Two Lesbians Raised a Baby. But...
By Donna Kassin, Editorial Director – The Real Proposal magazine, December 12, 2011

Donna Kassin's Email  | Author Biography & Archives

• This YouTube video is going viral a second time, 11 months after first exploding on the Internet, largely, it seems, because of a November 30 posting on MoveOn.org, titled, “Two Lesbians raised a baby and this is what they got.” In the video, Zach Wahls, a 19-year-old University of Iowa student, is seen delivering an articulate, compelling argument to the Iowa House of Representatives during a public forum, in which he sought to drum up opposition to Joint Resolution 6, which effectively sought to ban gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in that state.
  

Wahls, a self-professed 6th generation Iowan and engineering student who has been raised by a lesbian couple, one of whom is his biological mother, Terrie, presents as a handsome, clean-cut, polite, and eloquent young man. Regarding how he sees himself and his non-traditional upbringing, Wahl tells the House Committee, “I’m doing pretty well. I scored in the 99th percentile on the A.C.T. I’m actually an eagle scout. I own and operate my own small business. And if I were your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe I would make you very proud. I’m not really so different from any of your children. My family really isn’t so different from yours. After all, your family doesn’t really derive its sense of worth by being told by the state, ‘You’re married!’ Our sense of worth comes from the commitment we make to each other.”

Certainly—well, superficially, at any rate—Wahl’s accomplishments at such a tender age would constitute success in most anyone’s book. Moreover, he appears to be a likeable, well-adjusted young man. But the obvious question that emanates from his argument is: If the sense of worth for same-sex families comes not from the state declaring that they are married why, then, are they so aggressively demanding a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples?

To be sure, there are special rights that are afforded federally and contractually to heterosexual couples in support of “responsible procreation,” which is really what lies at the heart of society’s interest in regulating marriage. In the “Land of the free,” no one could reasonably argue that gays and lesbians don’t have a right to live as they choose. What they don’t have, however, is the right to redefine marriage for all of us. Same-sex marriage is not about "my relationship" versus "your relationship." Public policy is not about specific individuals. Likewise, public policy regarding marriage is not about any couple in particular. Marriage is about future generations and the ideal setting in which they are to be raised. And yes, some same-sex couples do a very good job at raising kids, while some heterosexual couples fail miserably at it. But again, public policy is broader than specific couples and should be based on noble ideals that transcend all of us—you, me.

Truth be told, what same-sex couples and homosexual activists are seeking ultimately, shrouded in smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,” and “fairness” is moral approval. What they are seeking—even in light of the glaring, intrinsic difference in gender coupling and its associated social consequenes—is not merely to be tolerated or accepted but to be deemed "no different" than heterosexual couples. They want to be embraced and encouraged and their lifestyles considered mainstream. However, moral approval would require you and me to look upon homosexual behavior and proclaim it "a good thing."  Moral approval would mean that we are complicit in our children being taught that homosexuality is righteous and true and that we are compelled by conscience—and if not, the courts—to spurn businesses and persons who do not believe likewise. Effectively, moral approval would mean that you and I are not only prepared to permit homosexuality in our homes, but that we embrace it. We applaud TV shows that celebrate it, Web sites that promote it, books that endorse it and, yes, that we may even choose to practice it. Moral approval goes to the very essence of our person. And, in this effort, homosexual activists clearly intend to take no prisoners in seeking, ultimately, to silence all opposition to their lifestyle choices. Never mind that what they are seeking stands in stark opposition to universal social and spiritual beliefs over several millennia regarding what constitutes marriage. They have a manifesto and playbook in place since 1989, which demands that anyone not in complete compliance with their point of view be deemed “bigots” and “haters” rather than dissenters or, more accurately, purveyors of sheer common sense!

What’s more, we have not yet accumulated sufficient credible, empirical data through long-term social and scientific study to support society’s carte blanche approval of these arrangements as viable and healthy options in which to raise children. Indeed, in their efforts to reengineer the family, can same-sex couples unequivocally state, with any sense of integrity, that we fully understand the likely consequences of our institutionalized severing of biology from parenthood?

The real issue, ultimately, is not about Wahl’s particular situation—or how much empathy he elicits as a really likeable guy—but whether or not such anecdotal accounts can actually hold up to closer, impartial scrutiny and whether they are truly representative of other children caught up in similar scenarios. Assuredly, there are countless others – already deemed “collateral damage” who tell a different story. “Alana S.,” for example, speaks about the “pain of being DENIED a biological parent (and being taught that it was a good thing!)” Adult rights, according to the apparent reasoning of same-sex marriage supporters, seemingly trump those of the children like Alana S. who have been conceived to satisfy the biological longings of same-sex couples wanting to “play house” with partners that nature will never comply with in producing children.

Therefore, before we succumb to strategic—but misguided and, often, duplicitous—appeals to conscience by homosexual activists regarding what constitutes “equality” and “fairness,” perhaps lawmakers should be contemplating, in an impartial bipartisan forum, the collective emotional and psychological well-being of first generation test-tube/IVF babies that have now grown into adulthood. Perhaps, we should be listening to their heart-wrenching stories about how being an “engineered” baby feels to them, about their rights being severed from conception to connect on a sheer visceral level with the biological donor parent(s) who determined their very existence and with whom significant numbers believe their true identity is linked. And it is not just same-sex couples that are engaged in these kinds of biological engineering and shenanigan agreements with sperm donors! For every seeming success story, there are undoubtedly countless others who do not have such glowing accounts as Wahls of their domestic situations, or enviable psychological profiles, even when raised by loving, well-adjusted—even heterosexual—parents.

Moreover, can we just be honest, please, without the politically correct spiel? Plain and simple, same-sex families are different! Two women or two men can NEVER bring to the table the same biological and sociological attributes that a heterosexual couple can to parenting. Trust me, I know. I have largely raised my own two daughters—both of them high achievers—with the help of my mother over the past ten years. My mother and I are both strong women—“good” people, as most who know us would attest. But, after experiencing a traditional domestic arrangement in a loving scenario before my husband succumbed to cancer, my children will tell you—without fear of recrimination—that being raised by two women is not only different. There is a clear void—a “Daddy hunger” that, sadly, neither my mother nor I can fill.

When all is said and done in this same-sex marriage debate, lawmakers will have to decide not just what constitutes marriage but who also qualifies for marriage. Ultimately, we will have to decide whether both mothers and fathers have critical and important—but different—roles to play in well being of children, as nature appears to scream, or they do not. However, in the interim, before we completely succumb to the powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques that the homosexual movement uses to manipulate the public in the media, can we, at least, agree on one thing? As David Blankehorn stated in his book, The Future of Marriage, “One can believe in same-sex marriage. One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both.”





Editor's note: A constitutional ban on gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships passed the Iowa House by 62-37. Democratic Reps. Dan Muhlbauer, Brian Quirk and Kurt Swaim joined 59 Republicans in support of the measure. Thirty-seven Democrats voted “no,” and one Republican was absent. In order to become law, the amendment must now pass in the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate, where Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Council Bluffs Democrat, has vowed to block it. If it succeeds there, it must be passed by both the House and Senate again in 2013 before it can be placed on the ballot.

Post Comments Below
(We welcome your RESPECTFUL comments only)

RELATED ARTICLE:  The Sperm-Donor Kids Are Not Really All Right: A new study shows they suffer.  Slate magazine,  By By Karen Clark and Elizabeth Marquardt, June 14, 2010
The Kids Are All Right, due out in July, is being praised for its honest portrayal of a lesbian couple, played by Julianne Moore and Annette Bening. But what seems most revelatory about the movie is its portrayal of their two teenage children who track down their sperm donor biological father and insist on forging a connection with him. Finally, we have an exploration of how children born from such procedures feel, because in fact it turns out that their feelings about their origins are a lot more complicated than people think. . .

blog comments powered by Disqus

Get 2 Free Preview Issues!

Home  |  Subscribe  |  About Us  I  Editorial  I  'MARRIAGE' In The News  I  Enter Our Blog Spot  I  'Something New'