‘No child has two dads’ billboards trigger LGBT activists

New billboards highlight the lies of homosexual ‘parenting’ – prompting hostile reactions from leftists online. Billboards bearing the straightforward message, “No child has two dads. No child has two moms,” have begun appearing across the United States to push back on homosexual adoption and highlight the importance of marriage.

The billboards are the work of Them Before Us, a “global movement defending children’s right to their mother and father,” by “putting children before adults in every conversation about marriage and family.” The group highlighted the new billboards on its Substack, noting that even though “no person in any society has ever thought to object to (the message) for thousands of years,” after just a few days, they provoked a sharp, hostile reaction on social media.

In the Substack post, Them Before Us’ Josh Wood took the opportunity to address the most common arguments in favour of homosexual “parenting.” He wrote that practices such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and surrogacy invariably deprive a child of at least one biological parent; that it is a fallacy to infer that lacking a mother or a father is meaningless simply because some circumstances may unavoidably require single parenthood, stepparents, or adoption; and that the key consideration is the child’s best interests rather than a parent’s feelings or desires.

“That is the real reason basic biology triggers people this badly: if they cannot redefine the words, they do not get to do to children whatever they want,” Wood said. “So they scream, they yell, and they call you names. None of it changes what a child is or what she is owed.”

A substantial amount of social science literature affirms the reality that children are best served by homes with both a mother and a father, including because each sex brings unique strengths and emphases to parenting that complement one another; and gives children a positive role model of their own sex as well as helping them to understand and relate to the opposite sex.

By contrast, a male couple would by definition lack a mother, and a lesbian couple would be unable to provide a father, in addition to exposing children to sexual immorality and other harms associated with the homosexual lifestyle. 

Depriving children of both parents has been just one of the social ills exacerbated by the advent of homosexual “marriage” since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling forced all 50 states to recognise homosexual relationships as marriages. Undoing Obergefell has long been a goal of social conservatives and constitutional textualists and originalists but remains an uphill battle. 

Three of the current sitting justices – Chief Justice John Roberts and conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – dissented from Obergefell. The latter two are considered reliable votes to overturn if the chance arises, given statements both have made in the years since. But it is less certain how Roberts and the Court’s three more recent Republican appointees would rule given past statements about deferring to precedent and their mixed records on cases important to conservatives. In November 2025, the Court declined to hear a case from former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis that could have reconsidered Obergefell.

Further, as a practical matter, even if the Supreme Court reversed Obergefell, recognition of homosexual “marriage” would still be mandatory nationwide thanks to former President Joe Biden signing the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act” in 2023. Thirty-two states still have duly enacted homosexual “marriage” bans on the books, according to World Population Review, all of which have been blocked from enforcement since Obergefell. Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia have no ban in place.

At least half a dozen states have adopted resolutions urging the nation’s highest court to reverse Obergefell. They have no legal force or can they begin any legal battle that could eventually put the issue back before the nation’s highest court, but they raise awareness of an issue that, while since declared “settled” by the establishments of both parties, remains a major concern for conservative Christians and a radical affront to Biblical morality. In recent years, however, there is evidence that the extremes of the LGBT movement have provoked a broader backlash against its ideology. Last October, an Economist/YouGov poll found that 54 per cent said homosexual “marriage” should be “legal,” 33 per cent said “illegal,” and 13 per cent were unsure. While a majority still reportedly supports homosexual “marriage,” the findings were strikingly lower than those tracked by polling by other outfits such as Gallup. 

Notably, the YouGov framing of the issue around “legal/illegal” could be construed as implying some sort of punishment, while Gallup’s questioning more accurately asks whether homosexual unions should be “recognised by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.” Yet the harsher-sounding question garnered less support for homosexual “marriage” than the milder one, raising the possibility that YouGov might have found even lower support if the question had been worded more accurately.