My friend Robert Oscar Lopez has been writing about his on-going problem of being systematically harassed by the Gay Establishment. One of the precipitating events was the “Bonds that Matter” conference, held in Simi Valley, CA, on October 3.
My organization, the Ruth Institute, was proud to act as co-sponsor to that historic event. The conference gathered together experts on a variety of current policies that damage the legitimate interests of children: their interests in having stable relationships with both their parents, and in having a secure knowledge of their own heritage and identity. The Ruth Institute enthusiastically supports these objectives. I spoke on the problem of divorce.
Many of Dr. Lopez’s students were in attendance at this event. I could tell that much of this material was new to them. As I was speaking, I was watching “the wheels turning” in their minds, as they considered my points that no-fault, unilateral divorce creates structural injustices for children.
Dr. Lopez shared with me that many of his students were eager to discuss this topic in their classes on Monday morning. It was a new idea for them. Some of the discussions were intense and wide-ranging.
But in one class, the metaphorical Gay Smoke Bomb was thrown. A couple of students stood up and essentially commandeered the class, saying how offended they were by the talks that challenged Third Party Reproduction. These students took such challenges as affronts to the aspirations of gays and lesbians.
Once those students took this tack, the discussion about the rights and interests of children became sidelined. The concern about divorce was overshadowed. To the best of my knowledge, this conversation has not yet restarted on Dr. Lopez’s campus.
This is tragic. It is also, and unfortunately, typical.
The Sexual Revolution has proceeded by strategically changing the subject. In this case, Dr. Lopez and I and our guests focused on the topic of harms to children. Sexual Revolutionaries would rather talk about the rights, dignity and freedom of adults.
Allow me to add: discussing new ideas is precisely what an academic conference is supposed to stimulate. The students in the audience may not have been comfortable the whole time. But I would venture to say that most of them learned something challenging.
I can say personally, that I learned some things from the representatives of adoptee rights. I did not know much about this group of people and their views. I did not agree with everything they said. But my encounter with them has forced me to think through some new issues and reevaluate my own position. I am grateful for the opportunity to be challenged.
This is what we ought to be doing at an academic conference. I am proud that my organization, the Ruth Institute, participated and supported this inaugural event of the International Childrens’ Rights Institute. I hope Dr. Lopez’s institute will put on many more events and that the Ruth Institute will be invited to be part of them. I will be proud to do so.
