Lopez Makes Worst Anti-Equality Argument Ever

Even among the anti-gay right, Robert Oscar Lopez is a particularly bizarre voice. The only person who makes arguments that are on the same level of idiocy as him is Scott Lively. On Sandy Rios’ show this week he declared that allowing gay people to have children violates the 13th Amendment. Look at this argument:

I believe every child has a natural born right to his mother and father and ultimately those rights were taken away from them because adults made a decision that the child was not a party to because he didn’t exist or was too young to decide that. Even if you could come up with some study that showed that 95% of the children are okay with it, we as a society already went through a huge debate in the United States about owning other people and we decided — the Thirteenth Amendment is worded very sweepingly not just to ban what was specifically happening on Southern plantations but to ban any kind of practice. It says ‘slavery shall not exist,’ any kind of arrangement where you have a legal contract upon another human being is banned.

So the mother-father relationship to the child is a natural one that is structured around obligations to the child, anytime that you turn that around and you say that adults have a right to a child, really all of society then becomes put into an ethical problem because all of society is redefining what it means to be human, what it means to be a child, what it means to be a free citizen and what it means to have freedom. I don’t think you can really be free if you’re born with a price on your head.

Uh, Robert…by your “reasoning,” parenting itself would be slavery. If “any kind of arrangement where you have a legal contract upon another human being is banned,” then parenthood itself is banned. A pair of straight parents have precisely the same authority over a child as a gay parent does and the child of straight parents had precisely the same choice in the matter as the child of gay parents. And this guy teaches at a university, for crying out loud.

"Hey, I'm bummed out. Those two lezzies near the end were gonna lock lips but ..."

Bakker Declares Victory in Mythical War ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Mr Ed

    Rereading his statement I think he misspoke and meant the third amendment. Gay people having kids is really no different than being forced to house soldiers during peace time. Make as much sense as Lopez did.

  • dugglebogey

    So every child who’s mother dies in childbirth can sue because their rights have been violated?

  • Chiroptera

    wut?

    I had trouble parsing that. Did he really just make the argument that natural birth parents can’t give their children up for adoption or foster care and that the state cannot remove children from abusive households? And that if the natural birth parents were to die, the child has to fend for herself?

    Seriously, wut?

  • Kevin Kehres

    Um….that would ban every adoption, period.

    It would also ban every employment contract. Every union agreement. Every pre-nup. Every will.

    Every…well everything.

  • smhll

    Wow, I believe he is comparing adoption to buying children. That’s repulsive, especially for people who have adoption in their lives or in their larger circles.

    His failure to consider how much worse it is to be raised in an orphanage or to stay unwanted with bio parents suggests he hasn’t thought the issue through at all, he’s just grabbing it and using it for rhetorical purposes.

  • sinned34

    So this means my stepmother never actually had any legal claim to being my parent, and instead I was a slave? Well, that explains why her and I didn’t really like each other very much.

    But wait, I thought slavery in the south wasn’t so bad and that the “poverty treadmill” created by welfare is worse than slavery? That’s one one guy commenting on a Newsmax article told me yesterday. So, better to be a slave growing up in a gay home than relying on welfare, right?

    I get so confused trying to reconcile the latest right-wing talking points.

  • dingojack

    Chiroptera – “And that if the natural birth parents were to die, the child has to fend for herself?”

    Nope, it just means if the parents died of an act of god (or natural causes even) the child can sue god (or at least god’s earthly representatives) possibly to the tune of several million bucks. I’m down with that. 😉

    Dingo

  • Loqi

    @sinned34

    The trick is to never try to apply context to far-right thinking. There is none. All statements made are in a vaccuum without regard to what they’ve said previously or what unintended consequences their proposal might have. This also helps explain how they can think MLK was part of the religious right.

  • 5Up Mushroom

    This makes absolute sense from a far far right perspective. You see… slavery wasn’t that bad, in fact most slaves loved being slaves and wouldn’t leave their ‘masters’ even if allowed. In other words, being a slave is just like having two loving parents to take care of you, feed you, and house you. Since we outlawed that arrangement, we should outlaw gays from adopting. See, Robert Oscar Lopez is the shithead that just links the usual racist far right crap with the usual homophobic far right crap. It all makes sense in their shitty disgusting backwards minds.

  • colnago80

    So then, Prof. Lopez would be in favor of taking Mary Cheney’s two children away from here and her wife.

  • steve84

    It’s Christian fundamentalists who consider children to be their property. That’s why they block any legislation concerning children’s rights and why the US is the only countries besides Somalia and South Sudan that hasn’t ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  • cptdoom

    Lopez has made this argument before, and I believe he is specifically referring to gay men using surrogacy and other forms of assisted reproduction. Of course, he, I am sure, also is against adoption of abandoned and neglected children by gays and lesbians.

  • alanb

    Also too my right to being born to rich parents was violated, which is just as bad.

  • coffeehound

    And yet somehow I think he wouldn’t agree that a parent can’t refuse medical treatment for religious reasons. Because, you know…

    So the mother-father relationship to the child is a natural one that is structured around obligations to the child, anytime that you turn that around and you say that adults have a right to a child, really all of society then becomes put into an ethical problem because all of society is redefining what it means to be human, what it means to be a child, what it means to be a free citizen and what it means to have freedom.

    Douche.

  • freehand

    I believe every child has a natural born right to his mother and father and ultimately those rights were taken away from them because adults made a decision that the child was not a party to because he didn’t exist or was too young to decide that.

    .

    So, Perfessor Lopez*, did you marry your first girlfriend? Because if you didn’t, there are hundreds of unconceived children who not only don’t have their mother and father, but their very lives! Yes, billions of the unconceived are heartlessly ripped from the fabric of existence by heartless Christians? Won’t somebody please think of the gleams in their daddies’ eyes?

    .

    *What the hell does he teach? Please tell me it’s business administration.

  • escuerd

    So, Perfessor Lopez*, did you marry your first girlfriend?

    Actually, I think he did marry his first girlfriend (in his late 20s), though he’d had a lot of same-sex trysts prior to that.

    The guy has a really weird back story. He identifies as bisexual, though based on his history he may simply be gay, it can be especially hard to tell when someone is that self-hating. His late mother was also a lesbian. These two things, combined with the personal issues he has surrounding his upbringing and sexuality are the reason he has any media presence at all.

    A bit over a year ago, it looked like he was about to become NOM’s poster child for the harm that same-sex parenting would do to the children(!!!). They had been putting out feelers to search for gay people who would publicly oppose same-sex marriage and for people with gay parents who would talk about all the harm their upbringing did them. Lopez would seem to be a double-whammy, except that he’s too unhinged and incoherent even for them. He seems like he might have some real, untreated mental illness he needs to deal with, though that doesn’t excuse his behavior.

    He always makes some of the most bizarre arguments regarding marriage equality ranging from this “gay people raising kids is slavery” nonsense to arguing that it would harm “fragile mixed orientation marriages” (he actually used that phrase) like his own by tempting people to leave their opposite-sex spouse for a same-sex one.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CotB5fUzj38#t=1m49s

    The mind boggles.

    *What the hell does he teach? Please tell me it’s business administration.

    Literature, specifically Latino Literature and American Literature at California State University, Northridge.