One part of the excellent quotation Paul Cella gives below from Anthony Esolen goes like this:
“I needed a father, I always needed a father, and you turned your back on me, and told me what you knew was a lie, that a mother or two mothers or a mother and a boyfriend would do just as well. When it didn’t work out, you blamed everything but your own selfishness.
“I needed a father, and you were too busy with your sexual innovations to notice it.”
In illustration whereof I present this story of despicable selfishness.
Two lesbian women in Florida wanted a baby. Since their union was by its very nature necessarily sterile, they couldn't have a baby together (of course). So one of them made a deal with her homosexual hairdresser to donate his sperm wherewith to generate a child. Then followed a custody battle after the biological father decided that he wanted paternal rights. The final decision, recently handed down by a Florida judge, is that the baby's birth certificate will list all three as parents, including among them the other lesbian woman who is simply the sexual partner of the child's biological mother.
As far as I'm aware (legal eagle readers can correct me if I'm wrong) this is the first time in America that three people have been listed as "parents" on a birth certificate.
One legal irony that I haven't seen anyone point out yet: The AP story calls the lesbian women "married," but the custody case is occurring in Florida, where the state constitutionally cannot recognize either homosexual "marriage" or civil unions. So what gives? Since the AP authors were too lazy to look up the status of homosexual couples in Florida, or else were deliberately concealing the fact that this "marriage" isn't recognized in the state where they live, this point isn't brought up in the news story. One guesses that they got "married" in some other state and then moved to Florida. If the Florida judge's decision is based on their "marriage" in another state, a type of "marriage" which is expressly not recognized in Florida state law, this by itself should cast doubt on the legality of his decision. But, now that the custody battle has been resolved, who has standing to object? Not the baby. She's not even two years old yet.
Another legal question arises from the fact that this apparently amounts to an adoption on the part of the lesbian partner of the biological mother. Was this adoption carried out in the normal way, though? Was there a home study? Was the woman who wanted to adopt made to jump through the usual hoops? Or was that process short-circuited by a custody battle and the judge's decision?
But let's not make any pretense about who the victim is, here. It's the little girl, whom they have named Emma. Her biological mother and her partner have made up their little familial charade, and various people, including Emma, have an assigned role to play in it. The lesbian couple actually got what they wanted out of this, even though the biological father is listed on the birth certificate. The judge has given the lesbian partner full parental rights but has given the biological father (the homosexual hairdresser) only visitation rights. Here is their smug summary:
"We're trying to do the right thing for Emma," Filippazzo said. "We want Emma to have it all, and we believe by doing it this way, including him in a birthday or Thanksgiving, it'll be a nice addition for her."
"We believe the best interest for Emma is for him to have a role in her life, but not as a parent," she said. "The role is this is mommy's good friend who helped your moms have you because they wanted you so badly."
They want what is in Emma's best interests? That's a lie. They want Emma to have it all? That's a lie.
What they want is their social experiment, for which a baby is a necessary item of furniture. That the baby is to be denied a real father in the very nature of the case is of no moment to them whatsoever. The homosexual man who donated his sperm is also a prop in their experiment. He's a "friend" who will be a "nice addition" for Emma, to be included in "a birthday or Thanksgiving." Emma is fatherless by design. Yet they have the gall to say that they want her to have it all. This is deep selfishness, and the victims are not the "members of the gay community" but rather the children whom they rope into their project, even conceiving them unnaturally on purpose, and use to make their points. Nor will it end here. For all her young life, Emma will continue to be a prop, a member of a "gay family." She will be held hostage, so that those who do not wish to accept the insane and unnatural arrangement into which she has been drafted, those who will not treat that arrangement as normal, will be said to be unkind to Emma. Her biological mother and her biological mother's lesbian partner will hold Emma up in front of themselves as a shield to ward off criticism. This, too, is deep selfishness.
In other news, Mennonite pastor Kenneth Miller has been jailed for at least a week for contempt of court because he refused to testify against others involved in helping Lisa Miller and her daughter Isabella to escape the country in 2009. It seems extremely unlikely that Miller will be induced to testify by his imprisonment. This jail time is separate from the federal jail time he faces, for which he is due to be sentenced in early March, for his own role in helping Lisa and Isabella. My earlier discussions of this case are here and here. Meanwhile, Nicaragua isn't exactly proving to be a place of refuge. Mennonites in Nicaragua who may know the whereabouts of Lisa and Isabella say that they have been interrogated and their church services videotaped, and former members of their group have been offered inducements to rejoin the group and act as spies to find out Lisa's and Isabella's whereabouts. The Mennonites say that they are willing to be persecuted even to the point of imprisonment or death rather than betray the mother and child.