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“If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect how service members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 |

Here’s how an article in the Washington Post today began:

“A majority of active-duty and reserve service members surveyed by the Defense Department would not object to serving and living alongside openly gay troops, according to multiple people familiar with the findings.

“The survey’s results are expected to be included in a Pentagon report, due to President Obama on Dec. 1 . . . .”

The sources who leaked this information, or the reporter who wrote it, or both, are highly biased in favor of the pro-homosexual position on this issue. How can I tell? Because I have seen the survey, and it never asks, “Would you object to serving and living alongside openly gay troops?”

FRC will soon be releasing a more detailed analysis of the weaknesses of the two surveys (one of service members and one of their spouses). But ever since the surveys were announced and their contents were—again—leaked, we have been criticizing them for failing to ask the most fundamental question of all—“Do you believe that the current law on homosexuality in the armed forces should be repealed?” Instead, the surveys (and the entire study by the “Comprehensive Review Working Group”) have been premised on the idea that the law will be repealed, and they seek to determine only how such a change should be implemented.

The military is a hierarchical, command-based structure. Therefore, when the Congress, the Commander-in-Chief, possibly the courts, and one’s immediate superiors all say that you must serve and live “alongside openly gay troops,” to “object” is not an option. You either obey, or you leave.

On that point, the story goes on to say:

“Some troops surveyed – but not a majority – objected strongly to the idea of serving with gays and said they would quit the military if the policy changed . . .”

Is this how they concluded that “a majority . . . would not object?” It’s certainly a relief that a majority would not leave, because our armed forces would be destroyed if that happened. But if even ten percent were to leave (as one earlier poll suggested), it would have a devastating impact on our military.

Check frc.org for our more detailed critique of these surveys in coming weeks.

Comments: 1 |

Mark Thompson has posted a piece on Time magazine’s “Swampland” blog regarding the possible overturning (which he considers “inevitable”) of the current law against homosexual conduct in the military.

Such a radical change in military policy is hardly “inevitable.” Legislation to repeal the law is on life support following last month’s Senate vote to block it, and Judge Virginia Phillips’ muddled ruling that the law is unconstitutional ignored so much existing precedent that it is unlikely to be upheld.

Thompson, however, has delved into the archives of military history and relates findings about how African Americans were integrated within the armed forces without major difficulty. He concludes that the “integration” of homosexuals would take place just as smoothly.

One key difference, of course, is that blacks had long been eligible to serve in the military, but had served in segregated units. In contrast, homosexuals have always been considered ineligible for military service at all. (The popular misnomer “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” misleads many into believing that active homosexuals are currently welcomed by the military as long as they stay in the closet. The truth is the opposite—the 1993 law mandates, with very limited exceptions, the discharge of any servicemember who “has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts.”)

Furthermore, Thompson simply assumes the answer to two critical threshold questions:

1)      Is being “gay” like being black?

2)      Is sexual conduct relevant to military effectiveness?

The logical answer to #1 is no. Homosexuality is a behavioral characteristic; being black is a superficial matter of skin color. The racial integration of the military was successful precisely because it proved that the behavior of black soldiers did not differ from that of whites. But with homosexuality, a difference in behavior is what defines the issue. Do not be fooled by vague references to “sexual orientation” as though it were an innate characteristic—what homosexual activists now seek is the right to continue engaging in homosexual acts while in the military .

Homosexual activists compare “sexual orientation” to race in order to obscure the important differences between sexual attractions, behavior, and self-identification. Only the attractions are, like race, involuntary; but none of these elements of “sexual orientation” are (like race) inborn, immutable, innocuous, and in the Constitution.  The 1993 law which homosexual activists seek to overturn is focused on homosexual conduct, and treats attractions or self-identification as relevant only because they are evidence of “a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.”

So does the military have a legitimate interest in regulating the sexual conduct of its members? The answer has always been yes, with respect to heterosexual conduct as well as homosexual. Adultery, for instance, remains a crime in the military, at a time when the civil law has long since become indifferent to it. As Congress found in 1993, “high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion . . . are the essence of military capability,” and there is no doubt that sexual conduct can threaten those standards and harm that capability.

Sexual tension, sexual harassment, and sexual assault are problems that exist among heterosexuals in the military—but those problems would increase if homosexuals were allowed to serve, because it would be impossible to separate homosexuals the way that men and women are separated in their most intimate settings (showers, sleeping quarters, etc.). Increased health problems among homosexuals (in particular, dramatically higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV among men who have sex with men) would pose a direct challenge to military readiness.

The analogy to the racial integration of the military, even if it had any validity, would apply only to the concern that homosexuality in the military would damage recruiting and retention of personnel. But those are only two out of the nine likely negative consequences of repealing the current law that were identified by Col. Robert Maginnis in the FRC booklet Mission Compromised.  The others are:

• Damage to unit effectiveness.
• Health consequences with high cost.

• Threats to freedom of those who morally object to homosexuality.
• Special protections for homosexuals.
• Taxpayer-funded benefits to homosexual partners of servicemembers.
• Possibility of costly new living arrangements to protect privacy.
• Changes to military law and regulations regarding sexual offenses.

The argument that, as the “gay” newsmagazine The Advocate recently declared on its cover, “Gay is the New Black,” is one that most blacks resent, and that simply cannot stand up to serious scrutiny.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Homosexuality, Mark Thompson, Military, Virginia Phillips

Comments: 1 |

Sen. John Cornyn and Rep. Pete Sessions have come under criticism recently (including from FRC President Tony Perkins) over their decision to help the “Log Cabin Republicans” (LCR) raise money to elect pro-homosexual candidates by speaking at an LCR event on September 22.  Those who bought tickets to the event were clearly told that the “proceeds benefit LCR PAC.”

The Log Cabin Republicans have been at the forefront of trying to mainstream radical homosexual activism within the Republican party. They have tried to perpetuate (and Cornyn and Sessions seem to have fallen for) a myth that they are faithful Republicans who only have a small quibble with conservatives on issues involving homosexuality. But LCR’s refusal to even support George W. Bush for re-election in 2004 is but part of a large body of evidence that LCR is far out of the Republican mainstream.

In fact, this might be a good time to remind people why the group call themselves “Log Cabin Republicans” in the first place. The LCR website says, “The name of the organization is a reference to the first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who was born in a Log Cabin.  President Lincoln built the Republican Party on the principles of liberty and equality.”

Continue reading »

Comments: 1 |

This week San Francisco federal Judge Vaughn Walker, in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruled that the U.S. Constitution protects a right of same-sex couples to “marry.” This has sparked speculation about how the case might fare on appeal if and when it reaches the Supreme Court. Some commentators argue that the court’s decision striking down sodomy laws, in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, implies that the court would also back same-sex “marriage.” I wrote on that subject in 2004, and below are my observations, with quotes from the opinions in Lawrence.

The nuclear bomb of the homosexual marriage movement would be a decision by the United States Supreme Court declaring that it is unconstitutional to deny homosexual couples the benefits, or perhaps even the actual status, of civil marriage.

The likelihood of such a ruling appeared to increase exponentially when the Supreme Court struck down state laws against homosexual sodomy in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, which was decided on June 26, 2003.

Dissenting justice Antonin Scalia warned as much in his scathing dissent:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestialiy, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision: the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.[i]

However, a close examination of the majority opinion seems to cast doubt on Scalia’s sweeping claim that there was no such effort to “cabin” the ruling’s scope. For example, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision says this:

The laws involved in Bowers and here . . . seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.[ii]

In other words, he concedes that these relationships may not be “entitled to formal recognition,” i.e., marriage. He goes on immediately after to say:

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the state, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects.[iii]

Presumably he’s speaking of marriage here, and accepting that same-sex marriage, like adultery, might constitute “abuse of an institution the law protects.” Then in his conclusion, Kennedy again says:

The present case . . . does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.[iv]

Likewise, in her concurring opinion (basing her decision on equal protection considerations rather than privacy and due process), Justice O’Connor wrote:

That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–the asserted state interest in this case–other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.[v]

In referring to “national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage” as a “legitimate state interest,” she seems to be clearly saying that this case does not involve gays in the military or homosexual marriage.

Scalia, though, remained skeptical:

This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Justice O’Connor seeks to preserve them by the conclusory statement that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a legitimate state interest. But “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.

Although I greatly respect Justice Scalia, I don’t fully agree with this last sentence. As I have noted earlier, opposition to homosexual marriage does not have to be grounded only in disapproval of homosexual couples, but can rest in the recognition that their relationships are by nature something different from marriage.

While the majority opinion did have passages that appeared to distinguish the issues in Lawrence from those involved in marriage, yet other passages did indeed hint at a link. For example, Kennedy said:

When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.[vi]

In another passage, Kennedy cited the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (which upheld a right to abortion). Kennedy declared:

The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.

He then went on to state, “Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”[vii]

Legal scholars on the other side of the debate have drawn very similar conclusions to Scalia’s. Liberal Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe says, “Same-sex marriage, as Justice Scalia predicted in his outraged dissent, is bound to follow; it is only a question of time. . . . [T]he underlying theory and most important passages of Lawrence suggest ready (though not immediate) applicability of the holding to same-sex marriage . . . .”[viii]

In summary, a close reading of the Lawrence decision suggests that advocates of same-sex “marriage” could claim that it serves as precedent for same-sex “marriage”—but it would not inevitably do so.

---

[i] Lawrence et al. v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003): 6 (page numbers cited are from the respective opinions as published in the initial Bench Opinion).

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid., 17-18.

[v] Ibid., 7.

[vi] Ibid., 6.

[vii] Ibid. (Kennedy), 13.

[viii] Laurence H. Tribe, “Lawrence v. Texas: The ‘Fundamental Right’ That Dare Not Speak Its Name,” 117 Harvard Law Review (April, 2004): 1945, 1949

Tags: Same-sex marriage, Vaughn Walker

Comments: 3 |

There is much to be said about U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s ruling in favor of same-sex “marriage” on August 4, and we will have more analysis of the opinion in coming days and weeks.

However, some media outlets have been reporting that this ruling is unprecedented because it is the first time that a federal court has tried to strike down a state marriage amendment on federal constitutional grounds. This is completely untrue. On May 12, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph F. Bataillon issued a very similar ruling striking down Nebraska’s marriage amendment. This ruling, however, did not stand—it was struck down, unanimously, by a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit on July 14, 2006.

The Eighth Circuit, like a majority of courts that have ruled on this issue (including the state Supreme Courts of New York, Washington, and Maryland), declared that the state’s interest in promoting responsible procreation provided a rational basis for distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples in the definition of marriage. Yet Judge Walker’s decision dismissed this compelling argument with the casual observation, “Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license.”

The Eighth Circuit’s ruling explains why this is not a compelling argument for mandating same-sex “marriage.” Excerpts are below (citations omitted):

The State argues that the many laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to married couples are rationally related to the government interest in “steering procreation into marriage.” By affording legal recognition and a basket of rights and benefits to married heterosexual couples, such laws “encourage procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children.” The State and its supporting amici cite a host of judicial decisions and secondary authorities recognizing and upholding this rationale. The argument is based in part on the traditional notion that two committed heterosexuals are the optimal partnership for raising children . . . . But it is also based on a “responsible procreation” theory that justifies conferring the inducements of marital recognition and benefits on opposite-sex couples, who can otherwise produce children by accident, but not on same-sex couples, who cannot. Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State’s justification “lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.”

“Even if the classification . . . is to some extent both underinclusive and overinclusive, and hence the line drawn . . . imperfect, it is nevertheless the rule that . . . perfection is by no means required.” Legislatures are permitted to use generalizations so long as “the question is at least debatable.” The package of government benefits and restrictions that accompany the institution of formal marriage serve a variety of other purposes. The legislature — or the people through the initiative process — may rationally choose not to expand in wholesale fashion the groups entitled to those benefits.

We hope that the Ninth Circuit—and/or the Supreme Court—will follow this reasonable precedent.

Tags: Judicial Activism, Same-sex marriage

Comments: 9 |

Not only are the Obama administration and the Pelosi-led Democrats in Congress out of step with the American public in giving high priority to pushing a radical homosexual agenda, but they are out of step with their own Democratic base. That’s the message of a recent, admittedly unscientific survey conducted by The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC). Here’s how they described the survey:

“More than 2,000 Democratic supporters offered input, representing all 50 states and the District of Columbia. . . . Respondents were asked to rank how important a series of issues were to them. The issues were: Fully Funding Public Schools, Expanding Environmental Protections and Clean Energy, Strengthening Government Ethics Rules, Promoting Job Growth, and Promoting Equal Rights for the LGBT Community.”

The results? All five issues were rated “extremely important” by a majority of respondents–except for LGBT “Equal Rights,” which got that rating from only 47.3%. By contrast, over 80% of respondents rated “Public Education” as “extremely important.” The homosexual agenda even had 19.3% of these Democratic activists dismissing it with replies of “not very important” (7.9%), “not important at all” (5.6%), or “no answer” (5.8%). Only 5.6% were as negative toward education as a priority.

We can only hope Congressional leadership will take this into account in determining whether to make homosexuals in the military and ENDA a priority in the tight legislative calendar between now and next January, when the new Congress takes office.

Democrats’ 2010 Legislative Priorities Survey

Tags: Congress, Homosexual Agenda, Legislation, Obama Administration

Comments: 1 |

On Tuesday evening, July 13, the Board of Trustees of the Helena, Montana public schools was scheduled to hear public comments for the first time on a controversial new sex education curriculum.

Some people who support in principle the idea of sex education in schools may wonder what the fuss is about in Helena. Just so people know how extreme the proposed curriculum is, here are some excerpts—direct quotations from the outline (available on the web—see pp. 45-50):

Kindergarten:

“Introduce basic reproductive body parts (penis, vagina, breast, nipples, testicles, scrotum, uterus)”

Grade 1:

“Understand human beings can love people of the same gender & people of another gender”

Grade 2:

“Understand making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g., ‘homo,’ ‘fag,’ ‘queer’) is disrespectful and hurtful.”

Grade 4:

“Understand sexual harassment is unwanted and uninvited sexual attention such as teasing, touching, or taunting, sexting and is against the law.” [sic]

Grade 5:

“Understand that sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration.”

“Understand sexual orientation refers to a person’s physical and/or romantic attraction to an individual of the same and/or different gender, and is part of ones’ [sic] personality.”

Grade 6:

“Understand that sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration; using the penis, fingers, tongue or objects.”

“Understand gender identity is different from sexual orientation.”

Grade 7:

“Discuss the Supreme Court decision that has ruled that, to a certain extent, people have the right to make personal decisions concerning sexuality & reproductive health matters, such as abortion, sterilization, and contraception.”

“Discuss state laws governing the age of consent for sexual behaviors.”

“Understand sexual abuse involving touching can include kissing, an abuser touching ‘genitals’ touching the abusers ‘genitals,’ being asked to touch one’s own ‘genitals,’ or engaging in vaginal, oral, or anal intercourse.” [sic]

Grades 9-12:

“Understand erotic images in art reflect society’s views about sexuality & help people understand sexuality.”

One other item in the high school curriculum, listed under “human sexuality” even though it has nothing directly to do with that, is this:

“Understand seeking professional help can be a sign of strength when people are in need of guidance.”

I imagine that after thirteen years of this curriculum, there would be a lot of young people “in need of guidance” and “seeking professional help.”

Tags: Curriculum, Helena, Montana, Sex Education

Comments: 4 |

Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle has vetoed the bill to create “civil unions” that the legislature passed in a last-minute legislative maneuver in April. It was refreshing to see Gov. Lingle declare straightforwardly, “I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same gender marriage and find that HB 444 is essentially marriage by another name.” It’s refreshing mostly because last year, two other governors—New Hampshire’s John Lynch and Maine’s John E. Baldacci—caved to homosexual activists under similar circumstances, and signed bills to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

However, in reading a news report about the veto, something else caught my eye. Here’s what the Honolulu Star-Advertiser said about one of the critics of the veto:

“It’s beyond problematic,” said Steven Levinson, a retired associate justice of the state Supreme Court, whose daughter is a lesbian. . . . Levinson authored the landmark 1993 ruling that held that it was discriminatory for the state not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Now wait a second. The author of the very first court decision in American history that was supportive of same-sex “marriage”—has a lesbian daughter? Doesn’t that suggest a little problem of judicial ethics known as a “conflict of interest?”

Of course, Levinson’s “landmark” ruling was 17 years ago. His “lesbian daughter” might not have been “out of the closet” in 1993 (or might not have been born, for that matter). But it raises an interesting question, which is—why am I the only person asking if this is a conflict of interest? If judges are going to rule on issues involving the supposed “civil rights” of homosexuals, don’t they have a conflict if a close family member—or even they themselves—are homosexual? Shouldn’t they be required to recuse themselves—or at least disclose the potential conflict?

Of course, it’s logically quite possible that a judge could rule objectively on the issue of same-sex “marriage” even while having a family member who self-identifies as “gay.” It is liberals—not conservatives—who assume that there is a contradiction in loving a homosexual person while opposing same-sex “marriage.” But the way that Levinson spoke out publicly this week suggests that for him, liberal emotionalism trumps conservative logic. So it’s reasonable to ask whether it might also have trumped judicial restraint back in 1993.

You can only imagine the complaints of “bias” from liberals if the judge ruling on a case that arose from the Gulf oil spill were found to own stock in BP—or even if his daughter did. Given their hostility to religion, the reaction might be even worse if a judge ruling on an issue involving a local church—say, one of the Episcopal churches whose ownership is disputed by its conservative congregation and liberal diocese—were found to be a member of that same church (or even if his daughter was).

Why are there not similar howls when a judge who has a “gay” child—or is “gay” herself—rules on issues involving homosexuality?

I guess liberal political correctness includes a lot of double standards.

Tags: Civil Unions, Hawaii, Linda Lingle

Comments: 6 |

On April 15, President Obama issued a “memorandum” to the Secretary of Health and Human Services instructing her to prepare regulations that will protect the right of homosexual partners (and other non-family members) to visit their loved ones in the hospital.

In a series of interviews the next day, I emphasized that the Family Research Council does not have any objection to such visitation in principle, as long as it is premised on the patient’s personal choice rather than on a redefinition of family or marriage. However, I also pointed out that the main reason this is even a topic of discussion is because it is used as a political talking point by the advocates of same-sex “marriage,” who see it as a golden opportunity to tug at people’s heartstrings and generate emotional sympathy for their cause.

I further asserted my belief that the frequency with which homosexuals are barred from visiting their partners in the hospital is grossly exaggerated. As I pointed out in an online chat on the Washington Post website,

The idea that homosexuals are regularly denied the right to visit their partners in the hospital is one that has only one source–homosexual activists who want to change the definition of marriage. Where are the media surveys of hospital administrators to determine how many hospitals actually have such restrictive policies?

In the reporting on the Obama memorandum, however, many media outlets cited the case of Janice Langbehn, a lesbian who sued a Florida hospital claiming that she was denied the right to visit her partner Lisa Pond when Pond was dying from an aneurysm. Langbehn’s story is apparently a familiar one in the homosexual activist community, thanks in large part to a sympathetic New York Times article last year.

In fact, Langbehn’s story was instrumental in moving Obama to act. According to the Washington Post:

Officials said Obama had been moved by the story of a lesbian couple in Florida, Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond, who were kept apart when Pond collapsed of a cerebral aneurysm in February 2007, dying hours later at a hospital without her partner and children by her side. Obama called Langbehn on Thursday evening from Air Force One as he flew to Miami, White House officials said.

The New York Times story last year did report that the hospital disputes some of Langbehn’s charges, but media reports on the Obama memo last week, like that in the Post, did not even bother mentioning that. They were content to repeat the storyline of the homosexual activists verbatim, without even stopping to ask if there was another side.

There is, however, another side. On the website of the Miami Herald, I discovered that the hospital which Langbehn accused of mistreating her has sent its own letter to President Obama. Here is part of what the hospital said:

We would also like to take this opportunity to provide you with some clarification on the allegations being made by Janice Langbehn, whose partner was treated at Jackson’s Ryder Trauma Center in 2007. From the beginning, JHS has vehemently denied that Ms. Langbehn was denied visitation due to her sexual orientation. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Ms. Langbehn’s lawsuit against Jackson Memorial Hospital in September 2009.

Ms. Langbehn’s allegations and those made by published articles, blogs, etc., are inaccurate and have damaged the reputations and deeply hurt the feelings of the personnel in our trauma center. They have devoted their careers to all who come through our doors, from all walks of life.

JHS grants hospital visitation to all individuals equally, regardless of their relationship to the patient, as long as doing so does not interfere with the care being given to the patient or other patients in the area. With that said, our first priority when a patient is brought to our trauma center is always to stabilize the patient and save their life. As the only adult and pediatric Level 1 trauma center in Miami-Dade County to support a population of more than 2.3 million people, our facility is one of the busiest – and most renowned – in the nation.

The Trauma Resuscitation Unit in Ryder Trauma Center, where Lisa Pond was treated when airlifted to Jackson, is more like a large operating room with multiple beds separated by glass partitions rather than a traditional hospital floor. Sometimes, visitors are not able to see a loved one in the trauma bay as quickly as they would like or they may have to wait until the patient is moved to the ICU or to another area of the hospital that is better suited for visitation. This all depends on the circumstances of the situation, how busy the unit is at the time and the medical conditions of the patients in the unit at the time. The patients in this area are facing life-threatening injuries or illnesses and are extremely vulnerable.

The most important piece of information to consider from our side of this story is that the charge nurse on duty the night Ms. Pond was in our care – and the person who made all visitation access decisions that evening – is herself a lesbian with a life partner. In addition, numerous members of the medical team working in our trauma unit are openly homosexual. We can assure you that Ms. Langbehn was not treated differently because of her sexual orientation.

When homosexuals complain that they are “denied the right to visit their partners in the hospital,” they may give some people the impression (I suspect deliberately) that in some hospitals they are never able to visit their partners, simply because they are not legally recognized as family members. I pointed out that for ordinary patients in ordinary hospital rooms (the vast majority of hospital patients), there are few if any restrictions on visitation. You don’t go through security, no one checks your ID—you just walk up to the room and visit. Some hospitals have even done away with the tradition of “visiting hours,” and instead allow visitors to come in at any hour of the day or night.

I did acknowledge that there might be exceptions to these liberal visitation policies, such as when a patient is in intensive care. But there was one point so obvious that I did not bother making it (until now)—and that is that in situations of emergency, trauma, or intensive care, hospitals may sometimes keep away all visitors from a patient for medical reasons—not for reasons of “discrimination.” If the hospital’s account is accurate, that is what happened to Janice Langbehn.

Is the thought of a person “dying without their loved ones at their bedside” an agonizing one? Of course. But it is an agony that is probably experienced by many people, regardless of sexual orientation or marital status, every day, for one simple reason—their beds are surrounded by doctors and nurses fighting to save their lives.

Tags: Hospital, Janice Langbehn, Lisa Pond, President Obama, Visitation Rights

Comments: 3 |

Men who choose to engage in sexual relations with other men place their health in serious jeopardy—and thereby endanger the public health as well.

Unfortunately, like the nakedness of the Emperor in the children’s story of the “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” this is a truth that is so obvious—yet so politically incorrect—that it is rarely spoken aloud.

When those of us who disapprove of and seek to discourage homosexual conduct speak this truth, we are routinely vilified as “hateful.” So let me step aside altogether, and let the secular, scientific, non-political experts speak for themselves. Below is a recent press release from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I reproduce it here, verbatim, in full, and unedited—except that I have highlighted in bold what are, in my opinion, the key findings.

I offer only one editorial comment. The CDC spokesman is cited as saying, “There is no single or simple solution for reducing HIV and syphilis rates among gay and bisexual men.” This is plainly false. There is, for example, a single and simple solution for smoking-related illnesses, and we have all heard it—“If you don’t smoke, don’t start. If you do smoke, quit.”

It’s long past time for public health authorities to say the same about men having sex with men.

Continue reading »

Tags: Homosexuality, Public Health

Comments: - |

One thing I have noticed in the debate over homosexuals in the military is that roughly 99.5% of the American public, including 99.5% of long-time Washington political reporters and 99.5% of members of Congress, believe three key things about the issue.

1. The current policy regarding homosexuals in the military is governed by a law known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
2. Under current law, homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military as long as they are not open about their sexual orientation.
3. Doing away with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

Each of these three statements is false.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is not the law of the land. It was a compromise policy announced by the Clinton Administration in July of 1993, after their original proposal to simply open the military to homosexuals was widely rejected.[i]

When Congress adopted legislation on this issue in November of 1993, they did not say that homosexuals were welcome to serve in the military. On the contrary, they declared, “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”[ii]

Doing away with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy would only allow more consistent enforcement of the current law against homosexuality in the military, unless Congress were to also repeal the law that they adopted in 1993.

For the record, here are the findings that Congress made—and that President Clinton signed into law—in 1993. This is the current law regarding homosexuality in the military:

Congress makes the following findings:

`(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

`(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

`(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

`(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

`(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.

`(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.

`(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.

`(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that–

`(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

`(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

`(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.

`(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.

`(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.

`(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.

`(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

`(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

`(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

---

[i] Susan Yoachum and Carolyn Lochhead, “Clinton Orders New Gay-GI Policy: He concedes few will like compromise,” The San Francisco Chronicle, July 20, 1993, p. A1.

[ii] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160, November 30, 1993, Title V, Subtitle G, Sec. 571, “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces” (10 U.S.C. 654); online at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:5:./temp/~c103HPMAIr:e399464:

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell

Comments: 18 |

On January 5, both houses of the Rhode Island legislature overrode (by large margins) Gov. Donald Carcieri’s veto of a bill that would have given “domestic partners” the authority to make funeral arrangements for one another. Providence Journal columnist Bob Kerr was one who took the governor to task (“Carcieri’s heartless, but not surprising piece of work,” November 13, 2009).

Toward the end of this article, Kerr says “if you could let me know exactly what traditional marriage is I’d appreciate it.” Perhaps as good a definition as any is that offered by scholar David Blankenhorn in his 2007 book, The Future of Marriage. He writes:

“In all or nearly all human societies, marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man, conceived both as a personal relationship and as an institution, primarily such that any children resulting from that union are–and are understood by the society to be–emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with both of the parents. . . . It also reflects one idea that does not change: For every child, a mother and a father.”

Kerr says, “I always thought it [marriage] was a lasting commitment between two people who love each other.” This sentence describes marriage but it does not define it. To say this about marriage, and conclude that same-sex relationships can be marriages too, is somewhat like saying, “An automobile is a wheeled vehicle of transportation–and therefore a bicycle is an automobile, too.”

In the scope of human history, “love” is a fairly recent addition to most people’s concept of marriage. Many cultures have practiced arranged marriages in which “love” is not a prerequisite, yet no anthropologists would suggest that these are not “marriages.” Even “commitment,” while desirable in marriage, is not a requirement for it. Some people who divorce lack commitment, but it does not mean that their marriage never existed.

No, the one essential, irreducible characteristic necessary for marriage is the presence of both a man and a woman. Some cultures have allowed polygamous marriages with more than one man or woman, but never less than one of each.

The reason why the marriage of a man and a woman is privileged over all other human relationships, and treated as a social institution rather than as a purely private liaison, is because it is the only relationship capable of naturally reproducing the human race. This is an essential social function, without which society cannot survive. The male-female union is the one absolutely necessary relationship.

Of course, not every opposite-sex couple has children, or intends to. But it is a mistake to base the definition of marriage on the reasons why individual couples choose to marry. The real issue is why society treats marriage as a public institution—and the answer is because of its role in the procreation and rearing of the next generation.

This legislation was largely prompted by a man named Mark Goldberg and his frustrations following the death of his partner Ron Hanby. These circumstances were sad—and almost unique. Few people die without having any living family members (family being defined as people related by blood, marriage, or adoption) to make decisions regarding their remains. It is a cliché in the legal profession that “hard cases make bad law.” This was a “hard case”—and made, unfortunately, for a bad piece of legislation. To deal with a situation like Mark Goldberg’s by creating an entirely new, quasi-marital, legally recognized domestic relationship (“domestic partners”) under state law is like swatting a bee with a hammer.

Gov. Carcieri is absolutely right in saying such laws lead to an “incremental erosion” of marriage. We have seen exactly that process unfold in the states that have moved (either judicially or legislatively) toward redefining marriage in recent years.

Ironically, the explanation for why Bill S 0195 is unnecessary is found in the text of the bill itself. It delegates decision-making authority regarding funeral arrangements to a “domestic partner” only “[t]o the extent that there is no funeral services contract in effect at the time of death for the benefit of the deceased person.” In other words, people in same-sex relationships already have the ability to delegate to their partner decision-making regarding their funeral arrangements—simply by preparing a “funeral services contract.” Such a contract completely does away with any need for a blood relative to make decisions, and indeed overrides any choices that a relative might attempt to make.

If “gay rights” activists really want to help people like Ron Hanby and Mark Goldberg, they should work at educating people how to complete a funeral services contract—not exploit a tragic situation to create a Trojan horse for the redefinition of marriage.

Comments: 1 |

The liberal blogosphere has erupted in outrage over comments by Fox News analyst Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday (which he reiterated to Bill O’Reilly on Monday) suggesting that Tiger Woods’ life might improve if he were to—brace yourself!—become a Christian. Specifically, when asked for 2010 predictions, Hume said:

“Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person I think is a very open question, and it’s a tragic situation for him. I think he’s lost his family, it’s not clear to me if he’ll be able to have a relationship with his children, but the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal — the extent to which he can recover — seems to me to depend on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist; I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.’”

That anyone should be surprised—let alone shocked—when a Christian recommends Christianity is itself perhaps an illustration of the depths to which our society, the media (and perhaps American Christianity) have fallen. But shocked they are. “Darts of derision should be aimed at Hume,” declares the Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales. “First off, apologize. You gotta.”

Continue reading »

Comments: 11 |

Several weeks after radical homosexual activist Kevin Jennings was appointed to head the Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools in the Department of Education, FRC released a detailed paper listing seven reasons why Mr. Jennings is unfit for this post. One of those seven charges was, “By his own account, Jennings failed to protect the ‘safety’ of a homosexual student he once counseled when working as a teacher”—a student who told Jennings (according to Jennings’ own account) that “I met somebody in the bus station bathroom and went home with him.”

Even though Jennings himself issued a statement in September admitting, “I should have handled the situation differently,” the liberal website Media Matters seems determined to keep arguing that Jennings did nothing wrong. In particular, they have focused on the very narrow issue (which has been raised by Jennings’ own account of the incident) of whether Jennings might have violated “mandatory reporting” laws, which impose a legal requirement upon teachers to report suspected sexual abuse of minors to the authorities.

Media Matters appears to be operating on the assumption that consensual sexual relations between a teenaged boy and a much older adult man can only be considered “abuse” if they violate statutory rape laws—that is, if the teen is below the legal “age of consent,” which in Massachusetts is 16. Media Matters claims to have located the actual boy (now a grown man) involved in the incident, and to have proven that he was 16 years old at the time. This is the very thin reed on which Media Matters is resting its defense of Jennings—an argument, in essence, that “the boy was 16 so everything’s OK!”

Yesterday, they attacked a new video about Jennings that FRC recently released. I would point out that in the narration of the film (as Media Matters even quoted), we said the boy was “believed to be 15 or 16.” But, as was carefully documented in our June paper, the source of the information that the boy was 15 was—Kevin Jennings! How do we know he said this? There is a recording of his voice saying that the boy was 15. Jennings has told other versions of the story in which he says the boy was 16, but the fact that his several versions of this story are mutually incompatible proves only one thing with absolute certainty—Jennings is a liar (or to put it more generously—he has fictionalized the story for dramatic effect). And Jennings has refused to answer questions or clarify the inconsistencies in his accounts of the incident.

Continue reading »

Tags: Kevin Jennings, Media Matters

Comments: - |

Prostitution has long been legal and regulated in the state of Nevada, but a technicality in the law—a health code requirement for “cervical” exams to check for STD’s—had prevented males from serving as prostitutes. The state’s board of health has now lifted that barrier (by allowing urethral exams as well), and Bobbi Davis, owner of a brothel called the Shady Lady Ranch, plans “to add male prostitutes to her stable of sex workers” (in the words of the Las Vegas Sun).

The principal opposition to this step came from an odd source—the lobbyist for the Nevada Brothel Owners Association, George Flint, whom the Sun describes as a “former Assemblies of God minister.” Flint went on record despite the fact that, as the Sun reported, “the [brothel] industry has previously tried to avoid any controversy.”

Flint apparently worries that homosexual male hookers will give the industry a bad name. “We’ve worked hard for years to make the traditional brothel business in this state socially acceptable [and] something we can be proud of that most Nevadans accept.” That struck me as one of the most bizarre quotes of the year—but apparently there are at least a few hundred people in Las Vegas who agree, since the Sun’s online poll showed 475 readers (84% of those voting) affirmed that “brothels are socially acceptable,” while only 85 (15%) disagreed.

Flint’s specific concern is the risk of transmitting HIV between prostitutes and clients—something that he claims the “traditional” brothels have been effective at preventing. “Now we’re getting into an [area] that doesn’t enjoy the same track record.”

This does not mean that there has never been homosexual prostitution in Nevada. The female prostitutes have long been free to accept either male or female clients, according to the report, and male prostitutes will have the same right.

This raises serious questions about gender equity, however. If a Christian psychologist or a fertility doctor is not free to turn away a homosexual client for fear of “discrimination” charges, how can a homosexual male prostitute be allowed to turn away a female client? Isn’t that discrimination, too? On the other hand, if you require them to take all clients, then maybe that would effectively mean that only bisexuals can work as prostitutes in Nevada. Wouldn’t that be discrimination, too?

Such are thickets in which the sexual revolution and political correctness entrap us. In the meantime, if you want to know how to get to Las Vegas—just climb in a handbasket and travel toward the heat as far as you can go.

Las Vegas Sun: New era: Health authorities open brothels to male prostitutes [with poll]

Tags: Nevada, Prostitution

Comments: 1 |

Advocates of same-sex “marriage” assert that the “fundamental right” of homosexual individuals to marry is infringed if they are not free to marry “the person of their choice” (and they often cite the elimination of laws which once banned interracial marriage as precedent for this principle). However, everyone still faces restrictions upon whom they may marry. No one is permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or (in most states and countries) a person of the same sex.

However, if the restriction against marrying someone of the same sex is lifted, based on the assertion of a right to marry whomever you wish, what principled reason will there be to maintain the other restrictions upon one’s choice of marriage partner? This is the “slippery slope” argument—that legalization of homosexual “marriage” would make it more difficult to maintain laws against pedophile, incestuous, and (especially) polygamous marriages, as well.

Yet there are people who would willingly slide even further down the slippery slope. In my book Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges Are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage, I noted news stories about an Indian girl who was married to a dog, a French woman who married a dead man, and a Canadian professor, Stephen Bertman, who “foresees the possibility of marriage between humans and their household pets or even inanimate objects such as a beloved car or computer.”

Continue reading »

Comments: 3 |

It seems that homosexual activist groups can’t even raise money without using sexual innuendo.

I happen to be on the email list for “Equality Maryland,” the state homosexual activist organization (it’s always good to know what the opposition is doing). They are planning to raise money with a “Jazz Brunch and Silent Auction” on Sunday, October 18 in Baltimore.

But I was startled by the poor taste (and the poor proofreading) of the subject line for an email invitation to this event that I received on September 28. It read: “Care to engage is [sic] some ‘Four Play’?” (The gimmick was that you would get a discount when purchasing four tickets.)

I wondered if they would be embarrassed or get any negative reaction—but apparently not. On October 7, I received a follow-up email with this subject line: “Forget ‘Four Play’ . . . how about a ‘Threesome’?” Offering a discount for the purchase of only three tickets this time, the message came complete with a publicity photo from the old “Three’s Company” TV show.

When homosexuals promote their political agenda in the public square, they argue that it’s not about sex. It’s about love, families, equality, justice, etc., etc. They don’t want people thinking about two men or two women having sex. (This is why they prefer the term “gay” rather than “homosexual.”)

But when talking to each other, the agenda becomes more clear.

It’s about sex.

Tags: Equality Maryland, Homosexuality, Same-sex marriage

Comments: 5 |