In Maryland, ‘for the kids’ is an evolution in the campaign for same-sex marriage

The Washington Post ^ | 2012/10/13 | Aaron C. Davis

[Salman]

...

Since Dabney and Amy Rice spent hours talking on their first date at Hamburger Mary’s in 2003, the two New Jersey transplants had moved from the District to the suburbs, bought a home, saved for fertility treatments and shared in the awe of childbirth. But when they left a delivery room in Montgomery County last year, after Rice had given birth to twin boys, they quickly fell into the legal bog of every lesbian couple with a child in Maryland. Because Rice was the one to give birth, she was, in the eyes of the state at least, the twins’ mother. Dabney was a legal stranger, her name not on the children’s birth certificates.

...

“And yet, it’s been strange. I always felt like they were mine. It was odd to think I had to adopt what I perceived to be my children.”

[Salman]

That's right. They are now saying gay "marriage" is for the children.

[Venturer]

Sweetheart you do not have what it takes to fertilise another woman, If you perceive that you do,
you are looney tunes. The sperm was donated by someone else. Spit does not cut the mustard in childbirth.

Your perception is horse dung. You are a sick puppy.

Standing in the same room while a Doctor uses a Turkey baster on your sick partner does not entitle you to be listed as a parent.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"fertility treatments"

This is a misnomer. There's no indication that either of these women was infertile, let alone in need of drugs or devices to restore normal sexual function.

On the contrary, what they invested in was not "fertility treatment," but artificial reproduction: the conception of a child outside of actual sexual union. It didn't "cure" anybody's infertility.

I hate it that they control the language: especially when the language conceals, rather than reveals, what is really going on.