Gay Weddings, Synthetic Babies, and the Brave New Court


Mark Steyn published a must-read piece in National Review Online.  He argues that the way gay marriage received federal recognition by the Supreme Court was in its own class of bad.

As Steyn points out, our gay marriage consensus compares unfavorably even to the socialist democracies of Latin America and Western Europe, dissolving amid riots, bankruptcy, and birth rates below replacement level:

When less advanced societies wish to introduce gay marriage, the people's elected representatives assemble in parliament and pass a law. That's how they did it in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, etc. But one shudders to contemplate what would result were the legislative class to attempt "comprehensive marriage reform," complete with tax breaks for Maine lobstermen's au pairs and the hiring of 20,000 new IRS agents to verify business expenses for page boys from disparate-impact groups. So instead it fell to five out of nine judges, which means it fell to Anthony Kennedy, because he's the guy who swings both ways.

The bad news doesn't stop there, though.

A bill in California forcing the public health plan to finance lesbian sperm-banking dovetails with a current bill on surrogacy contracts pending in the nation's capital.  Lesbians must have the "right" to sperm, and gay men must have their "contracts" with surrogate mothers safeguarded.

Straight people started the artificial reproductive technology morass to deal with infertility, but it's now the gay lobby that promises the future growth market for the synthetic baby business, as well as the most compelling ideological pretext to normalize commercialized procreation.  (Hypocrisy alert!  In the 1970s, homosexuality was fervently de-pathologized by the medical field, but now homosexual activists compare themselves to heterosexual couples with medical disabilities such as infertility in order to qualify for artificial reproduction rights.)

In the context of gay rights, homosexuals must be legally shielded from the expectation that they ought to fertilize their eggs and implant their sperm by flirting, courting, and making love to the opposite sex.  Not only must they have access to the flesh-and-blood parts to manufacture obedient, loving children -- they must reshape culture and laws to force all of us to refrain from judging or criticizing them.

Bring this up to any liberal reporter, and you're quick to get the adoption dodge: "What if there's a baby nobody wants and it will languish in an orphanage or else be in a loving gay home?"  (For some reason people who defend homosexual ideology love to speak in contrafactuals and imaginary scenarios.)  The problem is that we know the gay lobby has helped to put Christian adoption agencies out of business if they refuse to allow same-sex couples to adopt.  Pretenses of caring about orphans are disingenuous.

In the end, adoption is a smokescreen for the bigger push to equalize gays to straights by severing the act of lovemaking from parenthood.

All legal and cultural references to the adults who brought us into existence must be dramatically transformed.  No longer the offspring of fathers and mothers, we shall become the property of purchasers.

In Washington, D.C., there are strict laws against "surrogacy," or a woman bearing a child and abandoning it to a couple in exchange for pay.  Such codes are laws against buying and selling human chattel.  (You know, the crime against humanity that we fought a Civil War about.)

There are currently efforts in the name of "family equality" to roll back the law against surrogacy.  Before the city's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, Nancy Polikoff, who is a professor from American University and serves as the faculty chair of the powerful pro-gay Williams Institute, told a fawning audience that "[f]or more than 20 years advocates for lesbian and gay parents have emphasized that genetics is neither necessary nor sufficient to create parentage."

The speech given by Poliakoff is not isolated. Argentina is the latest nation to pass laws -- again, invoking gay and lesbian equality -- mandating that public health plans finance in vitro fertilization:

The law's basic tenet is that every adult, regardless of marital status, sexual orientation, gender expression, or economic situation, has a right to reproduce. Now Argentina, like the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Israel, and the province of Quebec, is committed to providing IVF as a matter of universal health care and services.

"Genetics is neither necessary nor sufficient."  That's a universalizing statement, and it points to a swollen state apparatus that will deem what is necessary and sufficient for parentage.  There's no mystery as to which interest groups will likely hold decisive sway over the government entities empowered to "assign" parentage in a world where parents are no longer the mother and father who produced a child by making love.

Just read the recent Supreme Court opinions to see the preamble to the tiny gay lobby's brave new world.

Robert Oscar Lopez refuses to surrender.  He edits