Over the last week, I have sent you a couple of emails with the headline “Think This World Has Gone Mad?!” and encouraged you to join our virtual book club that will discuss Live Not by Lies, A Manual for Christian Dissidents by Rod Dreher. In case you DON’T think the world has quite gone ‘mad’ yet, I ask that you continue reading, with every confidence that you will have a change of heart by the time you’re done.
Let us begin with new legislation filed last month here in MA to promote “LGBTQ family building.” What that means in the context of this bill is changing the definition of “infertility” entirely. This new definition will include individuals engaged in exclusively homosexual acts and those who have rendered themselves sterile through cross-sex hormones and/or surgical mutilation of their genitalia. Despite all the clamor about “comprehensive sex ed” on Beacon Hill, maybe someone needs to have “the talk” with this bill’s author! He apparently failed to learn that two individuals of the same sex, or any sex, failing to achieve pregnancy when engaging in non-reproductive sex acts is not “infertility.”
Nevertheless, the language of the bill states as follows:
“’Infertility’ shall mean the condition of an individual, whereby an individual is unable to become pregnant or to carry a pregnancy to live birth, or whereby an individual is unable to cause pregnancy and live birth in the individual’s partner.”
This redefinition deliberately ignores the fact that a man is inherently “unable to become pregnant” and a woman is inherently “unable to cause pregnancy.” In fact, the bill goes on to say that this definition of fertility will be binding, regardless of “number of attempts, prior treatment, age, sexual orientation or familial status.” So, even if the “number of attempts” is zero because the individuals involved are both men or both women, they would still qualify for infertility treatments under this new mandate to health insurance companies licensed to operate in the Commonwealth. Which means this foolishness would be subsidized by our own insurance premiums.
But this wouldn’t be limited to couples, because the requirement for health insurers to pay for “infertility” treatments is also not limited by “familial status.” What if, say, THREE men wanted to have a baby together? No problem. They would all qualify for infertility treatment. This is tragically not some wild speculation. In California, recently, an all-male polyamorous “throuple” had two children legally created for them, using the eggs of two different women and the womb of a third. As Live Not By Lies author Rod Dreher put it, “the contractualization of childbearing, and further abuse to the icon of mother and father — all of this to make some rich gay men happy.”
Ian Jenkins, Alan and Jeremy with their daughter, Piper, and pet dogs (image: Ian Jenkins)
However, the “groundbreaking achievement” for these men was getting the names of the egg donors and womb renters removed from the children’s birth certificates and having all three of the men’s names listed instead. Poly throuple makes history: 3 dads on a birth certificate. Not only were these two children created and delivered via legal contract to three men like hypoallergenic puppies from a top breeder, all record of their biological mothers was erased. The birth certificate now certifies nothing meaningful, since at least two of the men listed as “parent” on that document contributed nothing to the child’s birth.
The children may have an abundance of “fathers,” but they were made to enter into a “family” where, by design, there is never any mother. As we have seen consistently with the sexual revolution, its driving force is meeting the emotional and sexual desires of adults, no matter the cost to children. And there is a tremendous cost to children. According to researcher Mark Regnerus and Focus on the Family,
“Compared with off-spring from married, intact mother/father homes, children raised in same-sex homes are markedly more likely to…
- Experience poor educational attainment
- Report overall lower levels of happiness, mental and physical health.
- Be in counseling or mental health therapy (2xs)
- Suffer from depression (by large margins)
- Have recently thought of suicide (significantly)
- Identify as bisexual, lesbian or gay
- Have male on male or female on female sex partners (dramatically higher)
- Currently be in a same-sex romantic relationship (2x to 3x more likely)
- As adults, more likely to be unfaithful in married or cohabiting relationships
- Have a sexually transmitted infection (STI)
- Be sexually molested (both inappropriate touching and forced sexual act)
- Feel relationally isolated from bio-mother and -father (Although lesbian-parented children do feel close to their bio-mom – not surprisingly – they are not as close as children with a bio-mom married to father)
- Drink with intention of getting drunk
- Have frequency of arrests
- Have pled guilty to minor legal offense
If these men desire the accoutrements of marriage and family – the promise of children and the social and legal recognition of their relationship granted in large part to protect children – they should do what men have always been called to do: commit to one woman and rejoice in the life that this commitment naturally brings forth. In other words, men must subordinate their sexual desires to the institution of the family. Instead, we have seen the continuous redefinition of “family” to the point now where it is on the verge of being made irrelevant.
Unfortunately, we cannot just write this sad story off as another instance of California crazy. Here in Massachusetts, we are already “leading the nation” on the issue of legal recognition for polyamory. Last summer, while most of us were trying to navigate the chaos of COVID-19, the city of Somerville decided its top priority was passing an ordinance recognizing polyamorous relationships.
“The City of Somerville recognizes the diverse composition of its citizenry and values its people. The city acknowledges that many laws governing family relationships were enacted in a time when not all families were properly recognized. The city, recognizing its commitment to nondiscrimination and fair treatment of its citizens and employees, adopts this ordinance acknowledging domestic partnerships. The ordinance allows persons in committed relationships who meet the criteria established by the city as constituting domestic partnerships to register at the office of the city clerk and obtain a certificate attesting to their status.”
What does this language actually mean in day-to-day practice in Somerville?
“When the term ‘spouse’ or ‘marriage’ is used in other city ordinances, it shall be interpreted to include a domestic partner or partnership. When the term ‘family’ is used in other city ordinances, it shall be interpreted to include domestic partnerships. The City of Somerville shall afford persons in domestic partnerships all the same rights and privileges afforded to those who are married.”
Just this week, the city of Cambridge, MA announced they will also begin recognizing domestic partnerships of “three or more people.” People used to justify their apathy in the face of these social challenges and legal developments by telling me, “We can’t impose our morality on others.” While it may be largely true at this point that Christians are powerless to impose traditional morality on the world at large, that isn’t stopping the world from imposing their “morality” on us. Just last week, Bethany Christian Services (BCS), the largest Christian adoption agency in the United States, announced they would now be placing children with same-sex ‘families’ nationwide. (Some of the best coverage I’ve seen on this story so far is from Albert Mohler’s Daily Briefing. You can read it here.)
BCS President, Chris Pulasky stated “We will now offer services with the love and compassion of Jesus to the many types of families who exist in our world today.” Arguably, this means they would now help the throuple in California adopt a third child. One for each “parent,” I suppose, to match the puppies. I spoke with a colleague at BCS, and she was uncertain if the new policy would indeed include three men in a polyamorous grouping, but, as I pointed out, that is just one of the “many types of families who exist in our world today,” and would be legally recognized in Somerville, MA.
I also asked about whether a birth mother giving her child up for adoption through BCS could still specify that she only wanted her child to be placed with a married man and woman. Fortunately, the answer is “yes,” as birth parents retain the right to determine where their children go, and most parents who come to BCS do so because they share the same faith. However, in a foster care situation, this is not the case. A child’s parents have much less control, if any, over where their child is placed if they have been removed from the home by state authorities. So, in a state where BCS has a foster care contract, a 12-year-old boy who believes he is actually a girl, but whose parents do not ‘support’ this decision, could be removed from his home and placed by Bethany Christian Services with two ‘married men,’ or perhaps even a trans-woman, over the parents’ objections! BCS does NOT have a foster care contract with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at this time.
If none of these appalling situations convinces you that this world has gone mad, I’m not sure what would. The more important questions are:
1. How do we make sense of what is going on, and
2. What can we do about it?
To start answering those questions, I encourage you to join our virtual book club this coming Tuesday and be part of the conversation!