For some time, certain LGBT activists have been insisting on the “right” of homosexual couples to have children, despite the obvious fact that this requires the participation of a third party. The implication of this new demand is that homosexual men, for example, would have the right to rent the body of a woman (a “surrogate”) to gestate a child for them—a child that would be denied his or her mother.
Predictably, California is one of the first jurisdictions to move towards enshrining this dystopian “right” in law. Bill SB 729, which passed the California State Senate last month, changes the definition of “infertility” from a medical condition to a status, stating that it is “a person’s inability to reproduce either as an individual or with their partner without medical intervention.” Under this definition, homosexual men would be classified as “infertile.”
Democratic Senator Caroline Menjivar, a co-author of SB 729, stated that the legislation would “ensure that queer couples no longer have to pay more out of pocket than non-queer families” by requiring insurance companies to cover IVF and surrogacy for same-sex partners, and that the “bill is critical to achieving full-lived equality for LGBTQ+ people, as well as advancing well-rounded and comprehensive health care for all Californians.”
The LGBT activist group “Men Having Babies” (which I covered last year) is an advocate of the bill, stating on their website: “Central to our fight for more equitable access to parenting options is what we know from our combined experiences: The anguish and yearning that same-sex couples and singles feel due to their inability to reproduce without medical intervention is equal to the anguish of heterosexual couples who suffer from ‘medical infertility.’”
In their view, there is no difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual one “yearning” for a child, despite the fact that two men cannot create a child together—they can only purchase one. Interestingly, the Free Beacon noted that California insurance companies oppose the bill, estimating that it will increase insurance premiums by at least $330 million per year.
What is almost entirely absent from this discussion, however, is the fact that children need their mothers. As I’ve noted before, it would be mind-boggling to previous generations that this statement is now controversial—and yet it is. But many homosexuals are discovering this reality themselves. Several years ago, Katy Faust of children’s rights movement Them Before Us noted that all children crave maternal love, quoting a blog written by a homosexual man confused that he cannot seem to fill his daughter’s emotional needs:
“Mommy,” my daughter cries when she’s hurt or upset. “Mommy, mommy, mommy…” She knows I’m daddy and my partner is papa, so where is this mommy business coming from?
She’s three and has lived with us since she was nine and a half months old; I figure she doesn’t remember anything prior to her life with us. She has a good command of the English language, even using sophisticated adjectives and adverbs well, as my mother recently pointed out, so shouldn’t she be more aware of what she is saying?
My partner points out that she is mimicking the other children at the daycare who cry out for their mothers when they’re dropped off or after an accident, seeking comfort and reassurance. Is our daughter associating the need for comfort and reassurance with the word ‘mommy’?”
How utterly heartbreaking. As Faust notes: “Of course she is. Children are made for the love of their mothers.” Even the best, most loving father in the world still cannot be a mother and cannot fill the fundamental, natural need for a mother—he is biologically incapable of doing so.
Literally the Handmaid’s Tale.