Moms For Liberty and Gays Against Groomers are two of the supposedly conservative groups now rallying people against the excesses of transgenderism. We should not be confused and say that these groups oppose “LGBT” because they seem unworried about the proliferation of homosexuality, lesbianism, and bisexuality; except when displayed by adults to young children. Their concerns center on children who might be exposed to, and exploited by, people who have actively confounded gender roles. Drag Queen Story Hour and gender transitioning comprise the main realm that these groups find unacceptable. In fact, they often defend themselves against criticism by pointing out how much they support adult gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.
It might comfort us to believe that conservatives fought in the shadows against the forces of sexual radicalism like so many unheeded Cassandras, and now they can come into the light because the public sees their clarion call as relevant.
The truth, however, is much more damning of the conservative movement. The roots of the present malaise lie in the arguments of 13 years ago, when “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was repealed and gay marriage became the cause célèbre. The choices made by conservative Christians then amounted to an abandonment of children to LGBT radicalism–and this, more than anything else, led to where we are today.
A casual reading of Hollingsworth v. Perry and Obergefell v. Hodges shows why the LGBT movement wanted marriage. It was not, despite the many claims to the contrary, about getting tax breaks (a la Edie Windsor) or survival benefits (a la Obergefell). The true motivation was the LGBT movement’s desire to construct a “right” to have children conceived by other people. In fact when the gay marriage cases advanced to the Supreme Court, the case that was originally front and center was that of April DeBoer, not James Obergefell’s.
April DeBoer and her partner had adopted children with special needs. They had adopted their respective children individually and wanted to form an omnibus household mimicking that of a father, mother, and mutually conceived children. Their main claim against the state of Michigan was that the lack of recognition for same-sex marriages complicated their abilities to raise their adopted children jointly. DeBoer wanted her partner’s children to obey her authority as a second mother, and DeBoer’s partner wanted the same authority. It was about forcing kids to love and obey people forced on them by adult sexual choices. In the end, Obergefell’s case seemed like a better portrait to paint, because DeBoer’s case would have drawn attention to unseemly arguments that had been put forth by LGBTs about adoption.
Given that same-sex couples do not have the reproductive organs to have children of their own, they had several options that all involved transferring guardianship of other people’s biological children to at least one homosexual adult not related to the child. In divorce cases, married parents came out as gay, then dragged the children through family court to get custody awarded to the gay divorcee and his/her homosexual partner. In adoption cases, gay people had to fight to strip biological parents of their rights to children (often claiming the bio parents were unfit, drug addicts, or not interested in raising their kids), or they had to go overseas, essentially to buy children from orphanages in places such as Guatemala, China, or Russia. Do not forget that one of the biggest recent conflicts between the USA and Russia was over adoption of Russian babies by gay American adults. Finally, in “assisted reproduction” cases, gay adults bought sperm, eggs, or live babies, and then hired medical technicians and lawyers to figure a way to get an infant delivered to them without any troubling ties to the excluded biological parents.
Every form of gay parenting forced children to live without a father or mother. Since all children have a genetic father and mother, this means that gay parenting is the business of erasing part of a child’s origins and disconnecting the child from cultural heritage. Justice Kennedy even stated that legalized same-sex marriage would be necessary for children of gay parents “ to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” A central rationale behind same-sex marriage was that it would brainwash children to view their own deprivation of a mother or father, as well as their forced obedience to biological strangers who legally controlled them, as normal.
Children growing up in gay homes would inevitably understand that they were either bought, stolen, or abandoned by adults. Gay adults needed the force of the state, and a marriage certificate, to back them up in difficult conversations with the children they were raising. Gay adults were rallying the powers of social approval to force children to love and obey them without question, even though they were not the children’s biological parents.
Conservatives sidestepped the question of gay adoption and instead focused on marriage certificates, gay weddings, and the side issue of “religious liberty,” all of which avoided the real problem. Gay people didn’t really want or need marriage, especially in a nation where increasing numbers of people didn’t want to get married. The causes of universal health care and economic security should have covered the issue of people needing tax relief, survivor benefits, or health care–after all, same-sex marriage was not extending these boons to unmarried people. Taken at face value, the arguments for same-sex marriage were arguments in favor of people who had a committed sexual partner, disfavoring lonely people.
The driving motivation behind same-sex marriage was to construct a legal fantasy that adults had the right to other people’s children. By focusing so much on the supposed importance of marriage and economic stability for children to grow up “well-adjusted,” gay activists were flaunting their community’s high median incomes and delegitimizing poor people who struggled to provide for their children. The “Baby Veronica” case was decided alongside Hollingsworth v. Perry. The former essentially nullified parts of the Indian Child Welfare Act by saying that a baby’s biological heritage was a lesser priority than the baby’s need to be placed with financially stable guardians. Single mothers, who make a majority of Black families with children, came out of the argument more vulnerable to losing their children to child protection services. That was, in fact, exactly what gay people wanted. They wanted children to be available to them. If they had to smear biological mothers as crack whores or biological fathers as dead-beat losers, they would.
Because conservatives focused on marriage rather than adoption, many assumptions about children became ingrained in the LGBT community’s philosophy. Biological origins didn’t matter, as long as an adult with money and political influence wanted access to the child. It was appropriate, in this thinking, that children could be coerced into viewing homosexuality and even their own loss of mothers or fathers as normal, through legislation, lawsuits, and policies designed to threaten the children with social disapproval if they did not go along with gay adults’ professions of care for them. Moreover, this ideology caused children to be viewed as a therapeutic experience for adults. To bring all this together, the notion of mother and father had to be obliterated from the English language, and birth certificates had to be converted into bills of ownership.
Assuming that “all a child wants is love,” regardless of whether a child actually says, “ what I want is my dad and mom,” activists moved seamlessly from one form of coercing children to another; first demanding that they be obedient wards in their homes, then demanding that they listen to gay sexual discussion in the public square and consider participating in gay rites of passage.
Conservatives stood by and let this happen for several ignominious reasons. First, conservative Christians were heavily invested in adoption. Adoption was the main argument against abortion. Many Christian conservatives had engaged in international or transracial adoptions as a curative to their own infertility, but had striven to convince themselves that their adoption was self-sacrificing. The judgmentality of conservatives who demonized “welfare moms,” “dead-beat dads,” and promiscuous people in general fit neatly into gay activists’ claims that people needed them to adopt children so that the kids would not be raised by drug addicts or people who didn’t want them around.
Gay adoptive parents like Dave Rubin and Glenn Greenwald flaunted their household arrangements. Oftentimes conservatives wanted their contributions to the conservative cause, which prompted silence about the ethical dilemmas in such adoptions.
The blindness of conservatives led to today’s grooming and transgenderism crisis. What began as gay adults wanting to have children at any costs to love and obey them, became, eventually, an overreaching need to extract approval and affection from children everywhere, inside their home and out. The eradication of mother and father, especially on birth certificates, led quickly to the elimination of manhood and womanhood and the arrival of gender-neutral identities.
Even the present fascination with child trafficking must be treated with some caution. Conservatives were okay with loosening, for instance, the confirmation of blood parentage at border-crossings, because many Christians were transporting other people’s children from foreign countries to adopt them. Even when there was international controversy surrounding accusations of baby farming and child slavery, defensiveness about adoption led to the legal principle that gay adults needed other people’s children to affirm them, otherwise gay people might commit suicide. And the legitimization of brainwashing children, as put forward by Justice Kennedy himself, extended eventually from adoptive homes to schoolhouses.
Transgenderism and grooming came from gay adoption and redefinition of families, motherhood, and fatherhood. Conservative Christians didn’t resist these earlier threats to children because they had a guilty conscience about how they had treated orphanages and foster care as a place for themselves to acquire children. The age-old statement used by both gay activists and conservative Christians was “would you rather see them raised in an orphanage?” Some people had enough foresight to say, “yes, if the orphanage could do its work in restoring the child’s lost links to its biological family, and if the orphanage was decent and child-appropriate.” When people object to little kids in school being forced to read about gay people, they seem to forget that this all started with little kids being forced to see gay adult culture 24 hours a day within their home, having been severed from their mother/father origins.
It isn’t time to let conservative Christians off the hook yet. They need to be accountable for dropping the ball in the 2010s. Also, their own arguments about adoption, foster care, and single mothers must be understood as central ingredients in the poison stew being served to kids today.