« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Ya see, by 'another lesbian' they really mean 'another person you should oppose without question'

by Jeremy Hooper

We absolutely believe that most of our socially conservative opponents believe large portions of what they say. However, there is no doubt that the fine art of duplicity helps propels their "culture war" engine. Sometimes the belief is the gas and the deceit is the oil, and other times the proportions are reversed. But there is most always a disingenuous element in play.

For but one example, check out this snippet from a new WorldNetDaily piece, in which writer Chelsea Schilling introduces readers to a child custody case:

A lesbian is demanding custody of a Christian woman's daughter in a case that could strong-arm Florida into recognizing out-of-state adoptions by same-sex couples.

Lara Embry and her former lesbian partner, Kimberly Ryan, began a relationship while they lived in Seattle, Wash., and registered as domestic partners. Ryan had a daughter through artificial insemination on Feb. 21, 2000. A Washington court allowed Embry to adopt the baby and listed her as a second parent.

The couple moved to Sarasota, Fla., in August of 2001. Embry conceived her own daughter through artificial insemination and gave birth on Oct. 2, 2001.

Both women and their daughters moved back to Seattle so Embry could finish her doctoral studies at the University of Washington. While they lived in Seattle, Ryan became listed as a second parent to Embry's child.

The lesbian couple returned to Sarasota in August 2002 and ended their relationship just two years later.

They informally rotated custody and visitation arrangements for two years following their break-up.

Ryan left her homosexual lifestyle, became a Christian and is engaged to marry a man. She grew concerned that the visits were not good for her 9-year-old daughter and discontinued the plans with Embry.

Embry demanded that a Florida court enforce the Washington adoption decree and allow her to continue visiting Ryan's daughter.
Another lesbian demands custody of Christian girl [WND]

Okay, so the piece goes on to talk about Florida's antiquated adoption law, and give voice to the anti-gays who want to keep the Sunshine State from recognizing same-sex adoptions. Fine. For now we're not even going to get into that matter, which will play out in the Florida courts in the months and probably years to come. There will be plenty to say on that in the future.

What we instead want to talk about is the deliberate way Ms. Schilling presents this story as if we are talking about some random lesbian who is trying to kidnap another woman's daughter. Let's start with the headline: "Another lesbian demands custody of Christian girl." No mention that the lesbian is actually the adoptive mother of the girl. No mention that the mother was in the child's life from birth and all through the toddler years, even after the couple had broken up. To WorldNet, Ms. Embry's lesbian status is far more important than her status as a legal, adoptive parent. And they act as if becoming a Christian as a completely valid and understandable reason why a certain kind of mother should be forcibly estranged from her child. Disgusting.

And as for duplicity: Look at the time line itself. If they wanted to be upfront, they would come right out and say how long Ms. Embry was with her child without incident. But instead, they use confusing language and leave out some details between 2006 (the time until the couple is said to have "informally rotated custody and visitation arrangements") and current day (when it's determined that visits aren't good for the 9-year-old daughter). It's all an obvious attempt to disconnect Ms. Embry from the child, with a blatant desire to gloss over the many years and deep layers of connection that the mother surely has to this child.

Also missing? The other daughter's existence. What's her connection to Ms. Ryan and Ms. Ryan's biological daughter? The four seemed to have been bonded for some time -- let's hear about Ms. Ryan's willingness to relinquish the child who was such a major part of her life. Wouldn't you think these points would bear mention? We do. Yet nowhere in either the WND piece or the source (a Liberty Counsel press release) is that subject broached. The focus is all about Ms. Embry, her role as just "another lesbian," and her supposedly unreasonable attempts to have a part in the life of a fully cognizant being that she calls daughter.

But hey, who needs facts and transparency when there's a lesbian to shun, a Christian to embolden, a short-sighted law to uphold, and a child to "protect"? [sigh]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

I'd like to know if they'd take the same stance on this situation:

A straight woman biologically is knocked up by her scummy boyfriend. He splits, and she meets a new man. They get married, have a happy relationship, and she allows her new husband to adopt her daughter as well to be a legal guardian.

Four years later, the woman decides she's not really straight, but bisexual/lesbian. Her and her ex-husband work out a visitation situation because they feel it's in the best interest of their daughter to continue to have his presence in her life since he legally is a parent to her, if not biologically. She and her husband divorce and she marries a nice lesbian lady. She then realizes she thinks the situation is too confusing for her child, and wants to end the visitation rights and all communication with the child's "father".

The father fights to continue visitation with his legally adopted daughter.

Wonder how the conservative right would feel then.

Posted by: Stef | Mar 19, 2009 7:15:34 PM

Well, Stef, the obvious answer is that in their eyes, the Father, regardless of his parenting abilities should have full custody, and the mother should never be allowed near her daughter again, and of course the Lesbian is forcefully trying to deprive her child of a father. (I know you knew this but I figured I'd respond anyhow)

Their talking points are so ridiculously predictable.

Posted by: Daimeon | Mar 19, 2009 8:35:35 PM

There is no such thing as a "Christian girl", or "Christian boy". Children cannot choose their religion, it's all inculcated by their parents.

Posted by: //// | Mar 19, 2009 9:56:50 PM

Yes, ////, and it can take years of therapy to undo.

And Stef, ironically, I think the headline you your scenario would be exactly the same "Another Lesbian demands custody...." yada yada

And somewhere within the convoluted smear of an article we'd learn that this "lesbian" was actually a loose woman who was saved by this good Christian man before she backslided straight back to Satan.

Posted by: Taylor Siluwé | Mar 20, 2009 7:53:46 AM

"A four-year-old is no more a Christian than he is a member of the Postal Worker's Union." Marcus Bridgstock.

(Look up his "Three Abrahamic Faiths" rand on YouTube. It's a peach!)

I must admit that I am no longer at all surprised when I see Christians telling lies.


Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | Mar 20, 2009 6:25:26 PM

They act as if Christian=homophobe. They refuse to acknowledge that many Christians support LGBT rights, or are LGBT themselves.

Posted by: Bill S | Mar 20, 2009 7:58:34 PM

Channeling a little Alanis, but wouldn't it be ironic if the "Christian" mom was living in sin with a married man twice her age. At least they would have abandoning their families in common. Just a thought.

Posted by: Sheila Turner | Mar 24, 2009 9:59:56 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails