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).

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.

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

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

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

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

In the attack on the Christian Liberty Academy, however, the vandals made clear that their attack was directed specifically at the work of AFTAH and Lively. A note accompanying one of the bricks said, “This is just a sample of what we will do if you don’t shut down Scott Lively and AFTAH.” It followed with obscenities (edited here): “F*** Scott Lively” and “Quit the homophobic s***!” The other brick had written directly on it, “Shut down Lively.”

If that weren’t bad enough, an anonymous person posted a detailed claim of credit for the attack on the left-wing “Chicago Independent Media Center” website. It included this declaration:

These chunks of concrete were thrown through these windows and doors for two reasons: to show that there is a consequence for hatred and homophobia in our community and to directly cause this event to be shut down.

(It is bizarre that anyone could think throwing bricks through school windows could be considered a way of combating “hatred.”)

Were either or both of these incidents “hate crimes?” In a generic sense, as the term “hate crime” is typically used, both were “hate crimes.” Both involved criminal acts, and both were motivated by characteristics of the victims (in the one case, sexual orientation, and in the other, religion, or more specifically religious beliefs in opposition to homosexual conduct).

In the legal sense, however, neither of these fit under the definition of “hate crimes” that merit federal intervention, according to the 2009 law passed by Congress and signed by President Obama. The new federal hate crimes bill applies only to cases where a person  “willfully causes bodily injury” or “attempts to cause bodily injury,” so crimes of vandalism directed only at property are not covered.

Some states have their own “hate crime” laws featuring broader definitions than the federal statute. North Carolina, however, does not include “sexual orientation” as one of the protected categories in its hate crime law.

Illinois, on the other hand, has a hate crime law that does cover religion as a protected category. It also states explicitly that even an act of “misdemeanor criminal damage to property” will be treated as a Class 3 felony if it is motivated by bias and takes places on property used for religious purposes (such as the Christian Liberty Academy).

Thus, under current state laws, the North Carolina incident would appear not to be a “hate crime,” but the Illinois one would be. However, police treatment of the two cases appears to be diametrically opposite of what the law would suggest. Authorities in North Carolina say they are investigating the spray paint attack as a “hate incident,” while those in Illinois say there was no “hate crime” because Lively was targeted for his views, not his religion.

While Christian moral teachings are not the only reason to oppose homosexual conduct, does anyone seriously believe that if an African American church were targeted for supporting civil rights protections, or a Jewish synagogue were targeted for giving aid to Israel, it would not be considered a “hate crime?”

Family Research Council opposes the entire concept of “hate crimes,” because we believe that criminal laws should punish actions alone, not the personal opinions of those who commit those actions. We hope that both the Illinois and North Carolina incidents will be thoroughly investigated, solved, and prosecuted on that basis.

Nevertheless, the selective application of the hate crime law in Illinois shows that such laws are actually not applied on a neutral basis, but are used primarily when they will advance a politically correct cause, such as the affirmation of homosexual conduct.

While both the Illinois and North Carolina incidents were “hateful” on their face, there is another factor at work in the attack on Christian Liberty Academy. Those who claimed credit for the attack online said it had a specific goal—“to directly cause this event [the AFTAH banquet that night] to be shut down” (in this they failed—the program went forward as scheduled). They also warned of similar attacks in the future: “If this event is not shut down, and the homophobic day trainings [a reference to AFTAH’s “Truth Academy” educational programs] do not end, the Christian liberty academy will continue to be under constant attack.”

There is a word for the use of violence to deter others from opposing your political agenda. That word is not just “hate,” but “terrorism.”

Some who posted comments under the claim of credit for the Illinois attack condemned it: “As a gay man, I cannot condone your actions. Violence is never acceptable.” Shockingly, though, a number of the comments actually praised this act of pro-“gay” terrorism.

Some were mild in their endorsement—“These kinds of actions may have their place,” and “It should be respected.” Others, however were downright gleeful: “lol those homophobes got served maybe they think twice before bringing fascists to our town again;” and, “I only wish I could have been there with a truckload of ‘concrete blocks’ for smashing. Let’s STONE those haters for the criminals they are.”

There is such a thing as “anti-gay hate.” The attack on the GLBT Center at NC State is an example of it, and FRC does not hesitate to condemn it.

Peaceful opposition to demands for official affirmation of homosexual conduct, however, is not “hate.”

And the terrorism at the Christian Liberty Academy shows that it may be those making such pro-homosexual demands who are guilty of the most “hatred” toward their opponents.

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

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

Stier testified that she was married–to a man–for twelve years, and had two biological children with him. Even more startling is her admission that she did not “learn” that she was a lesbian until she was in “her mid-thirties.”

Part 1 of this post featured the beginning of attorney Ted Olson’s direct examination of Stier, dealing with her marriage to her husband.

This, Part 2, features Stier’s testimony about her relationship with her current lesbian partner, Kristin Perry.

Stier’s testimony appears in bold; [my editorial comments are in bracket and italics].

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Trial—Day 1

1/11/2010 9:00:00 AM

Transcript pp. 163-167

. . . .

Q. When did you meet Ms. Perry?

A. I met Kris around 1996.

Q. And how did your relationship with her develop? And – go ahead.

A. Well, when I first met Kris, of course, I hadn’t known her previously. I was teaching a computer class and she was a student in my class. So I just sort of knew of her, but then we started working together on projects at work and ended up being coworkers and became fast friends quite quickly. And we were friends for quite some time and I began to realize that the feelings I had for her were really unique and different from friends, feelings I normally had towards friends. And they were absolutely taking over my thoughts and my — sort of my entire self. And I grew to realize I had a very strong attraction to her and, indeed, I was falling in love with her.

Q. And tell us when you realized finally that you had fallen in love with her?

A. I really — I realized that in 1999, early in the year.

[Other anecdotal accounts of lesbian relationships suggest that this pattern is fairly typical—they begin as friendships which grow more and more intimate emotionally, and only at the end become sexual. She does not report that she looked at her partner and immediately—or even quickly—felt a strong sexual attraction to her. Again, this undermines the claim that all lesbians have an innate “orientation” which makes them sexually attracted to women in general.]

Q. Did your falling in love with Kris have anything to do with the dissolution of your marriage?

A. My marriage was troubled on many fronts and had been in a very, very difficult state. And the end of my marriage was precipitated by my own extreme unhappiness, my ex-husband’s severe problems with alcohol and his inability to provide the type of support as a husband and a family person that I had to have.

[Since Stier realized “in 1999, early in the year” that she was “in love with” Kristin Perry, and her marriage also ended in 1999, it is somewhat difficult to give credence to this denial, whatever difficulties her husband may have had. Advocates of same-sex “marriage” often ask, “What harm could same-sex marriage do to your marriage?” In the case of Stier’s marriage, it appears that society’s growing acceptance of homosexual relationships may have made it easier for her to leave her husband. If same-sex “marriage” were legalized, and it were possible to go directly from a heterosexual marriage to a homosexual one, the incentive to break up the first marriage might be even greater. This—the breakup of some existing opposite-sex marriages—is a potential harm of same-sex “marriage” which is very real. However, it is impossible to predict in advance who will experience it.]

Q. Did your sexual orientation or your discovery of your sexual orientation have anything to do with the dissolution of that marriage?

A. No, it did not.

[Again, this is a fascinating admission. It would seem more consistent with typical homosexual propaganda for her to say, as noted above, “I realized I was living a lie,” or “I decided it was time to be who I really am.”

Judge Walker supported his Finding 51 with testimony from a witness who stated:

“Some gay men and lesbians have married members of the opposite sex, but many of those marriages dissolve, and some of them experience considerable problems simply because one of the partners is gay or lesbian. A gay or lesbian person marrying a person of the opposite sex is likely to create a great deal of conflict and tension in the relationship.”

Yet Sandra Stier’s testimony clearly does not support this theory. She states flatly that her “discovery of [her] sexual orientation” did not “have anything to do with the dissolution of that marriage.” The implication seems to be that if her husband had not had “severe problems with alcohol” and had been able “to provide the type of support as a husband and a family person” that she needed; and if she had not met and fallen “in love with” Kristin Perry; she might well have remained married to her husband until his death, never “learning” that she was “gay.”]

Q. Your husband is no longer living, is that correct?

A. That’s true.

Q. Then tell us about how your relationship with Ms. Perry developed?

A. Well, my relationship with Kris, the romantic part of the relationship certainly started for me in a — just a very exciting place. I had never experienced falling in love before, and I think –

Q. Are you saying that you weren’t in love with your husband?

A. I was not in love with my husband, no.

Q. Did you think that you were at some point?

A. I had a hard time relating to the concept of being in love when I was married to my husband. And while I did love him when I married him, I honestly just couldn’t relate when people said they were in love. I thought they were overstating their feelings and maybe making a really big deal out of something. It didn’t really make sense to me. It seemed dramatic. You know, when you grow up in the midwest and in a farming family — which is a really unique way to grow up, if anybody knows much about that — but there is a pragmatism that is inherent and it’s part of the fabric of life and an understated way of being that is just pervasive in terms of your development. And I remember as a young girl talking to my mom about love and marriage and she would say, “You know, marriage is more than romantic love. It’s more than excitement. It’s an enduring long-term commitment and it’s hard work.” And in my family that seemed very true.

(Laughter.)

[It saddens me that there was laughter in the courtroom at the statement that “[marriage is] an enduring long-term commitment and it’s hard work.” Truer words were never spoken—even with couples who were madly in love when they first married, and even with couples who still are.]

So I really thought that was what I was kind of signing up for when I got married; not that it would be bad, but that it would be hard work and I would grow into that love, and that I needed to marry a good, solid person and I would grow into something like my parents had, which was really a lovely marriage and still is.

[I am glad that she says that her mother and father’s marriage—presumably one that modeled that “enduring long-term commitment” and “hard work”—“was really a lovely marriage and still is.” It was also a fruitful one—without the natural procreation possible only in opposite-sex relationships, Ms. Stier’s life would never have begun. It is simply obtuse to deny that this is the central reason why marriage is a public institution, and why it is defined as a male-female union.]

Q. And then you were — I interrupted you. You were in the midst of describing what happened in terms of your own feelings as your relationship with Ms. Perry developed?

A. Well, with Kris my — so we have this wonderfully romantic relationship and — that just really grew and blossomed very beautifully. And not only were we in love, but we wanted – we realized fairly soon that we wanted to build a life together. We wanted to join our families and live as a family. That we didn’t want to date. I was 36 or 37 years old, and Kris is a tiny about it younger than me, but we really wanted to build a family together and have that kind of life of commitment and stability that we both really appreciated.

Q. How convinced are you that you are gay? You’ve lived with a husband. You said you loved him. Some people might say, Well, it’s this and then it’s that and it could be this again. Answer that.

A. Well, I’m convinced, because at 47 years old I have fallen in love one time and it’s with Kris. And our love is — it’s a blend of many things. It’s physical attraction. It’s romantic attraction. It’s a strong commitment. It’s intellectual bonding and emotional bonding. For me, it just isn’t love. I really, quite frankly, don’t know what that would be for adults. I don’t know what else to say about it.

[She “has fallen in love one time and it’s with Kris.” This seems a rather limited data point on which to base any claim that she has an innate lesbian identity—an enduring pattern of sexual attraction toward other women.]

Q. Why are you a plaintiff in this case?

A. Well, I’m a plaintiff in this case because I would like to get married, and I would like to marry the person that I choose and that is Kris Perry. She is a woman. And according to California law right now, we can’t get married, and I want to get married.

[This is a succinct and accurate statement of her situation under the current law. And some people—people who feel there is nothing morally wrong with engaging in homosexual conduct; that the definition of marriage has nothing to do with the procreative potential of opposite-sex relationships; that being raised by both their mother and father provides no advantage to children; and that changing the definition of marriage would have no impact at all on the institution of marriage—may sympathize with it and wish to see Stier’s desire to marry Perry be fulfilled.

However, this provides no basis whatsoever for claiming that California’s definition of marriage violates the United States Constitution. Thwarting a person’s desires is not at all the same as violating a person’s constitutional rights.] 

Reading that story brought to mind how Woody Allen once described the perfect arrangement he had with Mia Farrow:  separate apartments on opposite sides of Central Park where they could see each other’s lights go off at night.  But we know how that ended.   (For those too young to remember:  Woody ended up having an affair with, and then marrying, his own stepdaughter, and in his defense famously said, “The heart wants what the heart wants.”)

Last week the London Telegraph reviewed another new social relationship trend:  people who are neither married nor in love (nor, in some cases, even acquainted) are apparently having children together through the use of in vitro fertilization.  Why?

The story leads with examples of homosexuals who wanted to have a child of their own partnering up with people of the opposite sex to share biological material.  But also interviewed was this single heterosexual woman, approaching the end of her fertile years, who explained:  “In a worst-case scenario I would seek an anonymous donor, but I’ve always thought a child needs a father.  At the very least I wanted a donor who would visit regularly.”

What kid wouldn’t want Daddy Sperm visiting regularly?  But why does little Johnny hide under the bed when the door bell rings?

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

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

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

FRC’s Tony Perkins, however, noted in his Washington Update that Franken seemed to be forgetting the very law that the hearing was about:

DOMA says, “In determining the meaning of . . . any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Since this was a federal study published by a federal agency based on a federal survey conducted by federal (Census Bureau) employees, its definition of “married” is bound by DOMA.

I had made the same point in a longer op-ed about this study in February.

Just to be sure, however, I sent an email to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which had published the study. Unfortunately, they confirmed that they had simply ignored the mandate of DOMA with respect to the definition of marriage.

Here, for the record, is the substantive part of their response:

The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is conducted under the authority of the National Center for Health Statistics and obtains annual data on various health characteristics (e.g., health status, chronic conditions, disability, access to health care, etc.) of the US noninstitutionalized population. NHIS data are typically obtained via face-to-face computer-assisted interviews using fixed format questions. All NHIS data are based on self reports by respondents who decide for themselves how they wish to answer each question; the interviewer then enters the response on the computer.

Regarding marital status, all household members aged 14 or older are asked if they are “now married, widowed, divorced, separated, never married, or living with a partner.” NHIS respondents self-identify whether they are currently married, divorced, living with a partner, etc.; they are not asked questions about the type of union (e.g., civil unions, common-law marriages, etc) or date of divorce, whether either the marriage or divorce is legal according to the state they live in, or how long their union has lasted. If NHIS respondents tell us they are married, we accept that response as is. Other than making sure that the data are consistent with the universe (that is, limited to respondents aged 14 or older), no attempt is made by NCHS staff to correct the data. Moreover, the 2001-2007 NHIS did not contain questions that systematically asked about sexual orientation; gay or lesbian respondents, as well as same-sex couples, are contained in the data but are not identified. As a result, the definitions used in sr10_246 (the report on family structure and children’s health) were neutral regarding the gender of parents.

It seems to me that it would be easy enough in the interview process to briefly explain the federal definition of marriage, so that the respondent can reply to the marital status question in a way consistent with the law. Procedures for conducting these interviews should immediately be amended to bring them into conformity with DOMA.

Nevertheless, I will give one round to Franken on this technical point. But the number of “nuclear families” headed by homosexual couples in this study is likely to be negligible. As Tony Perkins noted in the same Washington Update piece quoted above,

Even if, by chance, the interviewers or authors violated [DOMA], the survey data was collected from 2001 to 2007. During that time (and only from mid-2004 on) there was only one state (Massachusetts) in which homosexual couples could “marry.”

Furthermore, even “married” homosexual couples who are raising children are unlikely to fit the definition of a “nuclear” family. Remember, a “nuclear” family requires that the “married” parents “are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family” (emphasis added). Obviously, it is biologically impossible for same-sex partners to each be biological parents of the same children.

Only if a “married” same-sex couple had jointly adopted all the children in their household would they clearly fit even this study’s lawless definition of a “nuclear” family. However, this is not the most common type of homosexual parenting situation. It is much more common for “homosexual parents” to bring to their relationships their own biological children—conceived in previous heterosexual relationships.

Advocates for homosexual parents (and for homosexual “marriage”) are fond of arguing that children do not need a mom and a dad—all they need is “two loving parents.” But this HHS study, while unfortunately not consistent with federal law in its definition of “married” parents, still offers no support for that argument.

Households featuring same-sex couples raising children are much more likely to fit one of the other “non-nuclear” household types—all of which, apart from “single-parent” families, feature at least two adult caretakers. These include “unmarried biological or adoptive,” “blended,” “cohabiting,” “extended,” or “other” families.

All of these family types had outcomes inferior to those of the “nuclear” family.

We believe Jesus’ message compels us to welcome all, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. Show the world that you can be Christian AND believe in LGBT equality. Join the movement to unite a million Christians for LGBT equality in the church and beyond.

Although in past years, Sojourners has taken stridently liberal positions on all manner of hotly-contested issues, tacitly endorsing homosexuality is, apparently, too far a stretch.  “Sojourners’ constituency, board, and staff are not of one mind on all of these issues,” wrote Wallis at the Sojourners blog this week.

This indubitably is true: At least one of the publication’s Board members, Ron Sider, is a signer of the Manhattan Declaration, as is contributing editor Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.  In signing the Declaration, they  joined other signatories (including this author) in affirming that “we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise?”  How, indeed.

Wallis, a man of the Left, in his blog avoids stating what he did in a 2008 Christianity Today interview:

I don’t think the sacrament of marriage should be changed. Some people say that Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, and that’s technically true. But marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral.

Wallis’ interpretation of Scripture in this statement is correct.  But in his 2008 book, The Great Awakening, he argues for “civil unions from the state and even spiritual blessings for gay couples (from congregations prepared to offer them).”  In that same book, and in repeated interviews that have echoed it, Wallis also disingenuously argues that matters related to homosexuality “should not be fundamentally divisive.”  As he wrote in his piece this week:

… the major differences of theology and biblical interpretation in the church with regard to issues such as the nature of homosexuality, gay marriage, and ordination are not issues that should be allowed to divide the churches – that local churches should lead the way here, and that an honest, open, respectful, and, hopefully, loving dialogue should characterize the church on these very controversial questions.

This makes no sense: To suggest that homosexuality, with all its implications about human dignity and sexuality, children and family, society and law, should not divide is sort of like saying a woman can be a little pregnant: Either she is or she is not.

Homosexuality is a defining issue for the church not only because of all of its social and moral implications, but most profoundly because the Bible offers no ambiguity as to its teaching that the only sexually intimate conduct sanctioned by God occurs within marriage between a man and a woman.

However, in his blog post, Wallis is not yet done playing intellectual Twister:

It is our hope that differing viewpoints are not silenced, but are lifted up in a display of Christian, and often interfaith, sisterhood and brotherhood. It is for this reason that we wish to engage first and foremost in dialogue on difficult issues within our editorial pages, and we typically do not display advertising relating to issues amongst people of faith that have unfortunately, and too often, been reduced to political wedge issues.

Really?  So, someone who advocates for the Just War tradition will find a welcoming audience among SoJo’s editors?  How about an explanation by Evangelical George W. Bush for America’s attack on Iraq, or by a believing Pentagon general engaged in America’s strategic defense?  Or perhaps Wallis will soon publish articles on abortion, marriage and homosexuality by such theologians as R.C Sproul or John Piper, or on religious liberty by such scholars as Daniel Dreisbach or Mark David Hall, or by scholars at the American Enterprise Institute or the Acton Institute on the virtues of capitalism and the danger of coercive charity (which amounts to Wallis’ definition of “justice”).  I await such with unbated breath.

Homosexuality is not a “wedge issue,” except in the sense that its advocates make it one.  The teaching of the Bible and the position of its faithful followers has not changed.  Those driving the wedge are the ones who would compel Evangelicals and orthodox Catholics to deny key components of their faith in order to accommodate a community of people whose insistence on theological acceptance is animated not by biblical teaching but moral desperation.

“No matter what your theological perspective or biblical interpretation on the issue of homosexuality, every Christian has the obligation to defend the lives, dignity, and civil rights of gay and lesbian people,” writes Wallis.  Lives and dignity, yes.  “Civil rights” insofar as they are law-abiding citizens?  Sure.  But “civil rights” based on their sexual practices?  No.  To affirm such is to create an unconstitutional class of rights based on a type of conduct, which opens the door for “rights” of a kind never imagined by our nation’s Founders or by simple common sense.

There is no love in affirming something that, however sincerely held, remains objectively wrong and ultimately harmful to those who practice it.  To show Christian love to a homosexual means, in part, graciously, winsomely, and patiently affirming that he or she bears the image of God and is precious to the Creator.  It is also, with a humble and merciful spirit, to share God’s unambiguous plan for human sexuality and the hurtful consequences of veering away from that plan.

Not to do so is less than loving, less than biblical.  Less than Jesus.

Click the ‘play’ button below to listen to Pierre Bynum’s testimony.

Click the ‘play’ button below to listen to Peter Sprigg’s testimony.

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

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

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

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

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

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