FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT
Journal of the
Family Research Institute
Founded 1982

Supreme Validation of Sodomy, Part II
Failure of the Pro-Family Leadership

Vol. 18 No. 5
September 2003

INSIDE THIS ISSUE...

A tantalizing mix of recent headlines

Cleveland, OH: United Church News, official newspaper of the United Church of Christ, announced that Rev. J. Guess, 36, a gay minister, will become the new editor. (Washington Blade 6/27/03)

Long Beach, CA: Michelle Platt is suing her former lesbian partner of 8 years, Marsha Naify, for 'alimony.' If Platt wins, the $10,000-$20,000 per month award would be precedent-setting. (Washington Blade 6/20/03)

Charlotte, NC: District Judge Nate Proctor declared North Carolina's sodomy law unconstitutional and threw out two charges against a man accused of soliciting sodomy in a public park. (Washington Blade 7/18/03)

Boston: A jury awarded a gay corrections officer $624,000 for his being 'harassed by co-workers.' Seems this 30-something gay jumped off the Neponset Bridge, but managed to survive. (Washington Blade 7/18/03)

Brussels, Belgium: The European Parliament, with the near-unanimous support of socialists, backed gay marriage and adoption rights for homosexuals. (Washington Blade 9/19/03)

Editor’s note: This is the second in a two-part analysis of the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas decision, handed down in June. Part one can be found in the August 2003 issue of Family Research Report. §

The Lawrence v. Texas decision was hailed by homosexual advocates as a monumental victory for the gay rights movement. And rightly so. As discussed in our last issue of Family Research Report (FRR), the Supreme Court established a fundamental new ‘right’ to sodomy in its ruling. It also did something else at least as devastating: the majority opinion broadly dismissed morality or historical precedent as a rational basis for law. In doing so, it established its dictatorship.

Clearly, the Lawrence decision was a tremendous blow to those who seek to uphold our nation’s traditional values and morality. But it was also a lesson in how conservatives as a whole, and the pro-family movement in particular, failed to recognize fundamental changes that have occurred in the arenas of law and public policy, and consequently failed to champion the kinds of arguments and evidence that might have led the Supreme Court to a different outcome.

Both the brief submitted to the Court by the State of Texas and the host of amicus briefs defending its sodomy law concentrated on the right of the State to regulate such behavior on the basis of long-standing legal precedent and moral standards. Specifically ignored by these briefs were the public health consequences of consensual adult same-sex sex — responsible for the deaths of over a third of a million Americans from HIV alone. While the briefs featured moralizing, the strongest evidence in support of traditional thinking — public health ramifications — was simply set aside. The actual events, and the health risks, that took place between the two men in Lawrence were never mentioned. Only their ‘right’ to do whatever it was they did was addressed.

Absent any concrete, scientific or medical reason for banning sodomy, it all became a matter of individual taste or preference. This is why the Court could say “There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent.”

In fact, leaving the strongest evidence ‘in the file drawer’ did much more than just make a win almost impossible for the upholders of the anti-sodomy law. By not intentionally linking Christian prohibitions of homosexuality with the strongly negative empirical outcomes of homosexual behavior, the justices — guided by the modern mindset that science is the final arbiter — could indeed feel justified in discounting morality as a basis for legislation. After all, if a moral standard written thousands of years ago, now held only by ‘religious fanatics’ even against the ‘weight of scientific opinion,’ was the only justification that could be provided, how strong an argument could it really be?

Apparently, not strong at all according to the Court: “In all events we think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here. These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.”

“The central holding of Bowers [that sustaining morality constitutes a compelling state interest] has been brought in question by this case, and it should be addressed. Its continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons.”

Justice O’Connor added that: “Moral disapproval of this group, like a bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.”

“Texas’ sodomy law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class. ‘After all, there can hardly be more palpable discrimination against a class than making the conduct that defines the class criminal.’”

“A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the State’s moral disapproval of that class and the conduct association with that class runs contrary to the values of the constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review.”

‘Personhood’ the Key
What stunned so many conservatives about the Lawrence v. Texas decision was its sweeping nature and tone. Yet the seeds of Lawrence and its rationale have been brewing for some time. Note, for instance, that the Court referred to “gay persons” or “homosexual persons” on more than one occasion, including the statement that when “sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

The key phrase here is “homosexual persons.” If someone’s true identity stems from and is defined by what they do sexually, then some of the Court’s rationale makes a kind of sense. How can we logically discriminate against or legally demean someone on the basis of their skin color? A person’s skin color is harmless to others and inherent to one’s identity. Likewise, homosexuality is portrayed as essentially harmless (or no more harmful than heterosexuality) and as an essential, if not inherent, component of a “gay person’s” identity.

The crucial point to recognize here is that pro-family activists and elements within Christianity have aided and abetted this very interpretation. At first this was not the case. In the late 1800s, homosexual activists tried to make themselves “a people” out of whole cloth because of their homosexual behavior. At that point, homosexuality was little more than a godless-religious movement on the outer fringe. But then, at the turn of the century, psychiatry went along with the notion, albeit by adding the notion that “homosexuals” had a “homosexual condition” stemming from familial dynamics which “impelled” them to do what they did sexually.

By 1973, psychiatry had largely abandoned the Freudian ‘mother-father-child interaction model’ of what ‘made’ homosexuals, but kept the ‘condition’ as part of “homosexual personhood.”

Nevertheless, even as it was disappearing in psychiatry, the old Freudian model was turning up in Christendom. For the past several years, Focus on the Family and the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) have toured churches, radio, and TV promoting the notion that there are “homosexual persons” with a “homosexual condition” and that traditionalists must overcome their “homophobia.” Even the Vatican has written about “homosexual persons” (though it has not yet to our knowledge explicitly asked Christians to abandon their ‘homophobia’).

Making homosexuals “people” who are expressing their ‘essence’ — instead of individuals who are injuring society by their sexual choices — is an important first step in absolving homosexuals of blame. Once pro-family leaders ceded “personhood” to those who engage in a certain act, they went a long way toward making what homosexual practitioners do ‘OK.’ Further, by criticizing the church for its ‘homophobia,’ they set the table for Walmart’s recent decision to give “diversity training” to its employees (i.e., extolling the goodness of homosexual activity). For if even the church has been too harsh on homosexuals, what organization is exempt?

What Should Have Been Done
The rallying cry of pro-family leaders against homosexual behavior should have been “public health.” Public health — both in the fact that the practice of homosexuality spreads disease and that it endangers children — should have been included in the discussions about homosexuality within the church over the past decade. It should also have dominated the arguments about the Texas sodomy law. But instead of public health, only ‘moral arguments’ were put forth, statements like ‘the Bible says its wrong,’ or ‘historically homosexuality has been considered wrong.’ And even these moral arguments were tempered by the confusion wrought by discussions of “homosexual persons” and “homophobia“ within Christian circles.

ONLY public health arguments stand a chance to persuade the courts or the legislatures. Morality and tradition — as basis for argument in the public square — are dead and have been dead for about a decade in the courts. Public health, on the other hand, has a history of trumping ‘personal liberty.’ It may or may not have trumped personal liberty in the Lawrence decision — but it stood the only chance. And pro-family leaders, by not emphasizing public health arguments and by sowing confusion about the homosexual issue among Evangelicals, definitely made the Lawrence decision more possible.

The decision by pro-family leaders to ‘stick to morality’ rather than switch to ‘public health’ was made long ago. Perhaps persuaded by gay-friendly academics that the weight of scientific evidence was against them or poorly trained in how to evaluate empirical data or maybe simply intimidated by a research establishment clearly hostile to traditional morality, scientific arguments on the traditional side have generally been ignored in favor of the oft-repeated mantra that ‘homosexuality is wrong.’
In truth, the past two decades have seen an abundance of empirical data piling up that demonstrates that those who engage in homosexuality are disturbed, anti-social, and dangerous.

Lost Opportunity
And there is another twist. Amazingly, in 1996, under the openly pro-homosexual Clinton administration, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) conducted the largest national random sexuality survey ever done with regard to homosexuality. FRI had the data analyzed and ready to publish in book form by 1999. Over the next two years, FRI then approached almost all the major pro-family ‘players’ for help getting the book published.

We had a ‘killer’ study — one conducted by the CDC, one that could not be argued around or ignored, one that put public health front and center. Those who engaged in homosexuality were less productive on the job, more frequently into drugs and booze, more frequently criminal, had more sexual partners, took more sexual risks, you name it. In short, this CDC study validated almost everything ever said about the harm to public health caused by homosexuals.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of the subject matter in our politically correct climate, the publishers willing to print and distribute the book wanted $200,000 up front in either cash or pledges of books that would be purchased. $200,000 is of course no small change. As a small organization, it was not something FRI could afford on its own. But here was a book and a study that could radically change the gay rights debate.

With this need in mind, we approached a number of pro-family organizations that could help, including Coral Ridge Ministries, headed by D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, and Don Wildmon‘s American Family Association. Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, and Focus on the Family were also approached (James Dobson was personally informed about our project and need at least twice). Nevertheless, each of these leaders or the organizations they head said that, while they thought the project was a good idea, they would not chip in to pay for it.
No Chance At All

A great and glorious opportunity was lost between 1999 and 2001. The results of this CDC study could have stood in the way of this year’s Lawrence decision. But they haven’t been published. The pro-family leaders’ decision was made. The Supreme Court could, of course, have ignored the CDC findings, but a public health argument based upon them would have given traditionalists a ‘fighting chance.’ By depending upon ‘moralistic’ and historical arguments, they had no chance at all.

FRI Opposes A Federal Marriage Amendment

Judicial Dictatorship the Real Problem

In an act of raw, unelected power, the U.S. Supreme Court ended anti-sodomy laws earlier this year. The courts must be constrained by being made subject to the will of the people. There is no other definitive solution.

As we detail in the lead article of this issue of Family Research Report, this decision was due in part to a major strategic failure by pro-family leaders. ‘Sexual morality’ has been under attack for some time by academicians and journalists — especially since it represents a last vestige of Christian influence on society. As a consequence, for the last several years, the courts have also scorned morality as the foundation of law, abandoning the Constitution to curry favor with the cultural elite.

FRI believes not only that pro-family leaders failed to properly react to this trend, but that they also failed to advance the only strategy — the public health facts about homosexuality — that might have had a chance at winning, relying instead upon long-held moral standards and historical precedent. In fact, these leaders have essentially ignored our recommended approach for years, all the while losing battle after battle with the gay rights movement. The Lawrence decision was merely the most stunning and public of these losses.

After Lawrence was handed down, FRI publicly called pro-family leaders to account, and we asked if it were not time for some of these leaders to step aside. Once again, our counsel fell on deaf ears. The response of the pro-family movement to not only the Lawrence decision, but also to the legalization of gay marriage in Canada, the granting of domestic partnerships in California, and the possible sanctioning of gay marriage in Massachusetts, has not been to renew its efforts to put public health front and center, but rather to propose a change to the U.S. Constitution to enshrine the definition of marriage as ‘one man-one woman.’

The text of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, reads: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

At first glance, the proposed amendment might seem a straightforward antidote to the attack we are witnessing on traditional marriage. What better way than to preserve marriage in the very Constitution itself, ensuring that no unelected judge — including Supreme Court justices — would be able to legalize gay marriage in this country. Certainly, this is what the backers of the proposed amendment intend, and it is the reason that so many pro-family groups have joined forces to support and advance it.

Nonetheless, good intentions are often not enough in this fight. They can also lead to unintended consequences. FRI believes that the Federal Marriage Amendment, though well-intentioned and well-meaning, is a huge strategic mistake. While we value traditional marriage as much as any of our pro-family allies, FRI believes these groups and those that lead them, have fallen prey to some serious miscalculation of the political realities and that the FMA is an act of desperation by those who can’t see any other way out of our cultural predicament.

Why Does FRI Believe This?
Most of the problems we see with the FMA are strategic, though some are philosophical and foundational. On one hand, the wording of the amendment is rather weak. Notice the phrase “construed to require.” The wording does not bar others from being given the same kinds of privileges as those who are married — or even more privileges — just that these kinds of privileges cannot be “required.” Rep. Musgrave is on record, in fact, as admitting that the FMA would not prevent states from granting civil unions or domestic partnerships to homosexuals, even as out-going Gov. Gray Davis just did in California. Vermont-style civil unions could be enacted in any state that chooses to do so.

Furthermore, while there is apparently still some wrangling going on over the text of the marriage amendment because of its ambiguous wording, high-profile backers of the FMA have suggested that only in its weaker state would it ever stand a chance of passing Congress with the two-thirds majority needed in both houses for any Constitutional amendment.

The fact of the matter is that a mere two years ago, Proposition 22 guaranteeing marriage as ‘one man-one woman’ was promoted in California by many of these same pro-family groups — including Focus on the Family — in much the same way. That is, the advertisements and appeals argued that the word “marriage” must be preserved at all costs, even if homosexuals might be allowed access to other partnering arrangements. Well, marriage was preserved. Yet now the legislature has passed and the governor has signed into law (albeit under legal challenge) domestic partnerships for gays. It is not called marriage, but it confers essentially every right and benefit of marriage except the name itself. Furthermore, California has also just enacted a law requiring contractors doing business with the state to offer domestic partner benefits.

FRI believes that many states are poised to follow California’s lead. Indeed, openly gay Andrew Sullivan of the New Republic is unfortunately right when he says that now that the Lawrence decision has nullified all sodomy laws and nowhere is homosexual sex illegal, there is bound to be a further shift in perception regarding homosexuality. More and more people will come to the conclusion that if it is not illegal, and if there is nothing demonstrably wrong with homosexual conduct, why shouldn’t homosexuals be allowed to marry like anyone else? It may take a few years, certainly, as the current mini-backlash being registered in public opinion polls suggests, but the train has already left the station. In that sense, the FMA (or any version of it) is likely to harden an already skeptical younger generation against the aims of pro-family conservatives.

Furthermore, what is to stop the federal judiciary from twisting the amendment’s wording beyond or away from its original intent? Conservatives are already up in arms over the federal breach of Constitutional jurisdiction with respect to Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments monument in Alabama. They are similarly upset by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Michigan affirmative action case and a host of other rulings that seem to contradict or overstep the common sense meaning of the Constitution.

What if a ‘kindly’ Supreme Court decides that while it is not required that homosexual bondings be granted marital status, reason and social justice or even the ‘right to privacy’ demand that they be allowed? The current Supreme Court invented a new “right” with “privacy,” and trumped former Constitutional amendments with this new “right” such as the right of states to make law. Why wouldn’t the Court do the same even if a marriage amendment were to be passed?

And who’s to say that the Supreme Court would not interpret this amendment so as to not cause ‘disharmony’ with its prior decisions? The proposed amendment contains so many ambiguities, it is hard to know just what will be made of it. At best, it preserves the word ‘marriage’ for a man-woman relationship. All this fuss over a word?

Perhaps if the proposed amendment were strengthened to bar any unmarried couple from getting the same or more benefits as those who are married it would be a bit better at accomplishing what its backers desire. Unfortunately, the government is already busily dismantling the privileges of marriage. In Virginia, for example, a housing-subsidy benefit given only to the married for the past 18 years was extended to “everybody” by its regulatory commission at the end of July. So while the judiciary has been the main focus of the pro-family forces, opposition to the marriage amendment is likely to come from a variety of sources, both within and outside of government.

Political Realities
Another major difficulty with the federal marriage amendment is that the current political landscape does not look at all promising. FMA supporters have acted as if the proposal might succeed if they can just get it through Congress. But even there it looks like an uphill battle. It has taken months to get 100 backers for the ‘weaker’ version of the FMA introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Musgrave, far short of the 290 or so needed for passage. It has yet to be introduced in the Senate for lack of sufficient support. And this is the weaker version, the one deemed most politically feasible.

President Bush and the Republican leadership are still struggling to get any of the president’s more conservative judicial nominees out of committee and on to a floor vote without a prolonged ‘filibuster’ by Democrats. If the Democrats can tie up judicial nominations in the Senate, why would they even allow the FMA to get out of committee? If it hits the floor, why wouldn’t they filibuster?

Even were Congress to pass the amendment, how likely is it that three-fourths of the states would ratify? Although 37 states passed mini-Defense of Marriage acts (DOMA) after the federal DOMA was passed in 1996 (one less than that needed for Constitutional ratification), the tide has been slowly turning. How many of the ‘blue’ states that voted for Al Gore in 2000 are likely to ratify an amendment that will be bitterly opposed as the height of discrimination and unfairness? And how long will such a process be dragged out, and at what cost?

Of course, the federal marriage amendment will provide great political cover to Republicans. Even if it has little chance of passing, conservative candidates will be able to shore up their support by jumping on the bandwagon. ‘Marriage under fire’ is also a great fund raising tool, so we can expect the pro-family groups to gather in millions of dollars for the fight. And even though the White House did essentially nothing to defend the anti-sodomy law in the President’s own state, thus sending a clear message to the Supreme Court that it had no objection to ‘gay rights,’ the President, by backing the amendment, will once again secure pro-family votes at no real cost. Republicans will gain an edge on Democrats in the 2004 election, but like President Bush will never have to deliver on anything other than ‘rhetorical support.’ What a waste of conservative and Christian money!!

Philosophical Objections
Aside from the bleak political landscape, there is also the fundamental issue of whether the Constitution should be amended at all. Amendments to our governing document should be added with great care and caution. What unintended consequences might an amendment have years down the line? And is marriage the root of the problem in any case? FRI would answer with an emphatic “NO!” The issue in Lawrence v. Texas was sodomy, not marriage. The issue in the Michigan case was affirmative action, not marriage. The issue surrounding Judge Moore is religious freedom and states’ rights, not marriage. If a Constitutional ‘band-aid’ is put on the marriage problem, how many more such Constitutional remedies will have to be enacted to fix all of the bad judicial decisions that have recently come down the pike?

The real problem here is our unelected judiciary, including the Supreme Court, and the fact that there are insufficient checks on our judicial branch built into the Constitution. The American founders earnestly debated whether or not the judiciary might one day become a kind of oligarchy. FRI believes they guessed wrong. Otherwise, they might not have instituted lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices, removable only under gross malfeasance.

Instead of a federal marriage amendment, which if successful might spawn a Pandora’s box of additional amendments, FRI would recommend a single amendment to institute additional, effective checks on our judiciary. Why not propose a Constitutional amendment to elect, and if necessary, remove federal judges by popular vote?

The point is that fixing the judiciary itself, rather than any single issue like marriage, would allow a variety of specific issues to be addressed in a way more befitting the U.S. Constitution. It would also allow those who would campaign for the Constitutional amendment to address any number of bad judicial decisions, rather than just those related to marriage per se.

A Winning Strategy
Even if a Constitutional amendment reining in our judiciary is not soon enacted, can anything stay the gay onslaught? Is it all over? No. There is still hope.

“Public health” is the answer. The dictators on the U.S. Supreme Court have to be persuaded with facts, not appeals to morality. For better or worse, science is the only language our liberal jurists still respect. And, as in the fields of psychology and mental health, most of the empirical ‘facts’ about homosexuality circulating in the law profession are either untruths or half-truths. There is ample room to demonstrate empirically that homosexual conduct is injurious and a public health threat. But the facts must be presented forcefully, accurately, and fairly. Public health must also constitute the centerpiece of the argument, not merely a fringe element.

In FRI’s opinion, two public health arguments must be employed for any chance of success. Both of these concentrate upon the dangerousness of those who engage in homosexuality:

Remember that both the 1996 Romer v. Evans decision on Amendment 2 (enacted by a vote of the people in Colorado) and this most recent Lawrence v. Texas decision jointly worked to sweep away either public consensus, standards of morality, or historical precedent as rational bases for laws against homosexuality. It is precisely because of this broad sweep by the Supreme Court that backers see a Constitutional marriage amendment as the last-chance defense. Yet another tack is possible. The laws FRI proposes would not be based on morality or precedent at all, but simply on the clear evidence of public health.

For despite the efforts of pro-homosexual academicians, the weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates both the disease-spreading nature of homosexual conduct, and the fact that children are placed at far greater risk under the care of homosexuals. But this evidence — with all the nuance and complexity attendant to any kind of empirical research — must be understood, embraced, and clearly articulated by pro-family spokesmen. This will require an emphasis upon science and scientific training and credentials not heretofore seen within the major pro-family organizations.
Instead of appeals to morality, consider what should have been done and what ought to be done in the future:

The disease-spreading facts about homosexuality should have been invoked to combat the Lawrence v. Texas decision. They should now be used to temper the fall-out of that decision, and to get new legislation passed.

The homosexual threat to children should be invoked to combat any attempt at instituting same-sex marriage. The strategy should not be a message that ‘marriage has always meant a man and a woman.’ That is ‘moralizing’ and an appeal to tradition — concepts the Supreme Court has rejected outright. Rather the consistent theme should be “same-sex parenting is inferior in producing well-adjusted and well-socialized children. Therefore, same-sex parenting must be suppressed as harmful to the interests of children.”

The threat to children should also be invoked to combat any attempt at making the Boy Scouts or churches hire or use homosexuals. The reasoning would be that “homosexuals are many times more apt to sexually molest children than are heterosexuals. Therefore, those who engage in homosexuality should be kept away from the care or supervision of children.”

As FRR readers know, FRI is well-positioned to lead this charge. FRI has already published a number of scientific articles on homosexual child molestation and same-sex parenting, and is on the verge of publishing new findings on the topic of same-sex foster- and adoptive-parenting. We have already published research demonstrating that homosexual practitioners are more likely to molest children, and more is on the way.

Conclusion
The answer to the failure of the pro-family leadership is not ‘more of the same.’ The proposed Constitutional federal marriage amendment, based as it is primarily upon ‘traditional morality,’ is a waste of time and resources. The effort to preserve the term ‘marriage’ in its traditional sense would be far better spent sending a message that our cultural elite cannot ignore. In the current sexually revolutionary climate, only bills based upon public health arguments stand any chance of passing at the national or state levels.

The public health problems stemming from sodomy won’t be addressed by a federal marriage amendment, but could be impacted by passing a federal law against anal intercourse. The FMA won’t prevent children from being placed under the care of homosexual practitioners at our schools and day care centers, and it probably won’t prevent homosexual adoptions or parenting. But health-based laws banning those who practice homosexuality from being hired as teachers or day care workers or from adopting children would.
The time to act is now. §

Corner

Politics of Sexual Choice

One of the larger myths that psychiatry has promoted is ‘once gay, always gay.’ But generally, what is going on with ‘being gay’ — particularly lesbians — is best understood as a choice. Consider the following from London:

“There’s only one thing harder than coming out, says Jackie Clune, and that’s going back in. The British comedian was a lesbian for 12 years, during which time she built up a huge gay following. But three years ago, after a painful break-up, she started having doubts about her sexuality. ‘I decided that for me, being a lesbian wasn’t all it was cracked up to be,’ she says in The Guardian. ‘I longed for my own head space, the blissful state of basic incomprehension between men and women which means you don’t have to waste years talking about your bloody feelings. There was something so exhausting about being a lesbian, maybe I just wasn’t cut out for the hard work.’

But going straight wasn’t easy — not least because of the reaction of the gay community. ‘I’ve been called a scab, a sellout, a mainstream wannabe,’ she says. ‘I was recently named “Most Disappointing Lesbian of the Year” in a lesbian magazine.’ She’s had lesbians booing and walking out of her shows, and even her friends have sometimes seemed a little frosty. ‘I remember Graham Norton sighing when I told him: “You lesbians are useless, aren’t you? You just can’t stick at it.’” These days she’s happily settled with a ‘sensitive, kind and loving man’ — but every now and then, she does wonder: ‘What was I doing all those years if this is who I truly am now.’” (The Week 6/21/03, p. 10)

Which way ‘was’ Clune? Truly homosexual or truly heterosexual? Neither. She was what she wanted to be. There is no ‘sexual essence,’ there are only sexual choices. Some choices lead to one set of activities and attitudes, other choices to a different set. There are many sets — not just ‘homosexual’ or ‘heterosexual’ — though these are the major options. After 12 years of it, Clune got dissatisfied with lesbianism. Give her a few years of ‘being straight’ and don’t bet that she won’t change again.

Family Research Report critically examines empirical data on families, sexual social policy, AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexuality, digging behind the 'headlines' and breaking new scientific ground.

FRR is published 8 times/year by the Family Research Institute.

Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor

Subscriptions: $25/yr ($40 foreign)

©2003

Family Research Institute

P.O. Box 62640

Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640

(303) 681-3113

Return to top

Return to the FAMILY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Web site