Via Glenn Reynolds' post "ONE UPSIDE OF GAY MARRIAGE: Messy celebrity gay divorces!", two "married" Hollywood gay guys are getting a "divorce" citing irreconcilable differences (the HuffPo reporter refers to the relationship this way based on a piece in People magazine, while others say the two were in a civil union; see how goofy this whole thing is?). I've never heard of either David Tutera, who hosts WETV's "My Wedding Planner", or Ryan Jurica (it doesn't appear Jurica does anything; this New York Times piece says Jurica was VP of Tutera's wedding planning business 10 years ago). But this little tidbit, not mentioned by Reynolds, stands out:
The two had been together for 10 years and are expecting twins via a surrogate in July.
Let's dispense with any pleasantries right now. The couple is not expecting anything. Apparently, the two men's relationship has been on the rocks for awhile and they separated on New Years Day this year. Yet, they contracted some woman to get pregnant just before they split up (it doesn't say if either or both men donated the sperm). What this is is arrogant irresponsibility. Regardless of who ends up with the custody of the twins, whether it's either of the men or the mother, the children will become statistics and born to an unmarried single parent.
Now, naysayers will say married couples often do this as well. True, with one significant exception: nobody other than the parents are involved in conceiving the child. With the two gay guys, they decided to involve another in this irresponsibility.
In every piece I've read about this story (there are a few here), there is no reporting at all about the mother. I have no doubt this is in part due to medical privacy laws. But with a Democrat media so hyped up on same-sex "marriage" based on the "feelings" of same-sex couples and how same-sex couples supposedly believe in their own "privacy", how is it the feelings of the mother don't even register an iota of interested reporting? And even as Democrats whine incessantly about how Republicans want women to remain "barefoot and pregnant", the mother of these twins is being used as nothing more than a baby-making factory for a couple of arrogant Hollywood brats. Heck, in every one of those pieces about this, the mother isn't referred to as a woman or even a person; she's called a surrogate and nothing more.
So what if the mother decides she wants sole custody? Or think about this; according to the Supreme Court in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the mother can abort her pregnancy without any say from the two men. As the Court noted, she has the sole right into making this decision. Would she then be contractually obligated to compensate either or both men for either retaining custody or aborting the twins? If I were the judge in either the custody and/or contract case, I'd have these men sterilized and never allowed to enter into a contract to be parents. Ever.
Supporters of same-sex "marriage" say what they advocate for is in no way different than a real marriage. Obviously, it is completely untrue.