From Clinics Recruit Surrogates to Provide Kids for Gay Couples, published Mar 20, 2007, by Citizenlink:

From Legal Fictions, by Chuck Colson, published Feb 27, 2007, by Breakpoint:

Isabella Miller-Jenkins is only four years old, but she is at the center of one of the most important legal battles of our time. A judge will soon decide whether a woman with no biological or adoptive ties to Isabella can legally be declared her mother.

It sounds incredible, but it is the logical result of where our anything-goes society has been leading us all these years.

As the Washington Post reports, Isabella was conceived via artificial insemination while her mother, Lisa Miller, was in a same-sex civil union with Janet Jenkins. But later the civil union fell apart. Lisa took Isabella and left Vermont for Virginia. She also returned to the Christian faith of her childhood and became “determined to ‘leave the [lesbian] lifestyle’.” That meant that she no longer considered Janet to be Isabella’s parent.

But in our reckless pursuit of getting whatever we want at all costs, our nation has begun interpreting the law in a way that reinforces all the fictions that Lisa Miller no longer believes.

The subhead in the Post article says it all: “Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller got hitched and had a baby together.” Together? Anybody who knows anything about biology knows that’s impossible. But that’s just how the courts are looking at it. As a judge in the case told Janet Jenkins’s lawyer, Janet (the lesbian partner) “without question is presumed to be the natural parent . . . by the basis of the civil union.” So in the court’s eyes, Isabella is the child of two women, something biologically impossible.

How is it possible that laws and court procedures could have become so dangerously fantasy-based? Actually, we should not be surprised. Many modern parents have unwittingly been collaborating with the process for years. The Washington Post tells us how Judge Cohen explained it: “Consider the situation of a heterosexual couple in which an infertile husband agrees for his wife to be artificially inseminated with donor sperm.” In such a case, the judge stated, the husband would be presumed to have parental rights even though someone else had actually fathered the child.

It all ties together. Heterosexual couples have tacitly approved this practice of including a silent third partner in a marriage to produce a child. And then it makes it very difficult to cry foul when homosexuals do the same thing.

Isabella’s plight shows us the tragic consequences of rejecting the biblical view of marriage, which provides for one man and one woman in the union to raise the child. Sure, there are extraordinary circumstances, and adoption is possible. But the norm is the norm, and the law has always recognized the natural moral order.

If Janet Jenkins wins her case—which may go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — Isabella may be taken from her biological mother to live with a woman she barely remembers. And not only Isabella; many other children would also be threatened by this waving of the judicial magic wand to produce legal parents out of nowhere.

…We need to see how our attitude of “I can do anything I want, and it won’t hurt anybody” has led to a situation that could hurt families everywhere.

For additional resources, go to Breakpoint…

The following study was published by the American College of Pediatricians Jan 22, 2004:

Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?

Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was “no.” Policymakers, social scientists, the media, and even physician organizations¹, however, are now asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted. In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive. Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.

Research data

Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.^2,3,4 Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. ^5,6,7,8,9 Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children.

Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children

Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. ^{10,11,12,13,14} Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. ^15,16,17 Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed “committed relationships.” ^{18,19,20,21,22} Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,^23,24,25 substance abuse,²⁶ suicidal tendencies,^27,28 and shortened life spans.²⁹ Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.³⁰ Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. ^{31,32,33,34,35} Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.³⁶

Conclusion

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is “to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being.” We promote “a society where all children from the moment of their conception are valued unselfishly.” The College further notes, “that children are the future of our nation and society. As such, they deserve to be reared in the best possible family environment and supported by physicians committed to ensuring their optimal health and well-being.”

The following letter appeared in the Centre Daily Times, State College, PA Feb 22, 2007:

Evidence contradicts conclusion

In his past two columns, Leonard Pitts has written at length about why he believes that gay and lesbian couples should not have children.

He couched the issue in terms of his perceived need for the biological father to be present at home.

Last Sunday, he cited research that supposedly shows that children in a home without a biological father were at greater risk for all sorts of problems.

In citing that research, however, he inappropriately conflated two issues: risks to children in single-parent homes and risks to children in two-parent gay and lesbian families. The research on the gay and lesbian families provides a different picture than he provided.

Children who are raised in two-parent gay and lesbian homes do just as well as children who are raised in two-parent heterosexual homes.

The American Psychological Association reports: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”

Lisa Stevenson
State College

A response to this letter from Gary L. Morella follows:

Lisa Stevenson stated that “The American Psychological Association reports: ‘Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.’”

This is not true per The American College of Pediatricians, which is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents.

In a report entitled Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?

The ACP said the following.

“Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables. Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent.”

Citing 26 references on the risks of homosexual lifestyle to children, the ACP concludes:

“The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, The American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.”

For the difficulties in blindly referencing the American Psychological Association see the following:

• The Trojan Couch: How the Mental Health Guilds Allow Medical Diagnostics, Scientific Research and Jurisprudence to be Subverted in Lockstep with the Political Aims of their Gay Sub-Components

• Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders

Gary Morella is a Catholic member of the research faculty of Penn State University, and a father and grandfather who is concerned whether there will be a recognizable faith left to his children and grandchildren.

By Peter LaBarbera

TAKE ACTION — Call your U.S. Representative and Senators (202-224-3121) and politely convey your opposition to the new “Hate Crimes” bill that includes “sexual orientation” (HR 254), and ENDA, the “Employment Nondiscrimination Act.” Also, call or write President Bush (202-456-1414) and urge him to veto these two top “gay’-priority bills if they are passed by the Democratic Congress.

If enacted, HR 254 and ENDA would federalize “sexual orientation” law, creating the long-term foundation for widespread anti-religious tyranny in our nation in the name of pro-“gay” tolerance. To see two good ads featuring victims of Pennsylvania’s “hate crimes” law, click on www.stophatecrimesnow.com. Events in Great Britain should warn us about the grave dangers ahead…

Blair: ‘Gay Rights’ trump religious freedom

When homosexual activists and “gay equality” win, Christians and religious freedom lose. So do children who need a mom and a dad, as the world is witnessing again in Great Britain.

Prime Minister Tony Blair unwittingly cut to the nub of how “sexual orientation” laws inevitably destroy religious freedom when he said that Britain’s “gay”-inclusive nondiscrimination laws should not exempt Catholic adoption agencies that refuse, for reasons of faith, to place children in homosexual households:

“There is no place in our society for discrimination. That’s why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple. And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination.”

Under Blair’s “compromise,” Catholic adoptions agencies will have 21 months to comply with the “sexual orientation” laws, but some say they would rather close down than violate their religious beliefs, BBC News reports.

Christians are fast becoming second-class citizens in Western nations that have bought into the ideology of homosexuality as a civil right. In Canada and France, legislators recently were fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality. In 2004, pastor Ake Green was jailed for a month for preaching –– in his small church in Borgholm, Sweden –– that homosexual behavior is an egregious yet forgivable sin. And recently, a British couple told how they were denied the chance to adopt because it was determined that their Christian faith might “prejudice” them against a homosexual child put in their care.

Britain’s “gay adoption” travesty parallels that which followed the triumph of homosexual “equality” and legal “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts. Last year, Catholic Charities of Boston ceased all adoption operations in the state after being told that under Massachusetts’ pro-“gay” nondiscrimination law, only agencies that place children in homosexual-led households would get licensed by the state.

Catholic doctrine states that it is “gravely immoral” to put children in such homes:

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these [homosexual] unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
Source: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons”

But “gay rights” tramples religion in post-Christian England, where the government has lately even set out to prosecute “homophobic” speech. It is almost inconceivable that the same country that gave us the rule of law and limited government –– and powerfully gifted Christian preachers like George Whitfield who helped shape America –– now bows down to the homosexual revolution of organized sin masquerading as “civil rights.”

Queer, indeed.

“Breeders” Still Required
Sad as it is, this is a marketing story for the ages: in a few short decades, “gay liberation” activists went from including the notorious “man-boy love” group NAMBLA in their “pride” parades and mocking married couples as “breeders” –– to passing “sexual orientation” laws worldwide that put government officially in the role of defying Nature and Nature’s God, to quote our Declaration of Independence.

But is it progress to empower a legal and cultural revolution that criminalizes the common sense idea that society should put the welfare of children first by favoring natural parenting (mom and dad) over an experimental version (dad and male lover) that models perversion to innocent children in their own home?

Let’s be clear: Nature discriminates against homosexuality. Same-sex arrangements can never be “equal” to the God-ordained institutions of marriage and family. They cannot produce children by themselves. Homosexual partners cannot acquire a child without involving heterosexual procreation in some way.

Yep, those irritating “breeders” come in handy once in a while.

An excerpt from the transcript of the Dec 20, 2006, press conference:

The following are remarks by President Bush in a press conference this morning:

Indian Treaty Room
10 a.m. EST

Q [from “Ann”] Thank you, sir. Mary is having a baby. And you have said that you think Mary Cheney will be a loving soul to a child. Are there any changes in the law that you would support that would give same-sex couples greater access to things such as legal rights, hospital visits, insurance, that would make a difference, even though you’ve said it’s your preference — you believe that it’s preferable to have one man-one woman —

THE PRESIDENT: I’ve always said that we ought to review law to make sure that people are treated fairly. On Mary Cheney, this is a personal matter for the Vice President and his family. I strongly support their privacy on the issue, although there’s nothing private when you happen to be the President or the Vice President — I recognize that. And I know Mary, and I like her, and I know she’s going to be a fine, loving mother.

By Peter LaBarbera

President Bush has been put in an awful spot, thanks to Mary Cheney’s “gay parenting” activism. Ms. Cheney, a proud lesbian, is pregnant through artificial insemination and will raise her child with lesbian partner Heather Poe. The media are reporting Bush’s comment to People magazine: “I think Mary is going to be a loving soul to her child. And I’m happy for her.”

Seeking to downplay the hubbub, White House spokesman Tony Snow actually made it worse when he was asked at a press briefing if the President still believes “that children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are at a disadvantage.” Snow said:

“He does not make comments on that, and nor will I.” Snow added that the President still believes in the ideal of traditional marriage as the best environment for raising children, but “he believes that Mary Cheney’s child will, in fact, have loving parents.”

Note the perfectly PC, “nonjudgmental” tenor of Snow’s dodge. Shouldn’t pro-family Americans who helped re-elect Mr. Bush expect a bit more than this on a matter that strikes at the core of what a family is?

President Bush has been too timid about using his Bully Pulpit to promote pro-family values, but occasionally he stumbles and uses it to advance the opposite. In this case, he could have declined comment altogether or, better, used this situation as a teaching moment to reaffirm the natural superiority of the God-ordained family.

Maybe the latter is asking too much of Mr. Bush given his relationship with the Cheneys, but I do wonder why a president who talks so openly about his Christian faith was unprepared or unwilling to apply it logically to this touchy situation. Assuming that as an evangelical Christian, Mr. Bush believes homosexual practice is sinful, are we to believe that this man who faced down Islamic radicalism and launched the War on Terror is afraid to say what he really believes about lesbians having children to be raised in homes that are fatherless by design?

And isn’t it ironic that the daughter of Second Lady Lynne Cheney -– an ardent intellectual foe of Political Correctness -– is now being used to advance the PC idea of homosexual parenting?

Relational ‘Gay’ Activism

The whole Mary Cheney-baby episode typifies how the “gay” agenda advances in our emotionally-driven culture. The personal becomes political, and “open and proud gays” use their relationships with family members, friends and co-workers to persuade them to embrace behaviors with which they once disagreed — or at least go silent about them. This is the goal of homosexual activists’ “coming out” strategy, which is brilliant in its manipulation of human nature.

“I’m gay, so you can’t be anti-gay,” is the basic approach, and then parents are brought in through groups like PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) to expand the “gay”-positive network. Christians talk about “friendship evangelism,” but it’s the homosexuals and their families and friends who have proved themselves adept at changing society — and undermining Biblical morality and tradition — through personal relationships.

“Coming out” as a tactic is most cynical when encouraged among young people: homosexual school clubs called GSA’s (”Gay/Straight Alliances”) are merely the application of this approach to radically change a generation’s attitudes toward homosexuality and gender confusion (”transgenderism”). And it’s working: just ask the many Christian parents whose high school children have scolded them about being “homophobes.”

Bush Drops the Ball

By uttering platitudes rather than principles about Mary Cheney, the President of the United States missed a golden opportunity to instruct a nation about the gold standard of traditional marriage as the optimal environment for raising children. He blinked when put in the awkward position of either telling the truth or pretending that Ms. Cheney’s is not unlike any other (wonderful) pregnancy. It is different, by a long shot. Not that she won’t have maternal love for her child; of course she will. But the child is being brought into a household where the most important person in his or her world will be modeling lesbian behavior, which is changeable and always wrong, and an affront to a holy and loving Creator.

Finding some role-modeling man in her circle of friends will never substitute for the pre-designed absence of a dad in Mary Cheney’s child’s life. And ethically speaking, we must not treat her situation any differently just because she is a well-connected, Republican celebrity.

Of course, the radical feminists (a not insignifcant number of whom are lesbian) are loving this. In the old days, when women embraced lesbianism with its inherent rejection of men, it was understood that they would be denied the joys of motherhood. (Many radical lesbian activists relished the assault on “patriarchal” family structures.) There was a certain divine and natural justice to that.

From the Dec 8, 2006, issue of “Washington Update by Tony Perkins, Family Research Council:

For the last three days, media outlets from across the country have flooded FRC with calls on our reaction to the news that Vice President Cheney’s daughter, who has a lesbian partner, is expecting a child. We have purposefully declined to comment on the story, in order to maintain FRC’s focus on policy discussions. However, when an event such as this is used by some as a catalyst for advancing a political agenda or promoting public policy that attacks traditional marriage or parenting, I have no reservations about stepping forward and defending morality and the family — regardless of who is involved. Today’s Washington Post features such an attempt by editorial columnist Ruth Marcus. With an air of noble tutelage, Marcus writes, “Whether she intends it or not, [Mary Cheney’s] pregnancy will, I think, turn out to be a watershed in public understanding and acceptance of this phenomenon.”

Unlike Marcus, authorities on child and family health do not use anecdotes as the basis for public policy. Their analysis is fact-driven, not emotion-driven. And those facts have seldom changed. Marcus writes that “To be a badly wanted child… in a home with two loving parents is no tragedy. If they’re worried about ’emotional devastation,’ they would do better to reserve their lamentations for children in poverty, those who are abused or neglected, or for children in families splintered by divorce.” Children’s needs, however, are more than the sum of the wants in the lives of the adults who reside with them. Study after study demonstrates that no amount of care or financial privilege can compensate for the missing physical and emotional benefits experienced by children who enjoy the lifelong love and presence of a married mother and father.

Comprehensive studies published in the peer-reviewed journals Archives of General Psychiatry, Interpersonal Violence, Social Service Research, Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Nursing Research, Developmental Psychology, Adolescence, and others too numerous to list here, all cite the devastating effects of domestic violence, increased substance abuse, mental health problems, sexual identity confusion, depression, and suicide associated with the homosexual lifestyle. A child fortunate enough to escape those realities still faces a distinct disadvantage throughout childhood — the irreplaceable influence of the missing biological parent. In rearing children, the complementary contributions of a mother and father are rooted in the innate differences of the two sexes, and can no more be arbitrarily replaced than can the very nature of male and female.

But besides dismissing science, Marcus misrepresents the reality of Virginia law. In her eagerness to exploit the circumstances, she asserts that the state’s new marriage protection amendment “casts doubt on the ability of Cheney and Poe to write binding medical directives and wills.” The law casts no doubt on the matter. It implicitly allows individuals to engage in private contracts. Here Marcus succeeds in personalizing her argument but not substantiating it. She concludes, “[This] high-profile pregnancy will help the Republican party come to grips with [the] facts of life. If not, [Mary Cheney] will have to explain to her child what mommy was doing trying to help a party that doesn’t believe in fairness for families like theirs.” What is at stake in these debates, however, is ultimately not the fate of political parties or the lateral “fairness” adults seek, but what is fair and favorable for children, all of whom have a stake in whether our nation stands by the ideal of homes embraced by, and embracing, a mother and father, a husband and a wife.