Category archives: Human Sexuality

Four Short Observations about Justice Kennedy’s Opinion on Same-Sex Unions

by Rob Schwarzwalder

June 26, 2015

Homosexuality is an “Immutable” Characteristic

Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities.  And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.” Opinion of the Court, p. 4

Wrong: Homosexuality is NOT an immutable characteristic.  This is documented copiously and is demonstrated anecdotally by everyone from Rosaria Butterfield to Chirlane McCray, the wife of New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio.

As reported in an amicus brief for the Family Research Council, an examination of just some of the complaints that have been brought to date challenging state marriage laws reveals that dozens of the plaintiffs seeking to marry someone of the same sex previously were married to someone of the opposite sex. Notwithstanding their (presumed) sexual orientation, they were issued a license to marry. It might be argued that at the time of their previous marriage, they were not homosexual. But that response creates a new problem. If they were heterosexual then, but are homosexual now, then their sexual orientation could not be said to be immutable. – FRC Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg, The Wrong Argument Against Traditional Marriage, April 27, 2015

Changing Understandings of Marriage”

The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society. The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. That institution—even as confined to opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time.  For example, marriage was once viewed as an arrangement by the couple’s parents based on political, religious, and financial concerns; but by the time of the Nation’s founding it was understood to be a voluntary contract between a man and a woman … Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.” Opinion of the Court, pp. 6-7

Wrong: The nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has never changed. Legal matters attendant to marriage (women’s property rights, arrangements by parents, etc.) have changed, but the nature of marriage has itself never changed.  Kennedy’s argument says, in essence, that because a car now has airbags, it should be called an airplane.  Incorrect: It remains a car, even if improvements have been made to its engine, its safety, etc.

These aspects of marriage—the complementarity of male and female, and the irreplaceable role of male-female relations in reproducing the human race—are part of the original order of creation, and are evident to all human beings from the enduring order of nature. These common elements of marriage are at the heart of our civil laws defining and regulating marriage. Therefore, people of all cultures and religions—including those who lack faith in God, Christ, or the Bible—are capable of participating in the institution of marriage. – Andreas Kostenberger, Ph.D., “The Bible’s Teaching on Marriage and Family”

Homosexuality is analogous to race

When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.  Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.  In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held marriage is ‘one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men’.” Opinion of the Court, p. 8

Wrong: Race is immutable and benign.  It is irrelevant to with one’s character or conduct.  Homosexuality is not immutable and those who practice same-sex intimacy are engaging in behavior that has intrinsic moral content.

One of the four criteria for defining a classification such as sexual orientation as suspect—which in turn subjects laws targeting that class of people to the highest burden of proof—is that the group in question share an immutable characteristic. The immutability of sexual orientation is hardly a settled matter—just ask Anne Heche (the former partner of celebrity and lesbian Ellen DeGeneres who has now affirmed her heterosexuality). - Margaret Talbot, “Is Sexuality Immutable?” The New Yorker, January 25, 2010

Marriage is a matter of “individual autonomy”

A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.” Opinion of the Court, p. 13

Wrong: While individual autonomy in terms of “personal choice” is “inherent in the concept” of marriage, marriage is not strictly about personal volition.  It is a social institution designed for procreation and child-rearing in a complementary household in which a child benefits from the influence of differently-gendered parents.

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. – Ryan T. Anderson, “Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It”, Heritage Foundation, March 11, 2013

SPLC attack on JONAH, Jewish non-profit that aids in sexual orientation change, goes to trial in New Jersey; Links to coverage here

by Peter Sprigg

June 16, 2015

A shocking attack on the freedom and privacy of the relationship between private counselors and their clients is currently underway in New Jersey. The wealthy left-wing activist group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is seeking to destroy a small Jewish non-profit known as JONAH—Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing. JONAH’s offense? Referring clients with unwanted same-sex attractions (usually, but not always, Jewish) to counselors who can help them to overcome those attractions and live lives consistent with the biblical teaching of the Torah.

The weapon being used by the SPLC is New Jersey’s unusually draconian “consumer fraud” statute, with SPLC arguing that to claim sexual orientation is changeable and that counseling can help effect such change is inherently fraudulent.

One might think that homosexual activists, who have long demanded respect for their own personal autonomy in making choices about how to respond to their own sexual attractions, would shrug their shoulders and ask, “What’s it to me?” when discussing the fact that for some people, same-sex attractions are experienced as unwanted. However, the fact that some people change their sexual orientation undermines the claim that “sexual orientation” is an immutable characteristic like race—a claim that has been useful to such activists in their campaign to win official public affirmation and celebration of homosexual relationships under the guise of “non-discrimination.”

Instead, a concerted effort to discredit what are called, broadly, “sexual orientation change efforts,” or “SOCE,” has gone from professional organizations like the American Psychological Association to legislative chambers, where California, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia have already enacted laws to outlaw SOCE for minors by licensed mental health providers. The JONAH lawsuit (which targets SOCE for adults as well as minors, and activity conducted by unlicensed “life coaches” as well as licensed mental health providers) is a second prong of this new legal attack.

Pro-family activist and writer Austin Ruse has provided a valuable service by covering the first two weeks of the JONAH trial for Breitbart.com. Since the secular media shows bias in favor of the plaintiffs, coverage by Ruse (and an article by therapist Christopher Doyle, himself a former homosexual) provide a valuable counterpoint.

Austin Ruse gives a preview of the trial during jury selection in this article: “Powerful Leftist Group Sues to Close Jewish Counseling Service for Gays”

 

Christopher Doyle describes Day 1 of the trial here: Highlights from the JONAH Trial: Day 1

Media Has Already Pronounced Judgment Against JONAH in “Trial of the Century”

 

Ruse reports on Day 2 of the trial, including contradictory statements made by one of the SPLC’s plaintiffs, here: “Trial to Punish Counseling for Gays Underway in Jersey City”

Ruse describes the history of JONAH here: “Medical Choice at Stake in Gay Counseling Trial”

 

Ruse describes death threats received by both JONAH’s co-founder, Arthur Goldberg, and their attorney, Charles LiMandri, in this piece on Day 4 of the trial: “Death Threats Rock Defendants in Gay Counseling Trial”

 

Ruse reports that LiMandri has done an outstanding job in cross-examining the plaintiffs and their witnesses. His organization, the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, needs support from freedom-loving Americans of any religion to pay the mounting expense of this drawn-out suit, which began in 2012. For continuing coverage of the trial and to support the defense, go to www.ConscienceDefense.org.

What Loving Means

by Peter Sprigg

June 12, 2015

June 12 has been dubbed “Loving Day.” No, it is not an effort to compete with Valentine’s Day. “Loving Day” commemorates the anniversary of a Supreme Court decision — in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia — in which the court declared that state laws barring interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Advocates for redefining marriage to include same-sex couples argue that this case is precedent for striking down state laws that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Richard Loving, a white man, had married Mildred Jeter Loving, a black woman, in the District of Columbia. They later moved to Virginia; but in 1958, police officers entered their house in the middle of the night and demanded to know, “What are you doing in bed with this lady?” Although the Lovings had their marriage certificate hanging on the wall, the sheriff was unimpressed, declaring, “That’s no good here.” The couple was jailed for five days, after which a judge accepted their guilty plea to a charge of violating the state’s anti-miscegenation statute. They were given the choice of spending a year in jail or leaving the state. They chose to return to D.C.— and then filed suit to overturn their conviction. The Lovings were vindicated by a unanimous Supreme Court nine years later.

California’s Supreme Court had already struck down a similar statute nineteen years earlier (Perez v. Sharp, 1948). That court had declared that “the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice.” Homosexual activists claim that this is precisely the principle that should apply to their efforts to marry a chosen person of the same sex.

There is a certain logic to this argument. Laws against same-sex marriage do restrict a person’s choice of marriage partner, as did laws against interracial marriage. But the flaw in the argument is that no one — not even the most radical advocate of homosexual marriage — is proposing to eliminate all restrictions on one’s choice of marriage partner. Every state forbids marriage to specific classes of people — namely, those who are already married, children, or certain close blood relatives.

The point, then, of the cases on interracial marriage cannot have been that restrictions on marital choice are unacceptable across the board. It was, rather, more specifically that race was not a legitimate basis for imposing such a restriction.

The constitutional basis of the case against the “anti-miscegenation” laws was that they violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which states that no state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Courts have ruled that this does not mean states can never have laws that treat some people differently from others, but those distinctions must have a reason and cannot be arbitrary.

It is worth reading an excerpt from the court’s decision in Loving (citations omitted or abbreviated). This was the conclusion of the Court’s Equal Protection analysis:

The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.

There can be no question but that Virginia’s miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated “[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry” as being “odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Hirabayashi v. United States (1943). At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the “most rigid scrutiny,” Korematsu v. United States (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they “cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose … which makes the color of a person’s skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense.” McLaughlin v. Florida.

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

Just in these short paragraphs there are references to “racial discrimination,” “distinctions drawn according to race,” “ancestry,” “racial classifications,” “the color of a person’s skin” — a dozen such references in all. This should be sufficient to demonstrate that Loving was not based on a generalized right to marry “the person of your choice,” but was rather based specifically on the Constitution’s clear prohibition of state-sponsored discrimination based on race.

Advocates for redefining marriage have also argued that same-sex couples have been denied the “fundamental right to marry,” an interest in “liberty” that courts have found to be implicit in the 14th Amendment’s “Due Process” clause, which says that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .”

Advocates of marriage redefinition point out that Loving was based on a “due process/fundamental right” argument, not just an equal protection one. True — but here is the entire text of the Court’s fundamental rights analysis in Loving:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

This part of the opinion was a scant 169 words out of over 2,500 in the decision. However, it, too, makes reference to “racial classifications” and “invidious racial discriminations.” There is thus no reason to believe that Loving forbids classifications on some basis other than race.

Numerous courts considering same-sex “marriage” lawsuits have rejected the Loving analogy. As the judge in a 2003 Indiana case (Morrison v. Sadler) noted, “Anti-miscegenation laws, because they interfered with the traditional marriage relationships in pursuit of opprobrious racial segregation policies, had no legitimate connection to the institution of marriage itself… . [W]hatever else marriage is about, it is not about racial segregation.” In contrast, however, “restrictions against same-sex marriage reinforce, rather than disrupt, the traditional understanding of marriage as a unique relationship between a woman and a man. Marriage traditionally and definitionally has had to do with the sex of each participant.”

A Superior Court in New Jersey came to a similar conclusion in a similar case (Lewis v. Harris) in 2003:

Plaintiffs’ reliance on decisions striking down statutes that prohibit interracial marriage is misplaced. These decisions derive from Constitutional amendments prohibiting racial discrimination and subjecting laws that classify individuals based on race to the highest level of scrutiny. No similar Constitutional provisions outlaw statutory classifications based on sexual orientation … . Comparing the State’s marriage statutes to laws perpetuating racial prejudice, therefore, is inapposite.

Individuals challenging bans on interracial marriage had a powerful weapon: Federal Constitutional provisions, passed by Congress and adopted by State Legislatures, that expressly prohibited States from denying recognized rights based on race. It was entirely appropriate for the courts to enforce those duly enacted Constitutional provisions by striking down statutes that made race a qualifying condition for access to a recognized right to marry. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, assert their claims in the absence of express Constitutional provisions supporting their position, and ask the court to circumvent the Legislative process by creating a right that has never before been recognized in this country.

The mandate for racial equality is firmly enshrined in both the Federal and State Constitutions. Importantly, two amendments to the United States Constitution expressly address racial equality [the 13th and 14th]… .

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia is predicated entirely on the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition of racial classifications… .

No similar Constitutional provision accords heightened protection to individuals who claim that statutes discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation… .

… [P]laintiffs … lack the significant legal foundation that was available to the plaintiffs in Loving to demand judicial recognition of the rights they seek.

In November 2014, a panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld one-man-one-woman marriage laws in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. It is the appeal of these cases (consolidated under the case name Obergefell v. Hodges) which is now before the Supreme Court.

The Sixth Circuit panel noted another compelling reason for questioning whether Loving provides a precedent for allowing same-sex couples to legally “marry.” In 1972, a case out of Minnesota (Baker v. Nelson), making the same claims for same-sex “marriage” now being asserted, was appealed to the Supreme Court. It dismissed the case “for want of a substantial federal question,” a disposal which provides a binding precedent on all lower courts. It is irrational to claim that Loving established a right to same-sex “marriage,” when the Supreme Court already rejected that argument five years after Loving was decided:

Matters do not change because Loving v. Virginia held that “marriage” amounts to a fundamental right. When the Court decided Loving, “marriage between a man and a woman no doubt [was] thought of … as essential to the very definition of that term.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2689. In referring to “marriage” rather than “opposite-sex marriage,” Loving confirmed only that “opposite-sex marriage” would have been considered redundant, not that marriage included same-sex couples. Loving did not change the definition. That is why the Court said marriage is “fundamental to our very existence and survival,” a reference to the procreative definition of marriage. Had a gay African-American male and a gay Caucasian male been denied a marriage license in Virginia in 1968, would the Supreme Court have held that Virginia had violated the Fourteenth Amendment? No one to our knowledge thinks so, and no Justice to our knowledge has ever said so. The denial of the license would have turned not on the races of the applicants but on a request to change the definition of marriage. Had Loving meant something more when it pronounced marriage a fundamental right, how could the Court hold in Baker five years later that gay marriage does not even raise a substantial federal question? Loving addressed, and rightly corrected, an unconstitutional eligibility requirement for marriage; it did not create a new definition of marriage.

Natural Marriage Builds Bridges, Not Walls

The clear purpose of the bans on interracial marriage was to build walls between two groups of people in society, blacks and whites. Such laws were designed to reinforce a system of racial segregation, keeping the races apart from one another.

In contrast, defining marriage as the union of male and female has exactly the opposite intent and effect. Rather than building walls between two classes of people, it creates a bridge across the most fundamental gap in humanity — the gap between male and female. Bridging the divide of the sexes by uniting men and women in marriage is common to all human civilizations, and serves the good of society.

Interracial marriage does not change the definition of marriage, and laws against interracial marriage had as their only purpose preserving a social system of racial segregation.

Homosexual “marriage,” on the other hand, changes the fundamental definition of the institution, and would form at least three segregated forms of marriage: male-only unions, female-only unions, and opposite-sex unions.

Legally defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman does not burden the institution of marriage. Instead, it preserves marriage’s nature and purpose. Homosexual marriage is not a “civil right,” it is a political demand that should be denied.

Note: Portions of this post were excerpted from Peter Sprigg’s book Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004).

Does Masculinity Matter?

by Rob Schwarzwalder

June 4, 2015

For that matter, does masculinity even exist?

In an era of Bruce Jenner’s sexual self-reinvention, same-sex adoptions, “gender studies,” “transgendered” bathrooms, etc., does being a man have any meaning, objectively, morally, or culturally?

Does a child need a father and a mother or just two parents?

Is sexuality “fluid,” elastic, subjective?

Of course, at FRC we answer yes to all but the last of these questions. We believe that God made man male and female (Genesis 1:27, 5:2), and that His creation is good.

Our friends at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood provide an outstanding guide to what Scripture teaches about masculinity. Hint: Throw out any hostile stereotypes you might have (for example, that Christianity somehow affirms the right of men to be victimizing aggressors, predatory users of women, etc.) and see what the Bible says.

Men and women are different. Let’s rejoice that this is now, and always will be, so.

May Day! May Day! For Britain and for US

by Robert Morrison

May 4, 2015

For Britain, it is May Day. May Day was last Friday. The First of May has been a traditional holiday in Britain and Europe for centuries. Since the French Revolution, however, May Day represented workers and the Left.

May Day!” is also the international distress call (M’aidez—from the French for help me!) Next Friday, there will be an important national election in Great Britain. It could have profound influence on America. Polls are unusually volatile this time, but British Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, could win and be installed in Number 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister.

If that happens, Britain will lurch dangerously to the Left. Among a raft of radical proposals, Miliband is promising (or threatening) to make “Islamophobia” a crime if Labour wins a majority in the House of Commons. Under the parliamentary system, the House of Commons wields almost unchecked power.

Ed Miliband certainly would not claim to be anti-Jewish. His own parents were Jewish refugees from Hitler’s murderous regime. They sought asylum in Britain. But Ed Miliband is a true believer—not in God, he’s an atheist—but in Marxism. As hard as that may be to believe, it is nonetheless true.

Ed Miliband had to oust his own brother David for the leadership of Britain’s Labour Party. But mostly, he repudiated “New Labour,” the shift toward moderation represented by the long tenure of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Just as President Obama sought out Marxist professors in college, Ed Miliband is the product of the most left-leaning background imaginable (during his American stay, he even developed a fanatical loyalty to an American baseball team: the Boston Red Sox!)

Britain’s socialists make it easy for voters: They wear red. Their posters and buttons are red. Even their ties, when they wear them, are red.

The reason the Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is in trouble is not because he’s not compassionate enough; it’s because he’s not conservative enough.

He is wedded to the increasingly troubled, bureaucratic, undemocratic European Union (EU). And Cameron ignored mounting evidence that maintaining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is vital for a flourishing civil society. He cast aside reasonable concerns when he rammed through Parliament a bill to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples. This caused deep misgivings among many of the Tories’ grassroots supporters.

These traditional Tory voters have been moving to the United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP). Party leader Nicholas Farage is anti-EU and is raising sharp questions about Britain’s immigration policies, which Cameron has maintained.

Cameron has recently made statements supporting Christians persecuted abroad—which is more than President Obama has done. But at home, Prime Minister Cameron’s government is not meeting the challenge of Islamism.

Several years ago, the Anglican Bishop of Rochester, the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-ali told a group at the Heritage Foundation that England is daily losing her historic identity. England, the prelate said, is characterized by Common Law and the Christian religion.

Every day, said the Pakistani-born bishop, Britain is giving in to Islamist demands.

Bishop Nazir-ali has been threatened with death for speaking out against Islamism. When asked if muezzins should be permitted to call the Muslim faithful to prayer his English diocese of Rochester, Bishop Nazir-ali, replied: “Yes, of course. As soon as church bells can be rung in Saudi Arabia!”

Ed Miliband would not agree on the importance of a Christian culture. And Leftists here are trying to stamp out all evidences of Christianity from our public life as well.

An example of what Britons call “the looney Left” and a cringing surrender to political correctness is seen in the horrific story of sex trafficking in Rotherham. Columnist Mona Charen spoke to Bill Bennett’s “Morning in America” audience about the horror of Rotherham, England. English girls were trapped by a ring of pedophiles, most of them of Pakistani origin, most of them Muslim. Unwilling to confront this issue, British Labour Party local officials and police abandoned 1400 girls to sexual slavery.

We can expect more, not less, of this if Ed Miliband wins in Britain. Despite the fact that his fled from murderous anti-Semitism, Ed Miliband could be the man who makes it a crime to criticize any practice of Islam. Thus, objection to female genital mutilation, or dishonor killings, or death threats against apostates will be punishable by fines and prison.

For all his academic brilliance, Ed Miliband seems unaware that modern Islamist radicalism traces its origins to the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt in 1928.

Hassan al-Banna rejected the paganism of Germany’s National Socialist Party (NAZI), but he admired their organizational skill and he fully embraced their Judenhass (Jew hatred). We have been concerned about Muslim Brotherhood influence in our own government as well as in Great Britain. President Obama welcomed and gave millions in foreign aid to Egypt’s MB-dominated government in 2011. (Only when it was overthrown by popular demonstrations and Egypt’s military had to step in did Mr. Obama cut off aid to Egypt.)

Britain has no First Amendment—which is a major reason why we do! Still, Britain’s history of free speech and tolerance of dissent will be at risk if Ed Miliband gains the power to impose his austere brand of socialism.

FRC has long noted that Britain legalized abortion and homosexuality before the U.S. did. Labour in Britain also legalized suicide. That is why what happens in Britain doesn’t necessarily stay in Britain. All of these changes started there and came here. With President Obama equally determined to “fundamentally transform” America, a victory for Labour next Friday could give a sense of inevitability to these dangerous trends. May Day, indeed!

Regnerus Revisited: American Sociological Association is Wrong about Homosexual Parents and “Stability”

by Peter Sprigg

April 24, 2015

One of the key issues regularly raised in the debate over redefining marriage to include same-sex couples has to do with the well-being of children.

Defenders of the historical and natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman argue that children have a right to a relationship with both the man and woman whose union created them, and that research shows children raised by their married, biological mother and father have, on average, better life outcomes than children from other family structures.

Advocates of redefining marriage, on the other hand, argue that children already being raised by same-sex couples would benefit from the legal stability and social affirmation associated with marriage. They also insist that research which has specifically compared children of homosexual parents to children of heterosexual parents shows, “The scholarly consensus is clear and consistent: children of same-sex parents fare just as well as children of different-sex parents.”

The latter quote is drawn from an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court by the American Sociological Association (ASA). It’s one of dozens filed by advocates on both sides in the case being argued under the name Obergefell v. Hodges. Advocates of redefining marriage are asking the high court to overturn a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which upheld laws in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

A separate brief filed in support of the states on behalf of the American College of Pediatricians (ACP), Family Watch International, and several scholars, has thoroughly rebutted most of the arguments in the ASA brief. The ACP brief, using the most recent studies with the best methodology (drawing on large government surveys in Canada and the United States), shows children of same-sex parents are disadvantaged on a number of measures relative to children raised by their married, biological mother and father. (Patrick Fagan of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute — MARRI — has summarized the ACP rebuttal of the ASA in an op-ed.)

This revolution in homosexual parenting research began with publication in 2012 of findings from the New Family Structures Study, organized by Dr. Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas (and one of the signers of the ACP brief). Although homosexual activists embarked on a nearly hysterical campaign of vilification of Regnerus, his research was not “discredited,” as liberals commonly claim. I have written in detail about the Regnerus study here and here.

While the ASA brief is misleading on the nature and state of the evidence, there is one assertion they make about the Regnerus research which is flatly false — so plainly inaccurate, in fact, that it makes one question whether the authors of the brief have even looked at the scholarly articles they are critiquing.

The false statements are these:

The study [cited as Regnerus 2012a] stripped away all divorced, single, and stepparent families from the different-sex parent group, leaving only stable, married, different-sex parent families as the comparison. (ASA Brief, p. 23)

And:

Regnerus 2012b [a follow-up report with more detailed analysis of the data] continues to ignore stability as the primary factor in child outcomes. (ASA Brief, p. 26)

In reality, Regnerus 2012a included comparisons for eight different family structures. In addition to what Regnerus calls the “intact, biological family” or “IBF” (the “stable, married, different-sex parent families” referred to by the ASA) and two involving homosexual parents (“lesbian mother” or “LM” and “gay father” or “GF”), his comparison included five other family structures with heterosexual parents which might be considered “unstable,” including divorced, stepfamily, single-parent, and adoptive households. Even compared with these “unstable” households, the households headed by homosexual parents did not fare well. For example, Regnerus notes:

Of the 239 possible between-group differences here — not counting those differences with Group 1 (IBFs) already described earlier — the young-adult children of lesbian mothers display 57 … that are [statistically] significant … and 44 … that are significant after controls …. The majority of those differences are in suboptimal directions, meaning that LMs display worse outcomes [emphasis added]. (Regnerus 2012a, p. 764)

In his follow-up article (“Regnerus 2012b”), Regnerus broke down the data on households in more detail, listing fifteen different household structures. To make the meaning of the homosexual parent categories more clear, he described them as “fathers who had a gay relationship” or “FGR” and “mothers who had a lesbian relationship” or “MLR.” In response to criticism that he did not distinguish between children who had lived in the same household with a homosexual parent and that parent’s partner from those who did not, the latter category was broken down to “MLR + partner” and “MLR no partner.” (Only two subjects, however, had lived with a homosexual parent and one partner for the entire duration of their childhood from birth to age 18 — as Regnerus clearly noted.)

Apart from the IBF and (now) three homosexual parent categories, the other eleven categories all involved children of heterosexual parents who had “unstable” household settings — households where the parents divorced, were never married, one parent died, or in which the child was adopted as an infant (with variations based on subsequent relationships and/or remarriage).

Critics had also claimed that children were more affected by family “instability” than by parental sexual orientation, and those who lived with a partner were presumed to have more stable relationships. Directly contrary to what the ASA brief claimed, Regnerus reported specifically on comparisons between the “MLR + partner” category and other “unstable” categories:

Group 3 (MLRs who lived with their mother’s partner) compare less favorably with:

  • Group 8 (divorced, lived with mother, no subsequent relationships): 12 differences.
  • Group 13 (parents married until one died, no subsequent relationships): 15 differences. (Regnerus 2012b, p. 1376)

Regnerus reports the raw data for all fifteen family structures, and all forty outcome measures. There are thus a total of 440 comparisons between households with children of a lesbian mother and a partner and unstable heterosexual households (11 unstable household categories times 40 outcome measures). He also reports which of the differences reach the level of statistical significance, not only in comparison to the intact biological family, but also in comparison to the “MLR + partner” category.

I did my own analysis of the data in the charts of the Regnerus 2012b article, and found that 84 of these comparisons showed statistically significant differences. Of those, 76 showed worse outcomes for the children of lesbian mothers with a partner; only 8 of those comparisons showed better outcomes for those children. Five of the eight “better” outcomes for “MLR + partner” households were on a single outcome measures — daughters of lesbian mothers with a partner (but not of those without a partner) have fewer male sexual partners. Having multiple sexual partners of either sex is, rightly, considered an undesirable outcome.

More recent studies using government survey data (which also show negative outcomes for children of homosexual parents) have, arguably, surpassed Regnerus in the quality of the sample studied. However, the Regnerus study remains extremely valuable for the large number of separate outcome measures (forty).

It is also valuable because it does make direct comparisons (contrary to the ASA’s claim) between households with homosexual parents and many different unstable household forms headed by heterosexuals. It thus thoroughly debunks the myth that only “instability” explains the harmful outcomes identified for children of homosexuals.

Hate, Love, Truth, and Homosexuality

by Rob Schwarzwalder

April 16, 2015

Hate is sin.

Hate is disobedience to God. “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (I John 3:15).

To rage against, physically or verbally abuse, belittle, or diminish the humanity of homosexuals is hateful.

To disagree is not hateful.

To stand for truth is not hateful.

To make arguments about human sexuality and marriage from sociological and demographic data is not hateful.

To object to the legal redefinition of marriage is not hateful.

To oppose efforts to redefine marriage in law is not hateful.

To believe in the uniqueness of male-female complementarity is not hateful.

To herald the Bible’s teaching that sexual intimacy is reserved for the covenant of one-man, one-woman marriage is not hateful.

To assert that any form of sexual intimacy outside of heterosexual, monogamous marriage is sinful is not hateful.

To affirm the Bible’s teaching that whatever one’s sins (sins as defined by the eternal, final, clear, and sufficient revelation of Scripture), they separate him or her from God is not hateful.

To proclaim that the rejection of God’s grace in Jesus Christ means eternal punishment is not hateful.

To tell others that God became man in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, that He lived a sinless life, died an atoning, substitutionary death, rose bodily from the grave, is alive today, and that He offers forgiveness to all who will trust solely in Him as Savior and decide to follow Him as Lord is not hateful. It is the most loving thing one can do.

All of the above are Christian teachings. They are not culturally conditioned or theologically malleable.

Those of us who are Christians love people too much not to graciously but unhesitatingly speak God’s truth in God’s love (Ephesians 4:15).

And those of us who believe these things will not be silenced about them or fail to live according to them in our personal, public, or professional lives.

Any of them. Ever.

It’s a matter of love for God and those He has made in His image. The stakes are too high and the costs too great to refrain from talking about the One filled with grace and truth and His will for all of our lives.

Stakes and costs more important that social acceptance, secure employment, personal loyalties, or political viability.

Eternal stakes and costs, which we have weighed in the balance and found far weightier than anything this world can offer. Upon them we have based our lives. Upon them we stand.

Where do you stand?

The Dead End of Sexual Sin

by Rob Schwarzwalder

April 9, 2015

Rosaria Butterfield is one of the bravest people I know. Her profound transformation in Christ after a life of lesbianism has subjected her to public attacks and harsh comments, to which she responds with kindness, humility, and truth. Rosaria is also “a former tenured professor of English at Syracuse University. After her conversion to Christianity in 1999, she developed a ministry to college students. She has taught and ministered at Geneva College, is a full-time mother and pastor’s wife, and is author of Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert (2012) and Openness, Unhindered: Further Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert on Sexual Identity and Union with Christ (2015).”

Rosaria has written a powerful piece on transformation in Christ in her new “Desiring God” article, “The Dead End of Sexual Sin.” It is copied below in its entirety as it is one of the most potent and life-giving pieces I’ve read in a long time. Read, be challenged, and be blessed:


The Dead End of Sexual Sin

Unbelievers don’t “struggle” with same-sex attraction. I didn’t. My love for women came with nary a struggle at all.

I had not always been a lesbian, but in my late twenties, I met my first lesbian-lover. I was hooked and believed that I had found my real self. Sex with women was part of my life and identity, but it was not the only part — and not always the biggest part.

I simply preferred everything about women: their company, their conversation, their companionship, and the contours of their/our body. I favored the nesting, the setting up of house and home, and the building of lesbian community.

As an unbelieving professor of English, an advocate of postmodernism and poststructuralism, and an opponent of all totalizing meta-narratives (like Christianity, I would have added back in the day), I found peace and purpose in my life as a lesbian and the queer community I helped to create.

Conversion and Confusion

It was only after I met my risen Lord that I ever felt shame in my sin, with my sexual attractions, and with my sexual history.

Conversion brought with it a train wreck of contradictory feelings, ranging from liberty to shame. Conversion also left me confused. While it was clear that God forbade sex outside of biblical marriage, it was not clear to me what I should do with the complex matrix of desires and attractions, sensibilities and senses of self that churned within and still defined me.

What is the sin of sexual transgression? The sex? The identity? How deep was repentance to go?

Meeting John Owen

In these newfound struggles, a friend recommended that I read an old, seventeenth-century theologian named John Owen, in a trio of his books (now brought together under the title Overcoming Sin and Temptation).

At first, I was offended to realize that what I called “who I am,” John Owen called “indwelling sin.” But I hung in there with him. Owen taught me that sin in the life of a believer manifests itself in three ways: distortion by original sin, distraction of actual day-to-day sin, and discouragement by the daily residence of indwelling sin.

Eventually, the concept of indwelling sin provided a window to see how God intended to replace my shame with hope. Indeed, John Owen’s understanding of indwelling sin is the missing link in our current cultural confusion about what sexual sin is — and what to do about it.

As believers, we lament with the apostle Paul, “I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me” (Romans 7:19–20). But after we lament, what should we do? How should we think about sin that has become a daily part of our identity?

Owen explained with four responses.

1. Starve It

Indwelling sin is a parasite, and it eats what you do. God’s word is poison to sin when embraced by a heart made new by the Holy Spirit. You starve indwelling sin by feeding yourself deeply on his word. Sin cannot abide in his word. So, fill your hearts and minds with Scripture.

One way that I do that is singing the Psalms. Psalm-singing, for me, is a powerful devotional practice as it helps me to melt my will into God’s and memorize his word in the process. We starve our indwelling sin by reading Scripture comprehensively, in big chunks, and by whole books at a time. This allows us to see God’s providence at work in big-picture ways.

2. Call Sin What It Is

Now that it is in the house, don’t buy it a collar and a leash and give it a sweet name. Don’t “admit” sin as a harmless (but un-housebroken) pet. Instead, confess it as an evil offense and put it out! Even if you love it! You can’t domesticate sin by welcoming it into your home.

Don’t make a false peace. Don’t make excuses. Don’t get sentimental about sin. Don’t play the victim. Don’t live by excuse-righteousness. If you bring the baby tiger into your house and name it Fluffy, don’t be surprised if you wake up one day and Fluffy is eating you alive. That is how sin works, and Fluffy knows her job. Sometimes sin lurks and festers for decades, deceiving the sinner that he really has it all under control, until it unleashes itself on everything you built, cherished, and loved.

Be wise about your choice sins and don’t coddle them. And remember that sin is not ever “who you are” if you are in Christ. In Christ, you are a son or daughter of the King; you are royalty. You do battle with sin because it distorts your real identity; you do not define yourself by these sins that are original with your consciousness and daily present in your life.

3. Extinguish Indwelling Sin by Killing It

Sin is not only an enemy, says Owen. Sin is at enmity with God. Enemies can be reconciled, but there is no hope for reconciliation for anything at enmity with God. Anything at enmity with God must be put to death. Our battles with sin draw us closer in union with Christ. Repentance is a new doorway into God’s presence and joy.

Indeed, our identity comes from being crucified and resurrected with Christ:

We have been buried with him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin. (Romans 6:4–6)

Satan will use our indwelling sin as blackmail, declaring that we cannot be in Christ and sin in heart or body like this. In those moments, we remind him that he is right about one thing only: our sin is indeed sin. It is indeed transgression against God and nothing else.

But Satan is dead wrong about the most important matter. In repentance, we stand in the risen Christ. And the sin that we have committed (and will commit) is covered by his righteousness. But fight we must. To leave sin alone, says Owen, is to let sin grow — “not to conquer it is to be conquered by it.”

4. Daily Cultivate Your New Life in Christ

God does not leave us alone to fight the battle in shame and isolation. Instead, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the soul of each believer is “vivified.” “To vivicate” means to animate, or to give life to. Vivification complements mortification (to put to death), and by so doing, it allows us to see the wide angle of sanctification, which includes two aspects:

1) Deliverance from the desire of those choice sins, experienced when the grace of obedience gives us the “expulsive power of a new affection” (to quote Thomas Chalmers).

2) Humility over the fact that we daily need God’s constant flow of grace from heaven, and that no matter how sin tries to delude us, hiding our sin is never the answer. Indeed, the desire to be strong enough in ourselves, so that we can live independently of God, is the first sin, the essence of sin, and the mother of all sin.

Owen’s missing link is for believers only. He says, “Unless a man be regenerate (born again), unless he be a believer, all attempts that he can make for mortification [of sin] … are to no purpose. In vain he shall use many remedies, [but] he shall not be healed.”

What then should an unbeliever do? Cry out to God for the Holy Spirit to give him a new heart and convert his soul: “mortification [of sin] is not the present business of unregenerate men. God calls them not to it as yet; conversion is their work — the conversion of the whole soul — not the mortification of this or that particular lust.”

Freed for Joy

In the writings of John Owen, I was shown how and why the promises of sexual fulfillment on my own terms were the antithesis of what I had once fervently believed. Instead of liberty, my sexual sin was enslavement. This seventeenth-century Puritan revealed to me how my lesbian desires and sensibilities were dead-end joy-killers.

Today, I now stand in a long line of godly women — the Mary Magdalene line. The gospel came with grace, but demanded irreconcilable war. Somewhere on this bloody battlefield, God gave me an uncanny desire to become a godly woman, covered by God, hedged in by his word and his will. This desire bled into another one: to become, if the Lord willed, the godly wife of a godly husband.

And then I noticed it.

Union with the risen Christ meant that everything else was nailed to the cross. I couldn’t get my former life back if I wanted it. At first, this was terrifying, but when I peered deep into the abyss of my terror, I found peace.

With peace, I found that the gospel is always ahead of you. Home is forward. Today, by God’s amazing grace alone, I am a chosen part of God’s family, where God cares about the details of my day, the math lessons and the spilled macaroni and cheese, and most of all, for the people, the image-bearers of his precious grace, the man who calls me beloved, and the children who call me mother.

Taxpayers Shouldn’t Pay for Pornography

by Nathan Oppman

March 26, 2015

H.R. 5628, the Eliminating Pornography from Agencies Act, would prohibit government employees from accessing pornography on the job.  This Act passed out of committee this week and might seem unnecessary. 

Wouldn’t that kind of activity get you fired?  Not in the world of the Federal Government.  An EPA employee who watched as much as six hours a day of explicit content was still on the government payroll a year after being caught.  It is sad that our government has become so bloated that it can’t hold employees responsible for dereliction of their duties. 

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) sponsored the bill to fix this problem.  Taxpayers shouldn’t be on the dime for something so harmful to society.  Let’s hope Rep. Meadows’ bill reaches the President’s desk.  For more information on the effects of pornography, please see the work done by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation.  

Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting

by Rob Schwarzwalder

March 18, 2015

Every so often an article comes along that is so moving it puts all the extemporaneous analysis and opinion that floods the Internet into the background. “Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting” is such an article.

In her loving, gentle, but painfully honest open letter to advocates of same-sex marriage, Heather Barwick describes being raised by two lesbians. Her mother and her partner loved Heather, but couldn’t replace her “deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man.” Following are some excerpts from her moving piece, which is addressed specifically to same-sex partners raising children:

I’m not saying that you can’t be good parents. You can. I had one of the best. I’m also not saying that being raised by straight parents means everything will turn out okay. We know there are so many different ways that the family unit can break down and cause kids to suffer: divorce, abandonment, infidelity, abuse, death, etc. But by and large, the best and most successful family structure is one in which kids are being raised by both their mother and father …

Gay marriage doesn’t just redefine marriage, but also parenting. It promotes and normalizes a family structure that necessarily denies us something precious and foundational. It denies us something we need and long for, while at the same time tells us that we don’t need what we naturally crave. That we will be okay. But we’re not. We’re hurting …

It’s not just me. There are so many of us. Many of us are too scared to speak up and tell you about our hurt and pain, because for whatever reason it feels like you’re not listening. That you don’t want to hear. If we say we are hurting because we were raised by same-sex parents, we are either ignored or labeled a hater.

This isn’t about hate at all. I know you understand the pain of a label that doesn’t fit and the pain of a label that is used to malign or silence you. And I know that you really have been hated and that you really have been hurt. I was there, at the marches, when they held up signs that said, ‘God hates fags’ and ‘AIDS cures homosexuality.’ I cried and turned hot with anger right there in the street with you. But that’s not me. That’s not us.

I know this is a hard conversation. But we need to talk about it. If anyone can talk about hard things, it’s us. You taught me that.”

Archives