|Katy Faust on Australian television. It would appear that Faust did not particularly like the question she was asked.|
Having recently failed to deter marriage equality in Australia, Katy Faust, a resident of Seattle, showed up to testify in opposition to revisions to Washington’s Uniform Parentage Act. She even wrote about her testimony at LifeSiteNews claiming “I told you so.” The bottom line is that she wants, for religious reasons, to prevent gay couples from raising children. She claims that her reasoning is secular. I claim to have X-Ray vision.
Faust attempts to make a secular argument about what is best for a child but, at the end of the day, she is an evangelical conservative Christian who is married to a conservative Christian pastor. Growing up, Faust’s parents divorced. Her mother, who then partnered with another woman, had sole custody. Although Faust claims to have a good relationship with her father I suspect that was not the case during her childhood. Ultimately, Faust has “Daddy” issues in conjunction with her religious disapproval of gay people. She has never gotten over the divorce.
I will get back to Faust’s testimony and the piece in LifeSite but first, in the way of review:
Last May, Faust moved on from her “Ask the Bigot” blog to a new blog titled “Them Before Us.” To suggest that the blog is something more than what it is, Faust profiles four people who form an organizational “we.” The reality is that these are just people who write articles from time to time.
At a donations page:
Your donations give children a voice in the debate over family structure and equip adults to defend that voice. Help us advocate for child-centered public policy, publish stories, create videos, and advocate with the media.
Tax Deductible donations may be made to Them Before Us, a project of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
That is William Duncan’s anti-marriage equality organization out of Provo, UT. Maggie Gallagher was also associated, at one time, with the organization. I haven’t seen much of Duncan since Windsor. My suspicion is that Duncan was the conduit to the Mormon community which funded Gallagher and Robert P. George in the formation of National Organization for Marriage and, in particular, the California Proposition 8 campaign.
Those days are gone. Institute for Marriage and Public Policy has filed its e-postcard return with the IRS for the year ended August 31, 2017. It reported no assets and no revenues. My guess is that Faust simply formed a loose relationship with Duncan to attract donors. It is not above board and it is technically illegal. Once again, one law for conservative Christians — another law for everyone else. It is the essence of Christian supremacy; and hypocrisy.
If Faust raised so much as a dollar between May and August of 2017 then Duncan filed a fraudulent return. It would mean that Faust simply pocketed the money, using someone else’s nonprofit status. I intend to find out.
What no one seems to have asked Faust was the simple question of who paid for all those trips to Australia over two years. Taiwan too. A U.S. tax exempt entity is prohibited from trying to influence foreign elections. I am uncertain how that would be applied to Australia’s recent nonbinding postal ballot on marriage equality. So if a church or any other 501(c)3 funded Faust’s Australian adventure it could be problematic.
Now let’s get back to Faust’s activities in Seattle and her piece at LifeSiteNews. We start with the disingenuous title: “State legislator: recognizing mothers and fathers is ‘unconstitutional’.” Of course that is just fine aged horse manure suitable for fertilizing:
Senator Pedersen says:
Then 6-7 years ago now, we anticipated a lot of what’s in UPA 2017 and made most of our act gender neutral. We were the first of a number of states that have done that on their own. And then in reaction to the Obergefell decision by the US Supreme Court in 2015, the Uniform Law Commission decided that the current version of the parentage act was likely to be unconstitutional and began the process of rewriting it so that it would apply equally to same-sex couples.
Writing laws so that they apply equally to gay couples does not mean that recognizing mothers and fathers is unconstitutional. Did I really need to write that? It means that, in addition to mothers and fathers, there might be two mothers or two fathers. It’s not all that complicated unless you are a whacked-out Christian struggling to make a point at the expense of logic. It gets worse:
Got that? When husbands and wives are optional in marriage policy, mothers and fathers become optional in parenting policy. Post-gay marriage, a law that recognizes both mothers and fathers as necessary to children is unconstitutional. Looks like Washington State will follow in the footsteps of other nations which have sacrificed the rights of children on the pyre of adult desires.
Since every person on planet Earth has both a mother and father that is just gibberish. We all know that reproduction requires a fertilized egg. What the law says is that gay couples are as competent at raising children as heterosexual couples or single parents. That view is thoroughly supported by research and is unrelated to Faust’s Daddy problem. Further deteriorating Faust’s faulty logic is the fact that Washington State allowed gay couples to adopt at least as early as 2009. It would be three years before they could legally marry in the state. It is the old conundrum of confusing correlation with causation. In this case even the correlation is inapplicable.
Faust needs to get over the fact that gays can raise children. That ship has sailed and it is not going to turn around. Correcting the language of laws to conform to that reality doesn’t change the reality. Some states still have laws on the books banning homosexuality in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court nullified those laws in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas. Were, say, Oklahoma to remove that law from its code then these same idiots might say that the state was promoting sodomy in spite of the fact that the law has now been unconstitutional and unenforceable for nearly 15 years.
There is no small measure of hypocrisy at work with Faust. In 2011 she adopted a child from China. That likely meant separating the child from both biological parents, extended family and his or her culture. But that’s okay if you are a conservative Christian.
Washington is removing language that barred surrogacy brokers. They will be permitted with very tight restrictions including the fact that they cannot be lawyers or medical practitioners who are in any way associated with the donor or the surrogate. Gay couples can already use the services of a surrogate. Faust seems to think that the issue is up for debate in her written testimony:
In the fertility industry, the adults are the client. The goal is to provide them a baby, literally, at any cost. As a result, and clearly illustrated in this bill, “best interest of the child” is rarely considered, if at all.
She seems, again, to want to undo what cannot, and should not, be undone. Proving that gays are crappy parents has been a zealous religious crusade with oodles of money to support it. What they got was Regnerus who (along with the money sources) claimed a result that was unsupported by the research that he did.
The children affected by SB 6037 will also be separated from one or both biological parents. But the source of that loss isn’t tragic circumstance, it was willfully chosen by the very adults who are raising them. As a result, donor-conceived children often feel that they cannot be honest about their feelings of loss.
She cites a blog post to support the above. I think that it depends upon the quality of the parenting. A donor-conceived child can know that his or her parents really, really wanted to raise a child. Faust assumes that the reason that people want to raise a child are rooted in vanity and that is simply not the case. Often it is to provide a child with something that the prospective parent did not have.
I am not inclined to go through Faust’s testimony in full because it disregards reality and is devoid of logic. At one time Faust was smart enough to obtain a Fulbright scholarship. She has squandered her intellect with the adherence to rigorous religious ideology. Faust has demonstrated considerable energy and the ability to raise funds for her anti-gay activities. She just hasn’t demonstrated much wit.