Some background.Before getting into today's post, a brief review. Newman's “issue” is donor-conceived children. Newman maintains that she has been irreparably harmed because she was conceived by her mother with an anonymous sperm donor. That angst just happens to coincide with the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is just a coincidence I am sure. In 2012, Newman authored a piece titled The New Sexual Predators for the Witherspoon Institute outlet. Gay men are those predators:
Our gay friends and family members may now also be after our daughters’ bodies. These are the only men in the world we thought we could trust because they weren’t interested in our bodies. That is, until they grew older and discovered they wanted to be parents.You would think that we were kidnapping women for a trade in human flesh similar to abducted kidneys. In the same piece Newman also writes:
So now, young women must do more than simply defend themselves against aggressive heterosexual males who want to use them for sex. They must also navigate a world filled with new, never-before-seen predators—people they thought they could trust—who aggressively target them for their eggs and wombs.
Proponents of redefining marriage call marriage equality “the civil rights struggle of our time.” TV shows like The New Normal promote surrogacy arrangements with dialogue like “a family is a family, and love is love.” Characters that criticize the use of surrogacy and egg donation are explicitly depicted as unsympathetic, racist, closed-minded bigots.The phrase “redefining marriage” is Church demagoguery. It is part of a marriage discrimination talking point. Newman has always opposed marriage equality. Whether that is because of Church teaching or the objection to surrogacy (having been donor-conceived herself) is largely irrelevant.
Saturday's piece.Keep in mind that this is not on a website opposing surrogacy. This is a website opposing marriage equality. The author of the text is someone other than Newman. Possibly a nun. She tells her little story:
My family is Italian. The first time I went to Italy, I thought, “Wow, these people all look like me!” When I went into stores, the shop owners didn’t immediately switch to English, as they did with other tourists. Once I was dressed in a long skirt that friends joked was my “gypsy skirt” and sitting outside a church; a little girl pulled at her mother and pointed at me, asking her mother to give me money. (There are a number of Romani who beg outside churches in that area). Clearly, I blend in perfectly in Italy, despite having lived my whole life in the U.S. I experience an almost instinctive belonging there, because when I look around, I see people who look like me. We obviously share some genes!Wow indeed. Are those genes Romani or Italian (I am confused)? Romani, for the record, originated in Northern India. OK, cheap shot. The point is that this woman is essentially saying that same-sex marriage creates births by surrogacy which creates sad little children who won't be mistaken for Romani in their little gypsy dresses, etc. The piece concludes with a rhetorical question:
Question: Do you think this situation of anonymous sperm and egg donors should be remedied? How?Talk about begging the question. These folks could not distinguish between intellectual honesty and borscht.