From http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/us-funds-pancakes-but-waffles-on-defense
The Gumption of Presumption 
Same-sex "marriage" is not just an attack on a traditional social institution--it's an attack on the order of nature itself. That was made clear again this week when an Iowa court ruled that a child whose mother was a lesbian "married" to a woman and whose father was an anonymous sperm donor should have both female "spouses" listed on the child's birth certificate. The ruling was based on a legal principle called "the presumption of paternity," which historically has stated that when a child is born to a married woman, her husband is presumed to be the father of that child. In other words, the law "presumed" what was almost always true. But in the wake of the Iowa Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex "marriage" in 2009, Judge Eliza Ovrom has twisted the "presumption of paternity" into a "presumption of parentage." So what was once a presumption of something that was nearly always biologically true has now become a "presumption" of something that is biologically impossible (since a child cannot have two genetic mothers). Ironically, homosexual activists are reporting that the court ordered that an "accurate" birth certificate be issued--when in fact they ordered issuance of a certificate that is inaccurate since it fails to list both the mother and father.
COMMENT: Contrary to the ignorant talk of Teabrainers and the like, the difference between "Rightwing" and "Leftwing" is NOT "freedom" versus "tyranny." That is a "jes' kinda think" pseudo-thought made up by uneducated conservatives wishing to distance themselves from Rightwing bad guys (i.e., Hitler). Political science's "Right-Left" spectrum involves one side looking to traditional and natural realities of distinction (Right) versus the other side disregarding and ultimately seeking the elimination in society of those realities of distinction. For all the evil Hitler did, he did it following traditional goals, like national empire and racial distinction. And for whatever good liberals in America have done (like combating that Nazism), they have done it seeking the breakdown of traditional goals.
Here we see the social agenda of the Left taken so far that biological reality has to be denied in favor of a facially ridiculous unreality.
However, let us examine how such a outcome could become even remotely feasible. One can actually see this stemming from previous allowance for birth certificates to be altered for adopting children (adoption being a fine practice as such, but one departing from a strict natural order). In those cases, biological falsity was put into a legal document which creates, at least in people's minds, a presumption of the subject's genetic background and composition. In most cases, no harm was done, but sometimes it can lead to serious medical repercussions, such as a failure to detect significant genetic faults, and in a few extraordinary cases, siblings marrying one another (and not just in Arkansas! LOL). Something done for touchy-feely reasons, when a superior method would be to issue specific "Adoption Certificates," opened the legal precedent for what we see in the Ioweigan case above.
Indeed, the facial biological unreality in this present case takes the slide to the Left all the further, in that it denies even the appearance of reality and thus undercuts the mindset in society in favor of the natural order (the ultimate aim of liberalism/Leftism as defined in political science). That said, it descends from a precedent set long ago by an procedure which apparently few opposed at the time, but which was justified by proponents with no doubt genuine concern for lives of the parties involved. Yet we see what that little step away from reality has led to--a practice putting facial biological unreality into law and contributing to the breakdown of not just Western, but all human society.
This is the bane of the conservative/Right--not all essentially liberal ideas are bad! A great thinker has noted to his fellow occupants of that wing, "We all have a place where we 'break Left' politically" (Me). Every person on the conservative/Right will have some place where they must say--accurately or not--that traditional thinking in humanity is in error and must be dropped. For most conservatives in America, one such area is in race relations--virtually no viable political figure will (openly) argue flat-out for local or state prerogative to segregate races or ban miscegenation, let alone actually support the concepts. In fact, most are willing to tolerate some Affirmative Action (as it has come to be, not simply the far less egregious original executive order). That is nearly a modern given for White conservatives in America. And some go further. Sarah Palin has her feminism (departing from the traditional male-dominated order). Virtually any Black conservative supports some form of present-day Affirmative Action (e.g., Herman Cain, who put his "Black" identity before his "Conservative" identity, while a comparable White candidate would be practically lynched for putting his/her race into a self-identification). And for yours truly, it is the area of animal welfare (NOT "animal rights"), a place where traditional human thought has indeed long been in error.
The point is that ANY movement to the Left--again, as defined by political science, not a Teabrainer reject from "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?"--sets a precedent which can be misused. Conservatives, being self-oriented and thus unable to think a few steps ahead, thus find themselves supporting without hesitation a number of touchy-feely ideas, not considering the long-term ramifications or the precedent set. People down through the ages of human existence have felt geniune compassion for adoptive parents and children, quite reasonably seeking to make their lives as such as pleasant as possible. The result has come to be the altering of birth certificates to say something not at all reflective on the actual birth!! And thus we see the outcome above.
Now, to the knee-jerks out there, the answer is NOT to dogmatically oppose any and all "liberal" ideas. As that same great thinker has also said in opposing standard, static conservatism, "There is always something in society that needs changing. The vast majority of the time the answer is to go back to the Right, but occasionally something more 'progressive' [actual LOL] is the answer." The success of our people, our country, our Western civilization against threats both internal and external in the face of foreign opposition (today, that means sheetheads) must be, as the Missouri state motto says of the "welfare of the people"--"the supreme law." When "conservatives" oppose an idea for the sake of opposing it, it is usually done out of mindless reaction or selfish motivation. This is politically and socially stupid.
Our Founders established our Constitution in part to restrain popular ideas. The difficulty it creates, both in procedure and in substantive restrictions, in imposing a national regimen acts nots so much to prevent the ideas from being implemented--indeed, the American people have repeatedly overruled their own Constitution by unconstitutional means--but rather to force debate on the issue and to give the forces of tradition (Right) a structure for blocking liberal and populist urges of the moment. The problem has been that those traditionally-minded people have been, well, CONSERVATIVE. They have been "introspective," self-oriented, material-minded, and decidedly contemptuous of political involvement. The result has been a nearly open field for the Left to circumvent every legal obstacle, exploit every loophole and precedent, and play on every touchy-feely sense a common person has as a human being--and generally without meaningful opposition.
The answer, then, is to examine rationally different ideas, and doing so from a society-minded and NOT self-centered perspective. People need to look at the core grievance (a constitutional term), determine its legitimacy, and if legitimate, work for its redress by measured, constitutional means which even as they seek to relieve the problem, reinforce the general validity of the traditional order. I myself, for one, am very careful when deciding what position to take on any given "animal welfare" proposal by determining the proponents' agenda, weighing the precedent factor into the deliberation, and working for ways to block overreach of both the proposal and the precedent factor. Sometimes this means I have to oppose or at least not support proposals which "at heart" appeal to me, but which lack sufficient protection for legitimate human behavior and which set far too dangerous legal, political, and social precedents.
I push this article regularly, and I am doing so here again: "The Need For A Militant Conservative Movement" -- http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_need_for_a_militant_conservative_movement.html Please read it, disregard a few of the characterizations in the last half, and consider the need for such an approach. A tug-of-war team which only holds on will eventually lose. Likewise, traditional, "introspective"--i.e., conservative--approaches to our current American political system will lose as well. Democracy--an unfortunate condition which has been allowed to develop and which most people, even on the Right, seem to insist on keeping to some degree--only works if the good and decent people freely give of their freedom to use it to impose their agenda, and not just oppose that of the opposition.
THIS is the real lesson of this event.