FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT	Journal of the Family Research Institute Founded 1982
Gay Marriage Decision... What a Mass.!			Vol. 18 No. 8 December 2003

After diddling for months, the Massachusetts Supreme Court acted to give gays the right to marry on November 18. Many observers, including conservative commentators, expected a decision much earlier, perhaps on the heels of Lawrence v. Texas . After all, the Supreme Court had paved the way by tossing out sodomy laws across America. Why wait on legalizing gay marriage?

The answer shows that the Christian Church still holds some influence over this debate, for good or bad. In Massachusetts, leaders within Christendom were involved in the timing of the Supreme Court's ruling — perhaps even tilting the decision itself.

A speech by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester before the Massachusetts legislature on October 23 seems to have precipitated the ‘unleashing.' Indeed, it appears to have emboldened the judges to include gays in ‘marriage.' Rev. Daniel P. Reilly said that he and his fellow Bishops would “join the discussion” about benefits for ‘domestic partners, as long as the legislature did not tamper with the traditional definition of marriage. Reilly said “there should be a way for the state to provide the benefits they have a right to like other citizens. But just to put the title of marriage on it, I think that's the wrong way to go.”

Massachusetts newspapers immediately declared this statement “progress” within the Catholic Church toward accepting homosexuality. Indeed it was. In official pronouncements the Catholic Church has made it clear that it does not want any recognition given to homosexual partnerships. The October 23rd statement of the Bishops, however, backed away from that stance.

With support from the Church withdrawn, politicians who opposed domestic partnership laws jumped ship. According to the Boston Globe , House Speaker Thomas Finneran dropped his opposition on October 25th.

Given this new reality, it made perfect sense for the Massachusetts Supreme Court to decide it could go ‘all the way' to granting gay marriage without paying a significant political price. The chief opposition collapsed without getting anything in return. A similar result occurred with Amendment 22 in California.

Although supported by a host of Christian groups, Amendment 22 was cast in advertisements as ‘merely saving the word marriage' so as not to make gays feel ‘unloved.' The Bishops in Massachusetts apparently chose a similar strategy. But unlike the California legislature which reserved the term ‘marriage' for a man and a woman while giving gay partners almost everything else, this time the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to give homosexuals the ‘whole ball of wax.'

So leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, from the very dioceses filled with homosexual child molesters and currently paying millions of dollars in restitution, made a ‘political mistake.' You have to wonder if it was an act of treason.

Why U.S. Leaders Are Embracing Gay Marriage

In its 1967 Loving decision — which was cited approvingly by the Massachusetts Supreme Court — the U.S. Supreme Court said marriage was “fundamental to our very existence and survival.” If marriage is so fundamental , why are our leaders — including some in the Church — so ready to change it to accommodate gay rights?

A White House spokesman recently informed a meeting of Evangelical leaders that it wants to save the word ‘marriage' for a man and a woman, but is willing to allow same-sex domestic partnerships. Why would the Bush administration pick this strategy if marriage is key to our survival as a society?

There are a number of reasons, including strong and vocal pressure from the 1-2% of adults who openly declare themselves gay. But three of the most influential might be as follows:

A) De-Christianizing of Our Society: Marriage, as the commitment of a man and a woman to an exclusive sexual relationship with each other for life — with very limited possibility of divorce — is basically a Christian ideal. While pagan societies often had marriage that in practice linked one man and one woman (it costs a lot to have multiple wives), the man was, more often than not, free to ‘get extra sex' outside the relationship and for that matter get a new wife.

Until the 10 th century, Jews and Muslims permitted men to have multiple wives, and permitted divorce for a number of reasons. While Jews ended up agreeing with the Christian ideal of one man-one woman, marriage in the West is still primarily cast in a Christian light.

When it came to homosexuality, the Church took a strong stance. Under heavy Church influence, the Roman Emperor Justinian (c. 527-565) declared: “We admonish men to abstain from the aforesaid unlawful acts, that they may not lose their souls... so that the city and the state may not come to harm by reason of such wicked deeds.” Thus the Church held that same-sex sexual activity threatened society.

The Massachusetts Court was well aware of this Christian value: “Several amici suggest that prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples reflects community consensus that homosexual conduct is immoral [emphasis added]. Yet Massachusetts has a strong affirmative policy of preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The Court did not lie. Massachusetts is a ‘gay rights' state — even permitting homosexual custody of children. And this, to the Court, was far more important than “mere” morality. In its view, morality is neither mandated from ‘above' [e.g., from God] nor from ‘below,' as from the sensibilities of the people. Rather, morality is what the state says it is, nothing less and nothing more. This is judicial dictatorship of the first order. And, like Lawrence v. Texas, it explicitly rejected Christian values.

B) Growing Power of Mental Healthism: The Massachusetts Supreme Court essentially declared that marriage socially validates a couple's sexual choices. This is a new justification for the social institution of marriage. Historically, marriage has been seen as a protective place for children. Now, however, the rise of mental healthism has changed the underpinnings for marriage.

Mental healthism is concerned with its clients' mental well-being. Since the clients are usually adults, their interest in having a satisfying sex life — and in knowing that society approves of their choices — trumps consideration of the children that might result from their sexual union or that might be impacted by new marital configurations. In a like way, abortion is seen as important for the mental comfort of adults. It thereby trumps the interests of the fetus.

In the Massachusetts case, the key element was the Court's acceptance that some individuals “are” homosexuals. The Court held that “the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual.” Such a conception derives directly from the mental health establishment, which holds that those who engage in homosexuality are “ a people” (with a particular ‘condition').

The same distinction is not made for other kinds of behavior. ‘Drug addict,' ‘adulterer,' and ‘smoker' are categorie s of poor choices — those who make these choices are not ‘a people.' For instance, a smoker does not smoke because he is a smoker and is thereby compelled to do so. Rather, he is labeled a smoker because he has chosen to smoke.

Mental health professionals also hold that homosexuals do not differ from those who don't engage in homosexuality except in their ‘choice of sexual object' (even as they hold that there are no objective differences between blacks and whites). And, of course, if they do not differ as individuals, then as a group they must be no less socially beneficial, useful, or valuable.

Mental health experts condemn beliefs to the contrary as ‘destructive stereotypes,' because they make homosexuals feel bad about themselves. This, of course, would damage their mental health. Consequently, society will just have to ‘get over its false beliefs' and ‘adjust' to the day when homosexuals can marry either each other or , if they choose, a member of the opposite sex. Being ‘client-centered,' therapists' generally don't require their patients to ‘adjust' — the clients are ‘sick' and must be accommodated. And if one kind of ‘people' can get married, all peoples should be able to get married.

The Court did not appear to be aware that almost all ‘homosexuals' also have sex with members of the opposite sex, that many ‘homosexuals' are married (they just cheat on their spouse), or that some ‘homosexuals' abandon homosexuality. From a scientific standpoint, ‘homosexual' as a descriptive shorthand for ‘person who engages in homosexuality' is OK, but if it becomes a ‘diagnosis' (a kind of immutable characteristic like skin color), it is extremely dangerous.

Why? Because if those who engage in homosexuality are “a people,” we are immediately whisked into the arena of ‘civil rights.' The Court said that the state constitution “affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens” and “precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realm of consensual adult expressions of intimacy and one's choice of an intimate partner.”

Tell this to prostitutes and their clients (who could be the next petitioners seeking legal support for what they want to do sexually), or to drug addicts. ‘Smokers' are second-class citizens, being discriminated against all the time. But since they are not ‘ a people ,' no violation of the constitution has occurred.

The Massachusetts Court continued: “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man'” so “there can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective.” Obviously, “the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition” and the “liberty interest in choosing whether and whom to marry would be hollow if the Commonwealth could, without sufficient justification, foreclose an individual from freely choosing the person with whom to share an exclusive commitment in the unique institution of civil marriage.”

So, where “a statute deprives individuals of access to an institution of fundamental legal, personal, and social significance — the institution of marriage — because of a single trait; skin color in Perez and Loving , sexual orientation here…. history must yield to a more fully developed understanding of the invidious quality of the discrimination.”

Note how closely the Court links marriage with psychology and individual liberty, i.e., “momentous acts of self-definition,” “liberty interest in choosing,” “statute deprive individuals of access,” and so on. In addition, being homosexual is just like being ‘black.' Of course, there are no blacks that have abandoned their ‘blackness.'

Furthermore, the Court explicitly rejected long-standing Christian teaching that marriage is fundamentally rooted in procreation and child-rearing. Instead the Court argued that the

“state's interest in regulating marriage is based on the traditional concept that marriage's primary purpose is procreation…. is incorrect. [Rather] it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage. [By saying that marriage's primary purpose is procreation]…the State's action confers an official stamp of approval on the destructive stereotype that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and inferior to opposite-sex relationships and are not worthy of respect.” Obviously “the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual.”

Despite the Court's analysis, any ‘homosexual' has the perfect legal right to get married (to a member of the opposite sex). And many homosexuals have children — the usual way, via sex with an opposite sex partner. In a 2003 study of 39 children of lesbians, 28 (72%) mothers conceived the child in a heterosexual relationship. Then the mothers decided they'd rather consort with women, and either got divorced or left their heterosexual partner in order to fulfill their desires. But by the time the children were 7 years old, only 8 (21%) of the 39 had the same lesbian partner they started out with. While the rate of divorce in the U.S. is deplorable, it is certainly many times lower than this!

Long-term relationships between homosexuals are rare, and they almost never include sex with each other after a few years. If the partners have sex, it is usually with outsiders. Longevous marriages between the opposite sexes are common, and they usually include sex with each other — often being the only sex that either partner has year upon year.

Court Ignores Gay Reality

The Massachusetts Court also wrote that we “construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.”

Reality in the gay subculture is very different. Most homosexuals have multiple partners — often serial ‘pick ups,' sometimes many partners in a single night [20 to 30 are possible at bathhouses], sometimes serial partners with whom they live. How can the Court demand that two individuals commit to one another “to the exclusion of all others?” Perhaps the Court believes there are two kinds of homosexuals: those who want and will stay with one other person of the same sex, and those who want many sexual partners?

Will the state of Massachusetts favor that tiny minority of homosexuals [if they exist] who stay faithful? In so doing, would the state deprive the majority of homosexuals of the benefits of marriage? Surely, it is only fair that groups of promiscuous homosexuals get to marry — that way, they will have all the benefits of marriage without crimping the promiscuity they require for good ‘mental health.'

That bathhouse promiscuity is common can be gotten from AIDS specialist Howard Grossman's recent remark in the Wall Street Journal (11/4/03): “I know a physician overseas who [takes Viread] before he goes to the bathhouse. He's worried about condom breakage.” If this physician lived in the U.S., as a member of the larger group of gays, shouldn't he be allowed to have the benefits of marriage? And if the Massachusetts Court tries to stick with its “exclusion of all others” notion, how long do you think it will take the excluded gays to demand “fairness?”

To what degree must society be adjusted to accommodate individuals nominated as a ‘people' by mental health experts? Our society is already allowing people to mutilate themselves to resemble the opposite sex and demanding that no one, even children, ‘notice' that ‘transsexuals' are not quite ‘real.' Here and there, murderers get off because they were ‘temporarily insane,' and other murderers get released because they are now ‘cured.' Supreme Courts, like therapists, are becoming extremely ‘patient centered.'

C) Egalitarianism, Social Justice, and Society-Haters: We bring nothing into the world as babes and we take nothing with us when we die. Given our common humanity, there is a general, shared, ‘gut-level' sense that no one knows so much, has worked so hard, or is so intelligent that they are fundamentally ‘worth' hundreds of times in wealth or income what someone else gets. Yet, given the structure of modern, regulated capitalism — as long as almost everyone plays by its man-made rules — wealth and status accrue to some in amounts thousands or even millions of times that of most.

Yet this disparity often leads to guilt on the part of winners — especially if their wealth is either inherited, they get rewarded disproportionately to their efforts (like most intellectuals), or they have more or less ‘stumbled' into fame. And, however the winners react, envy generated by those not so blessed is a constant fact of life.

Many commentators have noted that politics and society-hating are strongly fueled by guilt and envy (remember St. Paul's admonition to Timothy: “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” I Timothy 6:10). Politically, the envious seek more and the winners seek to retain as much of their advantage as they can. Every modern society also has parties and philosophies that cater to a ‘social justice' sort of framework, trying to adjust the outcomes of the game so that those who don't get as much get more (in the U.S., the Democratic party tends to fill this role).

As well, there are revolutionary sentiments — like Marxism — that would change the rules of the game almost entirely. Of course, these ‘isms' are promoted as for the ‘betterment of all.' But in practice, even in isolated particulars, these schemes seldom do as well as regulated capitalism, which more or less ‘just grew' out of human interaction. Nevertheless, the failure of ‘isms' never seems to daunt some from demanding the overthrow of current society in favor of a grand ‘corrective' scheme (e.g., Fascism, Communism, socialism, etc.).

Society-haters often latch onto one of the ‘isms' — they say they hate society because an ‘ism' would do so much better. But more often than not, they are either filled with envy at what others have but they can't seem to get, or they are filled with guilt at their disproportionate rewards and pity for those who don't do as well under capitalism. They fulfill George Orwell's observation that “Western civilization has given the intellectual security without responsibility, and it has educated him in skepticism while anchoring him almost immovably in the privileged class. He has been in the position of a young man living on an allowance from a father whom he hates.”

All Men Are NOT Created Equal

No matter how capitalism is tinkered with, inequalities persist — because every individual has different strengths and weakness. These distinctions range from character flaws (e.g., laziness, a love of homosexuality), to differences in acquired skills or native intelligence, to physical handicaps. People are not equal , so their success in society — or their outcomes — always differ.

Despite this fact, our current social system is constantly being modified by various legislative and regulatory bodies in the West. While not all the reforms lead to greater prosperity, it is true that just about everybody's economic boat is rising. Furthermore, this success is generally tied to the somewhat nebulous, but attractive notions of “economic freedom,” “democracy,” and “equality.” To some, any change that brings about greater freedom or equality must be a good thing. Yet the rules of sexual behavior don't work like capitalism. And FRI is quite concerned when either ignorance or a desire to destroy society threatens the family or children by rewriting these rules.

As noted above, people in our society are particularly interested in status and money (though not necessarily in that order). People will strive, even die, to get either. And these desires extend to all areas of life. In the case of marriage, if those marriages which are really important — those between young men and women who might bear and raise children — have to share the status that comes from marriage with sexual scofflaws like homosexuals, then marriage becomes considerably less attractive. Being ‘married' is suddenly less of a ‘big deal.' And anything that weakens society suits the society-haters right well.

Americans also have a peculiar liability in this debate. They are called upon to believe in, and act upon, the impossible. Those trumpeting ‘social justice' in the U.S. get a fair amount of their steam from the Declaration of Independence 's “all men are created equal.” Though all men are clearly not created equal in important respects, this simple phrase fueled a revolution. It disestablished the ‘right' of a king to rule, and established the ‘right' of representatives of the people to rule instead.

This widely-quoted falsehood has practical consequences. Malcom Muggeridge noted that when the Brits controlled the world, they were hated by those they conquered and envied by those with whom they were in competition. The Brits loved it. While some were embarrassed, most felt that their domination was well deserved — they had a superior culture. Today, the U.S. is in the same position, hated and envied by other peoples for its power and success. But, America's reaction is different. Many Americans are disturbed by American success and have joined her critics.

Why is this? Part of the answer is that America has the burden of living up to the ‘all men are created equal' standard. The Brits always had a stratified society, with ‘betters' treated with more deference. And while Britain provided relatively even treatment before the law, the reach of ‘equality' did not go too much further.

Envy drove political and social movements in both countries. But although people are obviously not ‘created equal,' many Americans feel obliged to make it come true. Home-grown critics often complain that ‘we promise equality, but look at all the people who don't have enough to eat, get good health care, etc. etc.” Taken on its face — without qualification — the equality principle of the Declaration has warped the American character, and adds another layer of resentment against American success to the ones that envy and pity create.

All in all, the way equality is usually taught in our society is a falsehood. And social policies based upon a falsehood simply cannot work. For what does “equal” mean? Under egalitarian social justice theory, everyone and every member of every group should be equal. That is, everyone and every group ‘deserves' equal societal resources.

Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say “all men” have an equal right to “happiness?” How can everybody be equally happy if some are denied social approval for their choices? Through our modern lens of ‘group rights,' the extension of the equality principle holds that no group should be considered ‘inferior' or ‘second-class,' though this must obviously result if another group is treated better or given favored status under the law.

Homosexuals, prostitutes, the promiscuous — all are sexual scofflaws [those who habitually violate safety and public-health regulations or principles]. But how will they be guaranteed happiness if their choices are not ultimately approved under the law? This is the sweeping notion of ‘equality' that the Massachusetts Supreme Court envisioned.

It wasn't always so. A century and a half ago, Abraham Lincoln offered a very different interpretation of equality:

I think the authors of [the Declaration] intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal — equal in ‘certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' This they said, and this they meant.” Speech on the Dred Scott Decision, June 26, 1857, Abraham Lincoln , Speeches and Writings , 1832-1858 NY: Library of America, 1989, p. 398.

Lincoln's remarks addressed possible differences between the races. But they certainly apply with equal force to those who would say that people have different “sexual orientations” in the same way they have different skin colors. Social justice and equality are not about applying a simplistic and wrong interpretation of the Declaration of Independence to all ‘people groups.' Yet this principle is one of the foundation stones of the Massachusetts decision.

Conclusion

Every time the mortar that holds society together is weakened, another step toward the destruction of society is made. Marriage is one of the most important elements in our societal mortar, and thus we can expect it to be attacked by all those who hate our society or its Christian heritage.

Would the approval of gay marriage be enough weakening to literally destroy society? Probably not, but the long-term consequences are uncertain. Bardesanes (c. 175) in his Book Of The Laws Of The Countries said about early Christians that “our brothers who live in Gaul, do not marry with men and they who live in Parthia do not marry two women... they who live in Persia do not marry their daughter... those who live in Edessa do not kill their wives or sisters.... Local custom cannot force them to give up the law of their Messiah.” These were all functioning societies, so marriage as we understand it — between one man and one woman — was not absolutely necessary for their survival. But, in a age of declining birthrates, it may be for our's.

The Massachusetts decision should be rejected by the people of that state and mocked by the state's legislature. All customs are man-made — there is no reason but political habit to treat the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court as though it had to be obeyed.

FRI in the News: What They Don’t Want Known

The BIG SECRET about homosexuality — the information gay activists and the media never want to discuss — is what homosexuals do . Once people understand what they do, the public health ramifications are usually crystal clear. But if the focus of attention is kept on ‘civil rights,' winning battles over gay rights is very difficult. A case in point is the recent flap in Pennsylvania over FRI's scientifically-documented pamphlet The Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do . As of this writing, over three dozen media outlets (including the Guardian in Great Britain) have covered the story.

What is particularly interesting and troubling about this incident is the fact that authorities within the Catholic Church appear to be those most interested in suppressing the medical truth about homosexual behavior. On December 8th, FRI learned of the following letter from the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown (Pennsylvania) to Father John Nesbella:

Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, Temporalities Secretariat, Office of Finance, 126 Logan Boulevard, Hollidaysburg, PA 16648 Telephone: (814) 695-5579 Fax: (814) 695-8894

November 24, 2003

Reverend John Nesbella, Prince of Peace Parish, 811 Chestnut Avenue, Northern Cambria, PA 15714

Dear Father Nesbella:

Your efforts to garner support for a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriages has included the dissemination of graphic sexual material. This creates a very real legal risk to you and the Church. By campaigning on one legal issue, you may break other laws with the use of this material. At the very least, it invites legal action against you, the Parish, the Diocese, and the Bishop.

It is my duty, as Secretary for Temporalities, to provide legal advice to the Bishop. After consulting with attorneys on this particular concern, I am writing on behalf of Bishop to instruct you to cease certain activity.

Specifically, do not disseminate “Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do” or any other similar material. The sexual content is too strong, and the audience is too random. It is very conceivable that minors are being exposed to your material. That is unacceptable.

It also invites legal action against you, the Parish, the Diocese, and the Bishop for various prohibited action that you are bordering upon, such as discrimination, pornography, or defamation. These could be construed when the message is too negative, or too graphic. Even if that is not what is in your heart, it may be up to a court to decide.

When you “enlist” the volunteers at every parish, you extend the liability to others. Even though you are acting as an individual, it appears to be an official act of the Church as an entity. Your ordination makes you an inseparable part of the entire Church entity, so you can no longer act as an individual without representing the Church. Therefore, please discuss any future campaign or political activity with your Dean, or Monsignor George Flinn, before taking action.

With regard to your good intentions, I am,

Respectfully,

Larry R. Sutton, Director of Finance Cc: Most Rev. Joseph V. Adamec, DD, STL; Rev. Msgr. Stanly B. Carson, VG; Rev. Msgr. George B. Flinn, VG, STL

FRI Responds

On December 10th, FRI was interviewed by Joe Mandak, an Associated Press reporter. We issued the following press release and sent it both to Mr. Sutton and Mr. Mandak:

Another Catholic Coverup?

Colorado Springs — Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute (FRI) — a Colorado think tank that specializes in studies on homosexuality — charged Bishop Joseph Adamec of the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown with repressing medical research that reflects badly on homosexuals.

“Health officials are always proclaiming the need for explicit and detailed information about homosexual activity,” said Cameron, “but when scientific facts reveal its very real dangers, then gay rights supporters do whatever is necessary to repress it.”

Cameron referred to a letter sent to Father John Nesbella, a priest in Northern Cambria, PA, ordering him to cease the dissemination of “Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do” (a pamphlet produced by Cameron's institute) “or any other similar material.”

Nesbella had used the research in rallying support for a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage. The letter, written by Larry R. Sutton, Director of Finance and expressing the position of Bishop Adamec, warned Father Nesbella that distribution of the pamphlet might be illegal. Sutton specifically mentioned “various prohibited action that you are bordering upon, such as discrimination, pornography, or defamation.”

“The pamphlet is nothing more or less than a summary of scientific studies, thoroughly documented,” Cameron said. “Facts don't discriminate. The material — which concentrates on diseases that proceed from homosexual behavior — is anything but pornographic. And it is absurd to suggest that you can defame homosexuals as a class, particularly when you are quoting scientific authorities.

“If Mr. Sutton is a lawyer, he is a poor one. If he is not a lawyer, then he may be practicing law without a license. I plan to send his letter and the pamphlet to the Pennsylvania Bar Association. Meanwhile, you would think that Catholic bishops would stop trying to cover up the unpleasant consequences of homosexual behavior. It has cost them millions of dollars and the respect of a large segment of their own people.”

AP Story

The Associated Press reporter then filed the following story:

A Roman Catholic diocese has ordered a priest to stop distributing a pamphlet it says “borders on the pornographic,” but which the priest says supports the church's stance against same-sex marriage by detailing claims about the medical consequences of gay sex acts.

The Rev. John Nesbella, an assistant priest at Prince of Peace parish in Northern Cambria in the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese said Wednesday that he stopped distributing “Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do.”

The seven-page document is authored by Paul Cameron, a sociologist who chairs the Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs, Colo. It graphically describes various gay sex acts, including contact with urine and feces, and refers to Cameron's own research, newspaper articles, medical journals and government statistics. Cameron concludes that, “Homosexuals are sexually troubled people engaging in dangerous activities.”

Cameron is criticized by gay rights activists and scientists who support the view that homosexuality is partly, or wholly, inherited — like eye or skin color. Gregory Herek, a professor and expert on hate crimes and sexual prejudice at the University of California-Davis, says Cameron twists or misunderstands others' research and uses poor methods to do his own surveys.

“All things being equal, I don't see the risk” in gay sex as being greater than straight sex, said Dr. Georges Benjamin, an emergency room physician who is also the executive director of the American Public Health Association. Benjamin said gays and heterosexuals both partake in some behaviors that can cause health problems but knows of no studies that prove gays take more risks than others.

Sister Mary Parks, a spokeswoman for the diocese that covers west-central Pennsylvania, said the pamphlet “borders on the pornographic.”

“The Bishop (Joseph Adamec) was concerned that the explicit nature of the material might lead us to become part of the problem rather than part of the solution,” she said.

“I was stunned by the diocese's action,” Cameron said. “The language (in the pamphlet) is all clinical. It's more stridently written, to be sure. It is after all an informational or propaganda piece written for an intelligent reader.”

Nesbella, 41, gave out the pamphlet with materials urging parishioners and other Catholics to write letters to lawmakers in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Constitutional amendment defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman only, and supporters say it's needed to thwart various states' efforts to legalize gay marriage or civil unions.

In July, the Vatican issued a statement condemning same-sex marriage and the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops says Catholics should oppose it politically.

Parks said the diocese is in “complete agreement about the sanctity of marriage” with Nesbella and other Catholics and just at odds with Nesbella's methods.

Ordained 18 months ago, Nesbella said he has been writing editorials and letters to the editor against same-sex marriage for about five years.

“I really believe that God wants me to do this,” Nesbella said. “I just believe that the medical consequences of homosexuality are so serious and horrific that somebody has to say something about it.”

Dr. Brian Kopp, a Johnstown podiatrist who attends another parish involved in Nesbella's effort, said he's checked out Cameron's research.

“I'm a trained physician, I know how to evaluate medical literature,” said Kopp, vice president of the Catholic Family Association of America , a grass-roots anti-abortion group. “He's coming under fire for essentially the same reasons that pro-life activists come under fire for showing picket signs of aborted babies: He is revealing to the public a grim reality that the mainstream media doesn't want to reveal.”

“The issue here is that lay Catholics and a good priest tried to do something... and instead of trying to support them, the diocese... (is) squashing conservative activism and promoting homosexual activism.”

Since then the story has appeared on WorldNetDaily and in other outlets. Suppression of the truth doesn't always make the news, but sometimes it causes an outrage that simply cannot be ignored.

Social Workers Above the Law?

Some professions are populated with individuals who think they know more than anyone else, whether it be taxpayers, legislators, or judges. Social workers are among this elite class. Because they deal with the troubled (some would say the dregs) of society, social workers apparently feel they have insights no one else has.

As one example of this phenomenon, social workers in Great Britain, acting contrary to the law, are giving children to homosexuals to adopt. At present, it is against the law for children to be given to homosexual couples to adopt. The Adoption Act of 1976 in fact prohibits unmarried couples from adopting. But the Sunday Telegraph (11/3/02) sent reporters posing as homosexual couples to 14 different council social service departments — and they were told how to ‘fudge' the rules so that they could adopt. Most of the councils that were approached also said “that they had already placed children with homosexual and lesbian couples.”

Furthermore, the councils are placing ads for adoptive parents in gay publications. “An official in Bradford,… told a male reporter that the council was not prepared to wait to see whether the law would be changed. ‘We are already considering applications from two gay male couples,' she said.”

Apparently, British social workers are above the law. They know what ‘needs to be done,' and are doing it, irrespective of the law. Lisa Saffron, a lesbian of the support group Pink Parenting UK , said: “[social work] councils are acting perfectly legally…” And a “spokesman for the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering said that it supported plans to give equal rights to homosexual and unmarried couples.”

The problem of social workers overstepping their bounds is not confined to Britain.

For two years in Orange County (part of greater Los Angeles), the County Social Services Agency refused to prosecute sex between adult males and girls aged 14 to 17. Why? Because most of them were Hispanic, and ‘that's what they are brought up to do' according to the politically correct theory being followed.

Instead of following the law, a number of social workers worked to get the girls either married to, or to stay living with, the man if she got pregnant. Whatever one thinks of the California law, the social workers were violating it by letting the men ‘off the hook' for child abuse. Finally, after about two years of wrangling, the social workers acceded to state law. ( Los Angeles Times 1/24/97)

This ‘we know enough to take the law into our own hands' is a problem of serious proportions. Social work professionals are so ‘sure' they are right, that they are willing to break the law. They are also willing to endanger kids with the assumption that homosexual parents are just as good as heterosexual parents.

The center is not holding. When professional societies consider themselves above the law in terms of what they do, but demand that society pay for their activities, something is deeply wrong.

Children Can Be Sexual

Counter to myths promoted by some psychoanalysts or conservatives, children are not inherently asexual. It all depends on their training, society and experience. Orthodox Jews held that a girl could get married at 3 but could not consummate until she was 12 or had two pubic hairs. Mohammed married a girl who was 6 and consummated when she was 9 (at the insistence of her father).

In modern Washington D.C., “a 5-year-old girl, whose mother and father said they have abused her sexually, is so sexually aggressive that she must be kept from other children. She and her 4-year-old brother have begun to have sexual relations with one another” (Nancy Lewis, Washington Post 4/25/95).

Irrespective of the culture and training, once sex ‘gets rolling' in a child it is almost impossible to stop. The little girl and her brother had been involved with “social service agencies or the courts for several years, yet the abuse occurred or continued despite attempts to prevent it.”

What would you do with this little girl? Obviously, she came to enjoy sex. Does she ‘have a right to her own body?' And if she doesn't, just what can be done to her or for her?

These kinds of situations magnify the importance of not sexually stimulating children. Our society has no real place for sexually active children — or even sexually active teens. Capitalism generally requires sexual abstinence until early adulthood so that entrants into the workforce can be well educated. And, if they wait until their 20s, presumably those who become sexually active will be mature enough to handle the fallout of pregnancy, children, marriage, etc.

Unfortunately, sexual stimulation begins at an early age in our culture, especially on the tube and in school. Because kids may be stimulated by what they see on TV or the lessons they get at school, parents are wise to closely monitor these influences.

Corner

Homosexuality and Victimhood

What do the following stories have in common? A karate instructor recently defended himself against charges that he sexually molested two teenage girls by saying he was gay, and that sexual interest in girls was incompatible with his ‘gayness.' The Norristown, PA jury bought it and acquitted Gary Glazer, 38, of most of the charges ( Washington Blade 12/12/03).

In California, NARTH (National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) Vice President A. Dean Byrd wrote the following comment regarding an actor's book about his homosexuality: “Chamberlain is not a victim of just a dysfunctional family. He is also the victim of a society which denies that unmet childhood emotional needs lead to same-gender attractions in adulthood.… Chamberlain was not, as he believes, treated badly by the world because of his innate homosexuality. The truth is that his homosexuality evolved from his bad treatment.” ( NARTH Bulletin , December 2003, p. 9).

Sigmund Freud had a lot of theories. From FRI's perspective, most of what Freud did was to engage in sophisticated tautologies while managing to sexualize almost everything. Because most of it was untestable and the tests that were run seldom validated it, Freudianism has largely faded from the intellectual scene (though it is alive and well at NARTH).

When contemporary Freudians make claims about homosexuality, the claims may have elements of truth for some individuals. But this ‘partially true' characteristic is the case for just about every theory that seeks to explain sexual deviations. Nevertheless, if you are a ‘ true believer' in Freudianism then anyone else's non-belief is horrid — the Master has spoken, and what the Master says is True. How else can Byrd so strongly assert that “He is also the victim of a society which denies that unmet childhood emotional needs lead to same-gender attractions in adulthood.”

Victim? Isn't this taking belief in a theory just a trifle far? NARTH was founded by Charles Socarides, who happens to have a prominent gay son. Did Socarides ‘cause' his son's homosexuality because of deficiencies in his fathering?

In Germany, Armin Meiwes, 42, is on trial for having sex with, butchering, and then eating, a willing lover. Meiwes placed ads on the Internet for “slaughtering” and wrote “if you are 18-25, you are my boy.” Meiwes said he got over 200 replies. Four men came to his home, had sex, and eventually left when they contemplated the actual slaughtering and eating.

The final victim agreed, permitting Meiwes to videotape the proceedings as he was stabbed to death with a kitchen knife, and then butchered. Meiwes said that every now and then he would retrieve the meat from the freezer. “With every piece of flesh I ate, I remembered him. It was like taking Communion.” Amazingly, a psychiatrist has declared Meiwes sane , even while the prosecutors claim the victim was “unbalanced.” Yet the victim “even pleaded to be stabbed to death and consumed.” ( Rocky Mountain News 12/29/03, p. 46a). Obviously, both the butcher and the victim were homosexuals.

Given the “truth” of Freudian thinking, what did their fathers do to them that made them the “ victims of a society which denies that unmet childhood emotional needs lead to same-gender attractions” and cannibalism in adulthood? Perhaps unmet childhood emotional needs to eat his father drove Meiwes. Or perhaps his victim had unmet childhood emotional needs to be eaten by his father. What balderdash!

FRI has previously noted the absurdity of believing that men pursue sex with (usually) large numbers of men as a substitute for not being ‘close to their father.' Why did Meiwes want to have sex with, slaughter, and then eat lovers? I don't know. Just as I don't have a clue as to why some want to have their genitals mutilated to resemble those of the opposite sex, or why others want a leg or two removed.

While the questions may be interesting to some, there is no need to explain why a person murders for us to condemn murder, and the same is true with desires for mutilation and dismemberment. Yet more and more, our society is allowing psychiatrists to ‘explain away' horrible behavior on account of childhood mistreatment or mental imbalance. Increasingly, we make victims of those who behave badly.

Meiwes has been certified by mental health experts as ‘sane.' FRI suspects that his victim would have been considered sane as well (though since he is not around to be tested, it appears likely that the prosecution is just ‘guessing' about the victim's mental ‘condition').

If there are no ‘natural' or ‘God given' rules, why shouldn't a person be free to choose to be slaughtered and eaten? Any why shouldn't a person be free to be the butcher and consumer? Shouldn't a person be allowed to do with his own body what he wants? Doesn't his mental health depend on it? The West has already bought the notion that a person has the right to be mutilated to resemble the opposite sex. In addition, in most Western countries taxpayers are obligated to pay for such mutilations. If mutilation can be justified for ‘mental health,' why not slaughtering?

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