Legislation to change the definition of marriage – abolishing the “one man, one woman” definition codified only 14 years ago – is now working its way through the Washington State Legislature.

There is little doubt that the legislature has the power to engage in such social engineering if it chooses to do so. Such official affirmation of homosexual conduct would be a way for politicians to appease the two to three percent of the population who self-identify as “gay” or “lesbian” and placate others who do not grasp the implications of this massive social change.

But same-sex “marriage” is not being sold as a political payoff, or even (primarily) as a social service providing a package of legal and financial benefits to this population. Instead, advocates of redefining marriage argue that a belief in “civil rights” and “equality” actually compel such a radical redefinition of our most fundamental social institution.

Yet it was only six years ago that the state’s Supreme Court, in the case of Andersen v. King County, rejected such arguments in upholding the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act.

Continue reading »

Tags: Judge Barbara Madsen, Same-sex marriage, Washington

Comments: 2 |

This week brought yet another of those “you’ve gotta be kidding” stories.

The Associated Press reports that the Greek government has expanded its list of officially recognized “disabilities” to include pedophiles (as well as exhibitionists, kleptomaniacs, and pyromaniacs).

This mean pedophiles in Greece may now qualify for government-funded disability pay—not despite, but because of, their pedophilia.

I assume that the “disability” classification stems from identifying pedophilia as a mental illness. Yet not every “illness” is a “disability.” Wikipedia offers several definitions of “disability,” but a central concept is the existence of a “restriction in the ability to perform a normal activity of daily living.” Pedophiles do not have a “restriction in the ability to perform a normal activity.” They have an inclination to perform an abnormal activity. This is not a disability.

Taking pedophilia out of the realm of moral judgment and into the realm of mental health is one step toward normalizing it. Some advocates, like those at a conference in Baltimore last summer, would like to go the rest of the way and remove pedophilia from the list of mental disorders altogether. Now Greece is on the verge of actively subsidizing it.

Taken to an extreme, the Greek action runs the risk of creating a truly perverse incentive—for otherwise healthy individuals to become (or pretend to be) pedophiles merely in order to obtain government support payments.

Fortunately, Greek disability advocates have condemned the move as “incomprehensible.” Yannis Vardakastanis, who is blind, said, “It’s really not not serious to grant Peeping Toms a 20-30 pecent disability rate and 10 percent to diabetics.”

Given the fiscal crisis that has confronted Greece in recent years, it boggles the mind that they would even consider giving payments to pedophiles.

Tags: Disability, Greece, Pedophilia

Comments: 1 |

Book review:  A Queer Thing Happened to America:  And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been, by Michael L. Brown

Note: Dr. Brown will be giving a policy lecture about his book at the Family Research Council in Washington, DC on Thursday, January 5, 2012. For more information and to register, click here.

Reviewed by Caleb H. Price

In the span of a few short years, American culture has undergone a breath-taking shift in attitudes about homosexuality and transgenderism. Behaviors that were recently viewed by most to be unseemly, if not immoral, are now embraced.  What was good is now evil. What was evil is now good.

And while homosexual and transgender activists insist that there is no agenda in play, a closer look shows that this 180-degree turn was no accident.

In his latest book, A Queer Thing Happened to America, Dr. Michael L. Brown documents this cultural sea-change. Here, he takes the reader on an eye-popping account of the strange and bewildering trajectory that gay activists have charted for America.

And he persuasively argues that the trip we’re on will result in the catastrophic deconstruction of the most basic building blocks of human society – biological sex, marriage and family.

The topics covered in this comprehensive work are timely and helpful for understanding the GLBT political agenda. Brown fearlessly engages political correctness on these issues and winsomely encourages concerned citizens to step up the plate and take action before it’s too late.

Specifically, Brown details how our schools and universities have been strategically targeted by GLBT activists to bring about their revolution in the span of two short generations. Terms like “tolerance” and “diversity” now almost exclusively refer to sexual orientation and gender identity. And intellectually honest debate on these issues has been completely stifled in the academic and mental health professions.

In this context, Brown offers a strong rebuttal to the “born gay’ myth and the largely unquestioned view among cultural elites that “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are equivalent to race. And he points out the undeniable and disturbing parallels of this equation to issues like polyamory and pedophilia.

Continue reading »

Tags: Book Review, Homosexuality, Michael Brown, Transgenderism

Comments: 2 |

Ever since the highly-publicized suicide of a New Jersey college student in September of 2010, pro-homosexual activists have been using the issues of bullying and teen suicide as tools in pursuit of their political agenda, and as rhetorical weapons against those who oppose it. Every time another report surfaced about a suicide by a teenager who identified as or was perceived to be “gay,” and who had reportedly been bullied, the finger would be pointed directly at conservatives. Bullying causes suicides, we were told, and public expression of conservative political, social, or religious viewpoints concerning homosexuality causes bullying. Affirm homosexual conduct as morally neutral, or more kids will die.

As early as October of 2010, however, experts on suicide prevention were warning that this simplistic approach linking suicides (which are always tragic) to bullying (which is always wrong) could do more harm than good. An article based on an interview with Ann Haas, research director for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, asked, “[W]hat if the way we’re talking about these suicides could actually be encouraging vulnerable young people to copycat the tragic behavior?”

Continue reading »

Tags: bullying, Homosexuality

Comments: - |

It was encouraging to read Michael Gerson’s column in The Washington Post recently on scientific advances which raise the prospect of “Putting AIDS on the road to extinction.” He is right to say, “Religious conservatives have no objections to treatment and are neither shocked nor alarmed by circumcision.”

However, he ignores two huge “elephants in the room.” The first is the role of behavior change in reducing infections. A Ugandan AIDS prevention official wrote in the Post in 2008 about his country’s success in dramatically reducing AIDS prevalence through use of the “ABC” message—“Abstain” from sex until marriage, “Be faithful” to your spouse, and “use Condoms” only if you fail at A and B. Gerson celebrates that the cost of treatment is now less than $350 per person; but Sam L. Ruteikara noted, “Our successful ABC campaign cost just 29 cents per person each year.”

Gerson noted that circumcision has reduced “the risk of transmission from women to men,” and that early treatment reduced “transmission to a heterosexual partner.” This may be encouraging for Africa, but is less so at home, where the CDC reports that “more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV” are men who have sex with men (MSM), “the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily.” Discouraging anal intercourse and sex with multiple partners—practices not unique to homosexual men, but more prevalent among them—are part of “the only morally acceptable strategy” to help America share in the end of AIDS.

Tags: AIDS, Uganda

Comments: - |

Two acts of vandalism were committed in recent days against facilities associated with the debates over homosexuality—one on each side of the issue.

In Arlington Heights, Illinois, bricks were thrown through the glass doors and windows of the Christian Liberty Academy. That night, the Christian school was to host a banquet put on by Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH), a pro-family organization led by Peter LaBarbera. The banquet was to feature presentation of an award to Scott Lively, another pro-family activist who heads Abiding Truth Ministries.

In the other incident, an office door and two display cases of the GLBT Center at North Carolina State University in Raleigh were defaced with spray paint, including an anti-gay epithet.

Both acts of vandalism were contemptible, and Family Research Council (FRC) condemns them both equally. The debates over homosexuality, however emotional they may become, should be carried on peacefully by those on both sides. Physical attacks on people or property are never justified. (Will liberal groups join us in equally denouncing both acts? The Southern Poverty Law Center, which is quick to accuse conservatives of “hate,” chose to blame the victims, criticizing the attackers in Illinois primarily for “[a]dding fuel to a fire started and stoked by anti-gay activists.”)

So are there any differences between these two incidents? Yes. There is not the slightest evidence that the spray paint attack at NC State had any connection with any religious or political organization or public policy issue, or that it was perpetrated by anyone other than a lone thug.

Continue reading »

Tags: Christian Liberty Academy, Christianity, Hate Crimes, Homosexuality, Scott Lively, Violence

Comments: 6 |

This is Part 2 of a 2-part blog post based on the transcript of the Proposition 8 trial–the legal challenge to the state constitutional amendment, adopted by California voters in 2008, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Today (Monday, September 19), Broadway will be the scene of a star-studded “staged reading” of a new play–one based on the transcript of the trial in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now known as Perry v. Brown). The unprecedented trial, presided over by the (then closeted, now “out”) homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, resulted in Walker’s opinion in August 2010 declaring that the male-female definition of marriage violates the U. S. Constitution. The ruling is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

Yet the testimony of one of the actual plaintiffs in the case, Sandra Stier, undermines the argument by same-sex “marriage” advocates that “gay people are denied the fundamental right to marry just because of ‘who they are.’” It also directly contradicts Judge Walker’s “finding of fact” number 51: “Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.” In fact, Stier’s testimony undermines two of the most fundamental premises of the entire homosexual movement–the claims that people are “born gay,” and that a person’s sexual orientation can never change.

Continue reading »

Tags: California, Homosexuality, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Same-sex marriage

Comments: 3 |

On Monday, September 19, Broadway will be the scene of a star-studded “staged reading” of a new play—one based on the transcript of the trial in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now known as Perry v. Brown).

The Perry case is the federal constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman which was adopted by California voters in 2008. The unprecedented trial, presided over by the (then closeted, now “out”) homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, resulted in Walker’s stunningly biased opinion in August 2010 declaring that the male-female definition of marriage violates the U. S. Constitution. The ruling is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit—but if upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court, it would force the legalization of same-sex “marriage” on all fifty states (overturning the constitutions of thirty).

The play, titled simply “8,” was written by homosexual writer Dustin Lance Black, who won an Oscar for his screenplay for the biopic “Milk,” about the murdered homosexual San Francisco politician Harvey Milk. Actors Morgan Freeman and John Lithgow will portray attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson, the prominent Democratic and Republican attorneys (respectively) who teamed up to argue the case against Proposition 8. The one-night reading is a fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization formed to finance the lawsuit.

Continue reading »

Tags: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Proposition 8, Same-sex marriage

Comments: 1 |

Last month’s Senate hearing on a bill to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) featured a clash between Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and one of the witnesses defending DOMA, Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family.

Minnery’s testimony referred to the social science evidence showing children do best when raised by their own mother and father. He referred to one such study in his prepared testimony this way:

“In fact, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services explains in its new and exhaustive report, Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001-2007, that children living with their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to health care, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never live in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.”

Franken, however, triumphantly noted that in fact, these superior outcomes were associated with “nuclear” families, defined as “one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family.” Since the definition made no mention of the gender of the “married” parents, he concluded that “nuclear” families could be headed by “married” homosexual couples, too.

Continue reading »

Tags: Defense of Marriage Act, Families, Homosexuality

Comments: 1 |

Efforts to legalize homosexual “marriage” in New York remain stalled, at this writing, with the supporters of redefining marriage needing one more Republican vote in the state’s Senate.

Reports indicate that efforts are underway to draft expanded “religious exemptions” that could protect the liberty of religious organizations that disapprove of homosexual conduct or of homosexual “marriage.”

It is true that pro-family groups (including FRC) have argued that legalizing homosexual “marriage” would create a threat to religious liberty. The most often cited example is how Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia after those jurisdictions legalized homosexual “marriage,” because the group was unwilling to compromise its principles by placing adoptive children with homosexual couples.

But even if religious non-profits like Catholic Charities were to be protected, what about Christians in business, like the wedding photographer in New Mexico who was sued for declining to photograph a homosexual commitment ceremony?

The only kind of religious exemption broad enough to completely protect rights of conscience—one saying, basically, “Any person, organization, or business that does not approve of same-sex ‘marriage’ will not be required to recognize homosexual relationships as ‘marriages’”—would be completely unacceptable to the advocates of homosexual “marriage.” Forcing the rest of society to affirm and celebrate homosexual relationships is precisely the goal of their movement.

However, even such an absolute religious and conscientious exemption to a homosexual “marriage” bill would not make the redefinition of marriage acceptable, or even tolerable, for one simple reason—the principal objection to homosexual “marriage” has nothing to do with religion. This is something that people on both sides of this debate need to be constantly reminded of.

We are not just fighting for “the right of religions to define marriage for themselves,” apart from the definition of “civil marriage.” This is because, at its heart, marriage is neither a civil institution nor a religious institution.

Instead, marriage is a natural institution—rooted in the order of nature itself.

The reason marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman is because it takes precisely one man and one woman to create a new human life. Marriage is treated as a public institution because it is in the public interest (not just in the private interest of particular couples) for the human race to reproduce and continue into future generations.

It is also in the public interest for society to work at bonding each child to the mother and father whose sexual union produced them. This was evident even to the ancients, but modern social science has confirmed—beyond a shadow of a doubt—that children raised by their own married mother and father are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than children raised in any other living situation.

I wrote a pamphlet earlier this year listing “The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex ‘Marriage.’” The threat to religious liberty was only one out of the ten. Even if that harm could be thoroughly forestalled—a grade of 10% is still a failing grade.

The core message of the opposition to homosexual “marriage” is not just, “Don’t make us perform same-sex weddings in our church.” Instead, it is: “Society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad.”

That’s true whether you are a Christian, a Buddhist, or an atheist.

Tags: New York, Same-sex marriage

Comments: 4 |

Christianity Today’s Politics Blog featured an article on May 13 by Tobin Grant with the unfortunate headline, “Is Same-Sex Marriage Legal Under Federal Law? Maybe. Sometimes.”

This headline is entirely wrong. Same-sex “marriage” is absolutely, unequivocally not legal under federal law. Ever. At any time.

Continue reading »

Tags: Christianity Today, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Eric Holder, Marriage, Same-sex marriage, Tobin Grant

Comments: 3 |

Last week, the journal Pediatrics published a study designed to bolster the political case for pro-homosexual policies in schools.

The Associated Press described the findings this way: “Suicide attempts by gay teens — and even straight kids — are more common in politically conservative areas where schools don’t have programs supporting gay rights.”

The study’s author, Mark Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University, called his findings “a call to action in providing a roadmap for how we can begin to reduce suicide in LGB youth.”

Enact anti-discrimination policies that include “sexual orientation” as a protected category, adopt anti-bullying policies that give special protections to homosexuals instead of protecting everyone equally, and form pro-homosexual “gay-straight alliances” in the schools, and you will save lives, he appears to be saying. (Oh, and it also helps to have more homosexual couples and registered Democrats living in your county.)

Those five variables were used as a measure of the “social environment.” The study, based on self-reports in a survey of young people across Oregon, found:

Among LGB [lesbian, gay, bisexual] youth, the risk of attempting suicide was 20% greater in negative environments compared with positive environments (25.47% of LGB living in negative environments attempted suicide at least once [in the last year] versus 20.37% in positive environments).

But to focus on the results this way is to ignore the study’s most significant finding. Reuters did a much better job than AP in identifying it, beginning its story this way:

Continue reading »

Comments: 7 |

The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted in 1996 by large bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It ensured that states would not have to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states, and that the federal government would recognize only the union of one man and one woman as “marriage.”

Yet now, DOMA is under the sharpest attack in its history—despite the fact that four federal courts have already upheld its constitutionality, and no federal or state appellate court has ever said that it violates the U.S. Constitution. In July 2010, however, a single federal District Court Judge in Boston, Joseph L. Tauro, ruled in a pair of cases that the federal definition of marriage in DOMA is unconstitutional. In November 2010, two more federal court challenges to DOMA were filed in New York and Connecticut. In total, there are no less than ten currently pending federal court cases which involve some form of challenge to DOMA. Here are some key questions and answers about the current status of this law:

Q: What did Attorney General Eric Holder announce on February 23 about the administration’s position regarding the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

A: In a press release and in a letter to Congress, Mr. Holder said that he and President Obama have concluded that one of the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act—the one which limits the federal government to recognizing only marriages between one man and one woman—is unconstitutional. This marked a sharp reversal, since the Department of Justice has submitted several briefs defending the constitutionality of DOMA in previous court cases.

This decision represents a shocking abdication of the Attorney General’s, and the President’s, constitutional responsibility to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and sets a dangerous precedent for future executive refusals to defend existing law.

Q: What motivated this change of position?

A: Politics likely played a major role, as the Obama Administration has been under intense pressure from pro-homosexual activists to stop defending DOMA. There is also evidence which suggests collusion between the Justice Department and attorneys who are challenging DOMA and the definition of marriage in court. Attorneys in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, who seek to overturn California’s marriage amendment (Proposition 8) and establish a federal constitutional right to same-sex “marriage,” filed a Motion to Vacate Stay with the Ninth Circuit, containing detailed citations from the Attorney General’s letter, just hours after the letter was released.

Family Research Council has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for any communications between the DOJ and litigants and attorneys in this case or in the cases challenging DOMA in other courts.

Q: Hasn’t President Obama opposed DOMA all along?

A: Yes, Mr. Obama favors the repeal of DOMA. However, it is possible to believe that a law represents bad public policy, while at the same time believing that it does not violate the Constitution. This had been the position of the Obama administration until February 23, 2011.

Q—How can the Administration justify such an about-face?

A: Earlier cases challenging the constitutionality of DOMA (such as the Massachusetts cases decided by Judge Tauro) had been filed in federal court circuits in which there was controlling precedent saying that classifications based on “sexual orientation” are subject only to a “rational basis” test—the most lenient level of scrutiny, under which legislative choices are accorded the greatest deference. The DOJ’s briefs had argued that DOMA was constitutional by this standard.

The new lawsuits challenging DOMA in New York and Connecticut, however, were filed in federal courts located in a circuit (the Second) without any such precedent. Mr. Holder claims that this caused the DOJ to re-examine the question of the appropriate standard of inquiry, and that in turn led him to declare that “classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny.”

Q: What does “heightened scrutiny” mean?

A: When a law creates a “classification” that treats some individuals or groups differently from others (in this case, treating opposite-sex couples differently from same-sex couples), it may sometimes be challenged as violating the Constitution’s guarantee of the “equal protection” of the law. However, most laws are judged under a “rational basis” test, meaning that a legislative enactment will be upheld as long as there is any conceivable rational basis for the classification.

However, “heightened scrutiny” usually applies to classifications based on characteristics considered immutable and irrelevant to legitimate policy objectives, possessed by groups who are minorities or politically powerless and have been subject to a history of discrimination. The classic examples are race and sex. The Supreme Court has never said that this standard applies to “sexual orientation.” It would increase the chances of a court striking down laws which limit marriage or its benefits to the union of one man and one woman, such as DOMA.

Q: How did the Attorney General justify this call for “heightened scrutiny.”

A: Mr. Holder asserted that “a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable.” However, he cited only one source in support of this contention—one dated 1992. In a footnote, he further claims that “discrimination has been based on the incorrect belief that sexual orientation is a behavioral characteristic that can be changed.”

In fact the theory that there is a “gay gene” or that people are “born gay” has been largely discredited by science since the early 1990’s. Studies of identical twins, such as one in the American Journal of Sociology in 2002, “support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent” homosexuality. And evidence that homosexuals can change has come even from Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist who led the effort to remove homosexuality from the official list of mental disorders. In a 2003 study, Spitzer found that “changes [in sexual orientation] . . . were not limited to sexual behavior and . . . self-identity. The changes encompassed sexual attraction . . . the core aspects of sexual orientation.”

Q: Who can defend DOMA if the Justice Department refuses to?

A: The courts have long recognized Congress’s vital interest in defending the constitutionality of its Acts in the rare circumstances that the Justice Department refuses to provide such a defense. This happens as recently as 1983 in INS v. Chadha. The Supreme Court made clear in the 1997 case Raines v. Byrd that individual members cannot assert these interests, as Congress can only act through resolutions passed by the majority. Either chamber may do so individually.

Q: What would it mean if DOMA were struck down by the courts?

A: The immediate result would be federal government recognition of same-sex “marriages” that are already legal in the state where they occurred. However, if the federal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is found unconstitutional, it would be only a matter of time before the same definition at the state level would be struck down—including in the 29 states that have put that definition in their own constitutions. This is exactly the remedy sought by the plaintiffs in Perry (the Proposition 8 case), which is now before the Ninth Circuit.

Q: What should be done now?

A: Congress must continue to defend DOMA in court, since the Justice Department refuses to do so. Bills to legalize same-sex “marriage” must be defeated in state legislatures, and additional state marriage amendments must be adopted defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These make it hard for any court to find that there is an “emerging consensus” in favor of same-sex “marriage.” Finally, pro-family groups actively involved in the defense of marriage in court, such as the Alliance Defense Fund, and others involved in filing and coordinating amicus briefs, such as Family Research Council, need financial support for these efforts.

It is quite possible that the issue of same-sex “marriage” will reach the U. S. Supreme Court in 2012 or 2013. Pro-family citizens and office-holders must “speak now, or forever hold your peace.”

Tags: Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Eric Holder, Marriage, Obama, Obama Administration, Same-sex marriage

Comments: 2 |

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which last month declared that Family Research Council, American Family Association, and several other socially conservative organizations are “anti-gay hate groups,” seems to be growing increasingly frantic in their efforts to defend this smear. But in their desperation, they have doubled down on the charge, only reinforcing how absurd it is.

On December 16, SPLC President and CEO J. Richard Cohen sent a letter to several of the individuals who signed an ad urging that liberals “Start Debating” homosexuality and “Stop Hating” groups that express disapproval of homosexual conduct in a civil manner. In defense of the “hate group” designation, Cohen stated this in his letter:

If a neo-Nazi group said all Jews are “vermin,” no one would argue with our characterizing it as a hate group. The same should be true for groups that knowingly spread demonizing falsehoods about gay men and lesbians.

There you have it. Cohen openly declares that he considers FRC fully equivalent to a “neo-Nazi” group that says, “all Jews are ‘vermin.’”

Where is Mr. Cohen’s evidence that Family Research Council, or anyone who works for FRC, has ever said that “all gay men and lesbians are ‘vermin’?” You will search in vain for such a statement.

For the record, FRC believes that every human being, including those who experience same-sex attractions and those who engage in homosexual conduct, is created in the image of God and is loved by Him. How this qualifies as “hate” is a mystery.

We will be preparing a more detailed response to Cohen’s charge that FRC spreads “falsehoods” in our well-documented research, which does show that certain harms are associated with homosexual conduct. Those wishing to examine that research in the meantime can refer to the FRC book Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows About Homosexuality or to our recent pamphlet, The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality.

However, if comparing a large, widely-respected public policy organization (whose mission statement calls for defense of a “Judeo-Christian worldview”) to “a neo-Nazi group” that says, “all Jews are ‘vermin’” is not a “demonizing falsehood,” I don’t know what is.

Comments: 1 |

Gen. James F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, suggested in an interview yesterday that allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military could not only harm unit cohesion, but could actually increase casualties. Here are the opening paragraphs of the Washington Post report on the subject:

Marine general suggests repeal of ‘don’t ask’ could result in casualties

The Marine Corps’ top general suggested Tuesday that allowing gays to serve openly in the military could result in more casualties because their presence on the battlefield would pose “a distraction.”

“When your life hangs on the line,” said Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, “you don’t want anything distracting. . . . Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines’ lives.”

In an interview with newspaper and wire service reporters at the Pentagon, Amos was vague when pressed to clarify how the presence of gays would distract Marines during a firefight. But he cited a recent Defense Department survey in which a large percentage of Marine combat veterans predicted that repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law would harm “unit cohesion” and their tight-knit training for war.

“So the Marines came back and they said, ‘Look, anything that’s going to break or potentially break that focus and cause any kind of distraction may have an effect on cohesion,’ ” he said. “I don’t want to permit that opportunity to happen. And I’ll tell you why. If you go up to Bethesda [Naval] Hospital . . . Marines are up there with no legs, none. We’ve got Marines at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] with no limbs.”

Amos had said previously that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly could cause “distractions” and “risks” for combat units. But his remarks Tuesday were the first time that he or any other senior military leader has suggested that repealing the 17-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” law could directly endanger troops and cost lives.

Advocates for repeal of the current law against homosexuality in the military are scoffing at Gen. Amos’ remarks, insisting there is no conceivable scenario under which the presence of homosexual troops could lead to casualties.

However, retired Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan gave a specific example of how this could happen in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee last March—an example drawn from his own personal experience in combat in Vietnam. Here is his description of the incident, from the transcript of the March 18 hearing (bottom of p. 16 to p. 17 in the link):

General SHEEHAN. Senator, in my experience, homosexual marines create problems on the battlefield. Let me give you a case and point.

Early years of Vietnam, 9th Marines, West of Da Nang, rifle company on a ridgeline combat outpost, the intelligence was that the North Vietnamese were going to attack, that night. The unit was put on 50-percent alert, which meant one slept, one stood on watch. About 1 o’clock in the morning, a fight broke out in a foxhole because the young marine was being molested by his squad leader. To the right of that foxhole, there was a machinegun section that opened up and almost killed a combat patrol that was out in the front.

Now, the natural question is, ‘‘Okay. Well, fine, don’t you have rules that deal with assault?’’ and the answer to that’s yes.

The real issue, though, was that, after we sorted this whole thing out, the sergeant—the squad leader essentially said, ‘‘Look, I was just adjusting his equipment, waking him up because the—I thought there was something out to the front.’’ He denied it happened. The young PFC, who was new to the organization, said, ‘‘Wait a minute. This really happened to me. He was molesting me.’’ The unit took sides, naturally. The squad leader was a popular person, been around for a while. The PFC was a new kid. For about 3 days, that unit divided down the middle—those that supported the popular squad leader, those that kind of thought the new kid might be believable.

The only reason we sorted the issue out was because the sergeant committed the offense about 3 days later. But, the real tragedy of this story is, the young PFC continually insisted, for a long period of time, that nobody in his organization believed it happened. He lost faith in his chain of command.

So, I would argue the case that, if you look at—and you can say that I’m some old guy that’s been around for a while, and been—probably been around for too long. But, I read——

Senator MCCAIN. You’re not the only one that——

General SHEEHAN. Well—but, I read the Defense Department’s recently released sexual assault report. And the thing that really bothers me about this issue is that the report says—and this is last year’s report—there’s been an overall 11-percent rise in sexual assaults in the military; 16-percent rise in Afghanistan and Iraq; 32—over 3200 cases of sexual—we’re not talking about sexual harassment, we’re talking about sexual assault. Seven percent of those— that’s about 226—male on male assaults, where rape and sodomy took place. And the Department of Defense will clearly indicate that that’s an underreporting.

I would stipulate that, from my days in Vietnam in the early ’60s, when I had this sergeant that almost got a combat patrol killed, that a—226 male soldiers and marines who are molested—that there’s something wrong with our sexual behavior policy.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Homosexuals, Military

Comments: - |

When a journalist does not reveal the most important part of a news story until the middle of it, instead of opening with it, it’s known as “burying the lead.”

This appears to be what the Pentagon has done with the report of its Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) on the subject of homosexuality in the military.

The report, and most of the media coverage, emphasized the conclusion from a survey of Service members that “70% of Service members predicted it [repeal of the current law] would have a positive, mixed, or no effect.”

However, as we have already noted, interpreting the “mixed” category as being supportive of repeal is questionable at best. Advocates of repeal do not agree that it would affect the military “equally as positively as negatively,” which is what the “mixed” response refers to. We could just as easily note that “62% of respondents believed that repeal would have at least some negative effects.”

The even more revealing statement, however, does not appear in the report’s Executive Summary at all, but only shows up on page 49. Referring to responses in focus groups and other forums which were provided to allow feedback from the troops, the CRWG was forced to admit that “our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against repeal of the current policy.”

Of course, the report hastily notes that these were not scientifically representative samples of the force as a whole, and the survey was. However, as we must repeatedly point out, the survey did not ask whether respondents were for or against overturning the current law. Hence these less formal media were the only way for the troops to express their views on the central issue.

Whenever you hear that vague and misleading “70%” figure, remember that buried lead on p. 49—that “the majority of views expressed were against repeal.”

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Homosexuality, Pentagon Report

Comments: - |

There are numerous arguments pro and con on the issue of homosexuality in the military, but the survey of Service members released by the Pentagon on Tuesday has decisively proved at least one argument against the current push to overturn existing law, and decisively refuted at least one argument in favor of that effort.

The Comprehensive Review Working Group report actually identified these arguments in their summary of “What We Heard” about the issue. One argument against repeal was described as: “Why now? We are at war.” Many have argued that with our armed forces stretched by the demands of two wars, this is not the time to impose further strain by implementing a radical change in personnel policy to appease a political interest group. (FRC does not believe there would ever be a “good” time for such a change—but the immediate circumstances are nevertheless a legitimate concern for lawmakers facing an immediate legislative vote).

It has been widely reported that soldiers and Marines in combat arms units were more likely to predict negative impacts from repeal of current law than were other Service members. While 62% of all Service members expected at least some negative results if current law were overturned, the same was true of 74% of all Marines and of Army combat arms soldiers, and 82% of Marines in combat arms units. An outright majority of the latter group, 57.5%, declared bluntly that it would affect their “task cohesion” either negatively or “very negatively,” while a minuscule 9% foresaw a positive impact.

The people on the front lines of our wars are the most concerned about repeal—a compelling argument against it.

On the other hand, the CRWG described the advocates of repeal as arguing, “We need everyone willing and able to serve.” In other words, the military simply cannot afford to lose the skills of existing or potential homosexual Service members. This is an issue of recruiting and retention—what policy will provide the military with the personnel that it needs.

Here again, the results are overwhelming. The surveys showed that the number who would be less willing to recommend a military career if open homosexuality is permitted is four times higher than the number who would be more willing to recommend it. In addition, the percentage who would themselves leave the military sooner than planned or consider doing so if current law is repealed, was more than six times higher than the number who would stay longer or consider doing so.

It’s clear—the personnel losses to the military as a result of repeal would vastly outnumber any gains from allowing homosexuals in the ranks.

These are two strong points against the effort to overturn current law, even in a report designed to support that effort.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Homosexuality, Military

Comments: 1 |

The Pentagon’s Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) on the issue of homosexuality in the military, which issued its report yesterday, was extremely selective in the way it crunched the numbers when reporting the results of a survey of Service members. By following the CRWG’s lead, the media has missed the biggest story—the fact that more Service members expect negative consequences than positive consequences if the current law is overturned, according to virtually every question that was asked.

You would not know that from the way the findings were reported. Speaking of the possibility of overturning the 1993 law which codified the military’s longstanding ban on open homosexuality in the ranks, they said

“70% of Service members predicted it [repeal] would have a positive, mixed, or no effect.”

Here is the question on which the “70 percent” figure is based:

“If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect how service members in your immediate unit work together to get the job done?” (this is a measure of what they refer to as “task cohesion”).

The choices for response were:

1) Positively or Very Positively

2) Equally positively and negatively

3) No effect

4) Negatively or Very Negatively

The responses were:

1) Positively or Very Positively:  18.4%

2) Equally positively and negatively: 32.1%

3) No effect: 19.9%

4) Negatively or Very Negatively: 29.6%

The CRWG arrived at the much-repeated “70%” figure by adding together the first three categories.

However, the homosexual activists who are pushing for repeal do not argue that there would be “equally positive and negative” effects. They argue that there would be no negative effects whatsoever, or at least that the positive effects would overwhelmingly outnumber the negative. Therefore, contrary to the way the CRWG and the media have presented it, the “equally positive and negative” answer should not be taken as supporting the case for overturning current law.

In fact, only answers 1 and 3 (positive or no effect) should be considered supportive of the case that is usually made for repeal. Answers 2 and 4 both indicate that repeal would have negative consequences. Viewed this way, we can argue that

• 62% of Service members predicted at least some negative effects from repeal, while only 38% predicted only positive or no effects.

However, I would go further and argue that the “no effect” response does not support the case for repeal, either. I realize that homosexual activists appeal to concepts like “justice” and “equality” to argue that if there is “no effect,” then the law should be changed. But there is no constitutional right to serve in the military, and the exclusion law is fundamentally based on behavior, not “identity,” so “justice” and “equality” are not at stake here.

The only legitimate argument for changing the status quo is if the change would improve the effectiveness of the military as a fighting force. And here, the results of the survey are dramatically clear—those who foresee a negative consequence from repeal outnumber those who foresee a positive consequence on virtually every question. (FRC’s analysis of the report is ongoing, but this statement is true of all 53 questions featuring some negative/positive breakdown that are described in Chapter VII of the CRWG report.)

Furthermore, in many cases the ratios of Negative or Very Negative responses to Positive or Very Positive ones were very dramatic. For example, repeal was:

• More than four times more likely to have a negative than a positive impact on “your willingness to recommend to a family member or close friend that he or she join the military” (27.3% negative to 6.3% positive).

• More than six times more likely to have a negative than a positive impact on “your military career plans” (i.e., “intentions to remain in the military”)—23.7% negative to 3.5% positive.

• Nearly six times more likely to have a negative than a positive impact on “your level of morale” (27.9% negative to 4.8% positive).

The report makes much of the fact that those who say they are already “working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian” give more positive responses. However, it is important to note that even among this group, negative responses outnumber positive ones on every question.

For example, even those currently serving with a “gay or lesbian” colleague say repeal is:

• Nearly two and a half (2.48) times more likely to have a negative than a positive impact on “your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission in a field environment or out at sea (37.5% to 15.1%).

• More than two and a half times more likely to have a negative than a positive impact on “your unit’s ability to train well together” (26.5% to 10.0%).

To take these surveys as supporting the case for overturning the law is a grave misreading of their findings.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell

Comments: 5 |

Opponents of abstinence-until-marriage education argue, among other things, that it is “unrealistic.” As evidence, they point to survey data indicating that a majority of Americans now do, in fact, have sexual relations before marrying.

However, the message of the abstinence movement (and related movements favoring the words “purity” or “chastity”) is not so simplistic as to say that if a person “loses his or her virginity” before marrying, that person is then beyond redemption. On the contrary—while any premarital sex can have lasting consequences, it is never too late to begin the practice of abstinence/purity/chastity, regardless of one’s past mistakes.

A beautiful testimony to that truth appeared November 14 in, of all places, the Washington Post. The story begins like this:

Gareth Warren didn’t know what to think in the summer of 2008 when the grandmother of his godson handed him a book titled “The Best Sex of My Life.”

Then he read the subtitle: “A Guide to Purity.”

“She just said, ‘I want to give this to you,’ ” says Warren, who wasn’t exactly focused on sexual purification at that point.

In his dating life, the 26-year-old assistant vice president at GE Capital had always gravitated toward models and cheerleaders. His relationships were usually fun, but ultimately unfulfilling.

Warren gradually became persuaded by the message of the book and changed his lifestyle. Then he was introduced to the young, female author of the book, a medical doctor named Lindsay Marsh.

(Spoiler alert!)

As you might have guessed, Warren and Marsh ended up together, and were married on October 30.

Read the whole story.  You can read about Marsh’s organization, Worth the Wait Revolution, here.

Comments: - |

(Caution: Some of the information below, and the website it describes, are not appropriate for children.)

Some homosexual activists are their own worst enemies.

The latest evidence of that fact is a website recently brought to my attention by someone who wrote to the Family Research Council. I refuse to post an actual link to this website, but you can easily type it in yourself.  It follows the form of f**h8.com, with letters in the second and third positions.

The beginning of that web address is the three consonants of a well-known four-letter obscenity known as “the f-word.” The “h8” at the end of that address stands for “hate.”

Homosexual activists have been spelling it “h8” ever since the successful 2008 campaign in California to pass Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Twenty-nine of the fifty states now have such amendments.

Leave aside, for the moment, the mystery of how treating uniquely the human relationship that is uniquely capable of reproducing the human race, and believing that children deserve a mother and a father, could possibly constitute “hate.”

If you go to the website, you will find a short (two minutes or so) video. It consists of several people ranting and raving against the opponents of same-sex “marriage”–while repeatedly “dropping the f-bomb.”

Is this supposed to be funny? Do homosexual activists really think that the way to persuade opponents of same-sex “marriage” to support it is–to swear at people? Repeatedly?

During the Proposition 8 campaign, one of the most effective issues for advocates of Prop. 8 was the concern that children would be taught to affirm and celebrate homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” in the public schools. Opponents vehemently insisted that same-sex “marriage” would have no impact on schools or on children whatsoever. So then what happened? A class of first-graders was brought to San Francisco City Hall to witness the wedding of their lesbian teacher. So much for the “no impact” claim.

Another example occurred in the recent debate over legislation that would repeal the current law against open homosexuality in the military. To break a filibuster, liberals had targeted two Republican senators–Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine. To sway the votes of Collins and Snowe, homosexual activists staged a major rally in Maine the day before the vote. The headline speaker was Stefani Germanotta, the 24-year-old, strangely-dressed, boundary-pushing pop singer better known as “Lady Gaga.” The effort failed, as Collins and Snowe voted with the rest of the Republican caucus. But did homosexual activists really believe that the gentleladies from Maine would be persuaded by Lady Gaga?

Actually, the point of the anti-“H8” web video is not to change minds–it’s to raise money. You can buy t-shirts, buttons, or stickers bearing the “F**H8” message, or milder and less cryptic ones like, “Some dudes marry dudes. Get over it.” Proceeds will “help fund the fight for equal marriage rights.”

Five dollars from the sale of each thirteen-dollar t-shirt is donated to one of four pro-homosexual activist groups (none of which sponsor or endorse the website). One is the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which was founded by Hollywood actor and director Rob Reiner (yes, the “meathead” from All in the Family) to hire Republican and Democratic super-lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies for a federal lawsuit to overturn Proposition 8. So the August decision by Judge Vaughn Walker (now on appeal), that same-sex “marriage” is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, was funded (at least in some small part) by “f-bombs” on the web.

But what is really shocking about the video is this: three of its participants are children. Not teenagers–young, pre-adolescent children. One is a boy who appears to be about six years old. Another is a girl who looks to be perhaps nine. The third is a girl who is perhaps eleven. And yes–the children drop the “f-bomb” too.

Is this supposed to be funny? It’s not. It’s child abuse.

Two of the children make specific reference to their “gay” parents. I don’t know if this is true, or if they are just young actors reading a script.

But either way–can they really believe that swearing children are a good tool to expand support for their cause? Are we to understand that this would be the brave new world under “gay” parenting and same-sex “marriage”–a world in which parents teach obscenities to their children, then put videos of them using those obscenities on the web to raise money?

If so–God help us. And God save the children.

Tags: Homosexuality, Olympia Snowe, Same-sex marriage, Susan Collins

Comments: 6 |