The above statement should be incorporated as the justice of the people seeks means to honor same-sex monogamy and other statistical deviations from heterosexual monogamy, and so far, these issues are being ignored in court proceedings. The ultimate civic justice of a people is being distracted by government suppression of the objective truth.
Valuable consideration must be defined by the surrogate, and it could be something as simple as the mother's satisfaction of bringing another wonderful infant into the world. One member of a panel discussion suggested that genetic agreements might be more acceptable if the surrogate could opt to keep the infant. But that seems like another objectification of the child. In simple terms, when a woman not married to the donor agrees to become pregnant by his sperm then relinquish the child to him, the agreement is against public policy. The most fundamental reason for public opposition is that the intended child is an object, and objectification of human beings is akin to slavery. Sometimes, slavery is voluntary, which seems the case with surrogate mothers, especially the ones who later long for their child. But enslavement of the intended child for the purposes of the gay couple is forced. Moreover, the child gets separated from its biological mother and must thereafter attach with a man or two. The mother also is cut off from the attachment process, whether she is aware of attachment or not. So both mother and child may develop attachment dysfunction. Some agreements would assuage this factor by allowing the mother to visit the child after he/she is no longer hers, but it would need to be frequent and regular. The same-sex agenda counters that children of heterosexual parents are objects but ignores that those children are extensions of the mother and father as well as extensions of two blood lines and the attendant biological and cultural evolutions. Also, mother, father, and children complete an integral family wherein both male and female role-models, perhaps over two to four generations, are incorporated into the children’s lives—no need for substitutes.
Same-sex lawyer David Boies responded,
When the Constitution says, ‘We, the people of the United States,’ it really means, we, white male property owners. And every time we've tried to expand the "we," from the original limited set, it's upset people. It's upset people when we expanded it racially.
Bois lied, perhaps strategically choosing the word “means” instead of “meant,” and even that modification would maintain the lie. This is another racial-discrimination play by the same-sex lawyers, and it is particularly woeful, because some people cannot perceive that they are among the 94 % who the signers hoped would one day enjoy suffrage: most of us have overcome. The 1787 signers intended republican governance by the people: the informed people would elect patriotic representatives who would uphold the Constitution. They both fulfilled and disengaged the Declaration of Independence, which had cited a deistic "god?" and realized its 1776 purpose of defeating England's Protestant "god?" and declared, recalling the Magna Carta, that the king of England was only an equal man, not that slaves were equal. (Slavery was wrong, but the Declaration did not claim that slaves were equal.)
The delegates to conventions for the nine ratifying states intended governance by the people, unjust as governance was in 1788. For example, many of them were abolitionists who predicted the end of slavery (happened) and some predicted that in a few decades Christianity would evolve to Unitarianism (did not happen). In the meantime, a Bill of Rights was demanded by some states. (I must learn if the nine were among them.) Back to the lie, in 1790, 6 % of the population could vote: today 100 % of non-criminals may vote. Same-sex people may vote. It is true that at each step in the expansion of voting rights, some people resisted, but ultimately, the justice of the people prevailed. Maybe Boies is either not an American or alienates himself, like Tories did when the preamble was written. However, I do not want his lie to dissuade anyone from volunteering to be of "We the People of the United States" as defined by the preamble: Everyone can fulfill the preamble, and that is what the signers wanted. Same-sex people can vote and can civically compromise.
Revised August 4, 2014