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

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

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

Justice (now Chief Justice) Barbara Madsen pointed out in her majority opinion that while the U. S. Supreme Court has declared marriage to be a “fundamental right,” it has done so only in the context of marriages between a man and a woman, since they relate to “procreation and the survival of the human race.”

In his concurrence, Justice James M. Johnson noted that the only “inequality” in the current law is between different types of couples, not individuals. “Professed homosexuals, like all Washingtonians, are clearly allowed to marry in Washington.” Yet all individuals also face limits on their choice of marriage partner: “A person may not marry someone under age 17, may not marry if already married, may not marry a close relative, and may not marry if ‘the parties are persons other than a male and a female.’ The last prohibition, like the bigamy/polygamy prohibition, is definitional.”

There is no question that opposite-sex couples are unique; as Justice Madsen noted, “[N]o other relationship has the potential to create, without third party involvement, a child biologically related to both parents.” The link between marriage and procreation “is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate,” nor by the fact that some same-sex couples raise children; “Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis” for treating opposite-sex couples uniquely.

Marriage serves not only to encourage the potentially procreative relationships of opposite-sex couples, but also to regulate them. Justice Madsen quoted a 2005 Indiana court decision which noted that procreation is sometimes accidental: “[The] institution of opposite-sex marriage both encourages such couples to enter into a stable relationship before having children and to remain in such a relationship if children arrive during the marriage unexpectedly.”

Not only are opposite-sex couples the only ones capable of natural procreation, but they also provide the best environment for child-rearing. As Justice Johnson wrote: “The legislature was offered evidence that children tend to thrive best in families consisting of mothers, fathers, and their biological children. … Direct comparisons between opposite-sex homes and same-sex homes further support the former as a better environment for children. For example, studies show an average shorter term commitment and more sexual partners for same-sex couples.”

Advocates of same-sex “marriage” regularly confuse one of the personal reasons why individual couples choose to marry – to express love and commitment – with the public purposes of marriage as a social institution. Justice Madsen was blunt in noting that “the right to marry is not grounded in the State’s interest in promoting loving, committed relationships. While desirable, nowhere in any marriage statute of this state has the legislature expressed this goal.”

Some people argue that other changes in the institution of marriage, as well as technologies which have separated sexual relations from procreation, mean that the historic definition of marriage can be abandoned. But as Justice Johnson noted, quoting a brief submitted by Families Northwest, “[W]idespread contraceptive and abortion rights may actually make more salient, not less, the traditional role of marriage in encouraging men and women to make the next generation that society needs. The more … choice individuals have about whether or not to have children, the more need there is for a social institution that encourages men and women to have babies together, and creates the conditions under which those children are likely to get the best care.”

In 2006, Justice Madsen said for the court, “We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite sex-couples furthers the State’s interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both.”

The legislature would be wise to conclude the same today.

In Girl Land, Flanagan looks at how culture has changed over time and how it has become focused on viewing girls as sexual objects and denying them the privacy, daydreams, and crushes that normal girlhood provides. In other words, they are losing their sense of self.

However, Girl Land is also drawing some criticism from those who might agree with Flanagan’s point of view. In a recent RealClearBooks op-ed by Heather Wilhelm, Girl Land received some criticism as painting things too broadly. Wilhelm brings up a great point that this book fosters ambiguity toward men, as well as making excuses for the “boys will be boys” mentality.

On one hand, Flanagan seems to buy into the “all men are predators” narrative, speaking of the pervy uncle and the drunk father hitting on the babysitter as if they are prototypes, not anomalies. Perhaps this stems from an assault Flanagan endured when she was younger, which she details in the book. But it’s an odd quirk, particularly in a girl culture better represented by the aggressive, love-struck babysitter in “Crazy, Stupid, Love” (in the movie, she harasses her charge’s clueless father, leading to mortifying results) than anything else.

But then, on the other hand, Girl Land exhibits a strange sense of “boys will be boys” that excuses even the crassest behavior. “If I were to learn that my children had engaged in oral sex — outside a romantic relationship, and as young adolescents — I would be sad,” Flanagan writes. “But I wouldn’t think that they had been damaged by the experience; I wouldn’t think I had failed catastrophically as a mother, or that they would need therapy. Because I don’t have daughters, I have sons.”

Wilhelm also argues that girls are facing a society that promotes promiscuity over abstinence. Girl Land did not mention anything about respect for this critical moral choice.

Kids need to know how their behaviors will impact them in the long run, and the implications of not making the right choices behaviorally. Shouldn’t Girl Land be focused on holding both sons and daughters to high moral standards? Our society needs these standards now more than ever.

I was disgusted by this display.   I turned around only to see a little girl pick up a copy of the magazine only to run back to her mother and say how pretty the model was.  The mother of the girl also looked disgusted by the magazine and told the little girl to put back the magazine.

Fox News has focused on this recently, and they were shocked by this recent image as well.  In fact, Rachelle Friberg, a media expert who was interviewed by Fox, said:

Cosmopolitan is going overboard by putting an underage girl on its cover surrounded by such article titles. It is one thing to educate young women about sex and their bodies, but putting a young, underage girl on the cover of a magazine that had long been known to push the limits is sending the wrong message.

Cosmopolitan, of course, defended its decision to have Fanning as the magazine’s cover model.  Of course, their decision generated controversy, and there is no doubt that teenagers, who are fans of Fanning are lining up to buy the issue and being exposed to Cosmopolitan’s agenda of promoting immodest behaviors and promiscuity.

Today, I was glad to read that a former model is calling out Cosmopolitan for its practices and is calling for the magazine to be marketed as an adult-only publication, which would require the magazine to be sold in packaging that would not show the cover.  Nicole Weider is leading this effort and has a petition urging the FTC to help protect our youth from vulgarity.  The petition has almost 21,000 signatures, and there is no doubt that will garner more signatures from those who agree the magazine has gone too far.

Does Cosmopolitan realize the impact that these behaviors have on young women?  In 2010, the American Psychological Association released, “Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls.”  This report highlighted how publications, like Cosmopolitan, have a negative impact on young women’s mental health.

One of the dominant themes about sexuality reported across these studies and across magazines is that presenting oneself as sexually desirable and thereby gaining the attention of men is and should be the focal goal for women.

The evidence from this research is not shocking.  It’s sad that publications, such as Cosmopolitan feel the need to consistently market women as sex symbols.  The editors of Cosmopolitan don’t even offer the perspectives of those who want to abstain from sex until marriage, which is even more depressing.

Family Research Council has released a report, “Why Wait: The Benefits of Abstinence Until Marriage,” that provided evidence that those who abstain from premarital sex tend to have happier and healthier marriages.  The report also highlighted the emotional impact that premarital sex has on young women.

A 2005 study of youth in grades 7-11 found that engaging in premarital sex often leads to depression. Compared to girls who abstain, girls who engage in premarital sex are two to three times more likely to be depressed one year later.eens who engage in premarital sex are also likely to experience regret, guilt, lowered self-respect, fear of commitment and fears about pregnancy and STDs.In addition, they are more likely to commit suicide.

With research like this, Ms. Weider’s petition is needed to protect young women from being exposed to Cosmopolitan’s agenda.  Yes, it has been said that sex sells, but the real selling point is what a woman offers in terms of grace and intelligence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewed by Caleb H. Price

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significantly, A Queer Thing offers an indictment of the one-sided embrace of the GLBT political agenda by media and corporate elites – and the mean-spirited attack on those who hold to traditional values on these issues.  Here, Brown treats the semantic issues well and shows how GLBT activists have masterfully reframed terms to advance their agenda.

Similarly, Brown provides a helpful understanding of – and rebuttal to – of the GLBT revisionist theology that has taken root in both the church and secular arenas. Given that Christians are called to offer a winsome answer for their convictions, this section is very helpful in equipping those who feel inept discussing these difficult issues.

At its core, A Queer Thing details the totalitarian nature of the GLBT rights movement. The inevitable conflict between religious liberty and sexual freedom is chillingly presented. Here, those who disagree with Brown will be particularly challenged.

Winsome and witty, well reasoned and meticulously researched, Michael Brown raises the bar with A Queer Thing and calls citizens to take action to turn the tide of the GLBT agenda at the local level. There’s even an accompanying website offering detailed action steps for citizen involvement (www.aqueerthing.com).

Political parties will vehemently disagree on the precise tactics and funding levels required to address this horrific disease. But in a refreshingly bipartisan event this morning, President Barack Obama made the following comment:

As we go forward, we need to keep refining our strategy so that we’re saving as many lives as possible. We need to listen when the scientific community focuses on prevention.

My good friend Suzanne Taylor just released a film that tells the moving story of the treacherous AIDS epidemic in the African country of Botswana. The Road We Know documents what a small group of college students are doing to encourage prevention.

In Botswana, 1 in 4 people adults has HIV/AIDS. But while the government has done everything the Western world has encouraged—like handing out condoms and offering free testing—the formula has clearly failed.

Desperate for a solution, the government invited a small group of college students to help save their generation with a message of hope and behavior change.

In the film’s trailer, the student leaders share an upbeat message across the country–a message that sex is good and that abstinence isn’t only possible, it’s life-saving. As President George W. Bush remarked in his 2004 State of the Union Address, “Abstinence … is the only certain way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.”

In a 2010 report, UNAIDS could point to a 25 percent drop or more in new infections for young adults ages 15 to 24 in 15 of the most infected nations–primarily due to sexual behavior change. This confirmed that story documented in Botswana was not an isolated trend.

Now that’s a message of hope and change. The kind we should all believe in.

To watch the film or host a screening, visit www.theroadweknow.com.

To connect with Evangelical or Catholic AIDS ministries, check out FRC’s Real Compassion website at www.realcompassion.org.

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

A year later, a commentary last month on the website of The Advocate, the nation’s leading “gay” magazine, finally admitted that this is a serious problem. David McFarland is “interim executive director and CEO” of The Trevor Project, which runs a suicide prevention hotline for “LGBT” youth. McFarland cited the political and cultural “benefit from showcasing the health crisis of disproportionate rates of suicide and incidences of bullying that affect LBGT young people.” However—in an astonishing admission—he also acknowledged that “this tactic has also increased suicide risk.”

Got that? Here is a pro-homosexual activist admitting that “this tactic” (“showcasing . . . suicide and . . . bullying”) “has also increased suicide risk” (emphasis added).

There are three key problems with the “bullying causes suicide” theme. The first is that it ignores most of what we know about the causes of suicide. McFarland acknowledges gently that “the reasons a person attempts suicide are . . . complicated,” and notes that “suicide is closely tied to psychological well-being.” Haas was more blunt, indicating to the reporter that “underlying mental-health issues . . . are present in 90 percent of people who die by suicide.” In other words, most people who are bullied do not commit suicide. It is mental illness—not bullying—that causes most suicides.

However, the second problem with emphasizing the link between bullying and suicide is that, as McFarland states, “it can influence someone who is at-risk to assume that taking your own life is what you’re supposed to do next if you are LGBT or bullied.” Haas made the same point a year ago, warning that publicly identifying bullying as a motive for suicide can “mak[e] suicide seem like an understandable, if not unavoidable, culmination of a person’s experience.” She added, “Suicide is not a rational act.” McFarland makes the same point, declaring that “we can help avoid making suicide appear like a logical choice.”

The third problem, which flows out of the second, is what McFarland refers to as “suicide contagion.” He warns that “the more a story of a particular victim is out there, the more likely one or more people who are at-risk will also attempt suicide.” Haas warned, “Stories depicting the person who’s died by suicide as very sympathetic can inadvertently encourage vulnerable young people to identify with him or her.” In other words, being revered as a martyr in death can appear more attractive than experiencing continuing pain in life.

We should do all we can to help young people with mental illness—whether homosexual or heterosexual—and to prevent teen suicides. And we should do all we can to prevent bullying of any child—for their sexual orientation, appearance, religion, or any other reason. But it is time for homosexual activists to stop exploiting personal tragedies to advance their political agenda—especially in a way that may cause more such tragedies.

Bachmann, whose wife is running for the presidency and is therefore a target of activists who oppose his views on traditional marriage, argues that “it’s not the amount of money. For us, it’s the principle.” Imagine that: a business owner standing up for his staff and himself, using legal means to do so, and insisting that since Becker “signed a contract that stated he would pay for no-shows,” that Becker be held to account.

All I know of the case is what the Journal reports. If Becker is telling the truth – that he canceled his meetings in an appropriate time-frame – let him prove it. If he’s not, let him pay what he owes.

This is not a “petty and vindictive campaign of harassment and threats” against “Truth Wins Out,” as the group’s director, Wayne Besen, asserts. It’s about responsibility, keeping one’s word, and paying what is owed. “A promise made,” wrote the poet Robert Service, “is a debt unpaid.” Enough said.

Portland has a justified reputation for urban renewal and natural beauty.  Bisected by the Willamette River and set among lush, fir-laden hills, Portland’s charm is hard to forget.

Yet now, as Katelyn Beaty documents in her moving article about the sex trafficking trade in the City of Roses (that would be Portland; I proposed to my wife in the city’s massive rose-test garden, albeit in the winter when none were in bloom), Portland has become perhaps the single most dominant city in one of the ugliest “industries” ever devised – the trafficking of persons for sexual purposes.  Veteran journalist Dan Rather has called Portland “Pornland,” and according to Joslyn Baker of the Multnomah County (Portland area) unit that specializes in child prostitution,  “most Portlanders accepted the ubiquitous strip clubs as part of their premium on individual freedom—until February 2009, when the FBI swept the Portland-Vancouver area and found seven underage girls, the most in any FBI raid at the time. With the ensuing national media coverage, Portlanders began realizing that their lucrative sex industry is the main ‘gateway’ for pimping children.”

Christians are fighting back, with love and tenacity.  They have now started the Oregon Center for Christian Voices (OCCV), which over the past four years “has … become Oregon’s flagship nonprofit for passing laws that make it harder to sexually exploit children. In the same four years, two Christians in Portland’s leading assault advocacy group and police department have created a unique model for assisting underage victims. Their model earned their county a $500,000 federal grant that created a special committee on CSEC (‘commercial sexual exploitation of children’).”  Additionally, Oregon State Legislator Andy Olson (R-Albany) “has worked with OCCV to try to amend Oregon’s Constitution (whose free speech provisions open the door for prostitution and illicit sexuality among youth). A Christian, he calls trafficking a ‘family values issue.’”

Rep. Olson is dead right, and the noble efforts of committed Christians to change Portland’s culture of prostitution and sex trafficking are animated by the same spirit of sacrifice and compassion that led the early believers to rescue unwanted babies from the Roman ash-heaps.  As Shoshan Tama-Sweet, executive director of the Oregon Center for Christian Voices, told journalist Beaty: “The church has something special: We have the Good News.  We have a vision of the way the world is supposed to be. And it doesn’t include the rape of children on our streets.  When you realize that God loved every victim when they were born, that he’s with them every day they’re traumatized—it’s incumbent on believers to protect them, to help them become whole, and to insist that, in our society, we are not going to tolerate the antithesis of God’s beloved community.”

I believe Mr. Tama-Sweet is among those Jesus is unashamed to call brothers (Hebrews 2:11).  May God bless him and his colleagues in their efforts.

Earlier this year, FRC held two events focusing on human trafficking and what Christians can do to fight it.  You can view them here and here.