Eagle Scout activist shares family story at DNC

AP Zach Wahls waves after addressing the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte on Sept. 6, 2012. Zach Wahls, who has … Continued


Zach Wahls waves after addressing the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte on Sept. 6, 2012.

Zach Wahls, who has already made a name for himself as an Internet sensation, still can’t believe his role in the Democratic National Convention.

The 19-year-old Iowa delegate addressed the convention. The author of “My Two Moms: Lessons of Love, Strength and What Makes a Family” was invited to discuss his family and support for same-sex marriage. Last year, he spoke to the state legislature as it debated marriage equality.

“It was a huge honor and a distinct privilege,” Wahls said in an e-mail to The Washington Post about his DNC appearance. “Hard to overstate. I had an absolute blast preparing my remarks, seeing all of the behind-the-scenes work that goes into a convention and meeting so many inspirational people.

In August, Wahls, an Eagle Scout traveled to the nation’s capital to speak out against the Boy Scouts of America’s policy barring gay scouts and leaders.

“More than anything else, I just wanted to convey to those watching family has meant to my moms, my sister and me. Standing up for the inherent worth and dignity of all people and all families is an incredibly important part of the American destiny, and I’m proud that the Democratic Party has been willing to embrace families like ours,” Wahls said.

Here’s what he said at the DNC:

Written by


    Mayflower compact:

    In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
    Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
    In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.[13]

  • jay2drummer

    Constitution of the United States:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

  • cricket44

    An outstanding young man and commendable U.S. citizen. His mothers have done well and must be very proud. Mr. Wahls’ dignified and well-articulated defense of his family far outshines the classless attacks against them.

  • Sunderland

    I think he meant we are meant to be under the sovereignty of England, France, Ireland and Scotland. At least that’s what I got out of it.

  • jay2drummer

    Yeah, except he HIMSELF points to his parents and the values they instilled and their parenting in making him who he is. It was being raised in a loving and nurturing environment that made him who he is today.

  • persiflage

    ‘Yes, it is amazing what this young man has accomplished despite having perverts acting as his parents.’

    I suppose in the same way that the children of Christian fundamentalists occasionally go on to become loving, accepting humans without the deeply instilled prejudices and religiously based limitations of their parents – although this is probably not a common occurance.

    As a fellow Eagle Scout of a different generation, I can appreciate this young man’s accomplishments in the face of certain social adversity. His exceptional character exceeds the moral accomplishments of his critics by magnitudes.

  • Catken1

    Ah, yes, but you forget, in Scott’s eyes, if you do well having parents who are Like Him, it was because of their good parenting – if you do well being raised by parents who aren’t Like Him, it was in spite of their bad parenting.
    He literally cannot see that there are good, decent and healthy people in the world other than those who follow his religion and abide by all its rules, however cruel and arbitrary – because then he’d have to justify kissing up to and fawning on a god who burns most of humanity, good, decent and kind people, forever and ever, for not believing as he does. If you find safety in kissing up to Abusive Sky-Daddy so that he won’t hurt you, it’s much easier if you can deny the decency, goodness and humanity of those of his children that he does choose to hurt.

  • ThomasBaum

    If God was even remotely like what many, not all but many, of all persuasions, think/believe and sometimes it seems want God to be, I can not see how anyone, that would actually give some thought to the matter, would want to have anything to do with such a vile being, which is their “conception” of God.

    God gave us both emotion and intellect and in my opinion, we should use both even tho some seem to think that intellect without any input from emotion is superior.

    Seems to me that some would prefer a machine to run things with an approach like this.

    For those that do not believe in God, gods or anything “higher”, so to speak, than man, we still have both emotion and intellect and using one without the other, either way, makes one less than the human that they are.

    As I have said many times and I will repeat myself, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows, seems a pretty sure bet that many will be surprised to find this out one day.

    At the other end of these posts, I addressed this to Catken1 but here I would like to ask ScottinVA if he has ever given any thought to the absolutely horrible, vile, disgusting implications of what his “conception” of God seems to mean to a rather large segment, maybe even a majority, of God’s creation?

    Have you?

    If you have, do you really think that your “conception” of God is something to be thankful for?

    If not, why not?