I have been a fan of your work and a relatively regular reader of this Substack. With that being said, this post and the survey you reference throughout takes down your credibility by a notch. Why survey only conservatives and moderates (or report the results of those groups only)? We might not like it but there are quite a few liberals in this country. Why not link the full survey, including full methodology, anywhere on the website that’s referenced? The results make me think that the questions were framed in a way that made it possible for someone to believe that children need both a mom and a dad, and at the same time support children being raised in a household with same sex parents. Not to mention there’s no data or even a hypothesis on how the results changed over time.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. More details about the survey here, including why it is that we decided to specifically take the temperature of those in the middle and on the right.
TL/DR: 1. we've been accused of dividing the Right even just this week. The right is not divided, the right is united and on the side of children. 2. Our campaign aims to first educate conservatives about the specific harms of gay marriage. This puts a stake in the ground so we can measure our progress.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. More details about the survey here, including why it is that we decided to specifically take the temperature of those in the middle and on the right.
TL/DR: 1. We've been accused of dividing the Right even just this week. The right is not divided; the right is united and on the side of children. 2. Our campaign aims to first educate conservatives about the specific harms of gay marriage. This puts a stake in the ground so we can measure our progress.
“Children’s needs should come before adult desires” is a principle almost everyone agrees with. The real disagreement is whether same-sex parenting is incompatible with those needs. That’s the question under debate, not something this poll establishes.
Also, could you publish the full questionnaire? The document labeled “methodology” tells us who was surveyed, but not how the survey was conducted. Without the exact question wording, response options, and question order, it’s impossible to meaningfully evaluate what these results actually show.
If you agree that a child comes from one man and one woman, and the decades of social science data that show the best outcomes for child wellbeing are being raised by the married mother and father who created you...
Doesn't it logically follow that losing your mother or father and then being raised by (maybe) one related adult and one non-related adult (who statistically will change over time) is incompatible with the best child outcomes?
How did you come to the conclusion that someone who opposes intentionally depriving a child of one or both bio parents by buying sperm/eggs must also be opposed to adoption? No adoptive parents caused a child to lose their bio parents and adoptive parents go through rigorous wetting while people buying sperm/eggs go through none. Adoption redeems a broken situation while sperm/egg donation and surrogacy always creates one. If you approve of people buying sperm and/or eggs to have a child, you must also approve of people (your siblings or kids) becoming donors?
Thank you for the response. I appreciate the thoughtful discourse.
My comment about adoption was a direct response to the principle put forward by TBU: that “losing your mother or father and then being raised by (maybe) one related adult and one non-related adult… is incompatible with the best child outcomes.”
If that’s the governing principle, then adoption would also seem to be incompatible with the best child outcomes. I don’t think that’s true. Sometimes a biological parent voluntarily chooses adoption because they genuinely believe another family can provide a better life for their child than they can. My point wasn’t really about adoption itself. I’m trying to identify a clear, coherent principle that can consistently explain these different positions.
Your response actually helps clarify that. It seems like you’re appealing to a broader moral principle than biology alone, and I’m interested in understanding how you would define that principle.
I also think the language around buying and selling sperm or eggs obscures the discussion. Parents who adopt, pursue IVF, or use surrogacy generally intend the same thing as parents who conceive naturally: to love and raise a child well.
Your point about vetting is interesting, but it seems like a separate argument. Saying there should be more rigorous screening is different from saying the entire practice is morally wrong.
I’m also not sure I follow the relevance of the question about whether I’d be comfortable with my siblings or children becoming sperm or egg donors. Could you explain how that relates to the principle you’re defending?
"If that’s the governing principle, then adoption would also seem to be incompatible with the best child outcomes. " -- Yes, a child that needs to be adopted has lost the best outcome, their biological mother and father. We need to get on the same page about what "Best" means, because you fundamentally disagree with decades of social science data.
"Parents who adopt, pursue IVF, or use surrogacy generally intend the same thing as parents who conceive naturally: to love and raise a child well."
What does their intent matter? Does their intent result in the violation of the children's rights?
I’m not being willfully obtuse. I’m testing the boundaries of your principle, which is a pretty standard way of evaluating whether a principle is actually the one doing the work.
If the principle survives, great. If it needs to be refined, that’s useful too. Calling the question “obtuse” doesn’t really engage with it.
While we’re clearing things up, I’m still interested in seeing the actual survey questionnaire.
So Katy Faust sends out a celebratory press release proudly proclaiming: "They Said Obergefell Settled It. Eleven Years Later, the Voters Disagree", even though there's no reference to Obergefell in any of the five poll questions cited in the article. A rather strange oversight for an organization whose express goal -- specified in countless podcast interviews, social media and blog posts -- is to overturn Obergefell. Katy has even (brazenly) said in a recent interview, "Do you like gay marriage?! Well, you can't have it!"
How in the world does an organization that wants to re-outlaw gay marriage take a poll of conservative and moderate voters, but somehow not even bother to ask the participants' opinion about gay marriage or Obergefell?!
Spoiler Alert: You have to read the Daily Signal article to actually get to the gay marriage poll question that the Them Before Us team suspiciously excluded from its celebratory press release: 33% "agree"/47% "disagree" that gay marriage should be legal. 😂🤣😂🤣
Poor things took a poll on their central issue, centering only on voters who would be the most likely to agree with them, and they *still* couldn't get a majority. Worse yet, a third of respondents still support gay marriage! That's a hell of a coalition you're building.....
But hey -- y'all are in it for the long haul, right.....? Right?! 😁 👍🏻
I think there needs to be a much stronger push from non-faith arguments as the "morality" appeal is what props up things like Obergefell.
-
Faith leaders quoting their preferred scripture don't actually help anything as it's not their faith "per-se" that matters but the law that states their faith can be used to push back against all the various homosexual nonsense. Its not "Christianity" that has any impact on things, its the fact that the law will recognize that Christianity is its own religion and so can choose to abide by its own teachings etc. etc.
-
We need to apply reason and societal and even biological health as the main drivers.
-
The "pride" mess are not a marginalized group, they have no claim to special rights and they certainly are not healthy for any ordered society and by pretending they have some "moral right" to pollute society with their sub-human behavior shouldn't even be part of the discussion.
-
Moral relativism is going to keep them propped up.
-
They need to be rooted out with reason and science - both of which reject all of their claims, beliefs and behaviors.
I have been a fan of your work and a relatively regular reader of this Substack. With that being said, this post and the survey you reference throughout takes down your credibility by a notch. Why survey only conservatives and moderates (or report the results of those groups only)? We might not like it but there are quite a few liberals in this country. Why not link the full survey, including full methodology, anywhere on the website that’s referenced? The results make me think that the questions were framed in a way that made it possible for someone to believe that children need both a mom and a dad, and at the same time support children being raised in a household with same sex parents. Not to mention there’s no data or even a hypothesis on how the results changed over time.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. More details about the survey here, including why it is that we decided to specifically take the temperature of those in the middle and on the right.
TL/DR: 1. we've been accused of dividing the Right even just this week. The right is not divided, the right is united and on the side of children. 2. Our campaign aims to first educate conservatives about the specific harms of gay marriage. This puts a stake in the ground so we can measure our progress.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/06/26/is-campaign-against-gay-marriage-dividing-right-new-poll-suggests-not/
Came to say the same thing.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. More details about the survey here, including why it is that we decided to specifically take the temperature of those in the middle and on the right.
TL/DR: 1. We've been accused of dividing the Right even just this week. The right is not divided; the right is united and on the side of children. 2. Our campaign aims to first educate conservatives about the specific harms of gay marriage. This puts a stake in the ground so we can measure our progress.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/06/26/is-campaign-against-gay-marriage-dividing-right-new-poll-suggests-not/
Well put!
“Children’s needs should come before adult desires” is a principle almost everyone agrees with. The real disagreement is whether same-sex parenting is incompatible with those needs. That’s the question under debate, not something this poll establishes.
Also, could you publish the full questionnaire? The document labeled “methodology” tells us who was surveyed, but not how the survey was conducted. Without the exact question wording, response options, and question order, it’s impossible to meaningfully evaluate what these results actually show.
If you agree that a child comes from one man and one woman, and the decades of social science data that show the best outcomes for child wellbeing are being raised by the married mother and father who created you...
Doesn't it logically follow that losing your mother or father and then being raised by (maybe) one related adult and one non-related adult (who statistically will change over time) is incompatible with the best child outcomes?
Are you unable or unwilling to answer my methodology questions?
Got it. You’re opposed to adoption. Just difference in opinion.
You don't "just ask questions" in good faith, Tim. :)
Your opinion regarding my motives has no bearing on the validity of your organization’s study. Will you publish the questionnaire?
How did you come to the conclusion that someone who opposes intentionally depriving a child of one or both bio parents by buying sperm/eggs must also be opposed to adoption? No adoptive parents caused a child to lose their bio parents and adoptive parents go through rigorous wetting while people buying sperm/eggs go through none. Adoption redeems a broken situation while sperm/egg donation and surrogacy always creates one. If you approve of people buying sperm and/or eggs to have a child, you must also approve of people (your siblings or kids) becoming donors?
Hi Tanja,
Thank you for the response. I appreciate the thoughtful discourse.
My comment about adoption was a direct response to the principle put forward by TBU: that “losing your mother or father and then being raised by (maybe) one related adult and one non-related adult… is incompatible with the best child outcomes.”
If that’s the governing principle, then adoption would also seem to be incompatible with the best child outcomes. I don’t think that’s true. Sometimes a biological parent voluntarily chooses adoption because they genuinely believe another family can provide a better life for their child than they can. My point wasn’t really about adoption itself. I’m trying to identify a clear, coherent principle that can consistently explain these different positions.
Your response actually helps clarify that. It seems like you’re appealing to a broader moral principle than biology alone, and I’m interested in understanding how you would define that principle.
I also think the language around buying and selling sperm or eggs obscures the discussion. Parents who adopt, pursue IVF, or use surrogacy generally intend the same thing as parents who conceive naturally: to love and raise a child well.
Your point about vetting is interesting, but it seems like a separate argument. Saying there should be more rigorous screening is different from saying the entire practice is morally wrong.
I’m also not sure I follow the relevance of the question about whether I’d be comfortable with my siblings or children becoming sperm or egg donors. Could you explain how that relates to the principle you’re defending?
"If that’s the governing principle, then adoption would also seem to be incompatible with the best child outcomes. " -- Yes, a child that needs to be adopted has lost the best outcome, their biological mother and father. We need to get on the same page about what "Best" means, because you fundamentally disagree with decades of social science data.
"Parents who adopt, pursue IVF, or use surrogacy generally intend the same thing as parents who conceive naturally: to love and raise a child well."
What does their intent matter? Does their intent result in the violation of the children's rights?
I agree that we should get on the same page about what “best” means.
Are there any scenarios where it’s actually best for a child to be raised by someone other than their biological parent(s)?
That's like saying if you oppose cutting people's legs off, you're anti-cripple.
Tim reads what we post, so the "you must be against adoption" quip is being willfully obtuse. :'D
I’m not being willfully obtuse. I’m testing the boundaries of your principle, which is a pretty standard way of evaluating whether a principle is actually the one doing the work.
If the principle survives, great. If it needs to be refined, that’s useful too. Calling the question “obtuse” doesn’t really engage with it.
While we’re clearing things up, I’m still interested in seeing the actual survey questionnaire.
Obergefell was an abomination. It must be overturned.
So Katy Faust sends out a celebratory press release proudly proclaiming: "They Said Obergefell Settled It. Eleven Years Later, the Voters Disagree", even though there's no reference to Obergefell in any of the five poll questions cited in the article. A rather strange oversight for an organization whose express goal -- specified in countless podcast interviews, social media and blog posts -- is to overturn Obergefell. Katy has even (brazenly) said in a recent interview, "Do you like gay marriage?! Well, you can't have it!"
How in the world does an organization that wants to re-outlaw gay marriage take a poll of conservative and moderate voters, but somehow not even bother to ask the participants' opinion about gay marriage or Obergefell?!
Spoiler Alert: You have to read the Daily Signal article to actually get to the gay marriage poll question that the Them Before Us team suspiciously excluded from its celebratory press release: 33% "agree"/47% "disagree" that gay marriage should be legal. 😂🤣😂🤣
Poor things took a poll on their central issue, centering only on voters who would be the most likely to agree with them, and they *still* couldn't get a majority. Worse yet, a third of respondents still support gay marriage! That's a hell of a coalition you're building.....
But hey -- y'all are in it for the long haul, right.....? Right?! 😁 👍🏻
I think there needs to be a much stronger push from non-faith arguments as the "morality" appeal is what props up things like Obergefell.
-
Faith leaders quoting their preferred scripture don't actually help anything as it's not their faith "per-se" that matters but the law that states their faith can be used to push back against all the various homosexual nonsense. Its not "Christianity" that has any impact on things, its the fact that the law will recognize that Christianity is its own religion and so can choose to abide by its own teachings etc. etc.
-
We need to apply reason and societal and even biological health as the main drivers.
-
The "pride" mess are not a marginalized group, they have no claim to special rights and they certainly are not healthy for any ordered society and by pretending they have some "moral right" to pollute society with their sub-human behavior shouldn't even be part of the discussion.
-
Moral relativism is going to keep them propped up.
-
They need to be rooted out with reason and science - both of which reject all of their claims, beliefs and behaviors.
We agree that this argument needs to be made with a children's natural rights perspective.