It is Natural For a Child to Have and Want a Mommy

There are men out there, some partnered with other men, raising children the best they know how. If the choice is institutionalization or a two-man home (the men being generally good people), then I go with the two-man home. God bless people who choose to rescue children from institutionalization.

What I do NOT support is when unmarried people or same-sex couples intentionally create a situation through "third party" reproduction in which a child will be condemned to motherless or fatherless lives, or adopt infants or other children that could easily be places in a bride+groom home.

Rob Watson, LGBT activist, demonstrates why.

I always figured there were certain hateful statements that my sons would make, especially ones that say I am inadequate.

Hateful. Really?

I rushed him to the nearby bathroom as the stomach convulsions continued, and we experienced one of what would be many rounds of this illness episode. It was a horrible event, because there was nothing I could do for him but hold him while his body expelled the contents of his stomach. He cried and gasped and tried to recover.

"I am so so sorry," I whispered as his body tensed again.

"I want my mommy," he cried out, bursting into tears!

Say what?!

He... wants... his... mommy.

However, his comment was still concerning, because there is no such person in his life, nor has there ever been. He has been in my arms since he was 4 days old and weighed 4 lbs. There was a birth mother, but she was not a "mommy" and has never been there for him.

Yes, but he knows other kids have their Mommy.

I tried to ignore the comment, and I pet him gently. I had to say something, though, and I heard myself muttering, "You have a daddy, and I am here, boo."

He looked up and cried, "But you aren't my mom!"

Now I was at the emotional edge.

You were at the emotional edge?

"You have a dad, boo, not a mom," I said. "I do all your mom things for you. A mom just does what I do but would be a girl. I am your mom. Try to relax. You will feel better in a minute."

He looked at me again and cried out, "I want Papa!" Papa is my ex and was my co-parent for the boys. He chose to keep his distance from us over the past year.

Lovely. How fun for the kids.

The fact was that nothing could magically give my son comfort in that moment. I was not going to be able to make that happen. He knew it, and I knew it, and in his hypoglycemic irrationality he was lashing out in any way his mind could muster.

It is natural for a child to want his mother.

For me, the drama would continue: My younger son also got hit with the illness, so my new partner Jim took care of one child in one bathroom while I took care of the other child in another bathroom.

Oh, great. Just like heterosexual people who keep introducing their new lovers to their kids. More chaos. At least with heterosexual couples there are stepmothers as well as stepfathers. These children will not have a female parent with whom to bond and learn from, and yes, there IS a difference. Gender makes a difference to Watson in his relationships. Gender makes a difference in parental relationships, too.

The entire adventure is now a thing for our family history book, under "Thanksgiving Disasters," but still I felt the nagging residual pang of sadness over my son's declaration. I finally talked to him recently, and the conversation affirmed that he is not feeling that he is lacking anything with only male parents in our family.

He's going to tell you what you want to hear. He has no idea what he's truly missing, other than missing a mother.

He explained that one of his school friends talks to him "in private" and tries to tell him that he needs his "real" mother, and this friend has tried to get him on sites to "find" her. 

It is none of that other person's business, but biology makes it clear that there was a biological mother at some point. The writer might as well blame it on a biology textbook. Adopted children sometimes latch on to fantasies of other parents, but at least when there's both a mother and father present, they can honestly say we are your mother and father.

I do not believe that children of all ages should be privy to the intimate details of adult relationships, but they do need enough information to know that many family structures exist, thrive and are equal to their own.

How is a one-parent family equal to a two parent family? It isn't - not for the kid. How is a motherless pairing equal to a gender-inclusive pairing? It isn't - not for the kid. Saying they are all equal doesn't make it so. They are objectively different.


I fully support the freedom of association. If someone wants to pair with someone of the same sex (or for a triad, or whatever) that should be entirely up to them. Have ceremonies/parties/vacations, change your names, exchange jewelry, so on and so forth. Children do not have the freedom of association, and when activism pushes aside the needs of children in the quest for popular affirmation of private behavior, that is where the line is drawn.

The Orange Analogy

One of the primary functions of government is the continuance of the nation or state. As such, it has an interest in human reproduction, especially reproduction that happens naturally and is the result of normal, natural, common behavior between two citizens.

One of the primary functions of a grocer is to sell food; a produce seller sells produce (fruits and vegetables). A common item a produce seller sells is oranges.

But not everybody likes oranges. Some people are downright allergic.

Let's say most of these people are intensely drawn to playing with an orange rubber ball (ORB).

They insist the produce seller sell ORBs.

"I have no interest in selling ORBs, I am here to sell oranges," says the produce seller (PS).

"But we don't like oranges," says the activist group (AG) that likes ORBs.

PS: "Okay, well then, you don't have to buy oranges."

AG: "But we're here in the store. We have a right to participate in buying. We're no less human beings than your other customers."

PS: "I didn’t say you were. I'm here to sell oranges. ORBs are not oranges."

AG: "What's the difference? ORBs are round and orange, just like oranges."

PS: "But they're not food. I sell oranges because people eat them."

AG: "Not every orange that gets bought gets eaten. Some that get bought are too old, or are rotten, or infested. Some get destroyed. Some are used for decoration."

PS: "But most oranges are eaten. I sell them in this produce store because they are food. ORBs are not food. Oranges satisfy hunger and provide nutrition to the body."

AG: "But I saw that shopper right there buying oranges in here buying oranges several times before. How satisfying can they be?"

PS: "That doesn’t change the fact that oranges are food, and ORBs are not."

AG: "Some orange buyers also buy ORBs. Some do it under the table."

PS: "That doesn't change the fact that oranges are food and ORBs are not. Why should I sell ORBs?"

AG: "To make money. Selling ORBs will financially benefit the store and make us happy."

PS: "Fine! Okay!!! I will sell them elsewhere in the store."

AG: "Make them the same price."

PS: "Okay! Whatever you want."

AG: "Now put the ORBs in the orange bin, and sell them together."

PS: "But they're not oranges; they’re not food!"

AG: "It isn't about food. It is about selling things to people. Putting the ORBs in the orange bin and calling them oranges won't hurt the oranges."

PS: "ORBs do not provide nutrition."

AG: "There's enough nutrition in the world. Besides, we can put peanut butter on the ORBs and get nutrition that way. Sell the ORBs as oranges."

PS: "No! Look, I polled my customers, and the majority do not want that."

AG: "We're taking you to court."

The management of the produce store does not want to bother with court. Fans of Oranges (FOO), a customer group, decides to defend distinguishing oranges from ORBs in the store.

Judge: "Because the store sells both oranges and ORBs, and agreed to sell ORBs at the same price, it has to sell the ORBs from the orange bin, labeled as oranges."

Orange-buying customer: "I hate people who play with ORBs."

FOO: "That's irrelevant and you're not helping."

AG: "See! The only reason not to sell ORBs as oranges is hate!"

Judge: "You, FOO, have not demonstrated through legal evidences that oranges are different than ORBs. I mean, even though I don't buy oranges and I like ORBs, you haven't proven legally there's a difference. People get nutrition without buying oranges. People eat oranges without buying them in the store. Oranges are more prestigious than ORBs. This hurts the feelings of those who don't like oranges, but like ORBs. ORB-lovers have been hated. So I rule that produce sellers must sell ORBs as oranges."

...and that's how orange rubber calls, by court order, will be labled as oranges.

Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions are Trojan Horses

As another state considers going this route, I understand why other marriage defenders are against civil unions on principle. They see it as something that devalues marriage, much as most of them see shacking up and societal acceptance of fornication as well as shacking up as devaluing marriage. Many of these people want to discourage homosexual behavior as detrimental. I, too, see homosexual behavior as detrimental and civil unions as devaluing marriage. However, I recognize that people are going to do what they're going to do behind closed doors, and with broad societal accommodation, most people with homosexual feelings are not going to consider enough incentive to refrain from homosexual behavior. So, I see civil unions as a compromise to give same-sex couples a shortcut to certain legal arrangements, even though those arrangements were attached to marriage because of marriage's procreative and uniting-of-the-sexes nature. I want to be a nice guy. I don't see civil unions as a right, but would be willing to support a law creating them... except that I can't due to tactical reasons. Instead of preserving marriage law (which is why - along with discouracing homosexual promiscuity - I'd be willing to support them even though I think they devalue marriage somewhat), civil unions are used as a Trojan Horse to neuter marriage licensing. Once they are in place, the battle cry of the marriage neutering crowd becomes "we can't have 'seperate but equal'". Of course, the courts should recognize that civil unions are for associations that are inherently different than marriage, but Judge Walker didn't in the California Propostion 8 case.

I would think it good if DOMA was replaced by a Constitutional amendment that made a distinction between marriage and civil unions, thus allowing the federal government to recognize neutered marriage licenses from the states that issue them, and civil unions from the states that issue those – for things like federal employees and such, while preventing states from being forced to neuter their marriage licenses. The problem is, what matters more to marriage neutering advocates, more than getting certain legal entitlements, is removing all distinctions made between marriage and this form of non-marriage, so such an amendment would not satisfy them. In their thinking, marriage must be killed and replaced by a counterfeit, or SSM.

This blog entry, originally at The Opine Editorials a while back, was prompted by coverage of the Trojan Horse in Hawaii. Reporting by Suzanne Roig, writing by Dan Whitcomb, editing by Greg McCune brought this Reuters article.

Governor Neil Abercrombie on Wednesday signed into law a bill allowing same-sex civil unions, making Hawaii the seventh U.S. state to grant essentially the same rights as marriage to gay couples.

So the law is like California's domestic partnerships, where both-sexes couples need not apply unless at least one of them is a senior citizen?

"This signing today of this measure says to all the world that they are welcome, that everyone is a brother or a sister in paradise."

Wait, did he just compare SSM to incest? That's outrageous! Hawaii has a history of recognizing brother-sister marriages as valid, unlike brideless or groomless pairings. So making the comparison is a bad thing to do.

"The legalization of civic unions in Hawaii represents in my mind, equal rights," Democrat Abercrombie said in signing the measure, his first as governor.

Yeah, and that's what marriage neutering proponents say for a while, until the Trojan Horse is in the door. Then, suddenly, the civil union law they said was so vital becomes an insult.

"Today marks a big step toward full equality for lesbian and gay people in the Aloha state," said Jennifer Pizer, national marriage project director for the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

Big step forward? What, pray tell, is left? I think we all know the answer to that.
Here's an Associated Press article by Mark Niesse.

For years, the Rev. Fay Hovey has held romantic ceremonies on the sand for gay partners who want to pledge their love in Hawaii.

How is that possible? Marriage neutering advocates, including the ones in the news media, have told us that such things were banned! Do they think we can't compare articles from the same news agencies?

A Different Marriage Pledge

We've heard of pledges politicians have been asked to sign that affirm, among other things, the bride+groom core of marriage.

We know marriage neutering advocates would never sign a pledge like that. However, they should be asked to sign a different marriage pledge. This one should be a pledge to:

1) Oppose with statements, votes, and vetoes any attempt to a) provide legal recognition to polygamous or incestuous marriages; b) lower the age consent; or c) grant person status to machines or nonhuman animals.

2) Support with statements, votes, and votoes the rights of a) clergy, religious venues, and religious organizations not to perform or host wedding ceremonies in violations of their principles; and b) the rights of parents to teach their children that a marriage only exists when bride and a groom are involved.

Since so many marriage neutering advocates publicly scoff (to the point of being bullies) at the idea that neutering marriage can be in any way associated with polygamy, incest, pedophilia, or bestiality, and since they have said "churches won't be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies", they should have no problems signing such a pledge, right?

Of course, if they are willing to sign a pledge with the first point, they will be admitting that marriage should be defined one way and not another, and that there isn't a fundamental right to marry or define it any way someone wants, since they would be opposing marriages (polygamous, incestuous) that have been historically recognized and are currently practiced and recognized in various parts of the world. They would be admitting that it is okay to place restrictions on marriage licensing for the sake of good public policy over personal desires.