Just a suggestion and that is to please consider using the term Natural when you refer to marriage and the family. Traditional is time sensitive ( think of what that will mean in a decade or so) and nuclear as defined by Britannica includes all sorts of "unnatural" options.
Thank you, Katy. Keep up the great work. I’ve read your book, “Them Before Us”, and whenever I get the chance I have pointed you out as the authority in this area. (Also, we have several mutual friends. CF ‘22)
So glad for your work, Katy. Just the assertion that children's wellbeing needs to come before the (selfish) preferences of adults is such an important and powerful message. God bless you 🙏
While children certainly benefited from their parents having the same rights as the children of heterosexual couples, the legalization of same sex marriage is about basic human rights:
Equality and Civil Rights: Ensuring that same-sex couples had the same legal recognition and protections as heterosexual couples. This was an affirmation of the principle that all individuals should have equal rights under the law.
Social Acceptance: Legal recognition helped to normalize same-sex relationships, promoting greater acceptance and understanding within society, challenging longstanding prejudices and stereotypes.
Legal Protections: Marriage confers numerous legal benefits, including tax benefits, inheritance rights, and access to healthcare. Legalizing same-sex marriage ensured that same-sex couples could access these important rights and protections.
Being against gay marriage is no different than opposing mixed race marriages and is equally as harmful.
"While children certainly benefited from their parents having the same rights as the children of heterosexual couples, the legalization of same sex marriage is about basic human rights"
-- Redefining marriage was never "the same right." It was special pleading to invent new rights. A man doesn't have the right to marry a child. A man doesn't have the right to marry a woman who is already married. A man doesn't have the right to marry 3 women. All of those things have been practiced historically, but all of them are to gratify an adult's desires and often (most of the time) at the detriment of others involved in the situation. One unmarried, of-age, consenting male has the right to marry one unmarried, of-age, consenting female. That's marriage.
"Equality and Civil Rights: Ensuring that same-sex couples had the same legal recognition and protections as heterosexual couples. This was an affirmation of the principle that all individuals should have equal rights under the law."
It ensured they got special rights. And as we've seen, when their special rights come up against other people's freedom of religious expression or freedom of speech, elevating the feelings of the same-sex couple has been paramount. More importantly, instead of uniting a child with the man and woman he/she came from, it gave any random assortment of adults the "right" to use money, renting bodies, and contracts to procure half related or completely un-biologically related children in whatever way they wish.
"Social Acceptance: Legal recognition helped to normalize same-sex relationships, promoting greater acceptance and understanding within society, challenging longstanding prejudices and stereotypes."
At the point of a sword maybe. There's this pesky remnant that simply refuses to pretend a man and woman are interchangable in marriage, in society, and especially to a child.
"Legal Protections: Marriage confers numerous legal benefits, including tax benefits, inheritance rights, and access to healthcare. Legalizing same-sex marriage ensured that same-sex couples could access these important rights and protections."
By twisting the institution to include what the definition excludes, at the point of the "sword" of the civil authority for those with any other conviction. And gave them all these amazing legal rights to violate the rights of children with surrogacy/egg and sperm donation that no adults need a background check for.
"Being against gay marriage is no different than opposing mixed race marriages and is equally as harmful."
Grossly untrue. A black man and white man have zero consequential differences in kind, function, or value. A man and woman have incredibly complex and essential differences in kind and function (with equal value). Pretending that it simply doesn't matter if a child has a mother or father is absurd. This defies common sense. A child deserves and wants his mom and dad raising him.
You clearly take issue with surrogacy as a whole, but that’s no excuse to strip basic rights away from 10% of the US population.
Before the legalization of same-sex marriage, same-sex couples often faced significant financial disadvantages compared to heterosexual couples. Some of the more impactful disadvantages included:
- Same-sex couples could not file joint tax returns. They also missed out on various tax deductions and credits available only to married couples.
- Employers offer health insurance benefits to spouses. Same-sex partners were often unable to receive coverage through their partner's employer.
- Inheritance laws favored married couples, allowing them to transfer assets to each other without incurring estate taxes. Unmarried same-sex partners did not have the same protections.
- Same-sex couples were ineligible for spousal benefits from Social Security.
- Many pension plans and retirement accounts offered spousal benefits, including survivor benefits, which were not accessible to same-sex partners before marriage
- Married couples can take FMLA leave to care for a spouse without fear of losing their job. Same-sex couples lacked this protection, impacting their ability to care for their partners during medical emergencies.
- Married couples generally have more straightforward property rights, including rights to inherit property and make decisions regarding joint assets. Same-sex couples often faced legal challenges in these areas.
The legalization of same-sex marriage eliminated these disparities, simply giving same-sex couples access to the same financial benefits and protections as heterosexual couples.
Can you honestly say that a person isn’t worthy of these basic rights simply because you don’t agree with who they love?
-----You clearly take issue with surrogacy as a whole, but that’s no excuse to strip basic rights away from 10% of the US population. ----
The 10% number is exaggerated/false and also irrelevant because something that is injustice for 100% of children will be wrong even if you are correct that 10% of adults want it.
----Before the legalization of same-sex marriage, same-sex couples often faced significant financial disadvantages compared to heterosexual couples. Some of the more impactful disadvantages included -----
Because they do not want to participate in marriage. This is like claiming that a brother-sister or two friends were disadvantaged because they were two individuals who couldn't benefit from what a marriage is. Yes, and? They don't want marriage. If you want to create a different legal situation to accommodate two or four or 10 people who want to get into a legal arrangement, let's do that. You're arguing that we needed to shred a social institution.
---- Same-sex couples could not file joint tax returns. They also missed out on various tax deductions and credits available only to married couples. ---
Yes, because it's not marriage.
----- Employers offer health insurance benefits to spouses. Same-sex partners were often unable to receive coverage through their partner's employer -----
Yes, because it's not marriage.
---- Inheritance laws favored married couples, allowing them to transfer assets to each other without incurring estate taxes. Unmarried same-sex partners did not have the same protections ----
Yes, laws should favor married couples. A man and woman that are married and raising their children are the literal building blocks of a society. Two men or two women can never be that. And they can only "have" children by taking a child away from his or her bio mom and dad. This is bad for children and bad for society, not a social good that the government should financially incentivize.
------ Same-sex couples were ineligible for spousal benefits from Social Security. ---
Yes, because it's not marriage.
---- Many pension plans and retirement accounts offered spousal benefits, including survivor benefits, which were not accessible to same-sex partners before marriage ---
Yes, because it's not marriage.
---- Married couples can take FMLA leave to care for a spouse without fear of losing their job. Same-sex couples lacked this protection, impacting their ability to care for their partners during medical emergencies ----
Yes, because marriage should be incentivized, not redefined to accomodate whatever adults happen to want special rights and to feel good about it.
----- Married couples generally have more straightforward property rights, including rights to inherit property and make decisions regarding joint assets. Same-sex couples often faced legal challenges in these areas ----
Same as any individuals who want to make legal arrangements. They should 100% have the right to make the legal arrangements they wish, it's just not marriage.
----The legalization of same-sex marriage eliminated these disparities, simply giving same-sex couples access to the same financial benefits and protections as heterosexual couples ----
It didn't eliminate those disparities, they just willfully handed all the disparities off to the children whose rights are being violated as a result.
------ Can you honestly say that a person isn’t worthy of these basic rights simply because you don’t agree with who they love? ------
Changing age-old social institutions to fit your personal feelings isn't a "basic right." Every of-age, consenting, unmarried male had the exact same right. He may marry one of-age, consenting, unmarried female. The institution wasn't to make society like you or pretend to approve of you (at risk of losing your business, etc). The institution took natural law, common sense, reality and looked at a child, with one man and one woman responsible for creating her, and said "unite this unit into a family". Marriage unites a man to one woman and they know who their children are and have a duty to each other and them. That's the point. It's turned into adult wish-fulfillment (the same way the baby-buying industry has).
And to be crystal clear: a man or woman not respecting the wedding vows and cheating, abandoning each other, abuse, and no-fault divorce ALSO (and first) "re-defined" marriage. We're just as against those abuses of marriage and attempts to make it worthless as we are the new-fanged redefinitions. - Jenn
And this is why your organization is a recognized hate group. Be better. I sincerely hope that you’re able to let this hate go and treat everyone equally and with respect.
"Treating everyone equally and with respect" but also, calling them hateful and that they're part of a hate group. There's too much at stake for us to be scared of people throwing around the tired slogans and name calling. "Be better." -Jenn
You "can" assume that if you want. That doesn't mean your assumption is correct. It doesn't logically follow from what I said previously. My comment was merely pointing out that your comparison of mixed-race marriages to homosexual marriages was not valid.
We aren’t talking about not liking the same sports, we’re talking about invalidating the rights of nearly 10% of the country. I guess if someone would be friends with you even though you’re loud and proud about being anti-lgbtq that’s on them, but I see people who discriminate on the basic of sexuality no differently then those who discriminate based on the color of your skin. There is no difference.
I am not against them. I can be their friend, help them, advocate for them in what I think i should do. I am not anti anyone. God made us all. I have freedom to speak up, speak for. It seems i have to agree with all certain people choose to do, are, or I am hating them. That is not true.
To quote you “ Especially the part that if we don’t want, agree with two of the same sex being together/bringing up children we hate them, which isn’t true”. You don’t agree that someone should be in a same sex relationship nor do you think they should have children - how is that being a “friend”?
How can two individuals who are the same sex "have" children? You mean "procure" children in someway, often not biologically related, often without any sort of screening. Are you being a "friend" to the child when you endorse her losing mom or dad or both because of your political views? No, you're promoting injustice against the most vulnerable in society because culture shifted a decade ago and you went with the flow. People who stand for marriage are just doing what has been plainly obvious in biology and every human society for millennia (a child has one mother and one father and deserves to be raised by both.) Our views don't shift with the political winds every few years. -Jenn
They meant evil against you, but God meant it for good in order to preserve many people alive.
Keep goin', sista. Grateful to God for the "go big" equipping and magnification He's given you!
Katy, I'm so grateful for the work you are doing. God is amazing, and you answering His call is just another reason to praise Him! Thank you!
Just a suggestion and that is to please consider using the term Natural when you refer to marriage and the family. Traditional is time sensitive ( think of what that will mean in a decade or so) and nuclear as defined by Britannica includes all sorts of "unnatural" options.
James Harrison
Director www.naturalfamilystrong.com
‘You could stop or you could go big’. Love it
Love your work and your message.
Thank you, Katy. Keep up the great work. I’ve read your book, “Them Before Us”, and whenever I get the chance I have pointed you out as the authority in this area. (Also, we have several mutual friends. CF ‘22)
So glad for your work, Katy. Just the assertion that children's wellbeing needs to come before the (selfish) preferences of adults is such an important and powerful message. God bless you 🙏
Amazing, what an inspiring story!
Such a brave, God led warrior! Keep the faith and keep working! Now that I know of you I'll be praying for you!
Spot on! Glad you decided to GO BIG! Keep going!
While children certainly benefited from their parents having the same rights as the children of heterosexual couples, the legalization of same sex marriage is about basic human rights:
Equality and Civil Rights: Ensuring that same-sex couples had the same legal recognition and protections as heterosexual couples. This was an affirmation of the principle that all individuals should have equal rights under the law.
Social Acceptance: Legal recognition helped to normalize same-sex relationships, promoting greater acceptance and understanding within society, challenging longstanding prejudices and stereotypes.
Legal Protections: Marriage confers numerous legal benefits, including tax benefits, inheritance rights, and access to healthcare. Legalizing same-sex marriage ensured that same-sex couples could access these important rights and protections.
Being against gay marriage is no different than opposing mixed race marriages and is equally as harmful.
"While children certainly benefited from their parents having the same rights as the children of heterosexual couples, the legalization of same sex marriage is about basic human rights"
-- Redefining marriage was never "the same right." It was special pleading to invent new rights. A man doesn't have the right to marry a child. A man doesn't have the right to marry a woman who is already married. A man doesn't have the right to marry 3 women. All of those things have been practiced historically, but all of them are to gratify an adult's desires and often (most of the time) at the detriment of others involved in the situation. One unmarried, of-age, consenting male has the right to marry one unmarried, of-age, consenting female. That's marriage.
"Equality and Civil Rights: Ensuring that same-sex couples had the same legal recognition and protections as heterosexual couples. This was an affirmation of the principle that all individuals should have equal rights under the law."
It ensured they got special rights. And as we've seen, when their special rights come up against other people's freedom of religious expression or freedom of speech, elevating the feelings of the same-sex couple has been paramount. More importantly, instead of uniting a child with the man and woman he/she came from, it gave any random assortment of adults the "right" to use money, renting bodies, and contracts to procure half related or completely un-biologically related children in whatever way they wish.
"Social Acceptance: Legal recognition helped to normalize same-sex relationships, promoting greater acceptance and understanding within society, challenging longstanding prejudices and stereotypes."
At the point of a sword maybe. There's this pesky remnant that simply refuses to pretend a man and woman are interchangable in marriage, in society, and especially to a child.
"Legal Protections: Marriage confers numerous legal benefits, including tax benefits, inheritance rights, and access to healthcare. Legalizing same-sex marriage ensured that same-sex couples could access these important rights and protections."
By twisting the institution to include what the definition excludes, at the point of the "sword" of the civil authority for those with any other conviction. And gave them all these amazing legal rights to violate the rights of children with surrogacy/egg and sperm donation that no adults need a background check for.
"Being against gay marriage is no different than opposing mixed race marriages and is equally as harmful."
Grossly untrue. A black man and white man have zero consequential differences in kind, function, or value. A man and woman have incredibly complex and essential differences in kind and function (with equal value). Pretending that it simply doesn't matter if a child has a mother or father is absurd. This defies common sense. A child deserves and wants his mom and dad raising him.
You clearly take issue with surrogacy as a whole, but that’s no excuse to strip basic rights away from 10% of the US population.
Before the legalization of same-sex marriage, same-sex couples often faced significant financial disadvantages compared to heterosexual couples. Some of the more impactful disadvantages included:
- Same-sex couples could not file joint tax returns. They also missed out on various tax deductions and credits available only to married couples.
- Employers offer health insurance benefits to spouses. Same-sex partners were often unable to receive coverage through their partner's employer.
- Inheritance laws favored married couples, allowing them to transfer assets to each other without incurring estate taxes. Unmarried same-sex partners did not have the same protections.
- Same-sex couples were ineligible for spousal benefits from Social Security.
- Many pension plans and retirement accounts offered spousal benefits, including survivor benefits, which were not accessible to same-sex partners before marriage
- Married couples can take FMLA leave to care for a spouse without fear of losing their job. Same-sex couples lacked this protection, impacting their ability to care for their partners during medical emergencies.
- Married couples generally have more straightforward property rights, including rights to inherit property and make decisions regarding joint assets. Same-sex couples often faced legal challenges in these areas.
The legalization of same-sex marriage eliminated these disparities, simply giving same-sex couples access to the same financial benefits and protections as heterosexual couples.
Can you honestly say that a person isn’t worthy of these basic rights simply because you don’t agree with who they love?
-----You clearly take issue with surrogacy as a whole, but that’s no excuse to strip basic rights away from 10% of the US population. ----
The 10% number is exaggerated/false and also irrelevant because something that is injustice for 100% of children will be wrong even if you are correct that 10% of adults want it.
----Before the legalization of same-sex marriage, same-sex couples often faced significant financial disadvantages compared to heterosexual couples. Some of the more impactful disadvantages included -----
Because they do not want to participate in marriage. This is like claiming that a brother-sister or two friends were disadvantaged because they were two individuals who couldn't benefit from what a marriage is. Yes, and? They don't want marriage. If you want to create a different legal situation to accommodate two or four or 10 people who want to get into a legal arrangement, let's do that. You're arguing that we needed to shred a social institution.
---- Same-sex couples could not file joint tax returns. They also missed out on various tax deductions and credits available only to married couples. ---
Yes, because it's not marriage.
----- Employers offer health insurance benefits to spouses. Same-sex partners were often unable to receive coverage through their partner's employer -----
Yes, because it's not marriage.
---- Inheritance laws favored married couples, allowing them to transfer assets to each other without incurring estate taxes. Unmarried same-sex partners did not have the same protections ----
Yes, laws should favor married couples. A man and woman that are married and raising their children are the literal building blocks of a society. Two men or two women can never be that. And they can only "have" children by taking a child away from his or her bio mom and dad. This is bad for children and bad for society, not a social good that the government should financially incentivize.
------ Same-sex couples were ineligible for spousal benefits from Social Security. ---
Yes, because it's not marriage.
---- Many pension plans and retirement accounts offered spousal benefits, including survivor benefits, which were not accessible to same-sex partners before marriage ---
Yes, because it's not marriage.
---- Married couples can take FMLA leave to care for a spouse without fear of losing their job. Same-sex couples lacked this protection, impacting their ability to care for their partners during medical emergencies ----
Yes, because marriage should be incentivized, not redefined to accomodate whatever adults happen to want special rights and to feel good about it.
----- Married couples generally have more straightforward property rights, including rights to inherit property and make decisions regarding joint assets. Same-sex couples often faced legal challenges in these areas ----
Same as any individuals who want to make legal arrangements. They should 100% have the right to make the legal arrangements they wish, it's just not marriage.
----The legalization of same-sex marriage eliminated these disparities, simply giving same-sex couples access to the same financial benefits and protections as heterosexual couples ----
It didn't eliminate those disparities, they just willfully handed all the disparities off to the children whose rights are being violated as a result.
------ Can you honestly say that a person isn’t worthy of these basic rights simply because you don’t agree with who they love? ------
Changing age-old social institutions to fit your personal feelings isn't a "basic right." Every of-age, consenting, unmarried male had the exact same right. He may marry one of-age, consenting, unmarried female. The institution wasn't to make society like you or pretend to approve of you (at risk of losing your business, etc). The institution took natural law, common sense, reality and looked at a child, with one man and one woman responsible for creating her, and said "unite this unit into a family". Marriage unites a man to one woman and they know who their children are and have a duty to each other and them. That's the point. It's turned into adult wish-fulfillment (the same way the baby-buying industry has).
And to be crystal clear: a man or woman not respecting the wedding vows and cheating, abandoning each other, abuse, and no-fault divorce ALSO (and first) "re-defined" marriage. We're just as against those abuses of marriage and attempts to make it worthless as we are the new-fanged redefinitions. - Jenn
And this is why your organization is a recognized hate group. Be better. I sincerely hope that you’re able to let this hate go and treat everyone equally and with respect.
"Treating everyone equally and with respect" but also, calling them hateful and that they're part of a hate group. There's too much at stake for us to be scared of people throwing around the tired slogans and name calling. "Be better." -Jenn
"Being against gay marriage is no different than opposing mixed race marriages and is equally as harmful."
A mixed race marriage does not deprive a child of a mother or father.
I can assume that you don’t think that same sex couples are worthy of the legal and financial protections provided by legal marriage?
You "can" assume that if you want. That doesn't mean your assumption is correct. It doesn't logically follow from what I said previously. My comment was merely pointing out that your comparison of mixed-race marriages to homosexual marriages was not valid.
So grateful for your heart and voice.
How does that not equal hate?
? I can be friends w those who I don’t agree w, support their decisions, actions. I don’t hate them.
We aren’t talking about not liking the same sports, we’re talking about invalidating the rights of nearly 10% of the country. I guess if someone would be friends with you even though you’re loud and proud about being anti-lgbtq that’s on them, but I see people who discriminate on the basic of sexuality no differently then those who discriminate based on the color of your skin. There is no difference.
I am not against them. I can be their friend, help them, advocate for them in what I think i should do. I am not anti anyone. God made us all. I have freedom to speak up, speak for. It seems i have to agree with all certain people choose to do, are, or I am hating them. That is not true.
To quote you “ Especially the part that if we don’t want, agree with two of the same sex being together/bringing up children we hate them, which isn’t true”. You don’t agree that someone should be in a same sex relationship nor do you think they should have children - how is that being a “friend”?
How can two individuals who are the same sex "have" children? You mean "procure" children in someway, often not biologically related, often without any sort of screening. Are you being a "friend" to the child when you endorse her losing mom or dad or both because of your political views? No, you're promoting injustice against the most vulnerable in society because culture shifted a decade ago and you went with the flow. People who stand for marriage are just doing what has been plainly obvious in biology and every human society for millennia (a child has one mother and one father and deserves to be raised by both.) Our views don't shift with the political winds every few years. -Jenn