Monday, Katy Faust takes to The Federalist to offer up “Don’t Ignore The Child’s Perspective On Gay Couples Commissioning Babies.” Faust, whose blog is titled Ask The Bigot, apparently embraces the idea that she gains cover by sarcastically referring to herself as a bigot. That is a wishful thinking. A bigot is the product of an intellectual deficiency brought about by narrow-mindedness, flawed judgment, a lack of intellectual curiosity and an insufficiency of critical thinking. If Faust wants to be proud of those characteristics she does so at her own peril.
In a prior era, when people traveled mostly by ship, each spouse had their own steamer trunk. Once on board these enormous things were upended and opened. One half was a closet and the other half a chest of drawers. These would comprise only a small portion of Kay Faust’s baggage. Faust schleps this load around wherever she goes. It must be terribly exhausting.
I don’t often write about Faust because of her lack of relevance. She forfeited whatever credibility she might have had by advocating for marriage discrimination on the premise that same-sex marriage is bad for children. She is still doing so. My contention has always been that the value of marriage equality for children being raised by gay parents is inarguable and that gay couples are going to raise children with, or without, being able to marry.
Were that not sufficient, Faust is part of Robert Oscar Lopez’ merry band of crackpots. According to her bio stub at the conclusion of the subject piece she “serves on the academic and testimonial councils for the International Children’s Rights Institute.” That might sound impressive except for the fact that the minuscule ICRI files its tax return by 990-N (e-postcard) and has a website that hasn’t been updated in about a year. I’ll spare you the usual rant about the insane Mr. Lopez. Faust is also the Washington State leader of CanaVox which is a religious project of the Witherspoon Institute which is headed by an Opus Dei numerary.
I am remiss in not writing about Katy Faust’s meddling in Taiwan at someone else’s expense. A reader provided me with a considerable amount of very good material. Post-election and holiday time I was easily distracted and overwhelmed. Faust does not want Taiwanese gay couples to marry. But I digress. One more thing about Faust is that she always refers to herself as “the child of a loving gay parent” — singular. The children of gay couples that I have spoken with all express that they have, or had, two moms or two dads.
The subtitle of Faust’s piece reads:
What is it like for a child to grow up not just
without knowledge of her mother, but with the knowledge that she was
bought and paid for?
Clearly Faust is projecting her own resentment towards her mother (although she is foisting it on male gay couples). Faust seemingly has the psyche of a child raised by a single parent. Children of gay couples don’t feel that way. Not at all.
Faust goes into a lengthy and contrived rant about the future emotions of a girl adopted by a gay male couple. It begins:
My dads shopped for me and my sister. They selected my genetic mother based on her race, skin color, eye color and made sure she was highly educated, athletic, and had no physical disabilities. They bought my mother’s eggs—lots of them—so they could pick the best embryos. They rented another woman’s womb for 9 months. …
This intellectually dishonest diatribe goes on at considerable length and is heavily hyper-linked. The majority of the links go to Alana S. Newman’s Anonymous Us which exists to impose Church teachings on the evils of ART, Assisted Reproductive Technology. One claim in the piece is that children conceived through ART are prone to depression. That links to a piece by D. Paul Sullins who had to find an outlet in Cairo, Egypt for publication. Sullins, by the way, is an associate professor of sociology at Catholic University of America and he is a Catholic priest — a convert with a wife and three kids. He is also out of his depth. Depression is evaluated by psychologists and psychiatrists who do clinical rotations in their training. Sullins’ MA and PhD are both in sociology and he likely has no erudition, whatsoever, in depression, or any other medical condition for that matter.
I have a different narrative for Faust’s hypothetical child. It begins:
I have two dads who love me very much. They cared for me, guided me and protected me. They made me feel secure. When I was in school many of my classmates were being raised by a single parent who didn’t seem to have much time for them. With my dads, I always came first. Many of my classmates also have a step-parent who had his own children from a prior marriage. He wasn’t very interested in his step-children. Some of these kids were on their second or even third step-father while my dads are still happily married. Some of my friends had fathers with visitation rights often alongside the children of the father’s new marriage which made everyone very uncomfortable. All in all I had a very happy childhood while many of my friends were depressed and miserable …
Faust’s version would be irrelevant for someone who had a happy childhood. Faust’s version is quite lengthy. It may very well describe how she felt as a child and how she feels now. I am sorry that Faust had a crappy childhood. However that is a poor excuse for imposing her ideology — framed in bigotry — onto others. Aside from Faust being a menace it just makes no sense.
Based on her hypothetical child (a version of herself), Faust reaches the conclusion:
These two men had a deep-seated urge to be fathers. How wonderful is that? However, fathers are supposed to be self-sacrificing and these men, motivated by their feelings alone, chose to sacrifice the need those girls have for a mother instead of facing the biological truth of their life choices. In other words, instead of dealing with their feelings of loss, they have ensured a lifetime of it for their children.
Except, again, that is not how most children raised by gay couples feel. If both parents are loving and caring all of Faust’s baggage becomes irrelevant. It is the love and guidance of parents that really counts. That is what all of the research shows, again and again (the list is seemingly endless).
Faust approaches conclusion with:
What Children’s Rights Are At Stake, Exactly?
So. Let’s play Name That Child’s Right’s Violation, shall we?
Faust enumerates seven “rights” that she claims are violated (you can read her piece for more detail). The simple fact is that Faust’s list is produced with the presumption that the children of gay couples are mistreated and/or deprived. Damn, that baggage is heavy. For example, item six is “Right to be born free—not bought and sold.” Except these children of gay parents do not feel like commodities. In point of fact they are not and never were. This is Faust’s projection.
She goes on:
Stories about intentional motherlessness and fatherlessness will always depict the adults as victims, and children as something owed to them. Don’t be duped. When it comes to surrogacy and third-party reproduction, it’s not the adults to whom we owe our sympathy, it is the children.
Self-victimization is a conservative Christian hobby. Again, Faust is projecting. By the way, there is no hyper-link in that paragraph. I hate to break it to Faust but the only person seeking sympathy seems to be her.
This will not be the last story you’ll read of children being conceived through sperm donation, egg donation, and surrogacy. (And they’re always told from the glowing perspective of the parents.) So arm yourself with real-life data and stories about the actual impact these reproductive technologies and alternative family structures have on children.
There’s always another side of the story. And it’s the children’s side of the story that deserves our attention.
This wasn’t a “story” about actual children. Like the arguments opposing marriage equality, this is hypothetical and theoretical BS. It is not representative and it is not scientifically accurate. Faust’s baggage does not have YSL printed in a continuing pattern across the fabric. She prefers:
Poor me — Poor me — Poor me —Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — Poor me — …