Read the original. Maggie G.'s friend – Jenn Morse published a post in Mercatornet – a publication that claims to be non-political, yet is clearly on the side of anti-equality for the LGBT families and individuals. She starts talking of Nadya Suleman, switches to the topic of “a right to have a child” (which does not exist according to her in the sense that one doesn't have a right to just have her eggs fertilized). She further posits the rights of the child (unborn child). (These presumably trump the rights of the person who wants to have one…) She finishes with an ominous sentence: “It is time to rethink our whole approach to artificial reproductive technology.” In a debate at which I was present, Jenn Morse stated that each child has a right to have a parent of each sex.
From this, I can only conclude that Maggie G. and Jenn Morse are against same-sex couples actually having and raising children together. The only reason they are quiet about it, they are afraid that the majority of Americans are against that for a number of reasons, and they are afraid to scare their would-be supporters by such a radical position.
Further, both Maggie G. and Jenn Morse – in all the interviews and debates that I have seen – never address the criticism that same-sex couples already have children. They pretend like these children do not exist. They render these children invisible, non-existent. They never address protection of these children through the institute of marriage or outside of it (perhaps resign them to damaged goods pile?). I think it is clear why.
I think we need to place this question squarely before Maggie G. and/or Jenn Morse – would they support prohibiting gays and lesbians from bearing and raising children together. For far too long, we have left this question unasked, when it can be an affective way to show America that the religious right's goal is not merely prohibition of same-sex marriage but the total and complete womb control and strict gender norm enforcement for the whole society.