Gay Marriage

Zach Wahls, His Two Moms, & The Future of Same-Sex Marriage

|

What's the most persistent myth about being raised by gay parents? "That you are a child abuse victim," says Zach Wahls, author of the new book, My Two Moms: Lessons of Love, Strength and What Makes a Family.

Wahls became an internet sensation after a video of him defending his mothers' same-sex marriage was uploaded to YouTube. His 2011 testimony before the Iowa House Judiciary Committee has racked up over 18 million views and led to appearances on The Daily Show, Letterman, Ellen, and many other places.

Now comes My Two Moms, in which the 20-year-old University of Iowa engineering student explains what it's like to grow up as a child as the child of same-sex parents and uses the lessons he learned as an Eagle Scout to talk about why marriage equality should be the law of the land.

Wahls sat down with Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie to discuss why his childhood was a lot like yours, the mainstreaming of same-sex marriage, and Obama's "evolving" views on the subject.

About 7 minutes.

Interview by Nick Gillespie. Camera by Jim Epstein and Joshua Swain; edited by Swain.

For more Reason coverage on LBGT issues, click here.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel  to receive automatic notification when new material goes live. 

NEXT: Wherein the New York Times Describes President Obama's Role as Drone War Kill List Decider-in-Chief

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oh, please. Greg Evigan and Paul Reiser are the true pioneers.

    1. Why, oh why, did you have to go and remind me of that show? You’re a monster.

      1. Well, now who’s the homophobe? They were living in a nontraditional, alternative family unit when it wasn’t cool. (I gather from the title, anyway. I don’t think I ever actually saw the thing.)

        And news flash, bible-thumper, the daughter turned out just fine. (Although as an adult she did drive across several southern states in a diaper to kidnap her astronaut rival.) (True story.)(Or am I thinking of Dana Plato?)

        1. It was completely implausible. I mean, having a female character who is a judge and a landlord? What utter fantasy.

          1. Next thing you know they’ll claim to be doctors! DOCTORS! Can you imagine the HORROR!?

  2. 1) no church will be required to perform same-gender marrage (SGM).
    2) no one can show how SGM harms straight marrage thus requiring remedy.
    3) if SCOTUS decides that marrage is a civil right, then ALL state laws will be invalidated same as interracial marrage laws were.
    4) if however marrage is NOT a civil right, then state laws prevail since states, not the fed govt, issue regulate licenses. this could force divorces back to the state which issued the marrage license.
    5) Go Tribe!

    1. In a rare flash of brilliance, the SC will see that marriage falls under the 10th amendment, and leave the question open for the states to interpret individually, as has been the cast for 200+ years.

      Unfortunately, marriage should be seen as a contract, and as a contract be protected from state laws prohibiting it between any willing parties.

    2. Usually I hate your (normall unfree) ideas.

      Bravo for all of the above. As a Christian I believe in freedom of choice and that all should be able to marry whomever so long as they are a consenting adult.

      That also necessitates the freedom of churches to choose not to marry same sex couples.

      Most importantly though…Go Tribe!

      We ARE all Kipnises

  3. The problem of same-sex (same-gender orrin? really?) marriage will only be solved when we get government out of the marriage business altogether and contracts between consenting adults of any combination are enforced with the same vigor.

    1. I agree but I also think as long as government regulate marriage it shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against certain groups (gays, polygamists, etc.).

      1. Absolutely correct. And I think it’s sad that many proponents of gay marriage take the firm stand that it will not lead to polygamous marriage becoming legal.

        1. Where’s Tony? By now he should have posted three or four “not until the breeders decide to get rid of state-sanctioned marriage” bitch-sessions.

    2. “Get your government hands off my government contract enforcement!”

      1. The government can enforce contracts between consenting parties without picking winners and losers in who those parties can be.

        Does the government have to approve of a neo-Nazi man marrying a neo-Nazi woman? No, but they should be forced to execute and enforce the terms of the contract the same as they would if the man and woman were peace-loving hippies.

        1. So, basically neo-Nazis and peace-loving hippies are the same?

          /snark

        2. Does the government have to approve of a neo-Nazi man marrying a neo-Nazi woman? No, but they should be forced to execute and enforce the terms of the contract the same as they would if the man and woman were peace-loving hippies.

          It’s this part of contracts that people don’t freaking understand. The whole reason we have government is to enforce contracts, not to tell us which contracts we’re allowed to engage in.

    3. ” (same-gender orrin? really?)”

      I prefer same-groin marriage. Cuts to the quick.

    4. In a perfect world, I would agree. I suspect, however, that marriage has been part of the foundation of British Common Law for so long that we simply aren’t going to be able to disentangle it.

  4. My niece has two moms and is the luckiest kid in the world.

    1. Hmm, I dunno. My dad would let me get away with shit that my mom wouldn’t, and vice-versa. I can see how a same-sex parent couple would just be a flat-out “No!” with no recourse (“But dad said I could!”)

      1. Well if that’s your experience then it is undoubtedly universal.

        1. Isn’t that the premise of the entire article? (that everyone with 2 Moms will be as happy and well-adjusted as Zach)

          1. But who is Zach’s male role model without a Dad?
            Sorry, but kids need both mothers and fathers (or at least role models of both sexes) to be well-adjusted.

    2. My niece has two moms

      Parthenogenesis?

  5. I think it’s important for libertarians to avoid a certain trap. It’s an insidious one, I believe.

    That is: “I support gay marriage because I like gay people.”

    I have gay friends who are in long-term committed relationships. Count me as someone who thinks they should be able to marry, legally.

    But… That doesn’t matter, really. If I had no gay friends, if I didn’t approve of gay relationships, or if I thought that their relationships were inferior to straight ones, the fact would remain: their relationships are their own business, and government exists to do a few things, including allow for a streamlined, trusted system of contract enforcement. Whether I like gay people or not, their relationships are entitled to the same treatment under the law as any other.

    1. Uh, no. I don’t “like gay people”. I like or dislike individuals. Some people I like are going to be gay, and some people I don’t like are going to be gay. Their gayness has nothing to do with anything other than the government seems to care about it a lot when it comes to handing out these special contracts called marriages.

      1. but why do you hate fags?

        1. Because people who ride super loud Harleys are incredibly annoying.

          1. I have a louder-than-stock exhaust on my bike, but it’s just so other drivers can (hopefully) hear my bike before deciding to cut across two lanes of traffic to run me off the road.

            That said, I hate the look you get when you tell someone that you ride something other than a Harley.

            1. If loud pipes save lives, why is all that fucking racket behind you?

              1. Loud pipes save lives is a fantasy. How can you hear the semi’s horn as it’s barreling towards you from behind. My bikes are as quiet as a ten-speed. And I do not restrict my senses with a helmet.

                1. A coworker of mine, on a very loud bike, just tangled with two speeding crotch rockets.
                  One hit his mirror while passing, and the other rammed him from behind after losing control and laying his bike down.
                  My coworker is OK, but his loud pipes are totaled.

              2. I can hear motorcycles while driving my car; it’s noticeably easier to hear louder pipes while I’m listening to music too.

                1. LOOK AT ME!

                2. LOOK AT ME!!! I’M ON A BIKE!!!!!!

                  1. Loud pipes are just compensation – the louder the bike, the smaller the penis.

            2. so other drivers can (hopefully) hear my bike before deciding in order to cut across two lanes of traffic to run me off the road.

          2. THIS Epi, so much THIS it hurts.

      2. And that differs from what I wrote how, exactly, Epi?

        1. Sorry, I see what you meant by the quoted section now, which was “I support gay marriage because there are gay people I like.”

          That doesn’t mean anon isn’t a fag.

    2. Well, I don’t like gay people. I’m not sure why, but I think it stems from when five of them made fun of my clothes while making me over for their TV show.

      Just look deep in your hearts and make sure you’re for gay marriage as a matter of fairness and pragmatism, and not because you pine for state recognition of same-sex marriage as cultural acceptance. I decree that this would be libertarian wrong.

      1. Just look deep in your hearts and make sure you’re for gay marriage as a matter of fairness and pragmatism, and not because you pine for state recognition of same-sex marriage as cultural acceptance. I decree that this would be libertarian wrong.

        I agree. Personally, I don’t give enough of a fuck what other people do to be an advocate one way or the other; I just see the inherit injustice in not allowing people to do what they want to do when it doesn’t affect me one bit.

        1. I’m with FoE, and a little peeved with the activists who, rather than working for “civil unions for all”, decided to work for cultural approval via state decree by rejecting that option, and going for “gay marriage.”

          1. I can only imagine what 99% of heterosexuals would say if the gay activists literally advocated downgrading millions of opposite-sex marriages to civil unions. At least with gay marriage, your marriage, RC Dean, is not affected. If you want to start working for “civil unions for all,” just go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Since opposite-sex marriages are much more numerous than the gay ones, those outraged by the government involvement in private affairs should probably spend most of their energy on taking the government out of the opposite-sex marriages first.

            1. I can only imagine what 99% of heterosexuals would say if the gay activists literally advocated downgrading millions of opposite-sex marriages to civil unions

              I’m guessing, not much, personally.

              “Marriage” is what you get when a religious institution blesses your “life” partnership. Regardless of what the state calls it.

              you want to start working for “civil unions for all,” just go ahead.

              I’ll pass, thanks. Its a non-starter, because the gay activists have made it one. I’m just saying that anyone truly interested in legal equality, rather than cultural approval via state decree, would have been well-advised to take the “civil unions for all” approach.

            2. Since opposite-sex marriages are much more numerous than the gay ones, those outraged by the government involvement in private affairs should probably spend most of their energy on taking the government out of the opposite-sex marriages first.

              You mean libertarians? I agree.

      2. At first I liked gay women and disliked gay men. Then I applied some logic. I realized that gay men had voluntarily stopped competing against me for women (despite women thinking they are great). Meanwhile gay women have decided their genitals are now off-limit for men. So I now like gay men and despise the dykes.

    3. I agree wholeheartedly. I started out against Gay Marriage. I don’t dislike Gay people per se, but I DO dislike in-your-face activists. However I grew increasingly uncomfortable with the arguments used against Gay marriage, since so far as I could see they boiled down to “we don’t like these people, they’re icky!”.

  6. I’ll see Zach Wahls’ two moms, and raise him two dads with six adopted kids:

    http://www.takemehomethemovie.com/

    That’s my Uncle Billy in the trailer, so yeah, I’ve got personal commitment on the subject manner… Mostly revolving around the feeling that my Uncle and his husband Gail have more guts than most people on the planet.

  7. it’s like to grow up as a child as the child of same-sex parents and uses the lessons he learned as an Eagle Scout to http://www.nikewinkel.com/scho…..-c-46.html talk about why marriage equality should be the law of the land.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.