Homosexual Marriage: Listen to the Children

As activist judges, a secular left media, and PC politicians all work overtime to implement the radical homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage, the very people we should be listening to in this debate are being completely ignored and overlooked.

And this is even more important now that the US Supreme Court has decided to hold a hearing on homosexual marriage in April. As usual, the homosexual activists will get a terrific hearing, as they seek to shout the loudest and drown out competing voices. But it is the children that should be heard here.

ssm 5Indeed, in all the clamouring for homosexual marriage and adoption rights, one vitally important party to all this is conspicuous by its absence. What about the children? Why do we never consider their needs, rights and concerns? Why is it only the selfish lusts and wants of adults that we consider, but never the well-being of children?

We of course know the answer to those questions. The radical militants don’t actually give a rip about the rights of the child (to have their own biological mother and father, eg), but only care about themselves, and their destructive social engineering agendas.

Children are simply the abused pawns in the twisted games of adult activists. It is time that they got to speak up about all this. And some of them are starting to do just that. Children raised in homosexual households are beginning to tell their side of the story, and it is imperative that we listen carefully to them.

Recently four such adult children have spoken out against the radical agenda of the homosexuals, demanding that their needs and considerations be taken into account. I have written about some of these brave individuals before. Some, like Dawn Stefanowicz, have even written up their stories into a full-length book. See here for example: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2009/10/25/a-review-of-out-from-under-the-impact-of-homosexual-parenting-by-dawn-stefanowicz/

In recent court testimony she said this in part:

We are often forced to approve and tolerate all forms of expressed sexuality, including various sexual and gender identity preferences. As children, we are not allowed to express our disagreement, pain and confusion. Most adult children from gay households do not feel safe or free to publicly express their stories and life-long challenges; they fear losing professional licenses, not obtaining employment in their chosen field, being cut off from some family members or losing whatever relationship they have with their gay parent(s). Some gay parents have threatened to leave no inheritance, if the children don’t accept their parent’s partner du jour.
The special-interest GLBT groups and so-called support groups for kids sometimes act, or function, as fronts for a far darker side that silences, intimidates and threatens the children who want to share the truth, allowing only a politically-correct version of our childhoods to be heard. These special-interest groups support political and legal objectives toward same-sex marriage, ignoring the horrendous inequality, permanent losses and prejudice to children in the name of adult sexual rights. Children lose forever their rights to know and be raised by their married biological father and mother.

And some, like Robert Oscar Lopez, have told their stories in various articles. See here for more on him: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/10/23/the-ongoing-war-against-christianity/

He also gave a court briefing on this: “Children raised by same-sex couples face a gauntlet if they break the silence about the ‘no disadvantages’ consensus. In such a climate, I must conclude that placing children in same-sex couples’ homes is dangerous, because they have no space or latitude to express negative feelings about losing a mom or dad, and in fact they have much to fear if they do.”

Another one to give evidence was Katy Faust. She said:

Some adult children with gay parents shy away from making their thoughts about marriage public because we do not want to jeopardize our relationships with those to whom our hearts are tethered. Unfortunately, many gay-marriage lobbyists have made gay marriage the sole badge of loyalty to our LGBT family and friends.
The labels of bigot or hater have become very powerful and effective tools to silence those of us who choose not to endorse the marriage platform of many gay lobbyists. For much of my adult life I was content to keep my opinions on the subject of marriage to myself. I was (and still am) sickened by the accusation that I was bigoted and anti-gay for my belief in natural marriage.
For many years those devices kept me quiet. I didn’t seek a venue where I could share my views. But I have come to realize that my silence, and the silence of others, has allowed for the conversation to be dominated by those who claim that only animus, ignorance, or indoctrination could lead one to oppose “marriage equality”.

Faust has just penned a very important article on the case against homosexual marriage in light of the upcoming SCOTUS ruling, which is well worth quoting from:

This debate, at its core, is about one thing. It’s about children. The definition of marriage should have nothing to do with lessening emotional suffering within the homosexual community. If the Supreme Court were able to make rulings to affect feelings, racism would have ended fifty years ago. Nor is this issue primarily about the florist, the baker, or the candlestick-maker, though the very real impact on those private citizens is well-publicized. The Supreme Court has no business involving itself in romance or interpersonal relationships. I hope very much that your ruling in June will be devoid of any such consideration.
Children are the reason government has any stake in this discussion at all. Congress was spot on in 1996 when it passed the Defense of Marriage Act, stating: “At bottom, civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing. Simply put, government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children.”

She goes on to argue that children have a fundamental right to be loved by their own mother and father:

Like most Americans, I am for adults having the freedom to live as they please. I unequivocally oppose criminalizing gay relationships. But defining marriage correctly criminalizes nothing. And the government’s interest in marriage is about the children that only male-female relationships can produce. Redefining marriage redefines parenthood. It moves us well beyond our “live and let live” philosophy into the land where our society promotes a family structure where children will always suffer loss. It will be our policy, stamped and sealed by the most powerful of governmental institutions, that these children will have their right to be known and loved by their mother and/or father stripped from them in every instance. In same-sex-headed households, the desires of the adults trump the rights of the child. Have we really arrived at a time when we are considering institutionalizing the stripping of a child’s natural right to a mother and a father in order to validate the emotions of adults?…
This is not about being against anyone. This is about what I am for. I am for children! I want all children to have the love of their mother and their father. Being for children also makes me for LGBT youth. They deserve all the physical, social, and emotional benefits of being raised by their mother and father as well. But I fear that, in the case before you, we are at the mercy of loud, organized, well-funded adults who have nearly everyone in this country running scared.
Six adult children of gay parents are willing to stand against the bluster of the gay lobby and submit amicus briefs for your consideration in this case. I ask that you please read them. We are just the tip of the iceberg of children currently being raised in gay households. When they come of age, many will wonder why the separation from one parent who desperately mattered to them was celebrated as a “triumph of civil rights,” and they will turn to this generation for an answer. What should we tell them?

Thank God that this courageous quartet (and others) have decided that they must speak out in the interests of defending children, marriage, family, and society itself from the ongoing attacks of the militants. For too long the radicals have been the sole voice heard in these debates. It is time that the children who are so heavily impacted by all this get a chance to be heard as well.


[1416 words]

21 Replies to “Homosexual Marriage: Listen to the Children”

  1. When same sex couples plan to include children in their midst, they conspire to deny the child or children of one parent and the entire extended family of that parent.
    Article 21 of the UN convention declares the rights of the child/ren to know both parents wherever possible. Same sex declares a denial of that right and ignores that which the Nations United strive for.

    Kidnapping is a major crime and yet here we are discussing denying a child of a parent. How different is that to kidnapping?

  2. Well done those young adults, for speaking out. May there be many more to speak.
    3-parent embryos, Mark, I was thinking of mentioning this myself but you beat me to it. Although not quite on the gay-parenting theme, it is nonetheless yet another engineering experiment that may well have disastrous and unforeseen consequences for children that are conceived through the proposed methods. Whilst one has deep sympathy for those affected by these horrible mitochondrial illnesses, scientists simply must consider the bigger picture…..the overall effects further on down the road…..just as with gay parenting. We cannot possibly know what we don’t know. Nature is subtle and, despite what Man thinks, he simply does not have full understanding of her.
    We often hear the phrase “they are coming for your children” …and y’know what, they’re right.

  3. Nowadays, we constantly hear the mantra “Best Interests of the Child”. This is particularly so when a husband and wife who have children, decide to separate. In such cases, this mantra has been the device by which a father is deprived of his assets, and denied contact with his children.
    However, with homosexual couples, it seems that the rights of the child barely rate a mention. This is odd, but it is also an indication of the morality and character of many of those who determine and enforce social policy today.

  4. Christ warns us: “Whoever scandalizes one of these little ones (= children)…, it were better for him that a mill-stone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Mtt. 18.5:6)….

    Bill Muehlenberg concludes his helpful book: “Dangerous Relations: the threat of homosexuality” (p. 179) by quoting Barbara Dafoe Whitehead:” All (this) evidence gives rise to an obvious conclusion: growing up in an intact two-parent family is an important source of advantage for American children. Though far from perfect as a social institution, the intact family offers children greater security and better outcomes than its fastest growing alternatives: single-parent families and stepparent families” (“Dan Quayle was right”, Atlantic Monthly, April 1993, p.19).

  5. To go into the history of children being used as human shields, trophies, costume accessories and sexual commodities by the gaystapo and how this is all part of the Marxist script to destroy the essential building block, the family, of Western European civilization, based as it is on Christian principles, would take too long and take up too much space to explain. Except that it is a truth of which we need to be constantly reminded.
    However, forgetting the deceptive bogus arguments about whether lesbians make better parents than either straight or gay ones, we only have to mention the blatant inequality in power, influence, rights and privilege that gays presently “enjoy” over the rest of society. Society has given everything to the lesbians. We have nothing more to give except to hand over our children.


    This is no different to slavers getting black women to produce children only for them to be torn from their mothers and sold to others. This led to the American Civil War, simply because an appeal to the Bible, to argument and reason had absolutely no effect on the slave and plantation owners.

    David Skinner UK

  6. In recent years, I have often wondered as to whether or not the emergence of the GLBTIQ coalition as a potent political entity might be, at least partly, the outcome of the social effects of the liberalisation of divorce in Western countries: Not a few of the same-sex attracted persons I have known of either have experienced their own parents’ divorce or have themselves chosen divorce as part of their journey into the gay and lesbian counter-culture. Oscar Wilde’s conviction and gaol term served to complete the destruction of his own marriage and family. I also understand Gore Vidal’s parents divorced and remarried – in his mother’s, case more than once.

  7. Thought you might like a laugh Bill – keep up the good work!
    Crisis at the U.S. – Canadian Border
    “The Manitoba Herald”
    Crisis at the U.S. – Canadian Border

    The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The Republicans winning the Senate is prompting an exodus among left leaning citizens who fear they’ll soon be required to hunt, pray, and live according to the Constitution.

    Canadian border farmers say it’s not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, global warming activists, and “green” energy proponents crossing their fields at night.
    “I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn,” said Southern Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota . â??The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn’t have any, he left before I even got a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?”

    In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. He then installed loudspeakers that blared Rush Limbaugh across the fields, but they just keep coming.

    Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into electric cars and drive them across the border where they are simply left to fend for themselves after the battery dies.

    “A lot of these people are not prepared for our rugged conditions,” an Ontario border patrolman said. “I found one carload without a single bottle of Perrier drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though, and some kale chips.”

    When liberals are caught, they’re sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about plans being made to build re-education camps where liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and study the Constitution.

    In recent days, liberals have turned to ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have been disguised as senior citizens taking a bus trip to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half- dozen young vegans in blue-hair wig disguises, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior citizens about Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney to prove that they were alive in the ’50s. “If they can’t identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we become very suspicious about their age,” an official said.

    Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage, buying up all the Barbara Streisand c.d.’s, and renting all the Michael Moore movies. “I really feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can’t support them,” an Ottawa resident said. “How many art-history majors does one country need?”

  8. Today’s local paper tells us that the Blue Mountains City Council has passed a motion in favour of same-sex marriage. They said it was passed unanimously with two abstentions, which is hardly unanimous but pretty disgusting all the same. The subject is not the concern of local governments but is obvious, with all due respect to the governing authorities, that the jelly brains are in the ascendance.

  9. Homosexual relationships left to themselves cannot produce children, but If homosexual relationships should be legal, just not lead to marriage as your last quote suggests, Bill, how could children still be prevented from having to be part of these relationships? Even if IVF and adoption for homosexual couples were to be made illegal, which would be a good start, the entry of children into these relationships from previous relationships or just simply through concurrent sexual contact which is not objectionable for people who live under the LBGT philosophy would still occur.
    The right of the child is a convenient political football too easily disregarded and sacrificed to a “more convenient or pressing cause”. There is something inherently destructive in homosexual relationships that is damaging to those participating in it, STI’s domestic violence whatever statistic you might like to call to your aid, just simply to say it is okay when no children are involved is too narrow and short sighted.
    Just watched “an accidental activist” A good sample of what people are going through and what the cost can be for simply standing up for what is right.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  10. John Wigg has pointed to the social effects of the liberalisation of divorce, as contributing to the rise of the GLBTIQ lobby. He is surely right in highlighting this link. However, this is but an already historical antecedent of the current state of the amoral “slippery slope” phenomenon which Bill Muehlenberg describes in Chapter 3 of his book: “Dangerous relations: the threat of homosexuality.” (=essential reading!).
    Remember: Christ condemned Divorce (Mtt.5: 31-32). And another historical and current cause is surely widespread Contraception whereby the natural (potential) procreative meaning of “Marriage” is denied. Thus, in modern times both Monogamy and Procreation have been stripped away from the popular conception of “Marriage”, leaving merely the weakened aspect of “commitment” in sexual relationships. Bill’s “slippery slope” shows how: 1. gender; 2. number of partners; and 3. age of partners as moral parameters of “Marriage” are NOW also becoming claimed to be mere dispensables of genuine “Marriage”, thus opening the future to: 1. “Gay Marriage”; 2. Polygamy; and 3. Pedophilia, as well as: 4. incest; 5.bestiality; and 6: objectamory also !!!l Christian-inspired Civilisation is clearly under-attack by liberal and secular moral values – as modern “Marriage” mores are first popularised and then legalised in many countries…

  11. The answer to John Wigg’s statement is that of course the breaking up of the marriage and the family unity was planned by the Marxists and they used the homosexuals to do their dirty work.


    When homosexualists say that the straight population have made a mess of marriage and that by being allowed to marry they will enrich and save it from further deconstruction, radical homosexualism is the very instrument that was designed to destroy it.

    It is all there in the Gay Liberation Manifesto of 1971:


    David Skinner UK

  12. This article plus the comments is incredibly informative – thank you Bill. But will the US Supreme court have regard to the ‘best interests of the children’ in deciding the matter?’ I hope they don’t dig out Roe v Wade to assist them.

  13. The basis of the SS”M” arguments in the US is that it is simply “animus” behind not allowing homosexuals to “marry” but if that was the case how is it that societies such as ancient Sparta allowed homosexual behaviour against young men but still retained the natural definition of marriage? Some people refer to Emperor Nero’s “marriage” to his young male consort as an example of ancient “marriage” but even though the Roman people allowed Nero to be emperor his idea of marriage was simply never accepted, even in the debauched Roman society. Do not examples like these, completely disprove the SS”M” fundamental straw-man premise?
    How is it that their misrepresentation arguments can gain so much traction and the real arguments never be addressed? The answer lies in the semantically stupid, scientifically nonsensical term “homophobic”. A term with only one purpose and that is to shut down logical discussion.

  14. Many thanks indeed Katy. Yes I saw you last night on Lateline and almost fell out of my chair. This show in particular, and the ABC in general, are so uber-leftist and pro-homosexual that one almost never finds a voice of sanity on there. You were a real breath of fresh air. Keep up your great work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *