LGBT – Page 3 – Family Council

Guest Column: “There Is No Mama”

May 12, 2026John StonestreetLGBTCommercial Surrogacy, LGBT, Same-Sex Marriage, Surrogacy

A recent video exposed the injustice at the heart of same-sex marriage and commercial surrogacy. In it, a man bouncing a baby on his lap asks, “Who do you want? Dada or Pop?” The baby answered, “Mama!” To which, both the man and his unseen partner behind the camera laughed and said, “There is no Mama.” They continue to badger the child, who then begins to cry.

The most obvious evil portrayed in the video is the relentless teasing of a baby. The deeper evil, however, is not that the men were mean. In fact, being mean was only the insult added to the injury of forcing their farcical arrangement on a baby and calling it a family.

Because, and everyone knows this including these two men suppressing the truth by their wickedness, there is a mama. She is not included in the video, nor is she in the life of the baby she carried and who needs her, but she exists. She’s been cut out of her child’s life, presumably by her own choice. The baby, however, did not make a choice. And now two men who have appropriated the title of “parents” are badgering the baby into affirming their lifestyle choice.

Perhaps, the infant is only doing what infants often do, babbling out those syllables that are often among the first learned by young ones across times and places and culture. But of course, these syllables always refer to the same person. They are, in the end, a primal cry of children for a particular someone who should always be there for them.

Anyone who has spent time around babies understands what is playing out in this scene. For little ones, mama is the world. In fact, according to childhood policy expert Dr. Dan Wuori, kids often say “Dada” before “Mama” not because the mom doesn’t matter as much but because she matters so much more. In their tiny, growing minds, they recognize “Dad” as a distinct person before they realize that “Mom” isn’t part of themselves. This innate and beautiful bond is intentionally broken when we pretend that a man can replace a mom, or whenever a child is acquired through surrogacy.

Just as tragic is the embrace of same-sex “marriage” or such reproductive technologies by individuals, governments, medical authorities, and Christians, while failing to even take a cursory glance to consider what is best for the child. Any ethical concerns around in vitro fertilization and surrogacy have been deferred in order to protect the feelings and desires of adults. In fact, both in policy and in public discourse, we’ve lost the ability to even discern the difference between couples who suffer with infertility and same-sex couples who have chosen inherently sterile relationships but then demand children. As a result, what children need is tossed aside in the name of adult desires. Children become commodities in the marketplace of consumer-driven reproductive technologies.

As Katy Faust, founder of the children’s rights group Them Before Us and the Greater Than campaign, said to the Colson Center:

We’ve been sounding the alarm about surrogacy for years. The mother loss, the commodification, the fact that children often go home with unrelated adults, increasing risk of abuse and neglect. But videos like this do something that arguments and studies never can. They spark righteous rage that leads people to come out of the closet as defenders of the natural family. It is more and more clear that gay marriage didn’t just have to do with what takes place “in the privacy of the bedroom.” It impacts children. And when we see those children cry on camera, it motivates us to action.

It should, at least. The word “natural” is accurate. Having chosen unnatural relationships, to quote Paul, these two dads now demand that even a baby must affirm what is unnatural. Even if they had not made that demand in such a cruel way in a video shared for social media clicks, great harm has been done to this child. And a culture that affirms their choice is complicit in that harm.

Babies need their mamas. There are few things more obvious than that. Denying that reality is a tragedy. Harming children should be a crime.

How HRC’s Corporate “Equality” Index Harms Children: Guest Column

Apr 14, 2026Jerry CoxLGBTHRC, LGBT, Transgender

One of the most effective tools to shape culture in recent years has been the Corporate Equality Index from the Human Rights Campaign. Today on Breakpoint, Katy Faust of Them Before Us explains:

You may be surprised to learn that when you picked up that matte red lipstick at Ulta, you were helping fund cross-sex hormones for gender-confused kids. Or that when you ordered that chicken al pastor with extra guac at Chipotle, you were subsidizing IVF and surrogacy, which is intentionally creating children who will be separated from their mother or father.

That may sound extreme, but according to a new report published by my non-profit Them Before Us, there’s often a pipeline between our daily purchases and child harm. This harm is thanks to The Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index.

Launched in 2002, the CEI presents itself as a benchmarking tool, rating companies on how well they implement “LGBTQ inclusion” policies in the workplace. It promises to help businesses create fair, equitable environments for employees. But far more than shaping office culture, it has quietly reshaped how corporations think about children, families, and even the human body itself. And whether we realize it or not, most of us are participating.

Companies don’t just earn points for preventing workplace discrimination. They’re rewarded for adopting a slate of policies that reach far beyond the office into medicine, reproduction, and family structure. That includes offering “family formation” benefits like IVF, surrogacy, and gamete donation. It includes covering gender-transition procedures. And it includes financially supporting organizations that promote these practices, even among minors.

In other words, a high score isn’t just about tolerance. It’s about aligning with a specific vision of what it means to be human. And that vision has consequences, especially for children. This isn’t just about corporate policy. It’s about anthropology. What does it mean to be human? What is a child? Where do children come from? And what do they need?

For most of human history, these answers were obvious. Children come from a man and a woman. Those two adults are their literal biological origins. And children are most likely to flourish when raised, whenever possible, by the mother and father who brought them into the world.

But our culture is replacing that reality with something else. Children are redefined—not as persons with origins, but as products of intention. Not as gifts to be received, but as outcomes to be achieved. And when that happens, the logic of the marketplace begins to take over.

Think about what it means when companies are incentivized to subsidize IVF and surrogacy. IVF encourages the mass production of embryos so they can be eugenically screened for fitness or sex or other characteristics. It also allows for the use of third parties severing children from one or both biological parents. Surrogacy adds an additional layer of child loss and risk, substituting contracts for relationships.

Or consider the push for “inclusive” health coverage that covers irreversible medical interventions. On minors, it harms their physical bodies. On adults, it often steals a child’s father by facilitating his presentation as a “mother.” These corporate policies aren’t neutral. They reflect a belief that the body itself—a child’s own or those of his or her parents—is optional. It’s something to be reshaped according to identity rather than received as a given. And the kids are the constant losers.

A Christian worldview offers the kind of clarity people need right now. Human beings are creatures, not the Creator. We are embodied souls, male and female, designed for relationship—with God, and with one another. Children are not lifestyle accessories or subjects of irreversible medical experimentation. They are image-bearers and unable to protect themselves from corporations like Coca-Cola or Procter & Gamble.

Throughout history, the Church has defended children against a variety of cultural threats. Whether female genital mutilation, abortion, infanticide, or Chinese foot binding, God’s people have stood athwart all manner of child victimization. Now we have a chance to join that great cloud of witnesses by doing something as simple as purchasing mulch from Lowe’s rather than Home Depot.

To be clear, none of this means that all employees or executives are acting with malicious intent. Many are unaware of what their “perfect score” produces and are motivated by compassion, inclusion, or a desire to do what’s right. But good intentions aren’t enough.

So, what should we do? First, see clearly. Systems like the CEI aren’t neutral. Christians should critique their comprehensive moral vision, not accept it. Second, we should think carefully about where we shop, the companies we support, and how we engage as employees or shareholders. Finally, we need to speak truthfully and compassionately. Not with outrage for its own sake, but with a commitment to defend those who cannot defend themselves.

In the end, the question is not whether we value equality. It’s whether our vision of equality still has room for children.

This Supreme Court Ruling Has Major Implications for Free Speech

Apr 9, 2026Jerry CoxLGBT, VideoLGBT, Religious Freedom, Religious Liberty, Transgender, Video

In a monumental decision last week, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that counseling conversations are speech and that states cannot silence viewpoints in the counseling room.

In 2019, Colorado enacted a law prohibiting licensed counselors from engaging in “conversion therapy.” Under that law, counselors are free to engage in pro-LGBT counseling, but they cannot help people who want to overcome their same-sex attraction or gender confusion.

But last week the Court delivered an 8-1 opinion saying that Colorado’s law against so-called “conversion therapy” violates the First Amendment.

Our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom helped litigate the case. In a statement, ADF said:

Kaley Chiles is a licensed professional counselor in Colorado who seeks to listen, guide, and help young people find peace in their own bodies. With their parents’ support, these clients come to her by choice—seeking honest, compassionate care.

But a Colorado law passed in 2019 forbids her from helping kids find peace in their own bodies, even when that’s exactly what they want. If she does, she faces crushing fines and the potential loss of her license.

Colorado’s counseling censorship law violates Kaley’s freedom of speech and that of her clients by censoring and prohibiting certain private client-counselor conversations regarding gender identity that the government disfavors while allowing—even encouraging—conversations the government favors.

This is clear, viewpoint-based censorship.

In a video interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, ADF senior counsel Jake Warner said, “Colorado has been no respecter of the First Amendment. ADF has litigated multiple cases, including up to the U.S. Supreme Court against the state of Colorado in its effort to censor ideas that it disagrees with.”

Warner also said the ruling helps protect counselors not only in Colorado, but in at least 23 other states and over 100 local jurisdictions around the country that have enacted similar bans on “conversion therapy.”

Many people want counselors to help them overcome unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, and many medical experts — like the American College of Pediatricians and the HHS — believe that encouraging a child to disagree with his or her biological sex is harmful.

In Arkansas, multiple “conversion therapy” bans have been filed at the Capitol over the years, but none have passed. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in this case shows that Arkansas’ lawmakers were right not to enact these flawed measures.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.