Married gay couple challenges UT's surrogacy law/Colorado Baker Heads to SCOTUS

[Daniel2]

Looks like our posts crossed each other, Scott.  Funny we both provided the same link.   Thank you for providing it.

From what I can tell, the DOJ is making similar arguements that some posters have made here on the board (i.e. that creating a wedding cake should be considered a form of 'artistic expression' from a legal perspective, and that sexual orientation should be treated differently than other suspect classifications and with a different level of scrutiny, and that this First Ammendment protections protect shop-owners from having to provide goods and services in the wedding industry--but apparently only to same-sex couples).

Of course, the concern is that if businesses are allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation based on religion, you've opened the door to discrimination based on any type of religious objections and undermine some of the basic tennents of civil rights protections. 

It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS agrees with those assertions.  I don't see the preponderance of legal precedent supports that line of reasoning, but SCOTUS certainly will have the final judgement, of course.

[Daniel2]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it's about teaching a specific attribute, but more about how men and women see and interact with the world differently and how kids need both influences in their life. 

Katy Faust (no relation and not lds) grew up in a very loving lesbian home with her biological mother and her mother's partner, had a happy childhood, and this is what she has to say about same sex family structure-

"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,” she explains, “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.”

This is what Heather Barwick, who was also raised in a very loving home by her mother and her mother's partner, has to say about the need for both a mother and a father-

‘Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not.  A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.’

I don't think their concerns (which have been mirrored by other adult children raised by gay or lesbian parents) are nonsense.  

Well... they are two individuals who have expressed their views, to which they are fully entitled.

If I start complaining that, as a gay child, I suffered under the hands of my LDS parents, neither of whom provided me with an appropriate model of a gay parent, should people start considering banning LDS parents from raising children?  Do ALL straight parents model EVERY aspect of a child's identity and purpose in life--especially considering that some families don't share gender roles as traditionally advocated?

Additionally, COLAGE is an organization for straight kids being raised by same-sex couples, and many of whom are adults (see here:  https://www.colage.org/).  Their experiences contradict the beliefs you share above.  Abigail Garner, herself an adult child of a same-sex couple, wrote a great book interviewing a number of adults raised by same-sex couples called "Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It Is," which I highly recommend.  See here: https://familieslikemine.com/ or on Amazon here). 

I'm not saying that your two sources are wrong, and that you should accept mine and reject yours.  But I AM saying that no parent(s) are perfect, that no parent(s) are going to model everything a child needs, that everyone could probably find something their parents lacked or could've/should've done better, that some kids are going to feel fulfilled and some aren't, that religious and cultural beliefs about this issue are going to affect what adults ultimately say about these issues, and that it would be irresponsible and dangerous to make the world white and black on this issue.  

Statistically, we have increasing evidence that children being raised by same-sex couples do as well as their peers, when raised in stable, committed family units (when comparing apples to apples).  

D 

Edited September 13, 2017 by Daniel2

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Well... they are two individuals who have expressed their views, to which they are fully entitled.

If I start complaining that, as a gay child, I suffered under the hands of my LDS parents, neither of whom provided me with an appropriate model of a gay parent, should people start considering banning LDS parents from raising children?  Do ALL straight parents model EVERY aspect of a child's identity and purpose in life--especially considering that some families don't share gender roles as traditionally advocated?

Additionally, COLAGE is an organization for straight kids being raised by same-sex couples, and many of whom are adults (see here:  https://www.colage.org/).  Their experiences contradict the beliefs you share above (Abigail Garner, herself the child of a same-sex couple, wrote a great book interviewing adults raised by same-sex couples called "Families Like Mine," which I highly recommend.  See here:  https://www.google.com/search?q=families+like+mine&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari). 

I'm not saying that your two sources are wrong, and that you should accept mine and reject yours.  But I AM saying that no parent(s) are perfect, that no parent(s) are going to model everything a child needs, that everyone could probably find something their parents lacked or could've/should've done better, that some kids are going to feel fulfilled and some aren't, that religious and cultural beliefs about this issue are going to affect what adults ultimately say about these issues, and that it would be irresponsible and dangerous to make the world white and black on this issue.  

Statistically, we have increasing evidence that children being raised by same-sex couples do as well as their peers, when raised in stable, committed family units (when comparing apples to apples).  

D 

My point wasn't to suggest that the quoted women's experiences should trump other people's.  I was responding to CB's statement that believing that a child benefits from having both a father and mother is nonsense, and thought the people best suited to address his claim were those who have experienced growing up with gay parents without either a father or mother.  

[ALarson]

31 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Looks like our posts crossed each other, Scott.  Funny we both provided the same link.   Thank you for providing it.

From what I can tell, the DOJ is making similar arguements that some posters have made here on the board (i.e. that creating a wedding cake should be considered a form of 'artistic expression' from a legal perspective, and that sexual orientation should be treated differently than other suspect classifications and with a different level of scrutiny, and that this First Ammendment protections protect shop-owners from having to provide goods and services in the wedding industry--but apparently only to same-sex couples).

Of course, the concern is that if businesses are allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation based on religion, you've opened the door to discrimination based on any type of religious objections and undermine some of the basic tennents of civil rights protections. 

It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS agrees with those assertions.  I don't see the preponderance of legal precedent supports that line of reasoning, but SCOTUS certainly will have the final judgement, of course.

Thanks for the additional information (and for the link that you and Scott posted...thanks to both of you!).  That's another case that many will be watching.

[Daniel2]

I just saw a comment on FB that the LDS church collaborated with the Sutherland Institute and just filed a joint amicus brief in support of the bakery, too. Can anyone confirm?

Edit to add: https://www.google.com/amp/fox13now.com/2017/09/12/utah-gop-senators-lds-church-support-cake-shop-refusing-service-over-same-sex-marriage/amp/

Edited September 13, 2017 by Daniel2

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I just saw a comment on FB that the LDS church collaborated with the Sutherland Institute and just filed a joint amicus brief in support of the bakery, too. Can anyone confirm?

Edit to add: https://www.google.com/amp/fox13now.com/2017/09/12/utah-gop-senators-lds-church-support-cake-shop-refusing-service-over-same-sex-marriage/amp/

The Reddit site that popped up for me simply linked to your Fox News link. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I just saw a comment on FB that the LDS church collaborated with the Sutherland Institute and just filed a joint amicus brief in support of the bakery, too. Can anyone confirm?

Edit to add: https://www.google.com/amp/fox13now.com/2017/09/12/utah-gop-senators-lds-church-support-cake-shop-refusing-service-over-same-sex-marriage/amp/

From the document it appears there is a variety of ecclesiastical support for the defendant. I saw Lutheran, Evangelical and Jewish interests represented along with the Church of Jesus Christ. 

I read a talk by Elder Oaks today wherein he said a reason for eroding support for religious liberty is that those who don't value faith or religion tend not to value freedom of religion 

That stands to reason, I guess, but it's a good reason for people of faith to combine their support for this First Amendment liberty. If we don't, who else will?

 

Edited September 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

7 hours ago, rongo said:

There is also a distaste for surrogacy because it is against Church policy (it's in the back of handbook one under policies, along with abortion and policies on in vitro and artificial insemination). 

Most people I know don't get that far, they have made the decision on how to view it before knowing the Church's position on it.

Handbook 2 advises against, but leaves it open if not involving a single sister it appears:

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.4.16

"Surrogate Motherhood

The Church strongly discourages surrogate motherhood. However, this is a personal matter that ultimately must be left to the judgment of the husband and wife. Responsiblity for the decision rests solely upon them."

"Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved. Single sisters who deliberately refuse to follow the counsel of Church leaders in this matter are subject to Church discipline."

Edited September 13, 2017 by Calm

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Most people I know don't get that far, they have made the decision on how to view it before knowing the Church's position on it.

True,  but the underlying Church culture has to factor in. The Church strongly discourages it, and children resulting from it need FP approval to be sealed. 

Even not knowing the policy, as you point out, I and my wife would never have been comfortable with the thought. Even if we were having trouble conceiving. 

[thesometimesaint]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is the issue that straight couples can have a surrogate, but gay couples cannot?  Is that fair?  Or, is it that surrogacy is allowed only in cases of medical need?

Straight or Gay makes no difference to me legally. It is surrogacy itself that I'm conflicted about. Liberal adoption laws seems to me to be a better solution without the implicit complications of buying and selling of humans. It might work in some rare circumstances. I'm just not sure how good of an idea it is.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

True,  but the underlying Church culture has to factor in. The Church strongly discourages it, and children resulting from it need FP approval to be sealed. 

Even not knowing the policy, as you point out, I and my wife would never have been comfortable with the thought. Even if we were having trouble conceiving. 

I agree Church culture has significant impact.

[Amulek]

20 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

What do you all think?  Should the state be allowed to bar gay men from surrogacy? 

If a state allows for surrogacy, I can't think of any compelling legal reason that would justify excluding gay men from being able to enter into these kinds of contracts. 

It seems like the issue here in this case is simply with the way the statute was constructed. The language about "mothers" was likely perfectly adequate when the law was written, but it is outdated now. However, unless it is a clear violation precedent, lower courts usually can't just overrule statutes - even if they think there is a good chance the law will be overturned on appeal. These things just have to work their way through the system. 

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Most people I know don't get that far, they have made the decision on how to view it before knowing the Church's position on it.

This is true.  I only know of one couple who used surrogacy (they were in a neighboring stake and not mine).  What has been interesting is they have had tremendous support from their family (who are active members and it was a family member who was the surrogate Mother) and also much love and support from their friends and surrounding church members.  This couple went through a tremendous amount (many miscarriages....one almost took her life.....and also many surgeries) and people celebrated when they were able to have a child (and this child has now been sealed to them).  I do not know if it was required of them to get approval from the FP.  I don't know if that is still necessary or how well enforced that is and if it's just left up to the local leaders now.  

I do think the younger generation does not feel the same about it as some of the older members of the church.  It seems to be more accepted as an option from what I've seen.  My only other exposure was that my brother's daughter offered to be a surrogate for her sister-in-law (her  brother's wife who had also went through many surgeries and finally a hysterectomy at the age of 28 years).  They are all active, temple recommend holding members and everyone was very supportive of this.  But in the end, the couple decided to adopt (and have adopted 2 children now).  I heard no negative comments from anyone though during the time they were making their decision.

Edited September 13, 2017 by ALarson

[california boy]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it's about teaching a specific attribute, but more about how men and women see and interact with the world differently and how kids need both influences in their life. 

Katy Faust (no relation and not lds) grew up in a very loving lesbian home with her biological mother and her mother's partner, had a happy childhood, and this is what she has to say about same sex family structure-

"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,” she explains, “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.”

This is what Heather Barwick, who was also raised in a very loving home by her mother and her mother's partner, has to say about the need for both a mother and a father-

‘Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not.  A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.’

I don't think their concerns (which have been mirrored by other adult children raised by gay or lesbian parents) are nonsense.  

While you responded to my statement, I don't really think that you were able to provide anything to disprove my statement.  Of course there are going to be children that think a different parent situation would have addressed their needs better,  I could provide just as many sincere statements from children of gay couples who feel like their parents provided all the right nurturing needs they needed.  Zach Wahls speech before the Iowa legislature comes to mind.  Daniel's post also addressed this issue quite well.  

But that is not really what my statement was about.  This is what I said.

17 hours ago, california boy said:

I think this whole father/mother scenario is nonsense.  Can anyone name one attribute or life lesson that only a father or a mother could teach?

And you responded with this one line

Quote

 

I don't think it's about teaching a specific attribute, but more about how men and women see and interact with the world differently and how kids need both influences in their life.

 

What you didn't do is tell me how men and women see and interact with the world differently or why kids need both influences in their lives.  I personally don't think anyone can make accurate statements about how all men or how all women see the world differently.  I am very interested in what you personally think the difference is.

[rpn]

Quote

What do you all think?  Should the state be allowed to bar gay men from surrogacy? 

Seems to me that nature does.

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From the document it appears there is a variety of ecclesiastical support for the defendant. I saw Lutheran, Evangelical and Jewish interests represented along with the Church of Jesus Christ. 

I read a talk by Elder Oaks today wherein he said a reason for eroding support for religious liberty is that those who don't value faith or religion tend not to value freedom of religion 

That stands to reason, I guess, but it's a good reason for people of faith to combine their support for this First Amendment liberty. If we don't, who else will?

 

Scott, I think you would be the best person to ask this question.  Has religious belief ever been a legally valid reason for a business to discriminate against someone in the past?  Or is this a new right that religion is trying to assert.

Edited September 13, 2017 by california boy

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

While you responded to my statement, I don't really think that you were able to provide anything to disprove my statement.  Of course there are going to be children that think a different parent situation would have addressed their needs better,  I could provide just as many sincere statements from children of gay couples who feel like their parents provided all the right nurturing needs they needed.  Zach Wahls speech before the Iowa legislature comes to mind.  Daniel's post also addressed this issue quite well.  

But that is not really what my statement was about.  This is what I said.

And you responded with this one line

What you didn't do is tell me how men and women see and interact with the world differently or why kids need both influences in their lives.  I personally don't think anyone can make accurate statements about how all men or how all women see the world differently.  I am very interested in what you personally think the difference is.

I responded with that one line because I thought your question was based more on a straw man argument than on an argument anyone was actually making. I was just pointing that out.  As for how women and men view the world differently, here you go: 

Study finds significant differences in brains of men and women

The cognitive differences between men and women

Men and Women really do have different brains

Males and females differ in parenting skills

Men and Women really do see the world differently

 

 

 

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

Seems to me that nature does.

That's beside the point, since "nature" "bars any infertile couple" from procreation without surrogacy (whether opposite-sex or same-sex).

Edited September 13, 2017 by Daniel2

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, rongo said:

17.3.16

Surrogate Motherhood The Church strongly discourages surrogate motherhood. However, this is a personal matter that ultimately must be left to the judgment of the husband and wife. Responsibility for the decision rests solely upon them. If parents want a child who was born to a surrogate mother to be sealed to them, the stake president refers the matter to the Office of the First Presidency.

Thanks for providing the quote.  Unfortunately another archaic policy in the handbook that needs to be revised....  

[Johnnie Cake]

Oh Good...finally we can return to the good ol days of Jim Crow and codified sege"gay"tion 

 

I honestly wish the church would make up their minds...I've got whiplash from all of their back and forth.  Ban Gays from buying wedding cakes...but support Concerts of Love and inclusion for gays...I wish they would make up their minds.  But I honestly think this is their last straw moment....the church, Unfortunately, will once and for all be classified as a hate group with no more places to hide.  They've made their choice...and now they'll have to deal with the consequences that are sure to follow.  Trust me...there will be consequences (this is not a threat but a prediction)

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Scott, I think you would be the best person to ask this question.  Has religious belief ever been a legally valid reason for a business to discriminate against someone in the past?  Or is this a new right that religion is trying to assert.

I just tried to respond to this, but my response disappeared when I posted it.

Maybe I've been banned because Hestia didn't like the last thread I opened.

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Oh Good...finally we can return to the good ol days of Jim Crow and codified sege"gay"tion 

 

I honestly wish the church would make up their minds...I've got whiplash from all of their back and forth.  Ban Gays from buying wedding cakes...but support Concerts of Love and inclusion for gays...I wish they would make up their minds.  But I honestly think this is their last straw moment....the church, Unfortunately, will once and for all be classified as a hate group with no more places to hide.  They've made their choice...and now they'll have to deal with the consequences that are sure to follow.  Trust me...there will be consequences (this is not a threat but a prediction)

I think it isn't a question of making up its mind.  I think the church has a long time ago in its belief that LGTB persons are a threat and continue to be one.  I think its actions are typical of an authoritarian who wants to have things on its terms all the time.  It wants to have its cake and eat it too by being able to discriminate on religious grounds yet it still wants to be seen as friendly - friendly discriminators.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just tried to respond to this, but my response disappeared when I posted it.

Maybe I've been banned because Hestia didn't like the last thread I opened.

 

Just tried again and failed.

Something there is that doesn't want me to post that response. I promise it doesn't contain anything vulgar or offensive.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Straight or Gay makes no difference to me legally. It is surrogacy itself that I'm conflicted about. Liberal adoption laws seems to me to be a better solution without the implicit complications of buying and selling of humans. It might work in some rare circumstances. I'm just not sure how good of an idea it is.

Surrogacy is not difficult or rare, and there simply are not enough children available for adoption.  This is solely a legal question.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just tried again and failed.

Something there is that doesn't want me to post that response. I promise it doesn't contain anything vulgar or offensive.

Happens to me once in a while, so it isn't a conspiracy.