As the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals considers whether to strike down laws in three states banning same-sex “marriage,” four adult children of homosexual parents have filed court briefings arguing that government-sanctioned homosexual unions could lead to disaster for thousands of kids.
Katy Faust, Dawn Stefanowicz, B.N. Klein, and Robert Oscar Lopez, who were all raised by homosexual parents, each submitted briefs to the 5th Circuit opposing the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” Recounting childhood memories of households made deeply dysfunctional by their parents’ sexual appetites and the radical subculture that went along with their “gay” identities, all four argued that redefining marriage to include homosexual couples will likely lead to the exploitation and abuse of countless children for political and personal gain.
“I grew up with a parent and her partner[s] in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool of repression, retribution and abuse,” wrote B.N. Klein of her lesbian mother and her series of live-in lovers. “I have seen that children in gay households often become props to be publically [sic] displayed to prove that gay families are just like heterosexual ones.”
“While I do not believe all gays would be de facto bad parents, I know that the gay community has never in my lifetime put children first as anything other than a piece of property, a past mistake or a political tool to be dressed up and taken out as part of a dog-and-pony show to impress the well-meaning,” Klein wrote. She added that as a child of a lesbian mother, she was pressured to pay “constant homage and attention” to her mother’s gay identity, taught that “some Jews and most Christians were stupid and hated gays and were violent,” and told that homosexuals were “much more creative and artistic because they were not repressed and were naturally more ‘feeling.’”
While Klein classified her upbringing as abusive, Robert Oscar Lopez told the court that his own childhood upbringing by his mother and her longtime partner represented the “best possible conditions for a child raised by a same-sex couple.” Even so, Lopez testified that the lack of a father figure in his life, combined with the influence of the radical gay culture in which he was raised, gave rise to a devastating confusion about his own sexuality and ultimately led to his becoming a homosexual prostitute in his teen years in order to fulfill his craving for acceptance and love from older men.
“Had I been formally studied by same-sex parenting ‘experts’ in 1985, I would have confirmed their rosiest estimations of LGBT family life,” Lopez wrote. “[But b]ehind these façades of a happy ‘outcome’ lay many problems.”
“I experienced a great deal of sexual confusion,” Lopez wrote. “I had an inexplicable compulsion to have sex with older males … and wanted to have sex with older men who were my father’s age, though at the time I could scarcely understand what I was doing.”
“The money I received for sex certainly helped me financially because it allowed me certain spending money beyond what I earned with my teenage jobs at a pizzeria and in my mother’s [psychiatric] clinic. But the money was not as impactful as the fact that I needed to feel loved and wanted by an older male figure, even if for only as short as a half hour.”
Lopez said that he has spoken to dozens of other adult children of homosexuals, and that many of them have similar stories of pain and damage inflicted by the absence of a biological parent and the unwanted “step-parent” type relationship demanded by their homosexual parents’ lovers. Lopez included testimonies from nine of them in his brief, but said there were many more who were afraid to speak out for fear that the homosexual lobby would target them for harassment like they have Lopez himself.
“Children raised by same-sex couples face a gauntlet if they break the silence about the ‘no disadvantages’ consensus,” Lopez wrote, after recounting how homosexual activists harassed his employers and spread lies about him on the internet after he first came forward about his own childhood experiences as the son of a lesbian. “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.”
Katy Faust also testified that children of homosexuals are intimidated into silence by gay activists who threaten them with public shaming, job interference, and worse for daring to speak out against same-sex “marriage.”
“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,” Faust wrote. “Unfortunately, many gay-marriage lobbyists have made gay marriage the sole badge of loyalty to our LGBT family and friends.”
“The label of bigot or hater has become very powerful and effective tools to silence those of us who choose not to endorse the marriage platform of many gay lobbyists,” Faust continued. “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,” admitted Faust. “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 said that her outspokenness against same-sex “marriage” stems from her belief that every child has a right to a relationship with his or her mother and father.
“When we institutionalize same-sex marriage … we move from permitting citizens the freedom to live as they choose, to promoting same-sex headed households,” Faust wrote. “Now we are normalizing a family structure where a child will always be deprived daily of one gender influence and the relationship with at least one natural parent. Our cultural narrative becomes one that, in essence, tells children that they have no right to the natural family structure or their biological parents, but that children simply exist for the satisfaction of adult desires.”
Dawn Stefanowicz echoed the sentiments of the other three, in a frank and graphic testimony of her childhood with a promiscuous homosexual father who later died of AIDS.
“It is quite difficult to discuss the implications of growing up in a gay household until later in adulthood when we have developed a measure of personal identity and independence apart from our GLBT parent, partners and the subcultures,” Stefanowicz wrote. “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,” wrote Stefanowicz. “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,” Stefanowicz continued. “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.”
A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit heard oral arguments (audio here) regarding the legality of state bans on same-sex “marriage” last Friday. However, it could be months before they issue an opinion.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a lower court decision upholding Louisiana’s ban on same-sex “marriage.” The high court is still considering whether to hear arguments concerning bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.