Dr. Cameron’s Credentials

Dr. Dobson in a February 8 press release referred to “Cameron, a self-styled Colorado researcher.” Cameron replied: “The implication here is that I am something of a pretender. This is not the case. I am among the most frequently published scientists on homosexuality in refereed scientific journals. PubMed (the on-line indexing service of the National Academy of Medicine’s librarians) lists over 13,000,000 scientific articles on all kinds of topics. Among those dealing with homosexuality I have a healthy representation. As near as can be determined, I am among the “top 10” most frequently published scientists on the topic. You can check it out; go to Google and punch in PubMed.”

Cameron stated that he had been chosen by the editors of a number of scientific journals (including the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and Psychological Reports) to review papers submitted to these journals. In this capacity, he participates in “gate-keeping” — that is, determining what studies on homosexuality are recognized as genuine science and worthy of publication.

Besides his work on homosexuality, Cameron has engaged in other forms of research. He was the first scientist, in 1967, to document the harm of second-hand tobacco smoke. His follow-on research and public statements helped to shape the relatively smoke-free environment characteristic of our current environment.

In the early years of the AIDS epidemic Cameron campaigned to keep “gay blood” out of the blood bank and to permit individuals to self-donate their own blood. Both of these policies were opposed by the CDC and the American Association of Blood Banks. Eventually, working with Rep. William Dannemeyer, Cameron helped to ensure in 1985 that gays were barred from donating blood. And around the same time, the American Association of Blood Banks agreed to permit self-donation.

Of this achievement Cameron says: “I played a role in saving thousands of additional lives that might have been lost to the notion that homosexual blood was just as infection-free as anybody else’s.”

Marriage Dispute Heats Up

Marriage Dispute Heats Up

February 13, 2006. Dr. Paul Cameron, chairman of Family Research Institute – a Colorado-based think tank – said today that in his debate with Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family over gay rights, he has received support from pro-family activists nationwide.

“This past weekend, after I spoke to a pro-family convention, a number of activists told me how much they appreciated my stance. In addition, people have called me at my office to say that they agree with my criticisms of Dr. Dobson’s position on gay rights and hope he will change his mind.”

Cameron added fuel to the fire by further challenging the drift of Focus on the Family, which, he says, has undermined the efforts of pro-family groups to end a string of victories by the gay-rights movement.

In attacking Cameron’s assertion that the head of Focus on the Family has endorsed gay rights, Dobson, said the following in his defense:

“Let me stop the reading right now and tell you what I did say. That’s a complete fabrication. What I said is that I am in favor of gay rights in the sense that homosexuals should not be treated unfairly under the law. They should not be deprived of a job or the right to buy a house. They are governed by the same laws that everyone else is. But I have never in any context said that I was in favor of same-sex partners being considered married or entitled to the same benefits that are reserved for the traditional family – Never!”

Cameron said he accepts the likelihood that Dobson believes that statement. However, the researcher maintained the Colorado bill proposed by Sen. Mitchell — legislation that Dobson has endorsed — “grants homosexual couples some of the benefits currently reserved for married couples and their families.”

To prove this point, he cited the Rocky Mountain News, which quoted Senator Mitchell himself as saying “it doesn’t matter how long these partners have known each other. The bill does not, however, apply to couples who are eligible to marry.” Cameron noted that this provision — which excludes cohabiting heterosexuals — indicates that those receiving privileges under the new bill would be governed by a special law, not, as Dr. Dobson put it, “the same laws that everyone else is [governed by].”

“In practical terms,” Cameron said, “the refusal to permit cohabiting heterosexuals to take advantage of the same benefits violates Dobson’s stated principle. Needy cohabiting homosexuals would be eligible for benefits under the Mitchell bill. Needy cohabiting heterosexuals would remain needy.”

“Apparently Dr. Dobson doesn’t understand the law,” Cameron continued. “Under federal civil rights legislation, it is illegal to discriminate in the area of jobs and housing on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, and other specified criteria. Homosexuals are not currently protected under these laws. For years, gay rights activists have been lobbying Congress to include homosexuals on the list of protected classes. Pro-family forces have rightfully opposed such an inclusion. Dr. Dobson’s statement gives aid and comfort to the homosexual movement.”

As for Dobson’s declaration that homosexuals should have a “right” to employment, Cameron said: “Scientific studies have found that gays bring certain liabilities into the job market”:

* Those who engage in homosexual are more apt to miss work, more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, and more likely to engage in criminal behavior.
* Homosexuals are forbidden to donate blood to blood banks, indicating that they are more likely to harbor infectious diseases.
* Contrary to gay mythology, homosexuals are more likely to be sexual predators, as the Catholic Church discovered. (After paying billions of dollars to settle lawsuits, the Catholic hierarchy has banned the ordination of homosexuals.)

Cameron asked the question: “How long can Dr. Dobson maintain the illusion that he has not endorsed special rights for homosexuals?” The Denver Post reported on the 8th that:

“Supporters of a proposal to legalize domestic partnerships are taking aim at a competing bill that one strategist called a ‘political ploy masquerading as a compromise’ to benefits for same-sex couples.”

Cameron concluded by saying: “Senator Mitchell, The Denver Post, the gay-rights movement — all understand the special pleading of this bill. And pro-family activists around the country are beginning awaken to the reality that the leadership of Focus on the Family has — for some time and in a variety of ways — been leading the pro-family in a slow but steady retreat.”

Focus Press Statement

February 8, 2006.

Colorado Springs, Colo. –– Focus on the Family Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., responded forcefully today to baseless allegations that he had abandoned his consistent position against granting special rights on the basis of sexual orientation. Dr. Dobson’s comments, aired on today’s Focus on the Family broadcast, came in response to a news release issued by Dr. Paul Cameron.

Cameron, a self-styled Colorado researcher, made the accusation in relation to Focus on the Family’s support of Colorado Senate Bill 166. The legislation would create reciprocal-beneficiary contracts, which streamline the process by which two adults ineligible to marry would be able to access benefits already available by powers of attorney and other contracts. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

On the broadcast Dr. Dobson reiterated that he does not—and never has—opposed rights for homosexuals that are afforded to other American citizens, such as the right to obtain a job or housing. However, he likewise made clear that he continues to vigorously oppose homosexual marriage and other rights granted on the basis of sexual orientation.

“I’ve never endorsed any bill granting gay partners legal rights currently reserved for married couples,” Dobson told his radio audience. “That is sheer nonsense.”

Dobson called SB 166 “a fairness bill with regard to need, not sexual relationships.” He went on to note that the bill would be beneficial in various family relationships, such as two elderly siblings living together, or a parent caring for an adult disabled child.

Focus on the Family’s support of reciprocal-beneficiary contracts is not new. As far back as 1997, Focus backed similar legislation in Hawaii that had been introduced as part of an effort to protect the institution of marriage from redefinition in that state.

SB 166 stands in stark contrast to another bill before the Colorado Legislature, a referred measure that, if approved by the Legislature, would ask Colorado’s voters to consider creating civil unions for same-sex partners with the rights and benefits now reserved for marriage. Focus on the Family and Dr. Dobson wholeheartedly oppose this civil-union bill as a discriminatory effort to grant the benefits of marriage to others on the basis of sexual orientation.

Dobson’s On-Air Statement

[Editor’s Note: The following is a partial transcript of James Dobson’s remarks on his radio broadcast of February 8, 2006]

“I’m about as close to being ticked at this moment as I ever remember getting on the air. And I want to tell you why. There is a man here in Colorado by the name of Paul Cameron who calls himself the chairman of the Family Research Institute. This is not to be confused with the Family Research Council, and Tony Perkins and his crew there in Washington. His is another organization.

“He calls himself a researcher, and he has a newswire and on Monday, he issued a statement about me that is just off the wall. And we’ve been getting phone calls and letters from people asking ‘what has caused Dobson to change his position?’ I think if I read this statement that Cameron made it will become clear to you what happened.

“Here is his statement, I’m going to be reading now: And the headline says ‘Researcher Questions Dobson’s Endorsement of Pro-Gay Bill.’ And then he continues: ‘Dr. Paul Cameron — Chairman of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank — has challenged Dr. James Dobson’s endorsement of a bill before the Colorado legislature that would grant to gay partners many of the legal rights currently reserved to married couples. These rights would include property-sharing, decision-making powers over funerals and organ donations and, potentially health-care policy benefits. If adopted, the proposed legislation could force employers to cover gay partners — no matter how ill.’

“Cameron said, ‘This is madness.’ And he goes on: ‘Noting the Christian dimensions of Dobson’s Focus on the Family organization, Cameron pointed out that conferral of any part of marriage benefits to homosexuals is without precedent in the history of the Church. Moses and St. Paul condemned homosexuality. As soon as the Church gained political power in the Roman Empire it outlawed homosexuality. Now Dobson tells society to give gays ‘marriage lite’ benefits.” [which is not true] “During the confirmation fight over Harriet Meyers, Dobson, in a somewhat ambiguous manner, told his radio audience that he was in favor of gay rights.”

“Let me stop the reading right now and tell you what I did say. That’s a complete fabrication. What I said is that I am in favor of gay rights in the sense that homosexuals should not be treated unfairly under the law. They should not be deprived of a job or the right to buy a house, they are governed by the same laws that everyone else is. But I have never in any context said that I was in favor of same-sex partners being considered married or entitled to the same benefits that are reserved for the traditional family — Never!

“I mean you all have been listening to me for all these years. You know I’ve never said that. I wrote a book two years ago called Marriage Under Fire and it’s still available from Focus on the Family or from bookstores and I outline my position there.

“There’s been no change in that, and what this bill is that we have endorsed is a fairness bill with regard to need, not sexual relationships. Two elderly sisters may need benefits from the state, a father and an adult son who’s disabled might need benefits, a great grandpa and his sister living together might need benefits but it has nothing to do with a sexual relationship. I would never endorse that, I never have endorsed it, and really I don’t know what in the world has gotten into Paul Cameron that made him make a statement like this.

“I’ve never endorsed any bill granting gay partners legal rights currently reserved for married couples. That is shear nonsense, or in his words, this is madness. And that’s what he put on his newswire and why I wanted to take just a moment or two today to tell you what’s behind this statement.

“Once more, you’ve heard me for years and I have not changed what I believe. Those of you who are ready to throw up your hands and say “Dobson’s jumped off the cliff” that might please some people but it hasn’t happened. With that, then we’ll probably bring you an update on this later but with that let’s get on with the outstanding program we’ve prepared.”

FRI Responds to Dobson

FRI Responds to Dobson

February 9, 2006. Dr. Paul Cameron, Chairman of the Family Research Institute (FRI), a Colorado-based scientific and public policy think-tank, said that Focus on the Family’s James Dobson should “keep his cool and take a second look at what he said about me yesterday on his radio program. After all, personal attacks are no substitute for good public policy.”

In a special statement Dobson made on his daily radio broadcast, he defended his endorsement of S.B. 166, the ‘Reciprocal Beneficiaries’ bill, authored by Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R-Broomfield), that would grant to gay partners and others many of the legal rights currently reserved to married couples. These rights would include property-sharing, decision-making powers over funerals and organ donations and, potentially, health-care policy benefits. If adopted, the proposed legislation could force employers to cover gay partners.

Dr. Dobson defended his endorsement by saying:

“[W]hat this bill is that we have endorsed is a fairness bill with regard to need, not sexual relationships. Two elderly sisters may need benefits from the state, a father and an adult son who’s disabled might need benefits, a great grandpa and his sister living together might need benefits but it has nothing to do with a sexual relationship. I would never endorse that, I never have endorsed it, and really I don’t know what in the world has gotten into Paul Cameron that made him make a statement like this. I’ve never endorsed any bill granting gay partners legal rights currently reserved for married couples.”

“Despite his denial, the bill Dobson recently endorsed would do just that,” said Dr. Cameron. “The legal rights involved are currently reserved for married couples. Yes, the bill would also give new legal rights to elderly sisters and great grandpas living with their sisters. It is a clever ploy designed to give cover to legislators who fear voter retaliation if they voted for a straight gay rights bill. Yet Dr. Dobson said yesterday that this endorsement is consistent with what he has always preached.”

According to a Denver Post editorial, “Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs-based organization of conservative Christians, has endorsed a measure by Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, that would expand legal benefits to non-married heads of households, no matter the orientation of the couple. The position seemed a contrast to the group’s vigorous efforts to “preserve traditional values and the institution of the family.”

Dr. Cameron stated, “I’m sorry I made Dr. Dobson so angry. But his support for these special protections and privileges carries more weight in the political arena than a mountain of research that indicates such new rights are a very bad idea. That’s why I felt compelled to challenge him. I wish he would reconsider his gay rights positions.”

In Dobson’s on-air statement, he questioned Dr. Cameron’s credentials, stating that he “calls himself a researcher.”

“I am puzzled at Jim Dobson’s attacks on my credentials. I have published over 40 articles in refereed scientific journals on homosexuality and have written two books on the subject. I am currently a reviewer for the British Medical Journal on this topic and have appeared as an expert witness in numerous court cases involving custody battles over children by homosexual parents,” said Cameron. “I also received my Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Colorado in Boulder.”

Dr. Dobson quoted a press release FRI issued that said of him: “During the confirmation fight over Harriet Miers, Dobson, in a somewhat ambiguous manner, told his radio audience that he was in favor of gay rights.” Dr. Dobson replied: “That’s a complete fabrication. What I said is that I am in favor of gay rights in the sense that homosexuals should not be treated unfairly under the law.”

However, in October 2005, after a reference to Harriet Miers’ statement that she believed in gay rights, Dobson said on his radio broadcast “You know what? I do. I don’t believe that homosexuals should be denied a job. I don’t believe that they should not be able to buy a house. I don’t believe that they should not have the same rights everybody else does. I just don’t believe that there should be special rights given to homosexuals that are not given to everybody else.”

“Dr. Dobson may think that what he said constituted no more than an affirmation of what most people believe — that homosexuals should be governed by the same laws we all live under. If so, he said more than he intended. Under federal civil rights law, certain groups have special protections because they have been persecuted for such characteristics as race, sex, religion, ethnicity, etc. Two of those special rights relate to housing and jobs,” said Cameron.

“Homosexuals are not currently among those groups protected. Right now, if you refuse to employ a homosexual at your church or in your candy store or — out of consideration for your neighbors and their children — sell your house to a homosexual, you are within your rights to do so under federal law,” added Cameron.

According to Dr. Cameron, gay rights activists want the federal government to give them special protection in those two areas. Quite recently, after three decades of trying, the very liberal state of Washington finally passed a bill that placed homosexuals among the protected groups. Many Christians fought the legislation. The gay rights movement considered this a great victory.

“If Dr. Dobson believes that homosexuals should not be denied a job or housing because of their bedroom behavior, then he stands with the gay rights crowd on this issue. Yet he says in the above statement that he doesn’t want to give homosexuals special rights. He can’t have it both ways. He can’t give homosexuals protections currently enjoyed only by certain specified groups and at the same time claim he isn’t in favor of doing that,” said Dr. Cameron.

FRI-Focus marriage dispute

February 6, 2006. Dr. Paul Cameron — Chairman of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank — has challenged Dr. James Dobson’s endorsement of a bill before the Colorado legislature that would grant to gay partners many of the legal rights currently reserved to married couples. Focus on the Family is supporting a bill proposed by Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R-Broomfield) that would give marriage-like benefits to homosexuals.

If passed, merely by signing a form with the county clerk, gay and lesbian partners would have property-sharing rights, decision-making powers over funerals and organ donations, and could be covered under one person’s health care policy. State law could force employers to cover gay partners — no matter how ill. Partners could cancel the form and the benefits sharing arrangment at any time.

Dr. Cameron said “the Mitchell bill is really ‘marriage-lite’ for gays. Focus on the Family’s support for this bill is madness.”

“Currently there is one voluntary relationship that immediately confers these benefits and more — that relationship is marriage between a man and a woman. Society gets tremendous value out of marriage, because married individuals are more economically productive, provide the best place to raise children, and are the least criminal. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are less economically productive, have few children, do not raise them well, are more criminal, and tend to spread disease. Society should not reward homosexual relationships with marriage-like benefits,” said Cameron.

According to Dr. Cameron, conferral of any part of marriage benefits to homosexuals is without precedent in the history of the Christian Church. “Moses and St. Paul put homosexuality among the worst of sins. As soon as the Church gained political power in the Roman Empire it outlawed homosexuality. Now Focus on the Family — an avowedly Christian organization — is telling society it is OK to give gays benefits similar to marriage, as long as it is not called ‘marriage.’”

Drs. Dobson and Cameron were both prominent in getting Amendment 2 passed in Colorado in 1992, and they have been active in the fight against gay rights since then. Just this year, the national gay magazine The Advocate listed Dobson #1 and Cameron #2 on its gay “enemies list” (1/31/06).

However, during the confirmation fight over Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Dobson told his radio audience that he was in favor of certain ‘civil’ rights for gays. “Is the ‘marriage-lite’ bill an attempt by Dobson and Focus on the Family to compromise with homosexuals over the issue of gay marriage?” asked Cameron.

“When the Denver Post, one of the most anti-family, anti-traditional newspapers on the planet, says it is ‘pleasantly surprised’ by Dobson’s support for ‘expanded legal benefits for same-sex couples,’ you know that a betrayal has occurred.”

Family Research Institute is a non-profit scientific and educational think-tank that has been dedicated to defending the family through scientific research since 1982. Chairman Dr. Paul Cameron has written numerous books and scientific articles on homosexuality, and is currently a reviewer on homosexual issues for the British Medical Journal. He is also among the top ten most published scientists in the world on this topic according to PubMed, the online compilation of research by the National Library of Medicine.