For the first time in the United States, a ballot measure designed to limit marriage to one man and one woman, while also forbidding homosexuals to have ‘marriage-like’ benefits, was voted down. While the measures designed to stop gay marriage in seven other states passed, Arizona went the other way, 51% to 49%. Close, but a defeat nonetheless...

On May 17, 2004, gay marriage became legal for the first time in the United States in substantial part to the efforts of Julie and Hillary Goodridge (Goodridge v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health). Julie and Hillary marched into Boston City Hall, where they were mobbed by news media, and became one of the first couples in Massachusetts to apply for a marriage license.

On July 20, 2006, it was announced that they had separated...

Special from the Editor

Many of you may be wondering why FRI decided to publicly oppose Focus on the Family’s endorsement of a proposed legislative bill (SB 166) in Colorado to grant some of the benefits traditionally reserved for marriage to ‘reciprocal beneficiaries.’ Why have we put out a series of press releases criticizing James Dobson and his position in this matter? Why have we added details of this dispute to our website?

In this issue of Family Research Report, we will attempt to answer these questions and more. Several individuals have contacted us to defend Dr. Dobson and to accuse us of causing ‘disunity’ in the body of Christ. They have suggested that we must put forward a ‘united front’ in the battle against those who would try to destroy marriage. They have also accused us of ruining our own credibility as an organization.

The drumbeat is on again. Former President Clinton’s efforts to get homosexuals into the military failed. But now the media are back at it, urging that ‘homosexuals not be excluded from the military.’ After all, enlistments are down (Wall Street Journal 6/3/05), and there is ‘no rational reason to exclude them,’ according to academic scholars and the liberal members of congress who echo their claim.

Late in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court added sodomy to its list of newly protected activities. Unlike heterosexual sex, which is necessary to produce children, sodomy entertains its participants, but contributes nothing in return. Instead, sodomy costs society a great deal, both monetarily and otherwise. In fact, sodomy may be the most costly of the Court's recently created �rights.'

Of course, many of the costs associated with sodomy are �hidden' or difficult to �price.' How do we estimate the cost of having to re-organize society to accommodate changes in marriage and family law or practice, for instance? What about changes in public accommodations or discrimination law due to new �civil rights?'

While the societal changes beginning to unfold are rather extensive, other costs of sodomy are more easily calculated. Two of these include:

1) Costs in life, and
2) Costs in property

So many professional associations are in favor of legalizing sodomy and protecting those who engage in homosexuality that a layman could be excused for having just this view. These professional associations claim that the ‘scientific evidence’ proves that anti-sodomy laws are not only unwarranted but -- get this -- also harmful to public health!

The latest attempt at this kind of ‘scientific steamrollering’ is occurring in Massachusetts, where, surprisingly enough, the state’s anti-sodomy laws are still on the books. As you might expect, these statutes are being challenged by gay activists. Furthermore, a host of professional associations submitted an amici curiae brief on June 25, 2001 in support of the activists.

In this issue of FRR, we examine the claims made by the ‘scientists’ writing for the professional organizations which sponsored the amici brief. We will demonstrate that their assertions are largely baseless or even false. Nevertheless, similar claims are being made across the land by the pro-homosexual crowd, so we believe it is important to document carefully just where their arguments fall short.

Key evidence to support this explanation is found in a large longitudinal study from Christchurch, New Zealand. Followed from birth, those subjects who were homosexual at age 21 tested as more psychiatrically disturbed, reported more frequent suicidality, and were more substance-dependent. Also, their childhoods were troubled the homosexual subjects more frequently experienced parental changes due to divorce, and more often had parents with a criminal history.

FRI predicted that little good could come out of such a meeting between a well-known representative of the Christian clergy and an equally well-known "Christian" gay rights leader, except confusion among Christians and a perception that the dispute between Christianity and homosexuality is ultimately about modest differences.

We were also concerned that by setting up a "dialogue" with gay leaders, Falwell would be giving a signal that he might be changing his mind about the Christian stance toward homosexuality a "mind change" that has occurred or is occurring, among others, in the Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal, and Church of Christ denominations.

While one might profitably debate gay leaders, you cannot dialogue with them without ceding the homosexual movement considerable legitimacy and making your own supporters uncertain about fundamental Christian values.

Are 33% of teenagers who commit suicide homosexual? Do "45% of gay youth and 20% of lesbian youth" "directly experience violence at school?" These are among the claims made by pro-homosexual groups as they seek to get federal and state grant money and enter school systems to "train" faculty and counselors to "meet the needs" of homosexual teenagers. Administrators of the Miami-Dade County school system have apparently accepted these claims as true. They signed on to be "trained" by a gay support group during the 1998-1999 school year.

But are these claims true?

Not quite.

There is less here than meets the eye. Indeed, a coverup is underway a coverup in "plain view."

As in the U.S., British gays have been highly successful at raiding the pubic treasury for "studies" of homosexuality and AIDS. One of the projects that has been keeping a significant number of gay researchers eating and living well is project SIGMA, started in 1987, which interviewed and followed almost a thousand gays over a three year period. As is typical of such studies, the respondents were not a random sample of gays. But atypical of such studies, the degree of candor was high. We review it here.

As to the demographics of those participating, the median age of the sample was 29 with a range of 15 to 81 years. Twelve percent were under the age of 21 (the legal age of consent for homosexual activity at the time of the study). Four percent were married to a woman; 8% were separated, divorced or widowed. 60% reported a female sex partner in their lifetime, 30% a female partner in the last 5 years. Also, 12% reported sex with women in the last year, while 5% reported such contact with women in the last month.

The headlines screamed, and even National Public Radio crowed: even in the inner-city, AIDS can be prevented!

Imagine, for less than $300 apiece, inner-city Blacks and Hispanics can be "taught to use condoms" and, as a consequence, not get AIDS. If true, a BIG DEAL. But the reality does not match the rhetoric.