Same-Sex Marriage

Guy Benson: Can We Celebrate His Baby News?

Guy Benson, a Fox News political analyst, recently announced he and his “husband,” Adam Wise, are bringing home a newborn baby girl to join the boy they acquired through surrogacy in 2023.

Benson’s celebratory Instagram post shows him and Wise bottle-feeding the newborn, each of them doing so on a hospital bed. The first child, Conrad, was acquired through the two men hiring a surrogate. It is assumed this second child was created and born the same way.

Because neither man is interested in women or motherhood, they had to hire a womb to get the babies they desired. They also paid the child’s mother to relinquish her natural maternal rights. There is no glossing over that blunt fact.

This means both children are being intentionally denied their natural mothers, assuming the biological and gestational mothers are two different women, which they likely are. That is how messed up things get when we redefine what family and parentage are because of the legality of same-sex marriage. Same-sex relationships are human cul-de-sacs. That is not a judgement. It is a fact. They don’t lead anywhere humanly by themselves. They are naturally sterile, non-life-producing.

So, when two (or three+) men want babies, they must go knocking at the door of heterosexuality to obtain the necessary eggs and wombs from women. They pay the woman to relinquish her natural maternal rights to her own child. This is what Guy Benson and Adam Wise did. Lesbians must do the same, further obliterating the importance of fatherhood.

As a result, the children born to such arrangements lose their natural mother or father.  All because some adults want kids in wholly unnatural and problematic ways. Intentionally creating children to deny them their natural mother and father is never ethical. It is never loving. It is never progressive, but regressive. It can never be celebrated or congratulated. Yet, it is now increasingly done to satisfy adult wishes.

This is why no one should ever congratulate any family form that mechanically manufactures children and separates them from the father or mother whose DNA they came from and share. The adults deeply desire a biological connection to their child and spend a small fortune to create that. Yet, they casually deny their child the same. They say biology doesn’t matter … until it does.

Benson, in his announcing Instagram post this week, said, 

She’s here, and she’s perfect. We are blessed and overjoyed to welcome Madison Halsey into the world and into our family. Our hearts are filled to the brim. A baby girl. We are just so thankful.

No doubt she is perfect. All life is worth celebrating. 

But not all human configurations are worthy of the same celebration. Madison is perfect, but she will grow up without a mother. There is nothing “perfect” about that. And she will because two men want it that way. The word for that is “selfish.”

Madison will have no mother to bond with in that special, wholly unique motherly way. Guy can’t do that. Adam cannot. All of the love, care and material resources in the world cannot make either of them a mother. Grandma won’t be able to fully fill that role. Madison is a girl, and she will always wonder who her female parent is. Why? Because seeing one’s similar and distinct image in one’s mother and father is literally one of the most natural human developmental experiences in the world. Benson and Wise have taken that away from Madison and that is nothing to congratulate.

The legalization of same-sex marriage by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2015 created this by radically redefining the family and parentage. The legal innovation of Obergefell v. Hodges de-sexed the family by removing the essential quality of male or female. If the Benson-Wise “family” is just as laudable as the natural male-female family, then the feminine in humanity simply becomes optional, merely preferential like vanilla or chocolate ice cream. It also says designing intentionally motherless and fatherless children is something to celebrate.

Do not miss that the argument for same-sex “marriage” created the de-sexed “same-sex family.” Both are human impossibilities and violations of what it means to be human.

No amount of congratulatory happy talk can mask this fact: Madison is denied her mother because two wealthy men want it that way.

Which Pastors Would Perform Same-Sex ‘Weddings’ If They Could?

The legalization of same-sex “marriage” was never about “marriage equality.” It was always about redefining marriage and the family to be something other than the natural union of the two parts of humanity: male and female.

Ryan Burge, a statistician and professor at Washington University in St. Louis, recently posted some surprising data from the National Survey of Religious Leaders conducted by Duke University’s sociology department. It documents some extremely concerning numbers on whether pastors from various streams of Christianity would be willing to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

The survey question asked, “Would you perform the wedding of a same-sex couple if your religious group allowed it?”

He presents the findings here:

It was striking enough that 80% of evangelical pastors said, “definitely not.” Evangelicals had the highest number of clergy refusing to perform something that clearly defies God and nature’s design for marriage. Another 9% of evangelical pastors were a tad less sure, answering “probably not.” It is indeed good that this refusal was not lower for evangelicals. But who exactly are these 11% of evangelical pastors who do not have a clear understanding of what a marriage is … and is not? One can hope their church helps them find another line of work … and a Bible.

The category of “Black Protestant” pastors was the next highest, with 70% saying “definitely not” while 14% said “probably not.” Twelve percent of this group said they were “not sure.” It is interesting to consider how many of these are essentially bible-teaching evangelical churches with majority black congregants, or more liberally mainline in their tradition. This high number refusing to do such weddings likely points to the former. 

A whopping 63% of mainline Protestant pastors said, “definitely yes” (49%) or “probably yes” (14%). It is indeed a sad commentary for mainline denominations that it seems like good news that at least 23% said “definitely not” while another 7% said “probably not.” At least there seem to be some pastors in the mainline denominations who know marriage is between a husband and wife.

It was concerning as well that only 46% of Catholic priests said they would “definitely not” perform such a wedding, while 10% said “probably not.” A full 33% of Catholic priests would “definitely” (17%) or “probably” (16%) wed a same-sex couple. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is crystal clear on this subject, as is scripture. God’s creation truth can never change.

Jesus was extremely clear on the matter, in Mark 10:6-9 and Matthew 19:4-6. He tells the Pharisees to remember what Genesis says about God’s design for marriage.

God created humanity in his Trinitarian image, and He created them male and female. The first thing God does with the first humans is perform their wedding. He bids them to start a family and engage the world and rule over it. Marriage is thus the foundational institution in God’s created order and it exists between the two complementary humans — male and female — which is the only human relationship that can be life-giving in God’s image and likeness. No one has the right to redefine this, but this is precisely what same-sex “marriage” does. It says that one of the unique God-imagers — male or female — are simply optional for the family. This is a lie.

No pastor should struggle with this truth, regardless of how his own church authority might endeavor to redefine Scripture and rewrite the rule of nature.

Related Articles and Resources

How the “Trans” and Gender Redefinition Issue Attacks the Family

Why Christians Can’t Avoid the “Trans” and Gender Redefinition Issue

10 Things Everyone Should Know About a Christian View of Homosexuality

New Research Shows Married Families Matter More Than Ever

Why You Should Care About the Growing Positive Power of Marriage

Important New Research on How Married Parents Improve Child Well-Being

New Research: Marriage Still Provides Major Happiness Premium

Cohabitation Still Harmful – Even as Stigma Disappears

Don’t Believe the Modern Myth. Marriage Remains Good for Women

Don’t Believe the Modern Myth. Marriage Remains Good for Men.

Yes, Married Mothers Really Are Happier Than Unmarried and Childless Women

Why Are People Rejecting Trans Ideology, But Not Same-Sex Marriage?

There has been talk as of late about why the lie of trans ideology is dying a steady death, while support for so-called same-sex marriage (SSM) has declined only slightly, notably among conservatives.

Why is this?

University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus explains in the Public Discourse how trans ideology is the “bridge-too-far,” which may cause more to question other lies of sexual revolutionaries.

As he explained to the Daily Citizen, “The winds have shifted.”

Professor Regnerus states in his article, “What might have seemed like the next progressive triumph-in-waiting is instead running off the rails.”

“There are at least four key reasons why the gender saga has not enjoyed the same cultural, popular, and legal success that SSM has.”

1. While gay marriage radically redefined a vital social institution, trans ideology redefines the human person.

Regnerus explains, “Just listen to the difference between a man saying, ‘I’m allowed to marry another man,’ and the same man saying, ‘I am able to become a woman.'”

There is indeed a massive difference. One is a mistaken choice someone can make. The other is an impossible ontological claim about the person making the claim.

In fact, the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges wrote in their opinion that any citizen has the right to disagree with same-sex marriage. Try disagreeing that a neighbor or co-worker is not the “woman” he claims to be. It will not go well for you with those who have bought the lie that male and female are chosen identities.”

Regnerus continues, “It’s why same-sex marriage seems a no-brainer to an author like J. K. Rowling, but transgender claims are not just uncomfortable but an offense, an unacceptable transgression of the social contract – a bridge too far.”

2. Legalization of same-sex marriage was a change decades in the making and all possible by changing views of marriage.

Regnerus explains, “Same-sex marriage was only possible because the demand for marriage and the respect that the institution long commanded had been eroding for more than forty years.”

No-fault divorce laws severed marriage of any lasting meaning, allowing the party ending the marriage, for any or no reason, all the power while the faithful spouse had none.

“Obergefell was also a reflection of how much marriage has been bled of its understanding as a reproductive union,” Regnerus reminds us. He rightly states, “Without the contraceptive revolution, SSM would never have occurred.”

3. Same-sex marriage is morally wrong, but simple to wrap your mind around.

Same-sex marriage redefines marriage. Transgender ideology, however, can look different, so we’re told, depending on the individual’s imagination. We cannot question their “reality,” and therefore we are expected to be on board for all of it.

Being “trans” can involve changing clothing, name, physicality and appearance in a binary or non-binary way. It also can include someone’s mere pronouncement of change without any actual change whatsoever. Just the claim makes it “true.”

Furthermore, there were years of public debate over same-sex marriage, as anemic and disingenuous as it was before Obergefill. The same can’t be said about trans ideology. Instead, everyone was expected to get onboard.

Regnerus correctly notes, “The pace at which consensus is sought, then declared, in this entire domain has been ridiculously rapid, a political rather than empirical move.” It was done by edict and power politics.

4. It’s easier for people to see trans ideology as harming children. It’s harder to make the same case about same-sex marriage.

Yes, gay marriage placed children in intentionally motherless and fatherless homes simply to satisfy adult wishes. But fawning media profiles of the adults constructing such “families” papered over this.

Trans ideology, however, mutilated children’s bodies and messed with their minds. Too many of us saw this carnage in our own extended families and neighbors, and as a result pushed back.

These are all reasons for so many people to now reject trans ideology, all while largely supporting the radical redefinition of the family that gay marriage wrought.

Hopefully the lie of transgenderism will reveal the destructive fiction of the family and same-sex marriage.

Image from Shutterstock.