LGBT

Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage Harms Children and Society

As June marked the 10th anniversary of the legal de-sexing of marriage through the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Obergefell v. Hodges decision, all citizens of good will should consider how this ruling has impacted humanity through children.

We must recognize that the case for same-sex marriage was always about the same-sex family. No one who advocated for this radical redefinition of marriage and family ever considered this was just about adults. It was always about the kinds of homes children in same-sex families would grow up in and how redefining marriage would change family itself.

The journal First Things has a very helpful, short essay explaining just how de-sexing marriage and family by removing the essential male/female binary has harmed children. It is authored by John Bursch, vice president of appellate advocacy at Alliance Defending Freedom and argued against Obergefell before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015.

Bursch explains, “Marriage, as I argued, has always served a vital function: binding children to their biological mothers and fathers whenever possible. The government’s interest in marriage has never been about adult companionship.”

This is because “the state’s interest in marriage has always been about creating a stable environment in which children can know and be raised by the two people who co-created them.”

That biological, emotional and societal connection serves as the foundation for all civilizations, as Aristotle long ago explained, is not a private preference, but a public good. Obergefell radically transformed marriage and the family into an adult-centric institution based on peculiar adult sexual desires and feelings, claiming it as a fundamental constitutional right. Bursch holds this “effectively eras[ed] the longstanding understanding of marriage as child-centered.”

An examination of the Latin root of the word matrimony or mātrimōnium establishes this ancient and universal meaning of marriage. Mater-monium is the recognition of and provision for the maternal needs, protection and care of mother and child by the father. This is what marriage has been across human history and diverse cultures for profound reasons.

In contrast, Bursch notes,

Most significantly, children are increasingly being brought into the world through practices that intentionally separate them from one or both biological parents, such as anonymous sperm or egg donation and commercial surrogacy. In other words, the law, influenced by Obergefell’s logic, now often prioritizes the desires of adults over the needs of children to know their mother and father.

Every child that same-sex families include are intentionally, by design, denied the very mother or father whose DNA and maternal or paternal parentage these children share, simply to meet experimental adult wishes. Further, these separations a created through the exchange of money. This is always unjust.

Bursch adds, “A just society must be willing to ask hard questions: not only, ‘What do adults want?’ but, “What do children need?” Modern society frequently focuses on the wrong question. We must confront the reality that children need their mother and father, together, whenever possible.”

Bursch ends his important essay with this essential and prophetic observation: “Obergefell may be the law, but it is not the end of the conversation.”

He compels us “to advocate for an understanding of marriage that serves the common good, one that remembers that every child begins with a mother and a father, and that society has an obligation to support that connection wherever possible.”

This is precisely why Focus on the Family will continue to work hard, and encourage others, to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges – so that marriage and family are returned to the rightful understanding of being about mothers, fathers and their children.

Afterall, there is no tomorrow for humanity without this essential societal good.

Image from Shutterstock.

Chip and Joanna Gaines Platform Couple to ‘Normalize Same-Sex Families’

Mega power couple, Chip and Joanna Gaines, of Fixer Upper and Magnolia Empire fame have launched a new series Back to the Frontier where three families, hailing from Alabama, Texas and Florida, all become 1800s homesteaders in the way-off-the-grid wilds of Alberta, Canada. All three families give up their modern ever-connected lives for eight weeks of genuine Little House on the Prairie living. Sounds like a great idea for very interesting television and family adventure.

But one angle on this seemingly family-friendly series has blown up the internet, and for a very good reason.

The Gaines have been very public about their Christian faith and home values. That is good.

What is bad is the Gaines have chosen to platform a same-sex male couple – Joe Riggs and Jason Hanna – who are quite a story on their own. In promotional media for this series, these two are very upfront about seeing the series “as a great, amazing opportunity to normalize same sex couples and same sex families.”

The great irony is this “family” of two men with twin boys would never exist in the frontier because there is nothing natural or normal about such families. Just a little digging into Riggs and Hanna’s own story makes that all too clear.

First, these two are attention hounds with their social media campaign and endless profiles including an extensive, splashy Dallas Morning News exposé. It tells their seriously disturbing anything-but-down-home story in dramatic detail.

Bottom line: Riggs and Hanna ended up with twin boys from the 43 fertilized eggs they procured. How do two gay men produce such a result?

The Dallas Morning News informs us the two men produced their essential male biological contribution while watching gay porn at a Forth Worth fertility clinic. That, and hundreds of thousands of dollars later.

The necessary female contribution?

That involved an anonymous 22-year-old south Texas woman who Riggs and Hanna obtained and paid through the fertility clinic. These two men had no interest in their boys’ actual mother beyond the contractual and mechanical procurement of her many, many eggs.

Riggs and Hanna then had to hire a womb to gestate their bought-and-paid-for designer embryos: a “gestational carrier.”  Talk about The Handmaid’s Tale. The two men first met their carrier – CharLynn, a 35-year-old African American woman who had a 10-year-old son with her husband – for lunch at a local Joe’s Crab Shack to suss out the arrangement.

CharLynn told The Dallas Morning News that gestating babies for others was her “part-time job” as the agreement with Riggs and Hanna was her fourth surrogacy gig.

This means these two boys, and the “family” the Gaines’ are platforming, were created at a profoundly unethical cost. The twin boys’ paternal contribution was initiated by masturbatory gay porn and financed by untold tens of thousands of dollars to a fertility clinic.

The maternal contribution was the twin boys’ actual (biological) mother being totally discarded as a for-pay egg producer on a massive scale; ultimately resulting in 41 very young human beings being discarded in some fashion.

Their growth from embryo to infant was a contractual agreement reached over cheap crab legs and french fries. On the day the designer embryos were “transferred” to the gestational carrier, CharLynn told The Dallas Morning News, “And my husband is standing over there to the side, telling them ‘My men! My men! Yeah, we’re going to have boys!’ And I’m, like, oh, my god … .”

Hanna and Riggs ultimately chose to implant male embryos, after toying with a boy/girl combo, because “we had seen two boys at a pool and really liked their interaction.”

Very serious men here, and those two boys are now deprived of their mother and her irreplaceable maternal love and influence because the two wealthy, attention-seeking fabulists featured in this publicity photo have very unique desires.

The babies in those wallpapered sonogram images are an enabling accessory to their self-absorbed cosplay of a natural family. After all, the reason these two men gave for choosing to be on the Gaines’ new series was because it’s “a great, amazing opportunity to normalize same sex couples and same sex families.”

Natural families never strive to “normalize” because they are normal. These men have an agenda.

Chip Gaines told the world on his X account on Sunday that Christians protesting their selection should “listen … maybe even learn” from family stories like Riggs and Hanna’s. Gaines added confidently, “I’m sure everyone will be fine.”

We did listen. Very carefully. It’s not fine.

There is no part of this family story that is ethical or natural. It commodifies the buying and selling, creating and destroying of children. It objectifies women’s fertility for cash. It deliberately deprives two boys of their right to and need for their mother. All these practices surely go against the values that drew millions of faithful viewers to the Gaines in the first place. Chip and Joanna should do some listening.

Image from Shutterstock.

Baptist Baylor University Accepts Large Donation for LGBT Inclusion

Note: Baylor has since rescinded the grant that raised the following concerns. Daily Citizen has updated it’s reporting on that reversed policy.

On June 30, Baylor University announced its Center for Church and Community Impact (C3I) in its School of Social Work was awarded a substantial $643,401 grant from the Eula Mae and John Baugh Foundation to help “better understand the disenfranchisement and exclusion of LGBTQIA+ individuals and women within congregations to nurture institutional courage and foster change.” Baylor’s official statement explains this is an academic research grant to “foster inclusion and belonging in the church.”

These dollars will fund a major study entitled, “Courage from the Margins: Inclusion and Belonging Practices for LGBTQIA+ and Women in Congregations.”Baylor’s explanation of this project is deeply concerning, as they state the project “prioritizes [LGBT] voices, giving them a safe space to share their experiences and guide positive change within faith communities.” The Baylor statement adds, “Information gleaned will directly inform trauma-sensitive training resources that C3I will develop for congregational use, providing guidance on inclusivity and institutional courage.”

As the Church Lady says, “Well, isn’t that special?” Developments like this will result in greater pressure on biblically-based church communities and individual believers to weaken their belief in and practice of God’s design for what it means to be human as male and female and for His good design for marriage, sexuality and family.

However, Dr. Graynor Yancey, Baylor’s C3I director and an endowed professor, explained in Baylor’s press release announcing the grant, “We are always so grateful for the support and encouragement of the Eula Mae and John Baugh Foundation for our ongoing research in assisting congregations in ministering to marginalized populations.” He explained this money will help them study “inclusionary practices of congregations with people who are marginalized in numerous ways.”

Good Faith Media, in their report on this development, explains, “As a university founded by and still associated with Texas Baptists – and one that has made strides toward becoming one of the nation’s top research institutions – Baylor has a long history of navigating issues related to LGBTQ+ inclusion.”

In 2021, Baylor started recognizing LGBT groups on campus, while simultaneously affirming that marriage is between a man and a woman. Those involved on various sides of this decision agreed that Baylor was sending mixed messages with these seemingly conflicting stances. In 2022, the university officially chartered Prism, a Baylor “LGBTQ+ and allies student organization.”

Baylor’s official mission statement proclaims, “The mission of Baylor University is to educate men and women for worldwide leadership and service by integrating academic excellence and Christian commitment within a caring community.” Baylor also boldly asserts on their website that their work “is founded on the belief that God’s nature is made known through both revealed and discovered truth.” They add, “Thus, the University derives its understanding of God, humanity, and nature from many sources: the person and work of Jesus Christ, the biblical record, and Christian history and tradition, as well as scholarly and artistic endeavors.”

It seems evident that the work this new large grant will fund is in clear conflict with each of Baylor’s stated sources of knowledge of God, save for the last one. We can pray that Baylor leadership will review its own mission statement and core values and reconsider this grant and very concerning research project.

Image from Shutterstock.

Public Libraries Promote ‘LGBT’ Books to Children and Teens – Year Round

(Caution: Includes disturbing content and links to book reviews with graphic content.)

Public libraries across the nation celebrated “LGBT pride month” by promoting sexually confusing books with homosexual and “transgender” themes to children and teens.

But it’s not just June when LGBT identities and behaviors are pushed on children, as many libraries promote age-inappropriate books throughout the year.

This is especially the case as the American Library Association has become more radical and promotes sexualized books for children. But it’s also because LGBT folks and their allies claim more days, weeks and months to celebrate various sexual proclivities – from Bisexual Health Awareness Month in March to Transgender History Month in August, and from Aromantic Spectrum Awareness Week in February to Transgender Awareness Week in November.

Libraries also promote inappropriate material during so-called Banned Books Week, in October each year.

Parents should be aware that this happens across the country – even in conservative communities.

In North Carolina, John Murawski reported at Real Clear Investigations about Raliegh public libraries celebrating LGBT pride month:

Like public libraries across the country, branches in North Carolina’s capital city turn rainbow-hued each June in celebration of Pride Month. Festive book displays featuring “queer-themed” titles written for all ages – from toddlers to teens and adults – are set out for the public as innocently as if the subject in question were cooking, gardening, or personal finance. 

He notes that the books promote a variety of sexual fetishes, including “cross dressing, drag queens, kink, BDSM (bondage, domination, etc.), poppers (recreational drugs used at sex clubs), … [and] polyamory (consensual non-monogamy) … among other delectations of the flesh.”  

While these books are especially featured during LGBT pride, parents should be aware that these books are available to children and teens all year long.

Libraries in Boston offer “We Are Pride Booklists” for children, teens and adults. That’s right, the staff-curated lists lump sexually explicit adult books together with LGBT books intended for children and teens. Hundreds of books are listed, such as: 

  • Who Are You? The Kid’s Guide to Gender Identity. The author is Brook Pessin-Whedbee, “a public school teacher and mama to three little ones who joyfully bend and break the gender boxes.” Written for children ages 5-8, the book introduces children to gender ideology, presenting “clear and direct language for understanding and talking about how we experience gender: our bodies, our expression and our identity.”
  • Transphobia: Deal With It and Be a Gender Transcender, is written by J. Wallace Skelton, “an educator, activist and writer.” Written for children ages 9-15, the book explains “Transphobia is intolerance of any part of the range of gender identity.” Through “information, quizzes, comics and true-to-life scenarios,” Transphobia helps “kids better understand gender identity and determine what they can do to identify and counter transphobia in their schools, homes and communities.”

Colorado Springs, Colorado is a generally conservative city, but libraries offer a list of “LGBTQIA+” books to adolescents and teens. The list, placed in the teen section of the library all year long, includes many unsuitable books:  

  • Cool for the Summer, by Dahlia Adler, is about a teenage girl who “is conflicted about her sexuality while she has romantic relationships with another teenage girl and her long-time boy crush.” One summary of concerns with the book says: “This book contains alternate gender ideologies; profanity [dozens of incidents]; sexual activities; sexual nudity; and alternate sexualities.”
  • Queer: A Graphic History, by Meg John Barker, has chapters like “Interrogating Heteronormativity,” “Open Non-monogamy,” “Polynormativity and Kinknormativity.” Rated Books says, “This book contains alternate sexualities; alternate gender ideologies; and controversial racial and social commentary.”
  • The Black Flamingo, by Dean Atta, a “fierce coming-of-age verse novel about identity and the power of drag,” is about a “mixed-race gay teen growing up in London” who explores sex with men and discovers his identity as a drag performing – the Black Flamingo. According to one review, the book contains: alternate sexualities; inexplicit sexual nudity; sexual activities; drug and alcohol use; alternate gender ideologies; controversy racial commentary; and references to racism.

While many librarians are helpful and hold conservative values, the American Library Association is a radical organization that has promoted unsuitable books for children for decades. The association dishonestly calls any parents’ concerns about sexualized books for children “book banning” and “censorship.”

The American Library Association’s “Library Bill of Rights” includes the following articles, which demonstrate what the group believes about parental involvement in children’s book choices:

  • Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.
  • A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
  • All people, regardless of origin, age, background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use. Libraries should advocate for, educate about, and protect people’s privacy, safeguarding all library use data, including personally identifiable information.

Basically, the association believes children should be able to check out whatever books they want, regardless of age, and that they deserve “privacy and confidentiality” – including from parents – in those decisions.

With libraries across the country promoting LGBT books throughout the year, it’s incumbent upon parents to give children a solid understanding of God’s good design for relationships, identity, sexuality and marriage.

In addition, parents should strive to maintain a healthy, open relationship with their children, so that when they do come across disturbing sexual content, they feel free to talk about these experiences.

Related articles and resources:

American Library Association Chooses Marxist Lesbian as President-Elect

‘Banned Books Week’ – What a Fraud

LGBT Activists, NEA and Librarians Promote Annual ‘Transgender’ Reading Day in Schools

Montana Library Commission Votes to Leave American Library Association Due to Marxist President

National Education and Library Groups Co-Sponsor ‘Transgender’ Reading Day for Elementary School Children

Sexualizing Schoolchildren: Classroom and Library Books

Surprise, Surprise — Planned Parenthood Gave Children Explicit Coloring Books

Three Ways the Media Supports Sexually Explicit, Inappropriate Books for Children

Focus on the Family:

Child or Teen Disturbed by Exposure to Pornography

Counseling Consultation and Referrals

Homosexuality Resources

Parenting Resources

Transgender Resources

Image from Getty.

US Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Law Protecting Kids From Transgender Mutilation

On June 18, the United States Supreme Court issued a historic 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s law banning the “transgender” mutilation of minors. The ruling is a monumental win for children, families and commonsense policy making.

The decision affirms the state’s authority to protect minors from dangerous and experimental transgender medical procedures. It also rejects the argument that children have a constitutional right to access medical interventions like opposite-sex hormones and surgery. The Court’s decision sets significant legal precedent in favor of state sovereignty and the democratic policy making process to determine the controversial issues of the day.

As previously reported by the Daily Citizen,  Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 prohibits doctors from prescribing puberty-blocking drugs and opposite-sex hormones or performing surgeries to “transition” a minor. The ACLU and LGBT activists challenged the law, claiming that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution because it discriminated on the basis of sex.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the Supreme Court’s majority opinion and was joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Justice Alito joined the majority opinion in part.

Roberts explained that the law does not discriminate against transgender-identified individuals because it applies neutrally to all individuals on the basis of age and medical purpose. The majority applied rational basis review, the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, because classifying by age and medical purpose does not require a higher level of legal scrutiny. Based on a rational basis review, the Court concluded that Tennessee has a legitimate interest in protecting children from unproven and potentially harmful medical treatments and surgeries.

The majority also opined that it’s not the role of the Court to settle ongoing debates about transgender medical interventions for minors. Roberts wrote:

This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. … The Court’s role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us, but only to ensure that the law does not violate equal protection guarantees. … It does not. … Questions regarding the law’s policy are thus appropriately left to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.

Justice Thomas concurred separately and argued that gender identity should not be extended to sex-based equal protection doctrine and reiterated that rational basis review is “critical to safeguarding” a legitimate government interest.

Justice Barrett also filed a concurrence emphasizing that “courts must give legislatures flexibility to make policy in this area.”

Justice Alito concurred in part and underscored the right of states to regulate these matters and clarified his position that “transgender status does not qualify under our precedents as a suspect or ‘quasi-suspect’ class” that deserves a heightened constitutional review.

The Court’s ruling places the United States (at least in the 26 states that have enacted Help Not Harm laws) in line with several European countries — such as Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom — that have restricted the use of these treatments in minors due to safety concerns and a lack of long-term evidence.

Justices Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan dissented from the majority, arguing that the law discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status and should have been reviewed with a heightened scrutiny. The dissent also maintained that to deny minors transgender medical intervention is a violation of constitutional protections.

The majority opinion is a decisive win for the idea that the people should resolve controversial medical and moral issues of the day by democratic processes rather than judicial fiat.

This ruling will set a strong precedent for the constitutionality of similar laws nationwide.

Focus on the Family applauds the Court’s decision. This ruling will help families protect their children from radical trans ideology that tries to deny the inherent goodness of God’s design for human sexuality and the value of male and female made in His image. 

Now is the time to call on Congress to pass a federal law to ban experimental trans interventions on minors nationwide. Every child in America deserves to be protected from reckless medical experimentation. Contact your senator and representative today.

Image from Getty.