The Seattle Times Hit Piece Validates My Argument That Obergefell Harmed Children's Rights
Source: Katy Faust. "In Hit Piece, Seattle Times Proves I’m Right About Obergefell." May 14, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that a newspaper's personal attack on her actually proves she's right that gay marriage has hurt children's rights. She claims that since gay marriage became legal, laws have changed to treat parents as optional, which harms kids who deserve their biological parents.
Conclusion
The Seattle Times' hit piece against me actually proves my argument correct that the Obergefell decision has systematically undermined children's rights by making parents optional in marriage and parenthood
Premises
- The Seattle Times published personal details about me while refusing to engage with my actual arguments, demonstrating they cannot refute the substance of my position
- Since Obergefell was decided 11 years ago, there has been systematic deconstruction of children's rights as predicted in my SCOTUS amicus brief
- Washington State's 2018 Uniform Parentage Act, sponsored by a gay married legislator, removed 'mother' and 'father' from parenthood statutes and legalized commercial surrogacy
- The legislator himself admitted these changes flowed directly from gay marriage legalization, confirming the causal connection I argued
- Making husbands and wives optional in marriage logically made mothers and fathers optional in parenthood
- The media's resort to personal attacks rather than substantive engagement reveals the weakness of their position defending Obergefell
Assumptions
- Children have an inherent right to their biological mother and father
- Commercial surrogacy constitutes a form of child trafficking
- The inability to refute an argument substantively indicates the argument's validity
- Legal changes following Obergefell were causally connected to that decision rather than coincidental
- Media hit pieces are evidence of ideological weakness rather than journalistic practice