Michael Cook

An unknown unknown for gay marriage supporters

Michael Cook
By Michael Cook
Image

May 29, 2012 (Mercatornet) - If we are in the middle of a culture war over gay marriage, why not take advice from someone who knows about combat, former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld? Long after he left the scene, people are still quoting his description of the fog of war: “[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.”

Since gay marriage has existed only since 2001, when it was legalised in the Netherlands, the dangerous known knowns are still meagre and the dangerous known unknowns vast. As for the dangerous unknown unknowns: well, is anyone so rash as to say that they don’t exist?

How children fare probably fits into the known unknown category. Supporters of gay marriage insist that children can flourish with two parents of the same sex. There are even claims, based on tiny studies of lesbian parents, that gay parenting is superior to having a married Mom and Dad. Opponents have much more data backing up their case. A group called the American College of Pediatricians summed up the evidence recently:

“Over thirty years of research confirms that children fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving low conflict marriage. Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better academically, have fewer emotional disorders, and become better functioning adults when reared within their natural family.”

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

However, in the unknown unknown category is where the children of homosexual men will come from. Once same-sex unions have been sanctified with the word “marriage”, some gay couples will have children. It’s understandable – marriage has always been about children.

But where from? If lesbian couples want children, all they need is a sperm donor and possibly the services of an IVF clinic – if they do not already have children from a failed relationship.

But it is vastly more complicated for gay couples. They may have children from a previous heterosexual relationship. They can foster or adopt. But some will want a child who is genetically related to them. They can provide half of what is needed, but they still need a womb – a surrogate mother.

No one has any idea how big the demand for gay surrogacy market. There are good reasons for that. Commercial surrogacy is illegal in many countries and where it is legal, it can be shameful. But we do have some idea of the supply of gay surrogacy. Thanks to the internet, surrogacy brokers are springing up all over the world – wherever there is poverty and sympathetic government regulation.

The United States has a number of surrogacy agencies, but the growth market seems to in the developing world where it is far cheaper. Click on the site AffordableSurrogates.com. It markets surrogates in Greece, Panama, and India. Click on surrogatemothers.biz for surrogate mothers from the Ukraine.

Through sites like these, babies are effectively being sold as a product. “Did you know that thousands of people are saving money by going to foreign countries to have a child through hassle-free surrogacy?” Affordable Surrogates asks its gay clients. Another site specialising in gay clients, Advocates for Surrogacy, advertises Guatemalan women who cost 70 percent less than their US counterparts.

The best-known destination for people seeking surrogate mothers is India. Light regulation there allows IVF clinics to have herds of surrogate mothers available for their overseas clients, including gay couples. It is there that the dark side of gay parenting is most evident. Exploitation of surrogate mothers in India is not an unknown unknown. It is a known known.

This was exposed in the death of a 30-year-old Indian woman with two children of her own, Premila Vaghela, earlier this month. She died in the eighth month of her pregnancy of unexplained complications after collapsing in her IVF clinic, Pulse Women’s Hospital, in Ahmedabad, in the state of Gujarat. The doctors at Pulse quickly did an emergency caesarean. The child was given to the American woman who commissioned it.

In the quaint lingo of the Indian media, it was noted that “Premila paid the price of offering herself as surrogate with her life.” She was to have been paid about US$4,500, although the clinic generously gave her family US$18,000.

The fate of Mrs Vaghela is a stark reminder that death is one of the hazards of being a surrogate mother. Not that it seems to bother IVF doctors there much. The hard-boiled woman boss of an unrelated clinic, Dr Nayana Patel, commented:

“the contracts signed between the surrogate mother and the couple (whose baby she is carrying) does not talk of any compensation in case of death of the surrogate mother. Those who agree to become surrogates are told well in advance about the complications involved in pregnancy.”

It’s unlikely that the clients of the surrogate mothers ever read the contract to which these women – who may be illiterate – put their signature or mark. They are incredibly exploitative. The pro-forma contract displayed by the Pulse Hospital on its website is loaded in favour of the genetic parents and the hospital against the surrogate mother.

The woman has to agree to the most intrusive limitation of her lifestyle and even to accept foetal reduction (see Pulse’s video) if necessary. Since up to three embyros are transferred at a time—not international best practice—this is quite possible.

The contract also states that “the Surrogate and her Husband agree to assume all medical, financial, and psychological risks and to release, the Genetic Parents, their attorney(s), the Treating Doctor, other professionals contemplated herein and/or involved in any aspect of the surrogacy arrangement, and each said person’s agents and employees from any legal liability except professional malpractice (malfeasance or negligence).”

In short, a surviving spouse can only seek compensation if he can prove negligence on the doctor’s part. His chances of success will be vanishingly small.

In a chilling section of the contract headed “life support”, the surrogate and her husband agree that “if she is seriously injured or suffers a life‐threatening instance during her third trimester of pregnancy”, then she “will be sustained with life support equipment to protect the fetus’ viability and insure [sic] a healthy birth on the Genetic Parents’ behalf”.

Forget about altruism. Indian surrogate mothers endure these insults to their dignity for the cash. “Surrogacy has picked up majorly all over Gujarat,” notes the Times of India. “The decent money offered by couples, majority of who are NRGs [Non Resident Gujarati]and foreigners, attracts many women from poor socio-economic backgrounds.”

The local government benefits from the exploitation of these women as well. Ironically, the government English-language magazine promoting Gujarat, “The Gujarat”, currently features a promotional article on the booming surrogacy business in Anand: “Where the storks dare to fly… Bringing smiles to couples across the world via Reproductive Tourism”.

“The state has set a precedent in embracing humanist ideas by facilitating reproductive tourism which has proved to be immensely valuable. Apart from empowering the surrogates, it is bringing in a lot of revenue for the state itself, furthering its development,” writes the author.

Conditions for surrogate mothers in Guatemala or Panama or the Ukraine are unlikely to be any better.

Supporters of same-sex marriage have to face the stark fact that legalisation will mean misery for women in developing countries. Perhaps death will be rare. But it will certainly happen. Are gay couples ready to force women to have selective abortions? Are they ready to accept that some women will die bearing a child they paid for? Are they ready to accept the degradation and exploitation that are inherent in their dream of being married?

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet. This article is reprinted under a Creative Commons license.

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, , , ,

The first pro-abortion Republican enters the 2016 presidential race

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

EXETER, NH, May 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The large and expanding field of would-be Republican presidential candidates grew by one today, as George Pataki became the first GOP presidential hopeful this election season to openly support abortion-on-demand.

The 69-year-old long-shot candidate also has a history of supporting homosexual legislative causes.

In the weeks leading up to his formal announcement, George Pataki took out TV ads asking Republicans to refrain from talking about abortion and gay “marriage,” branding them “distractions.”

“In 12 years [as governor], I don’t think I talked about that issue twice,” he once said of abortion.

On same-sex “marriage,” he says, “I think, leave it to the states. I don’t think it’s a role in Washington.”

However, Pataki has a long history of enacting the homosexual political agenda as governor of New York from 1994-2006. He signed a “hate crimes” law that added the words “gay” and “lesbian” to New York state law for the first time.

He signed the Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Act (SONDA), which prohibits business owners from “discriminating” against homosexuals in housing or hiring, with an exemption only for religious institutions.

He also added sexual orientation to state civil rights laws, alongside such immutable characteristics as race and sex, in an apparent quid pro quo for a gay activist group's endorsement in his last run for governor. The New York Times reported that, under pressure from Pataki, the then-Senate Majority Leader “shifted his position on the bill as part of what is tacitly acknowledged, even by Senator [Joseph] Bruno's senior aides, to have been a deal to win an endorsement for Governor Pataki from the state's largest gay rights group, the Empire State Pride Agenda.”

After the LGBT activist group endorsed Pataki in 2002, citing a long list of his service to the homosexual political cause, Pataki personally lobbied senators for the bill's passage, then signed it into law that December.

Coupled with his stance on gun control, environmentalism, and other issues, he stands well to the left of the Republican mainstream.

The three-term governor of New York, who belongs to the Roman Catholic Church, took his own advice by largely avoiding social issues today. The closest he came was his vow, “I'd repeal oppressive laws like ObamaCare and end Common Core.”

He added that he would “fire every current IRS employee abusing government power to discriminate on the basis of politics or religion. That is not America!”

Otherwise, Pataki's announcement speech hewed to stand pat Republican issues like reducing taxes, shrinking the number of federal employees, increasing military spending, and supporting entrepreneurship.

He began by thanking his supporters, in English and Spanish.

Smiling, his head pivoting between twin teleprompters, he said, “Let me tell you some of the things I'd do right away to get oppressive government off the backs of Americans.”

He would institute a lifetime ban on congressmen acting as lobbyists after they leave office. “If you ever served one day in Congress, you will never be a lobbyist,” he said. He favors forcing Congress to live under the laws it passes, so there will be “no special rules for the powerful.”

He cited his history of cutting taxes, reducing welfare rolls, and leaving his state with billions of dollars in surplus. “That's what our policies can do,” he said. “I know we can do the same thing for the United States.”

In recent weeks, he has called for a more interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East. Today, he reminded his audience that he was governor of New York in 9/11. “I will not fear the lesson of September 11,” he said. “To protect us, first we must protect the border,” he said – an unexpected phrase, as Pataki supports amnesty for the at least 11 million illegal immigrants already in the United States.

“We will stand with our ally, Israel, a democracy on the front lines of terror and barbarism,” he said.

Like former Sen. Rick Santorum, who announced he is running for president yesterday, Pataki agreed that “if necessary, American forces will be used to actually defeat and destroy ISIS on the ground” – although he promised not to become “the world's policeman.”

Some of his campaign promises drew skepticism, such as seeking to develop self-driving cars and to cure Alzheimer's disease and cancer within the next decade.

The speech's venue was chosen deliberately by Pataki, who considered entering the presidential race in 2000, 2008, and 2012. The town of Exeter, New Hampshire, claims to be the founding place of the Republican Party. (Ripon, Wisconsin, makes a similar claim.)

More importantly, the first-in-the-nation primary skews more libertarian on social issues than evangelical-dominated Iowa and South Carolina, so Pataki has essentially staked his candidacy on doing well in New Hampshire. Fellow pro-abortion Republican Rudy Giuliani made a similar bet in 2008, banking on a good showing among transplanted New Yorkers in the Florida primary. He left the race after finishing a distant third.

Short of a stunning upset in the Granite State, Pataki has little chance of breaking through the pack this year. A Fox News poll ranks him dead last among 16 announced and potential candidates. Holly Bailey of Yahoo! News said, “George Pataki would never say this, but you do have to wonder if he's sort of, maybe, gaming for vice president.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Pataki is not the first “pro-choice” Republican to run for president.  Giuliani (who supported partial birth abortion) and Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore (another potential 2016 candidate, who supports abortion during the first trimester) ran in 2008. Twelve years earlier, both California Gov. Pete Wilson and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter supported abortion-on-demand. Arlen Specter later left the party and became a Democrat.

In 1988, General Alexander Haig opposed a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So did Texas Gov. John Connally in 1980.

George H.W. Bush supported abortion and voted for Planned Parenthood funding early in his career but changed his position by the time he ran for president the second time, in 1988.

President Gerald Ford was the last Republican nominee to proclaim himself “pro-choice.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Steve Jalsevac / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

, , , ,

Ireland ‘defied God’ by voting for gay ‘marriage’: Cardinal Burke

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

OXFORD, May 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Cardinal Raymond Burke lamented how formerly Catholic Ireland has gone further than the pagans in the pre-Christian days of old and “defied God” by calling homosexual behavior “marriage” in the referendum last week.

“I mean, this is a defiance of God. It’s just incredible. Pagans may have tolerated homosexual behaviours, they never dared to say this was marriage,” he told the Newman Society, Oxford University’s Catholic organization, in an address Wednesday about the intellectual heritage of Pope Benedict XVI. The Tablet, Britain’s liberal Catholic newspaper, reported his remarks.

On Friday, 1.2 million Irish people voted to amend the country’s constitution to say: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” A little over 734,000 people voted against the proposal. 

Burke said that he could not understand “any nation redefining marriage.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

The cardinal also emphasized the important role that parents play in protecting their children in a culture increasingly hostile to God’s laws. “The culture is thoroughly corrupted, if I may say so, and the children are being exposed to this, especially through the internet,” he said. One practical piece of advice that he offered families was to put computers in public areas to prevent children from “imbib[ing] this poison that’s out there.”

During the same Oxford visit, but during a homily at a Mass the day before, Burke called marriage between a man and woman a “fundamental truth” that has been “ignored, defied, and violated.”

Burke warned during the homily of the dangers of “various ideological currents” and of “human deception and trickery which strives to lead us into error.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
John Stonestreet

,

Why young Christians can’t grasp our arguments against gay ‘marriage’

John Stonestreet
By John Stonestreet

May 28, 2015 (BreakPoint.org) -- For five years, Dr. Abigail Rine has been teaching a course on gender theory at George Fox University, an evangelical school in the Quaker tradition.

At the beginning of the semester, she tells her students that “they are guaranteed to read something they will find disagreeable, probably even offensive.”

Writing at FirstThings.com recently, she related how five years ago it was easy to find readings that challenged and even offended the evangelical college students “considering the secular bent of contemporary gender studies.”

But today, things are different. “Students now,” she says, “arrive in my class thoroughly versed in the language and categories of identity politics; they are reticent to disagree with anything for fear of seeming intolerant—except, of course, what they perceive to be intolerant.”

And what do they find “intolerant”? Well, in her class, an essay entitled “What is Marriage?” by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson, which was the beginning of the book “What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense.”

In their article, Girgis, George, and Anderson defend what they call the conjugal view of marriage. “Marriage,” they write, “is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other … that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together.” They defend this view against what they call the “revisionist view” of marriage, which redefines marriage to include, among other things, same-sex couples.

“My students hate it,” Dr. Rine wrote. They “lambast the article.” “They also,” she adds, “seem unable to fully understand the argument.” And again, these are evangelical students at an evangelical school.

The only argument for conjugal marriage they’ve ever encountered has been the wooden proof-texting from the Bible. And besides, wrote Rine, “What the article names as a ‘revisionist’ idea of marriage—marriage as an emotional, romantic, sexual bond between two people—does not seem ‘new’ to my students at all, because this is the view of marriage they were raised with, albeit with a scriptural, heterosexual gloss.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

As Rine points out “the redefinition of marriage began decades ago” when “the link between sexuality and procreation was severed in our cultural imagination.”

And if marriage “has only an arbitrary relationship to reproduction,” then it seems mean-spirited to Rine’s students to argue that marriage by its very nature excludes same-sex couples.

And where do students get the idea that marriage “has only an arbitrary relationship to reproduction”? Well, everywhere—television, church, school, their homes, in youth groups.

Rine writes, “As I consider my own upbringing and the various ‘sex talks’ I encountered in evangelical church settings over the past twenty years, I realize that the view of marital sex presented there was primarily revisionist.”

In other words, once you say, “I do,” you get “the gift” of sex which is presented as “a ‘gift’ largely due to its [erotic], unitive properties, rather than its intrinsic capacity to create life.” Even in the Church, children have become an optional add-on to married life rather than its primary purpose.

What can we do to win back our children, our churches, and the culture? In our recent book “Same Sex Marriage,” Sean McDowell and I lay out a game plan. We offer strategies for the short-term and the long-term, with the ultimate goal: re-shaping the cultural imagination towards what God intended marriage to be, starting with the church. Come to BreakPoint.org to pick up your copy.

As Chuck Colson once said in a BreakPoint commentary about marriage, “We Christians are very good at saying ‘No.’ But we’ve got to get better at saying ‘Yes’: showing how God’s plan for humanity is a blessing. That His ways, including faithful, life-giving marriage between one man and one woman, lead to human flourishing physically, emotionally, and spiritually.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Reprinted with permission from Break Point.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook