives have been grumbling under their breath and praying for the world to just end already.

With that being said, the crux of concern for children’s rights advocates is that “Gay marriage = child rights apocalypse”. Short story long, with the passing of the legislation, gay couples have the ability to forge the non-biological parent’s signature on their children’s birth certificates, if they are to seek reproductive technologies. They will also have a greater access to adopt children all over the country, and push to encoruage the notion that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and unimportant. But I’m only being generous in the wild assertions of claims that have also been brought forth by this historical passing (including the banning of all marriages, licensed parenting, government control, GATACA, ect.) You can see the full list of crazyness here –> 15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is Neither About Marriage or Equality

But I didn’t write this blog post to bash each of the individual ideas in that post, I wrote to debunk some common concerns that have been reiterated to death by so many concerned children’s rights advocates who have not been able to celebrate this legislative passing as much as liberals have.

Here are some reasons to not panic, and join the party:

>Reason not to Panic #1: Not that many gays have human babies to begin with…they much prefer their fur-babies instead.

Roughly only 22% of gay couples are raising children. That means 78% of them are childfree, many of them intend to keep it that way and enjoy being childfree. According to a 2013 Census, those who identify exclusively as lesbian or gay, make up a mere 1.6% of the US Pink's commentpopulation. I repeat, those who identify as gay or lesbian make up 1.7% of the U.S population. That means that 0.352% (less than 1%, nationwide) of all children in the United States are in a same-sex headed household. Statistically speaking there are more homes headed by singled straight mothers (40% of all US children) and singled straight fathers (8% of all US children), than there are homes headed by same-sex couples. Meaning, the main culprit to denying children a mother and father are heterosexuals, not the gays.

>Reason Not To Panic #2: Domestic Partnerships offer the same parental advantages that Marriages have.

If you were a conservative who pushed domestic partnerships as an alternative to gay marriage, you honestly really shouldn’t be counting this as a loss. Domestic partnerships as well as Civil Unions offer identical property rights, tax cuts, hospital visitation rights, and parental ‘rights’ that domestic partnerships do. I’m not even joking.

Here’s your take-home: If gay marriage will exploit children because same-sex couples will have the ability to forge their just entered a partnership agreementnames on their children’s birth certificates, how are domestic partnerships any less exploitative, if they allow gay couples to do the same exact thing?

Hmm? Is it the name ‘Marriage’? Does a typed word across a document sheet have magical powers I’m not aware of? Tell me in the comments! You get the idea! Even if you considered this an issue, you wouldn’t win even if the country fell head over heels for the Civil Union or Domestic Partnership wagon.

>Reason Not To Panic #3: Inaccurate birth certificates are not a new issue, and not exclusively a ‘gay marriage problem’ in fact it started with straight marriages.

The rate of infertile straight people vastly outnumbers how many people identify as lesbian or gay. 6% of the population is infertile, while 1.6% of the population is gay. Before IVF, infertile straight couples have been seeking closed adoptions to fulfill their need to raise children. Many a’times, this process included forging inaccurate adopteeparentage on the child’s birth certificate, and withholding the children’s actual biological parents while never disclosing it. This is a continuous issue, as many adoptees as fighting for heritage equality and biological justice. To this day, closed adoptions allow this practice to go on, and third-party-reproduction(?) in the straight community also allows this to go on. In essence, straights have been permitted the same ‘rights’ to put inaccurate information on their adopted/ donor children’s birth certificates through their marriage license, over half a century before gay marriage ever happened. So is this a gay marriage issue, or a flaw in the marriage system in general?

>Reason not to Panic #4: Fathers and mothers are still valued, and it’s not too late to secure this in the straight and LGTB community.

Not all gay people have children through anonymous gamete reproductive technologies, according to the US Census, many do not have beyond a high school education and are living in poverty at a rate higher than heterosexuals are.  In essence, many couldn’t afford these technologies either way. The reality is that most children of LGTB parents are product of divorces and past heterosexual relationships, in fact, teen pregnancies (by boyfriends) are higher among young women who identify as lesbians. So most kids still visit daddy on the weekend, but just spend the weekdays with mama and mommy. Anyway, apart from that, the other reality is that even when gay marriages are valued, in custody battles Judges still favor mother-child/father-child relationships, and still consider the ‘sperm donor’ the biological father (which he is of course). We saw this in both the New Jersey custody battle case with a lesbian couple and their child’s biological father, and with the lesbian couple and their Crag’s List sperm donor who is now required to pay child support for his two daughters. Dads are still very important in our societies, and mothers are still deeply valued as well (especially with the natural childrearing movement going on).

les gay couple
 ‘I think my friends are a little jealous, because I’ve got two mummies and two daddies and they’ve only got two parents,‘ says six-year-old Simon of his four gay parents, as the Netherlands looks into legal changes to protect so-called ‘pink’ families.

…”You talk a good game,” she will say in response to my flippant remarks, “but I think you’re secretly great with kids.” Ever the competitor, Tori even had a sneaky little plan to prove herself right; two years ago, she and her wife, Kelly, asked me to serve as their sperm donor. I was dumbfounded. Of all the men they knew, why me, a guy who refers to children with the “it” pronoun until they’ve reached the legal drinking age?….. Still, Tori and Kelly are hoping to give their children a meaningful relationship with their biological father….

Quote Source: The Child-Averse Sperm Donor 

Picture Source: Dutch debate rights of three or more gay parents

Apart from that also, along with the same-sex marriage push, there has also been a push to allow more parents to be on the birth certificates on their children, specifically for the purpose of allowing 3-4 parent gay families (families that are mom and dad-inclusive) to be legally recognized. Already, California,  Canada, Brazil, and some states in the US have 3 parent famsendorsed in this birth certificate arrangement to allow 2mom+2dad or 2dad+1mom or 2mom+1dad families to be legally sanctioned.  These platonic partner parenting arrangements have even made appearances in mainstream media.

Of course, one could argue that this setup isn’t close to being like the nuclear family, one cannot argue at all that this setup denies a child a mother or a father.

So really, are the children at loss here, or are things just changing a little?

That’s my take on marriage equality and children’s rights! Stick with me next week when I discuss the idiocy behind climate change denial! 😀

55 thoughts on “Political Commentary: Why Gay Marriage Has Very Little To Do With Children’s Rights…”

  1. Reblogged this on Just Merveilleux and commented:
    Very good read!

    “Ok. So unless you’ve been living under a rock, you probably know by this time that the Supreme Court passed the gay marriage bill and for the past few days liberals all over the globe have been throwing a huge internet party, while conservatives have been grumbling under their breath and praying for the world to just end already.”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  4. Hi !

    I read your interventions at Ask The Bigot and I found them very nuanced and insightful.

    In my opinion, Katy Faust adresses real problems but proposes wrong solutions, and in comments, legitimate complaints are often drowned in relentless and unadulterated homophobia.

    Now I’ll tell you more about my perspective.

    In France where I live, the situation is very complicated.

    There is the Pacs, a domestic partnership that existed before same-sex marriage, but it clearly doesn’t provide the same benefits as marriage and doesn’t even include step-parent adoption, thus there was clearly room for improvement before the law on marriage was voted.

    Moreover, surrogacy is banned and donor conception is only allowed in a perverse way that combines access restricted to married heterosexual couples only (this is still law, even after the vote of the law on marriage) and mandatory donor anonymity (this is as if donor-conceived should believe they were born from their legal parents ; of course the logic behind that reasoning failed, but the law remained). Despite the voices of some now-adult donor offspring, there is little pressure to change that last point, as everyone else seems to think it would mean the end for sperm donations. Likewise, adoption tends to be closed.

    With that in mind, conservatives believed that same-sex marriage would inevitably pave the way for surrogacy and ART for everybody. At first, this was one of the main arguments of “La Manif Pour Tous”, along with the usual conservative arguments against same-sex marriage (children need both a mother and a father, etc…)

    Somewhere after, “La Manif Pour Tous” split into two main factions, one which kept the same name and became plainly homophobic and paranoid (there was a baseless moral panic about “Gender Theory”), the other called “L’Avenir Pour Tous” was more moderate but still against gay marriage, without adressing the points you raise about heterosexual couples regarding mothers and fathers, birth certificates, and donor conception, so they’re still highly heterosexist.

    Anyway, conservatives are quick to demonize both extralegal (foreign-made) donor conception and especially surrogacy. While this might be understandable, this leads to situations where children are made to pay for the mistakes of their parents, by restricting adoptions in the case of foreign-made donor conception (which goes against the spirit of the law, and is usually forbidden for judges) and access to legal documents in the case of surrogacy. This actually goes against the decisions of the ECHR.

    However, I should say, my fear was that the government would vote the extension of ART without learning from the mistakes of the current system, but thankfully it didn’t. I know my POV isn’t common among liberals in my country, where it sounds as if the government capitulated against the conservatives, but I still think it was the good decision. Proponents argue that this is a necessary measure for equality but are silent on donor anonymity, and many think of ART only about themselves, not about children (they said “my body, my choice” and “a child if I want, when I want” – yes, those are real slogans) The government may still vote for it before the end of Hollande’s term, but that wouldn’t change my convictions.

    My other fear is that conservatives won’t be intelligent enough to see that it’s a problem of donor conception and especially donor anonymity, not gay marriage. In fact, that conservatives don’t seem to understand is that banning same-sex marriage will never magically provide children their missing mother or father, just like the death penalty never brought anyone back to life. Want it or not, LGBT folks that ask for it will always manage to get children outside the system – this was already the case before same-sex marriage, which only further protected the rights of these families.

    Fortunately, in my country, there are people who defend both same-sex marriage and the end of donor anonymity, and they are even quite well-known (even though they aren’t always listened to – in fact, as surprising as it may appear for Americans, there are progressives who argue for legalisation and regulation of surrogacy, greater access to donor conception, and against donor anonymity) so I have still hope that things will eventually change !

    (sorry for this very, very long post, but this is necessary to understand the situation in France and my opinion about it)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. To be honest I’m in favor of ending the donor business and the surrogacy industry. I believe if people are going to seek third parents, they ought to choose from close friends, and the child should be able to seek out these parents at whim, and not be restricted access to a certain age. The donor industry intentionally makes access to birth parents challenging because it’s not good business, and doesn’t satisfy the buyers

      I think that if there is any money that goes in exchange for human life, it commodifies children — human beings, which sets the stage for designer babies. (I’ll talk about that issue much later in this blog)

      I’m quite confused of the social issues with your country same-sex marriage and ART. From what it appears surrogacy and ART are banned (?) while domestic partnerships do not offer same-sex couples the same rights as a marriage can.

      And it also appears that conservatives are trying to blame gays for the ART issues for children in France, despite the overwhelming participation of straight couples in this issue?

      It would be nice for you to elaborate the social issues going on in France. From what I understood marriage equality has been legal there for a very long time.

      Answer back friend, and welcome to my crazy mind I mean blog! Lol 😀

      Like

      Reply

    2. Let’s be honest, the manif pour tous was a religiopolitical machine. Years ago in Spain it was a group called Hazteoir. (In America it’s a long list of religious groups who use politics to keep their base fired up and angry.)
      They attempted to bring to Europe the model of the North American “Culture Wars.” The obvious problem they didn’t consider being that religion doesn’t hold the same weight in Western European societies as it does in the US.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I was actually surprised by the strength and influence this movement. I believed my own country was too secular for that.

        Like

      2. In the end it was, as it was in ‘Catholic Spain’.
        I think the problem we had in France was the intersection of groups on the right. The Catholic right, the FN right, even those further to the right in the UMP- they all saw it as a political opportunity, and they all tried to take advantage of it.
        They adopted the fear-mongering model that works so well in the US. It even works on a blog like Katy’s, someone who tries to be reasonable, but in essence is creating an environment that fosters the dissemination of false information.
        She lays the groundwork where homophobia can fester and then does nothing about it once it does. She washes her hands and says, “nothing to do with me, comments are open.”
        It’s a very questionable method.

        Like

      3. Hey Pink, thank you for your support on the commenting section, but I was wondering if you can tone it down with the anti-christian’ism. To be honest, I’m a borderline atheist too, and I do have strong feelings about religion, however I wouldn’t in a million years put it on a post as it could come off very disrespectful towards people of faith. So please, next time, just calm it down. I know things are hectic on Katy’s commenting section, but I don’t want to nurture the same environment on my blog too. Thx 🙂

        Like

      5. Katy said you said this? Did you say this or didn’t you? 😕

        The real concern child rights advocates should have is that parents are still allowed to brainwash their children to become hateful bigots under the guise of religious freedom. If they really want to protect children they should push to make that illegal.

        Like

      8. Don’t worry about it 😀 I think Katy was trying to say I allowed that sort of comment, and that was the exact same thing as her allowing people to say trans-individuals are rapists and gays want to buy children.
        She and I obviously have different parameters of what constitutes acceptable discourse. Which is fine with me.

        Like

      10. I have a feeling that’s not going to happen. I feel, in no uncertain terms, I was played.
        The whole nice, friendly, “of course I support gay people adopting, I’ve even helped in certain cases” thing doesn’t seem that honest at this point.
        I was really thrown off when I read about the amicus brief. Everything that followed put her in very bad light according to my standards of ethics.

        Like

  5. One thing I forgot to mention is that gamete donation must be free (that’s the one good thing about the system that nobody wants to change). So children don’t have to worry about being conceived for money.

    Ideally, I would be against donor conception and surrogacy altogether, but I know how easy it is to circumvent the restrictions in place, so I prefer a compromise solution that would maintain respect for children’s rights as far as possible.

    “I’m quite confused of the social issues with your country same-sex marriage and ART. From what it appears surrogacy and ART are banned (?) while domestic partnerships do not offer same-sex couples the same rights as a marriage can.”

    Donor conception is limited to straight married couples. Otherwise that’s right.

    “And it also appears that conservatives are trying to blame gays for the ART issues for children in France, despite the overwhelming participation of straight couples in this issue?”

    Yes.Because before the debate on same-sex marriage, they didn’t talk about it.

    From what I understood marriage equality has been legal there for a very long time.

    No, only two years. But domestic partnerships date back to 1999.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. In response to donor conception:

      Again, i slightly disagree with your compromise. I still think the compromise should be close family friends who are willing to take a parenting role, and participate in the child’s life when the child requests it.

      At any rate, childbearing shouldn’t be treated like a charity service because it still treats children as objects that couples are entitled to when they want them, rather than human beings who deserve parents who are going to raise them. Imagine if Iraq had the same charity services to create wives for men who didn’t have enough dowry money to pay for them? Sexist eh? Then why don’t we bat an eye when its for a couple who wants a child?

      As long as the system chooses to value biological children when the parents want them, the donor-system remains incredibly hypocritical. In other words “When a couple wants a biological child, its important. When a couple do not want a biological child, it isn’t important. In both circumstances the child must adjust”

      Let me just put it in the words of someone who’s donor-conceived

      “Your ‘gift’ wasn’t necessarily consensual to those who were the product of your donation. It is important to remember that you didn’t give away blood, or a kidney, or a old pair of jeans, you fathered children and decided not to raise them…. It isn’t fair for a child to be told to put up with the fact that they’re cut off from their paternal family, and their half-brothers and sisters, because you gave them up as a charity to another couple. How do you think it may feel to them? That you have biological kids of your own, but you disown them because you personally didn’t want them? It’s dehumanizing. Please consider that when you’re trying to pat yourself on the back for being a ‘good donor’.”

      http://anonymousus.org/with-love-120s-2/

      Like

      Reply

    2. In response to Catholic Group

      Sounds like the same mess that’s happening in the states. A lot of conservatives believe that gay marriage will promote more ART technology when the reality is most gay people do not want to have children, and straight people have been utilizing these technologies far more often.

      For many its just a strategy to hide homophobia at any means necessary. I’m glad its over. My issue and fear is that now it will stigmatize children’s rights advocates who are against the reproductive industry, but not marriage equality.

      Like

      Reply

  6. On my blog you will hear rigorous debate. There are 325 comments on my most recent post (http://askthebigot.com/2015/06/26/scotus-moves-away-from-the-rights-of-children-toward-a-right-to-children/) from diverse, well-informed perspectives (the host of this blog included). There are pro-SSM and anit-SSM voices, and one backstabber (I use that as a technical term her to describe someone who “practices criticizing someone in a treacherous manner while feigning friendship”). While commenters from both sides can get heated and sink to name-calling (the host of this blog and PinkAgendist/MisterMerveilleux included) anyone willing to put a little time into reading what’s being shared from the pro-traditional marriage camp would not come to the conclusion that I “lay the groundwork where homophobia can fester.” Unless you consider personal experience, biology, and logical/statistical arguments “homophobic.”

    Contrast that with the LONE comment on Mr. Mervelilleux most recent post:

    “The real concern child rights advocates should have is that parents are still allowed to brainwash their children to become hateful bigots under the guise of religious freedom. If they really want to protect children they should push to make that illegal.” https://justmerveilleux.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/political-commentary-why-gay-marriage-has-very-little-to-do-with-childrens-rights/#comments

    I do not see that PA/MM has confronted this buddy of his in what is clearly a hateful, uninformed, uneducated and bigoted remark. And yet PA/MM is chastising my “questionable method” of fielding comments?

    Be careful who you cozy up with, friends.

    Like

    Reply

      1. Your blog would not allow me to directly reply to Pink. So I had to put my comment here. PA- Pink Angendist MM- Mr. Mer

        Like

      2. Oh. Well. Ok. Do you want me to edit his comment or ask him to change it?

        Like

      3. Nope. Just don’t want him to think he can get away with slander or misinformation just because he’s not on my blog.

        Congrats on your first blog post. I’m grateful for your voice in this discussion!

        Liked by 1 person

    2. You aligned yourself with Edelman et al, and it’s been downhill from there. What you unfortunately proved was that my initial opinion of what you were doing was correct.
      You’re pushing an agenda instead of having an honest discussion. At first you used anonymity so you could cast stones whilst being completely sheltered from any fallout. Now you’re using people you know with the same agenda to bolster your case (all of whom personally profit from promoting an anti-gay agenda.) In the process you create the false impression your position is widely supported.
      Which is the fake screen name Edelman uses on your blog? I’m guessing she’s the one with the paranoid anti-trans comments. Which does Lopez use? And how about the fact that stopping same sex unions doesn’t stop gays from having children?

      Anyway, it’s a shame that you equate dissent with ‘backstabbing’- but I understand where you’re coming from. Your ideology doesn’t allow dissent or questioning, right? “I have read and understand the Grace Church doctrinal statement and will not be divisive to its teaching, I also understand the importance of submission to church leadership and will be diligent to preserve unity and peace.” That basically means no one is allowed to disagree.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Thank you for giving the observers of this blog a taste of the underhanded and defamatory tactics that you employ (albeit a mild example here) when you are in your angry place. Of course I don’t have a problem with dissent or questioning, which is why there are hundreds of not just questions but actual threats and hate speech after my posts: https://askthebigot.wordpress.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?s=206.191.148.66&mode=detail

        Anyone is allowed to disagree, at church and on my blog. Those with first hand knowledge of either of those will quickly catch on to your disparaging tactics.

        Of course being divisive is quite different from questioning and disagreeing. Divisive: tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people. Asking questions and disagreeing is a part of every healthy community and relationship, and every blog in my opinion. Being divisive is neither of those, because it has to do with pitting people against each other, especially through false accusations, half-truths, and slander. Which is exactly what observers will see of your behavior on my last post and which they are getting a taste of here.

        As to my church, this is how we deal with interpersonal conflict: http://askthebigot.com/2013/02/07/courageous-communication/ Those who actively defame others are confronted, usually by the person with whom they are speaking right then. That’s how we “preserve unity and peace”, one conversation at a time. Doesn’t exactly jive with your intended-to-defame characterization now does it?

        You are dishonest, and anyone who cares to look below the surface would see that you were not “dissenting” you were accusing and maligning. Questions call for answers. Manipulation calls for boundaries.

        Like

      2. Manipulating? Like your fake commenters? Like you pretending to be friends with me so you could put out an image of not being homophobic whilst promoting homophobic ideas? Going on the radio and mentioning your relationship with me to sell that idea? Talk about manipulative.

        Like

      3. Sorry, did I speak about our friendship with too much joy? Post the link. I bet everyone would be happy to hear my “homophobia” in an interview.

        Like

      4. He says that it felt like you were using him to push your traditional marriage campaign, so you can say “Look I have a gay friend, so I’m not homophobic” I thought you said you had more gay friends, so I’m not sure if what he feels is true. Maybe, you should go talk to him and see what he’s upset about. It seems like he’s legitimately hurt.

        Like

      5. I have no idea what is going on or why all of this happened. I did reach out to him and email to ask him what the heck happened. But the accusations continued. And they needed to be answered.

        But I would not try to get in the middle of this if I were you. Just keep writing and sharing your message. You have a lot to add to this conversation.

        Like

      6. In interviews, I’m often asked why I got involved in the legal fight. The answer is, I didn’t intend to. I wanted to blog anonymously, but Pink “outed” me so I share that story. And every time I talk about the friendship that followed and how grateful I am (was) for it. He is a part of my story.

        Like

      7. Have you noticed how everything you’re saying rings of dissimulation?
        Every answer is side-stepping. There’s a pattern to that. Over a year ago when I pointed out that there was something strange going on on your blog you flat out denied it. Every other blog on wordpress gets comments by wordpress bloggers, usually with their picture/gravatar and a link to what they write.
        Instead of being open upfront and explaining you had an editor, and maybe her boyfriend commented as well, and maybe you had a relationship with some of the other commenters- you just denied the whole thing. And then you took a most unusual position which you seem to still have now that it’s my fault you weren’t upfront about what was going on. My fault because I’m ‘tech-savvy’.

        I should be pleased you mentioned our friendship on the radio while trying to further your political agenda- if I’m not, it’s my fault.
        Apparently there still isn’t a planet in the solar system where it’s possible for Katy to be wrong and take responsibility for what she does. That’s the problem with living in an echo chamber. You’re in an environment where the same ideas reverberate back and forth and become accepted as fact on the basis of group consensus. Even in cases where those ideas are patently and verifiably untrue.
        That’s how you get into the mess of purporting to defend children while taking a course of action that doesn’t accomplish that. And on top of it pretending it’s the best/right course of action.

        Like

      8. http://askthebigot.com/2013/12/19/ive-got-and-editor-and-this-blog-would-be-lame-without-her/

        I am sorry that I mentioned you in interviews. I am often asked how I came to speak about this publically and that involved the beginning of our friendship. I had always counted it (and I think I said it once) as one of the greatest blessings of my time blogging. I thought that since the story of my outing and our subsequent friendship was all online (at your suggestion) that there was no problem with me sharing it.

        But I can see that it makes you uncomfortable and I think I understand why now. I don’t keep anything that I do a secret, but I also don’t blog about everything I do. I use Twitter for that, which of course is linked to my blog. But if you don’t follow me on Twitter (not like I have many followers) then you may not know what else I am writing or interviews/articles I’ve been cited in, or the fact that I’ve written a brief for SCOTUS. So while it seemed to me that everyone knew that I had written a brief/done interviews that this may not have felt on the up-and-up to you. I am sorry.

        Moving forward, when I am asked, is there a way I can honestly share about how I came to write under my own name that you feel would respect you and your position?

        Like

      9. I opened a twitter account in May of 2013, looked at it on exactly and only three days that month, and then abandoned it all together, never using it again.

        I’ve been flooded with emails in the past few days and I’m still trying to sort through everything.

        I’ve been sent a link to your own blog that shows how IMHO is Edelman and you’ve been in contact with her for quite a while. And there was also mention of someone named Janna Darnelle.

        Mentioning in a post you had an editor doesn’t really address my concern. My issue was and still is the creation of a false sense of societal consensus that’s orchestrated behind the scenes. That doesn’t make for genuine debate. You can say whatever you want about me in the future, but you can’t call someone a friend and let them be deceived this way. I would never have even entered any discussion where I knew someone as vulgar and crass as Edelman was present. You certainly knew that much about me and you never said a word.

        Like

      10. And really, we don’t have to drag this discussion out any further. I don’t like what happened, but you have every right to do whatever you like.
        I’ve never been one to play the victim, so I won’t. All is well. Let’s be elegant and dignified and leave it at that.

        All I can do at this point is wish you a lovely life with your beautiful family. I hope your choices lead you to where you aim to be.
        My regards,
        E.

        Like

      11. Best of luck to you and Mike. I don’t like what happened either and I wish I could figure out how to fix it. Enjoy your new home and all your worthy charitable endeavors.

        Goodbye,
        Katy

        Like

    3. P.S. I am indeed responsible for exposing your identity, and I have no qualms about that. I believe it was the ethical thing to do. Everything that followed was of your own making. Adopting the NOM strategy, becoming part of the quartette. I’m not responsible for it and I don’t have to like it that you moved in that direction. Imagine my shock when I happen upon this:
      http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/02/04/3618907/four-kids-gay-parent-oppose-equality/

      Like

      Reply

      1. Let the reader note that Pink/Mervelleux has no qualms with uncovering someone’s identity should they cross him. He has the ability- being a highly intelligent, resourceful, and tech-savvy blogger- and should he find something about you that he disagrees with he considers it “ethical” to reveal your identity. So make sure that you dance to his tune people.

        As to the identities of those on my blog, why don’t you tell me who everyone is Pink? You have their IP addresses, don’t you? You can back-search their images, right? You’ve done it before, do it now. I dare you. Or are you too concerned to do so because it will be only the latest of your conspiracy theories to fall apart once you discover actual evidence?

        I wrote a brief for the fifth circuit. (Referenced by your link) That’s no secret because I shared it on my blog earlier this year. And since you have been following my blog for quite some time obviously you where not “shocked” by the article above. Each of the four of us have very different, and equally valid, perspectives, and I didn’t co-author a brief with any of them for that court for that very reason. You feign shock so you have an excuse to share a distorted perspective.

        I co-authored by brief for the Supreme Court with Heather however because (since we don’t live in a 10-room Spanish villa) we had to consolidate to save money. If anyone is curious, here are the actual briefs that were filed with SCOTUS. You can see how “hate-filled” we all are (and educate yourselves in the process.) http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_Heather_Barwick_and_Katy_Faust.pdf

        Click to access 14-556_Dawn_Stefanowicz_and_Denise_Shick.pdf

        Click to access 14-556_Robert_Oscar_Lopez_and_BN_Klein.pdf

        You are not a helpless little lamb Pink. You know more about the details, identities, and whereabouts of everyone on this thread than anyone else.

        Again, especially to the author of this blog, be careful friends.

        PS- I see that you still have not confronted that commenter who left his hateful, uneducated remark on your blog. Too busy digging into everyone’s personal details on this thread?

        PPS- Are you still trying to discover how much HRC, GLAAD, and COLAGE spent on their efforts to involve children in their videos, briefs, and articles? Or are you only concerned about the “ethics” of those you disagree with?

        PPPS- No one I know was paid for anything. And I’m not associated with NOM in any way, despite Pink’s attempts to attach me to them somehow.

        Like

      3. btw, HRC, GLAAD, and COLAGE are fighting for people to have better lives. Your quartette is fighting to sell hatred and promote yourselves in the process. And you do it by promoting junk science, manipulation and deceptive practices.
        And I said you were aligned with NOM and using their methodology, which anyone can see if they look up the NOM memos which are now public.
        In fact, people can just search your name on the internet and see what you’ve been doing while pretending to be friendly with a gay man.

        Like

      4. I’ll intervene here to say that both sides tend to strive for a better outcome for people, but do it in a way that tends to be vicious and aggressive towards opposition.

        Like

      6. Pink hear me out. You seem open-minded so please please hear me.

        Yes, overall, from my observation, it does feel like (MOST not all) religious conservatives are not coming from a place of genuinely wanting to help the gay community but to instead promote a Christian-based agenda, however as my mom likes to say “Even the devil can make a point.”

        Even if it is coming from a place of genuinely wanting to hurt the LGTB Civil Rights movement, some of what they’re talking about is true and I feel, needs to be addressed.

        NOW, there is no legitimate reason to be against marriage equality, but since a lot of the gay parenting studies were done during a time where openly lesbian mothers were getting their children taken away from them by their straight ex-husbands, and that gays had to prove their legitimacy to get married by their parenting skills, it is VERY reasonable to accept that their gay parenting studies may be politically skewed, especially in a INTENSE political climate that we are in right now!

        THIS DOESN’T mean the conservative gay studies are any better, clearly they are not. But I have seen far more public critiques of anti-gay parenting studies, and no responses at all to the critiques of the pro-gay parenting studies conservative groups have made. In fact, the issues they’ve pointed out in these gay studies have been completely ignored.

        Furthermore, while I bet there are hundreds of kids who are probably very happy and emotionally whole with their same-sex parents, I’m sure there are hundreds more who have a few bones to pick at it. Even if they’re very little bones.

        Even in books like “Families Like Mine” and “Raising boys Without Men” (which were both promotional books for gay and lesbian parents) both authors confessed that the children (young and adult) that they had interviewed for the novel, all long to have a relationship with their biological parents, but these feelings were ignored and not respected. In “Raising Boys Without Men” ignoring the children’s feelings about their biological fathers, was even encouraged by the author.

        So when I say “Both sides mean well” that’s what I mean, that they can both make some valid points.. To be honest though, I tend to side more liberal than conservative. This is solely based on the evidence provided.

        I really wish people didn’t go into teams and would instead just read the information given and try to make solutions that will please everyone 😦

        Liked by 2 people

      7. I agree, but there’s a non-starter problem here.

        While they associate the two things, they’re being outright deceptive.
        I’m all for discussing the best interest of children. There’s nothing to stop that happening and restrictions being put in place.

        But just look back at Katy’s comments to you. On one side she says:

        -The government intruding in people having children is outrageous!
        and then she files a brief to have the government interfere with (gay) people having children
        😀

        You can’t tell me that’s reasonable behaviour. There’s more to her intent and actions than she wants to let on.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. “-The government intruding in people having children is outrageous! and then she files a brief to have the government interfere with (gay) people having children 😀
        You can’t tell me that’s reasonable behaviour.”

        Unfortunately I agree with you…And I brought that point up numerous times. How can you argue that there should be no regulation on parenting on the grounds of ‘its communism!’, but in the same breath ask Justice Ken to put government restrictions on certain parents because you feel they are unfit? Isn’t that still government regulation on parenting? Her friends spank their kids and some are anti-vaxxers, but she defends them DESPITE the evidence that says this isn’t safe for the kids. But then argues that same-sex parenting is bad for kids BASED on the evidence that says this is questionable for kids… UGGH So inconsistent!

        Maybe she doesn’t realize this though? I’ve talked on the phone and it turns out we had a lot of miscommunication over the internet, because we misread things or skimmed over things.

        Like

      9. I’d love to believe it’s about miscommunication, but I don’t. I was basically off the internet from December of last year to April of this year- except for email (because of the move to the south of France.)
        Katy emailed a couple of times and never thought to mention to ‘her gay friend’ what she was doing regarding gay people. Meanwhile I got messages from unknown people telling me she had mentioned our friendship on the radio. It was only after that that I decided to look into what was going on.
        I think she tried to use me, and I think that’s wrong. It’s not just inconsistencies, it’s the questionable nature of it all.

        Liked by 1 person

      10. Are you feeling betrayed? She says she has felt betrayed by you too. Maybe you two can talk it out. I understand I might sound very naive and overly optimistic, but I hate to see good friendships die out 😦

        Like

      11. If governments or courts disagree with her, then we’re in communist China. If they agree with her position then all is fair and well! Isn’t that a fabulous way to see the world?

        Like

      12. Ah. Well, it certainly seems that one of us was “pretending.” By all means, everyone, look me up. Read everything I’ve written or spoken in an interview. Then you can decide who’s “selling hatred.”

        Goodbye friend. I’ll miss your often good advice. And your insights which sometimes gave me a new perspective. And your razor-sharp wit, albeit wiley. I don’t know what happen, or what changed. I don’t know why this is the turn that our real-for-me friendship has taken. But, whether you believe it or not, I’ll miss you.

        Like

      13. That’s precisely the trick. You used me to not look homophobic while pushing an anti-gay agenda on the false pretenses of protecting children.

        Like

Leave a comment