So let's think about this idea that a child has a right to both a mother and a father. As anyone who's studied judicial history concerning rights-to, this stuff can get tricky. It's much easier and more clear-cut to legislate and judiciate on rights-from than on rights-to. Think about the policies that would follow from a statement like Garlow's. If every child has a right to both a mother and a father, then children of single parents should be removed from their custody and placed in suitably heteronormative foster homes. This would at bare minimum apply to families in which the parent is single due to abandonment or death of a spouse. But I would suspect Garlow and his type think that having two parents who live in different households is pretty much the same as not having both a mother and a father. So this would mean that children of any single parents ought to be "reassigned" to properly intact families in order to protect their right to have both a mother and a father.
In one of Kierkegaard's musings on the church and it's teachings, he writes that the clergy often begin to delve into a biblical passage, but then they glimpse the implications, which are distasteful to them, so they back off and "fail to think the thought whole". This is an example of the opposite situation - Garlow and his type routinely fail to even consider the implications of their words, and because of intellectual laziness or denial of the logical implications that their position entails, they fail to think the thought whole, and thus end up defending incoherent (or at least very objectionable) positions.