Katy Faust has launched and is leading the Greater Than Campaign, a coalition of at least 47 conservative and religious organizations that seeks to change U.S. law and public opinion around marriage and parenthood with the stated aim of prioritizing what the campaign calls children’s rights to be raised by both a mother and a father. Faust is founder and president of the nonprofit Them Before Us, which frames its mission as defending children’s right to their mother and father and reported more than $900,000 in revenue in 2024. Them Before Us has produced legal briefs, policy guidance for employers, educational materials for churches, and a curriculum promoting the organization’s view of marriage and family, and it has received donations from conservative foundations that also fund other groups.

Greater Than’s strategy emphasizes shifting public opinion and passing state-level laws that could provoke legal challenges to Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized same-sex marriage nationwide. Campaign leaders describe litigation, public education, and mobilizing faith leaders as tools to reframe legal questions toward child-centered claims and to pursue changes in parental-recognition rules for future cases. Faust and allies argue that legal, cultural, and technological changes since Obergefell have reshaped parenthood by reducing the legal importance of biological mother–father relationships, expanding pathways for nonbiological adults to acquire parental status, and enabling assisted reproduction and surrogacy arrangements that they say can separate children from biological parents. Faust frames adoption as a child-centered response distinct from creating children to satisfy adult desires and says the campaign seeks to avoid immediate removal of children from existing households while pursuing policy changes for future recognition.

The coalition includes national organizations such as Focus on the Family and the Heritage Foundation and faith-affiliated participants identified as Catholic groups, including Catholic Vote and Word on Fire, as well as many state-level conservative groups. Some coalition partners have histories of opposing LGBTQ rights and, according to reporting, some have promoted practices like so-called conversion therapy or used medicalized or demeaning language about same-sex attraction. Faust has described the coalition as focused on children’s rights and has declined to disavow allies’ broader rhetoric while saying members share a belief in children’s right to a mother and a father.

Faust’s public profile began with an anonymous blog in 2012 and expanded through publications and mentorship from conservative institutions such as the Witherspoon Institute, which published her writing, provided professional opportunities, and supported projects promoting one-man, one-woman marriage education. She has written amicus briefs in major marriage-related court cases, spoken internationally on marriage and parenthood, and participated in media appearances and podcasts discussing the legal and cultural consequences of Obergefell.

The campaign and Faust cite scholarly work they say supports limits on same-sex parenting and on gender-affirming care, frequently referencing the New Family Structures Study by Mark Regnerus and research by Paul Sullins. Independent scholars and reviewers have criticized those studies’ methodology and conclusions. Multiple comprehensive reviews and large, population-based datasets from countries including the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Netherlands have concluded that parental sexual orientation is not a primary determinant of child outcomes; one Netherlands study of nearly 3,000 children with same-sex parents and over 1,000,000 with different-sex parents reported slightly better educational outcomes for children of same-sex couples while noting potential hidden biases. Critics and many researchers say that family stability, socioeconomic resources, and selection effects are stronger predictors of child well-being than parents’ genders.

Experts quoted in reporting warn that restricting LGBTQ parenting or rolling back marriage equality would not stop same-sex couples from raising children but could remove legal and social supports—such as marriage recognition, adoption, foster-care access, and benefits—that promote family stability and thereby reduce placement options for children in foster and adoption systems. Children’s-rights advocates and some researchers also contend that Faust’s definition of children’s rights differs from international standards that emphasize children’s evolving capacities and autonomy.

Reporting notes that Greater Than’s approach draws tactical parallels to strategies used by anti-abortion advocates, focusing first on state-law changes and public persuasion to produce test cases for courts. Faust and supporters argue that harms from legal and technological changes may be difficult to document immediately because long-term effects, identity concerns, or children’s reluctance to speak publicly can delay visibility. Critics contend that many empirical studies showing no differences in child outcomes are methodologically sound and that legal recognition of marriage generally provides stability and protections that benefit children.

The campaign has prompted responses from religious and LGBTQ organizations. Some pro-LGBTQ religious groups and advocates have publicly criticized Greater Than’s aims and warned of financial, medical, civil, and psychological harms to families if marriage equality were rolled back; other religious voices within traditions such as Catholicism are reported to be split on the issue. Reporting also notes Faust’s personal background, including her parents’ divorce and that her mother later entered a relationship with another woman; attempts to reach Faust’s mother and her partner for comment were unsuccessful.

The initiative is ongoing. Greater Than continues coalition-building, public outreach, and legal strategy aimed at state-level legislative changes and litigation to challenge current parental-recognition norms established after Obergefell.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (australia) (curriculum) (mentorship)

Summary judgment: The article describes Katy Faust’s Greater Than Campaign and related activities, the organizations involved, and disputes about the scholarship and policy claims behind efforts to restrict LGBTQ parenting and gender-affirming care. As journalism it supplies background, quotes from critics and supporters, and references to studies and institutional ties. But judged by your requested criteria—actionability, educational depth, personal relevance, public service, practical advice, long-term usefulness, emotional impact, sensationalism, and missed teaching opportunities—the piece is weak in several practical ways.

Actionable information The article provides almost no clear, practical steps a typical reader can take soon. It reports who is involved, what they aim to do, and which studies they cite, but it does not offer concrete guidance such as how to contact policymakers, how to access legal protections, how to evaluate adoption or foster-care options, or how to find reliable studies on child outcomes. References to resources (legal briefs, curricula, donor foundations) are descriptive rather than actionable: they name programs and groups but do not give phone numbers, websites, specific legal strategies, or step-by-step advocacy/checklist items a reader could use right away. In short, if you came away wanting to act, protect a child, check a claim, or respond to the campaign, the article does not give clear, usable next steps.

Educational depth The article goes beyond surface name-dropping by explaining Faust’s associations, the specific studies her coalition cites, and that those studies have been criticized by independent scholars and international reviews. However, it does not explain the methodological flaws it mentions in a way that teaches a reader how to evaluate research themselves. It mentions conclusions from UK and Australian reviews but does not summarize their reasoning, criteria, or how those reviews reached differing conclusions from Regnerus and Sullins. Numbers (such as the nonprofit’s reported revenue) are given but not contextualized—no explanation of what that revenue implies about capacity, reach, or funding structure. Overall, the piece gives useful context and flags contested evidence, but it stops short of teaching readers how to judge research quality, legal strategy, or policy implications.

Personal relevance The relevance depends heavily on who the reader is. For people directly affected—LGBTQ parents, prospective adoptive or foster parents, social-service workers, or child-rights advocates—the subject is potentially very important because it could influence laws and eligibility for parenting or medical care. For most readers with no stake in these specific policy fights, the article is primarily informational and of limited immediate relevance. The piece does not translate its account into practical implications for an individual’s safety, finances, or access to services, so many readers will not see a clear personal impact.

Public service function The article serves public information needs to a degree: it names the campaign, identifies its aims, and presents counterarguments from scholars and advocates. However, it does not provide public-service elements such as clear warnings about immediate legal changes, guidance on how to find legal help or support services, or resources for families potentially affected. It reads more like investigatory reporting than a how-to or a public-safety advisory. Because the piece focuses on controversy without giving tools for people who may need to respond, its public-service value is limited.

Practical advice There is essentially no practical advice a normal reader can follow. The article does not give steps for verifying academic claims, contacting legislators, organizing community responses, or protecting children and families. Any suggestions are implicit—understand the evidence and watch for state-level laws—but the reader is left to figure out specific actions.

Long-term impact As background reporting, the article could help readers become aware of a campaign that might affect long-term policy. But it does not equip readers with planning tools, ways to monitor developments reliably, or safe long-term strategies for families and organizations that may be targeted. It therefore offers limited help in preparing for or adapting to future changes.

Emotional and psychological impact The coverage may produce concern or anxiety among readers who identify with the groups discussed, because it highlights organized opposition to LGBTQ parenting and presents contested claims about child welfare. The article does include voices of critics and points to scholarly disputes, which can reduce alarm by showing the claims are contested. Still, by describing alliances with groups that endorse conversion therapy or demeaning rhetoric, it may increase fear without offering coping steps, supports, or constructive ways to respond.

Clickbait or sensationalism The article does not appear to rely on pure clickbait language; it documents organizational activity and debate. However, some framing choices could be read as emotionally charged—highlighting ties to conversion therapy promoters and personal family history—without separating what is directly relevant to policy from what is incidental. That can intensify readers’ emotional reactions without adding practical clarity.

Missed chances to teach or guide The piece misses several clear opportunities to provide readers usable information. It could have included straightforward ways to evaluate the quality of social-science studies, a plain-language synopsis of why leading reviews rejected a causal link between parental sexual orientation and child outcomes, or practical resources for families (legal aid groups, LGBTQ family services, foster/adoption guidance). It also could have suggested how readers could monitor state bills, find nonpartisan summaries of proposed laws, or reach out to elected officials. None of these are provided.

What the article failed to provide—and practical help you can use now If you want to respond to or understand similar stories in the future, use a few simple, realistic methods that do not require special expertise. First, when you see claims based on social-science studies, check whether the study appears in a peer-reviewed journal and whether independent reviews or meta-analyses exist. A single study with an unusual result is less persuasive than consistent findings across multiple high-quality studies. Second, look for how studies define their terms and samples: ask whether “same-sex parents” are clearly defined and whether researchers controlled for factors like income, education, family stability, or other variables that affect child outcomes. Third, if a policy or campaign could affect you or someone you care about, find local nonprofit or legal organizations that focus on family or civil-rights support—these groups can explain immediate rights, offer referrals, and suggest advocacy options. Fourth, to track proposed laws, use official state legislature websites or trusted civic trackers to follow bill numbers and committee hearings; note comment periods and public testimony opportunities if you want to weigh in. Fifth, when you feel anxious after reading contentious news, limit exposure, identify a single reliable source for updates, and reach out to community supports or advocacy groups for concrete guidance rather than relying only on opinion pieces.

These steps are practical, grounded in common reasoning, and require only ordinary internet skills and local outreach. They will help you evaluate claims, find help when needed, and choose useful responses rather than reacting to headlines or contested studies.

"Katy Faust is leading a new coalition called the Greater Than Campaign that unites at least 47 anti-LGBTQ organizations in an effort to reverse U.S. marriage-equality law." This sentence labels the groups "anti-LGBTQ" and frames the effort as to "reverse" law. The words push a negative view of the coalition and present its goal as oppositional without their stated reasons. This helps readers see the groups as hostile and hides the coalition’s own framing of its aims.

"The campaign aims to change public opinion and to pass state-level laws that could provoke court challenges to Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide." The phrase "could provoke court challenges" uses a charged verb that suggests deliberate troublemaking. It frames legal action as provocation rather than policy change. This leans toward portraying the campaign as aggressive and legally disruptive.

"Faust framed the effort as centered on children’s rights, arguing that children should be raised by both a mother and a father and that those rights should take precedence over adults’ desires or identities." The wording "should take precedence over adults’ desires or identities" minimizes adults' rights and uses a dismissive term "desires" to describe identity. That choice makes adult identities seem frivolous and helps the child's-rights frame at the expense of LGBTQ adults.

"Them Before Us has produced legal briefs, policy guidance for employers, educational materials for churches, and a curriculum focused on defending the organization’s view of marriage and family." Saying the curriculum is "focused on defending the organization’s view" highlights advocacy rather than neutral education. This exposes that materials are advocacy, but the phrasing could understate the potential for bias in those materials by not giving examples.

"The organization reported over $900,000 in revenue in 2024 and received donations from foundations that have funded other conservative groups." Using "conservative groups" connects funding to a political label. That phrase signals political bias in funding and suggests ideological alignment, which frames the nonprofit within a partisan network.

"Faust’s public profile began with an anonymous blog in 2012 and expanded through publications and mentorship from the Witherspoon Institute." Calling the blog "anonymous" and noting mentorship implies a shadowy or strategic start. The sequence suggests Witherspoon gave Faust legitimacy, which frames her rise as orchestrated rather than organic.

"Witherspoon published multiple pieces by Faust and provided professional opportunities, including work on a project promoting one-man, one-woman marriage education." The phrase "one-man, one-woman marriage education" uses gendered wording that signals opposition to same-sex marriage, and presenting it without context normalizes that specific view as a legitimate educational project.

"Faust later wrote amicus briefs in major marriage-litigation cases and spoke internationally on the topic of marriage." Saying she "spoke internationally" and "wrote amicus briefs" highlights authority and expertise. This elevates Faust’s credibility without showing countervailing credentials for critics, favoring her stature.

"Faust and Greater Than rely on social and scholarly claims that same-sex parenting harms children, frequently citing the New Family Structures Study by Mark Regnerus and work by Paul Sullins." The sentence frames the studies as supporting harm and uses "rely on" which can imply selective or shaky evidence. It supports the idea that their case rests on contested research rather than broad consensus.

"Independent scholars and reviewers have criticized those studies’ methodology and conclusions, and comprehensive reviews from the United Kingdom and Australia have concluded that parents’ sexual orientation is not a primary determinant of child outcomes." This balances the previous claim, but the phrase "not a primary determinant" is cautious and could downplay residual debate. The block frames the critics as authoritative by naming countries, which strengthens the counterargument.

"The Greater Than coalition includes national and state-level conservative groups with histories of opposing LGBTQ rights." Labeling partners as "conservative" and noting "histories of opposing LGBTQ rights" highlights political alignment and past actions. This casts the coalition in a partisan light and foregrounds opposition history rather than present positions.

"Some coalition partners have publicly promoted practices such as conversion therapy or described same-sex attraction in medicalized or demeaning terms." Using "conversion therapy" and "medicalized or demeaning terms" applies strong negative language to partners’ actions. That choice signals moral condemnation and frames those partners as extreme.

"Faust characterizes the coalition as focused specifically on children’s rights and has declined to disavow allies’ broader rhetoric while saying coalition members share a belief in children’s right to a mother and father." The phrase "declined to disavow allies’ broader rhetoric" uses passive construction to highlight omission and implies guilt by association. It frames Faust as evasive and suggests she tolerates problematic views without quoting her refusal.

"Researchers and children’s-rights advocates quoted in the piece argue that restricting LGBTQ parenting could reduce stable family options for children in foster care and adoption systems that already struggle to meet demand." The phrase "already struggle to meet demand" adds context that frames restrictions as harmful to children. That highlights potential negative consequences, favoring the critics’ argument.

"Critics also say Faust’s definition of children’s rights differs sharply from international standards that emphasize children’s evolving capacities and autonomy." Saying her definition "differs sharply" and naming international standards positions Faust as out of step with global norms. This frames her views as nonstandard and isolates them.

"Academic and advocacy responses in the article present a contested evidence base and conflicting interpretations: Faust and her allies present certain studies as supporting limits on same-sex parenting and gender-affirming care, while many scholars and international reviews find no causal link between parental sexual orientation and poor child outcomes." The structure sets Faust’s side first then the broader scholarly consensus, but the colon and parallel clauses present the two views as balanced. However, the phrasing "many scholars and international reviews" signals stronger consensus against Faust, which favors the critics.

"The article notes Faust’s personal family history, including parental divorce and a mother who later entered a relationship with a woman, and reports that Uncloseted Media was unable to reach Faust’s mother for comment." Including personal family details introduces an implication that her views relate to personal history. The clause "unable to reach Faust’s mother for comment" hints at missing perspective and frames an absence as notable, which can bias readers to suspect avoidance.

The text carries a mix of emotions that shape how readers understand the people and actions described. A sense of concern or worry appears repeatedly, especially around phrases about “children’s rights,” “defending children’s right to their mother and father,” and warnings that changing law could harm children. This worry is fairly strong: it is used to make the protection of children sound urgent and important. Its purpose is to justify the campaign’s goals and to make readers care about the potential effects on children. Pride and determination show up in descriptions of Katy Faust leading a “new coalition” and founding an organization that “describes its goal” and “produced legal briefs, policy guidance, educational materials, and a curriculum.” Those words communicate a confident, purposeful drive; the emotion is moderate and serves to portray Faust as active and serious about her mission, which can build trust among readers who favor leadership and organization. Defensive resolve is implied when the campaign “aims to change public opinion” and “pass state-level laws,” suggesting a purposeful effort to counter existing legal decisions; this emotion is moderately strong and frames the actors as on a mission to reverse court outcomes, which can inspire action among supporters. Apprehension and alarm about legal consequences appear in the mention that state laws “could provoke court challenges to Obergefell v. Hodges,” giving a tone of legal threat; this is a warning-level emotion designed to make readers feel the stakes are high. The text also carries skeptical or critical emotions toward the campaign, visible where independent scholars and reviewers “criticized those studies’ methodology and conclusions,” and where international reviews “have concluded” different findings. That skepticism is clear and somewhat strong, serving to undermine the campaign’s evidence and to prompt doubt in the reader. Disapproval and concern are present when coalition partners are described as having “histories of opposing LGBTQ rights,” promoting “conversion therapy,” or using “demeaning terms.” Those words convey moral judgment and worry; the emotion functions to make readers view some coalition members negatively and question the coalition’s motives. Sympathy and complexity appear subtly in the mention of Faust’s personal family history—“parental divorce” and a “mother who later entered a relationship with a woman”—and in the note that the mother could not be reached for comment. These touches evoke human complexity and mild sadness, reducing a purely political frame and inviting empathy or at least recognition of personal stakes. Finally, a defensive, rights-focused certainty emerges in repeated statements that children’s rights “should take precedence” over adults’ desires; this asserts moral certainty and is emotionally firm, aiming to persuade readers that this priority is correct and nonnegotiable. Together, these emotions guide the reader by highlighting risk and urgency around children, portraying Faust and allies as determined and organized, and casting doubt on the campaign’s evidence and some partners’ motives. The emotional mix invites readers to feel protective about children, wary of questionable research and allies, and attentive to legal consequences.

The writer uses several rhetorical techniques to heighten these emotions. Repetition of the phrase “children’s rights” and related formulations centers the piece on a moral claim and reinforces concern and urgency; repeating the idea makes it seem more important and harder to ignore. Presenting institutional actions—founding a nonprofit, producing briefs, issuing curricula—uses concrete, active verbs to show commitment and build an image of responsibility and competence, which intensifies pride and trust. Contrasting claims appear when the text pairs Faust’s citations of studies with immediate notes that those studies were “criticized” and that international reviews found different conclusions; this juxtaposition creates doubt and amplifies skepticism by placing opposing views side by side. Personal detail about family history functions as an emotional anchor: including a private background amid policy discussion humanizes Faust and complicates the reader’s reaction, softening purely political judgments and invoking sympathy. Use of charged nouns and phrases—“conversion therapy,” “demeaning terms,” “oppose LGBTQ rights,” and “provoke court challenges”—adds moral weight and alarm; these words are emotionally loaded rather than neutral and steer readers toward concern or disapproval. Mentioning financial figures and funding sources—“over $900,000 in revenue,” “received donations from foundations”—adds a factual tone that, paired with critical context, can intensify suspicion about the campaign’s reach and motivations. Overall, the writer balances emotionally charged terms and concrete details, repeats key moral language, contrasts opposing scholarly claims, and introduces personal narrative to shape the reader’s feelings: to heighten concern for children, to present leaders as purposeful, and to encourage skepticism about evidence and some coalition members.