THIS maudlin Washington Post story, more editorial than balanced reporting, argues that the same sex “marriage” law on the Maryland ballot is in the interest of children, echoing the slogan used by Gov. Martin O’Malley, who says people should vote for homosexual unions “for the kids.” That’s right. The governor of Maryland believes that being raised by homosexuals and being denied a relationship of any kind with one parent is actually a good thing and should be championed for its own sake.
The article by Aaron C. Davis features two overweight, middle-aged lesbians (almost all middle-aged lesbians are seriously overweight, or so it seems) seeking to formalize the adoption of one of the woman’s twin sons by the other. They are already legally both the parents of another boy who was born to the same woman. The women appear before a female judge who is delighted with their petition and with the idea of three boys being raised by lesbians. Unsurprisingly, they succeed in the adoption of the twins. Now both of their names are on the childrens’ birth certificates, making this document an outright lie and falsification of parentage. One small battle is won in the ongoing war on children.
Amid the sympathetic details about the immense sacrifices of the lesbian couple, we find this interesting paragraph:
Rice [one of the lesbian women], who manages a homeless shelter in the District, carefully documented their Shady Grove fertility clinic’s use of sperm from an anonymous donor so that no one could later claim fatherhood.
These women have with deliberate calculation obliterated the boys’ father from their lives, and we are supposed to believe that they have the children’s best interests at heart.
—– Comments ——
Science has progressed to the point of enabling us to trace our genetic heritage back through centuries, and technology now makes available thousands of historical documents and records to enable us to learn about our actual ancestors and family narratives. Is it not ironic that our progressive society is now pressuring us to codify a new creation myth in the name of The Children? In what way will it benefit the children to have fictitious birth certificates? In what way will it benefit the children to grow up believing that they can create children whenever and however (why not have eight all by yourself?) as long as they are “planned and wanted”?
A whole generation (which is now in control of our culture) has been formed by a public school and university curriculum based largely on “sex education” and its various literary and social manifestations. Is it possible that we will now be forced to bring back the stork? Will the American Psychological Association proclaim that exposing the children to reality could seriously damage their self-esteem and put them at risk? And how could we deny the risk?
For all the breakthroughs that science has brought us, including the human genome project itself, it proves no match for the mass sentimental spirit of our time. When truth is too hard, we must choose feelings instead, and we can always say it is for the good of the children that feelings not be hurt.
Perhaps we have evolved as far as we can, and now any progress must be in reverse.