(16) Equal persons, equal ideas, equal behaviors? : The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

Master Status?

Our society seems to now be identifying a person primarily by sexual orientation or gender identity. This places sexual behavior on the throne as the most important aspect of our lives. However, a person's sexual orientation is not their master status.

We are individuals who have potential for developing and making choices about how we live our lives. We are endowed with many abilities and opportunities to move and grow in many directions. We are not pre-determined. We all have potential for many sexual behaviors, depending on our nature, our nurture, our choices and our social influences.

Created equal

Our country was founded on a patriotic 'faith statement' that declares all men (presumably, people) are created equal. This is not a statement of fact, because in fact, we are not equal. We differ in innumerable ways. People differ in value both in regard to themselves and in regard to society.

The founding fathers affirmed a divine power. Our 'created equal' faith statement only has truth in the light that we have worth endowed by our creator as a searching and striving soul. We have spiritual and eternal worth. The assumption of the ultimate equality of each person cannot be separated from the soul.

Our democracy was founded on the essential assumption that individuals can and will strive for goodness. Our affirmed 'right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' does not include the right to violently or carelessly confront the well being of the larger social good.

Countries that lose a foundation of spiritual reality soon demonstrate that many people who are no longer contributing to or supporting the political agendas are no longer needed or wanted in the society.

Equal ideas / behaviors?

To say that all persons are created equal cannot be equated with saying that all ideas and behaviors are created equal. However, this seems to be the outgrowth and false conclusion that our culture is proclaiming. We are now saying that ideas and behaviors held by a small minority of persons must be considered equal to ideas and values that have been cherished and supported through the years by the majority of people. To negatively judge or evaluate the minority idea is labeled a hate crime.

Homosexual relationships have always been present to some extent in our society, for whatever personal or social reasons. They have been tolerated and allowed as a necessary condition for some.

Violence or disrespectful behaviors toward homosexuals or any minority group are inappropriate.

Consequences predominate.

Ideas and behaviors must be evaluated and judged by the consequences they produce for the persons involved and for the larger society.

It is now being promoted that homosexual behaviors should be taught to our children as equally appropriate social relationships.

It is not useful, appropriate or wise to use exceptions to argue for or define normality.

The normalization of homosexuality in society would create profound changes in social organization that warrant caution and serious consideration. Heterosexual marriage is a foundation for personal and social integration between the sexes and generations.

The traditional family preserves and passes down its unique cultural values to the next generation, providing checks and balances in society which guard against destructive extremism. The greatest sources of nurture, support and meaning for the majority of Americans are found within intergenerational family relationships.

Personal health risks associated with homosexual behaviors are deeply troubling. The American Medical Association confirms that homosexual youth are 23 times more apt to contact a sexually transmitted disease than their heterosexual counterparts.

Protecting democracy!

The concept of 'equality of persons' is not to be equated with the insistence that every idea or behavior of a minority or small group should be used to determine what all others must accept or abide by.

Democracy requires responsible debate and consideration of behavioral and social consequences when changes in social relationships are proposed.

This process is the best way to ensure well being for the larger good and to ensure protection and support for all citizens.

(15) The Consequences: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF NORMALIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE 1.

In considering the future of marriage, Dr. David Blankenhorn chaired three one-day seminars for researchers and family scholars in 2004 to address concerns raised by the prospect of gay marriage. Seminars were held in New York City, Washington D.C., and Atlanta, Georgia, with a total of 40 people attending, including leading family scholars. Some had spoken out in favor of gay marriage and some against. Serious scholars and leaders wrestled with the issue in an attempt to see both sides.

The results of the discussions confirmed that a movement toward gay marriage would not only affect a small minority but would constitute major social change. It became evident that the decision was not a morally easy one because when important goods conflict, any resolution will carry elements of loss. A diverse range of consequences were listed, both positive and negative.

Positive social consequences of extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples included:

* the improvement of well being and social worth for gays and lesbians,

* increased tolerance under the law,

* and equal treatment under the law.

Extending marriage benefits may:

* encourage gays to choose committed relationships,

* contribute to more stability and longer lasting relationships,

* and lead to less sexual promiscuity.

Negative social consequences that were identified in changing the public meaning of marriage from a social institution to a private relationship between two people included:

* the de-institutionalization of marriage, contributing to a social devaluation of marriage,

* endorsement of the idea that a child does not really need a mother and a father,

* opening the door to other forms of 'marriage', including group marriage and polygamy,

* subsidization of reproductive technologies,

* and fewer children being raised by their own married mother and father.

The religious values of most Americans in regard to appropriate sexual relationships would:

* no longer be legally accepted,

* lead to state imposed restrictions on religious freedom and freedom of expression,

* and lead to U.S. marriages becoming secularized, undermining religious conceptions of marriage.

The public socialization of young people into a marriage culture would be diluted to avoid suggesting that marriage is fundamentally heterosexual. If the decision was reached by the courts, a public loss in confidence in the judicial systems would result.

The total list of consequences identified by the 40 conference attendees included 23 negative, 24 positive and 12 'other' consequences that were considered important to recognize. The participants in this discussion concluded that gay marriage would represent "quite a bit of significant social change, affecting many aspects of society."

QUESTIONS ON GAY REORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY 2.

In 1993, Morton A. Kaplan, distinguished service professor of political science emeritus at the University of Chicago and editor of The World and I magazine, wrestled with the challenges to society being proposed by gay activism. Noting that the issues of gay rights and alternative family forms generated enormous anger and political energy, he concluded that, "As long as the family, as now understood, commands the rational and emotional assent of most people, it is hard for homosexuality to enter the mainstream of American life." Noting that "We cannot, even if we wished, withdraw from these issues" Kaplan concluded, "it is therefore, quite important to think through these issues as objectively as possible."

A series of considerations were raised.

* "Many homosexuals and lesbians are intelligent, honorable, hardworking, and valuable members of society. Many of them are fine parents...They tend to greater promiscuity than heterosexuals, but this may be a product of social and legal factors..."

* "No decent individual would desire to see homosexuals harassed or deprived of dignified career opportunities."

* "Although it is regrettable that a group of people should pay disproportionate social and psychological costs because of their sexuality, the survival of the larger group cannot be put at risk."

* "We legitimate the heterosexual family to preserve the group."

* In extending the concept of normality, "damage may be done to society that may take generations to repair...some degree of damage to limited groups of individuals may be justified for the greater good of society... every set of social norms injures some."

* "Are homosexual and lesbian tendencies genetically governed?...such behavior likely depends on more than genetics."

* "...there were also incestuous or pedophilic families...But where is the line to be drawn, and on what basis? And, if we cannot draw a firm line, will we remain successful in outlawing child pornography if the child consents?"

* Can we tolerate all forms of consensual sexual activity"... Our ability to function rationally depends on taboos and social and legal constraints that maintain character and a sense of appropriateness."

* I suggest prudence, that we do not allow a slippery slope to take us unawares... we need serious discussion rather than the polemics and the heat we are now generating."

CAUTION IS WISDOM

Social movements promoting the normalization of homosexuality in our society have, and will continue to bring about profound challenges and changes in social organization, particularly in regard to social integration, social reproduction, social health, and the intergenerational transfer of cultural values.

Social Integration

The heterosexual family unit has integrated men and women, children, grandparents and extended relatives in personal and caring relationships that transcend generations. Countless and consistent family research confirms that the greatest sources of nurture, support and meaning for the majority of Americans are found within the family unit.

Intergenerational Transfer of Cultural Values

The foundation upon which freedom is built rests upon the ability of autonomous family units to preserve and pass down cultural values to the next generation. This process develops a diversity of perspectives, providing the checks and balances in society which guard against destructive extremes.

Social Reproduction

As children are taught to accept homosexuality as a normal choice, the intergenerational transfer of cultural and genetic patterns in society becomes jeopardized. The normalization of homosexuality will create new forms of social reproduction. When society changes rapidly it is prudent to inquire, "Who benefits?" The commercialization of reproduction through the buying of sperm and egg and the creating of children through deliberate planning by professionals (at high cost) will replace the caring and loving union of mother, father, children, grandchildren, and extended relatives. This is a foundation for eugenics with all the questions to be asked in this regard. Whose sperm? Whose egg will be favored?

Social Health

The personal and public health risks associated with homosexual behaviors are deeply troubling. It is not useful to pretend that the dangers inherent in the homosexual lifestyle will be overcome by condom use, especially a careless distribution of condoms among the young.

Heterosexual family forms have been protected and passed down through centuries of civilizations and in virtually all societies.

The Slippery Slope

This discussion will leave the reader with questions addressed by Melik Kaylan in his article "The Way We Live Now." 3.

"...Most of the 'slippery slope' warnings of the last decades have proved tragically accurate despite the mockery that silenced them. From the domino theory, to drugs, divorce, to permissive sexuality, who can deny the devastation wrought by each -broken homes, addictions, AIDS?...

Already the era of gay parenting is here. It often involves an affluent gay couple adopting poor orphans and improving their material future immeasurably. How long before market forces noisily hold up such families as role models, pillars of style, tolerance, humor, free-thinking? Yet we have no idea how the children will fare emotionally, how anomalous they will feel... Will children, once reared know how to sustain a heterosexual marriage or family, having no inherited sense of its workings?...What will be the ultimate human cost, and who will have the courage, then to identify the cause?"

References:

1. Blankenhorn, David. The Future of Marriage. New York: Encounter Books. 2007:202-212.

2. Kaplan, Morton A. "Common Sense on Gay Rights." The World and I. 1993:361,403-407.

3. Kaylan, Melik. "TheWay We Live Now." The Wall Street Journal. Friday, August 8, 2003: Opinion Page.

(14) Politics and Beyond: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

Gays in Power

Politics involves the ability of interest groups to effect social and legal decisions in favor of their preferred results. Out.com notes that "influential gays are becoming increasingly more visible and more powerful." The Power 50: The Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America were outed on their website. Four criteria were used to determine their choices, including; political clout, pop-culture resonance, individual wealth, and current personal profile.

Descriptions of their first five choices are listed as follows: 1.

1. David Giffen is a $4 billion Hollywood entertainment powerhouse. His money has bought him influence over Democratic presidential politics and his name on UCLA's medical school.

2. Anderson Cooper, as anchor of CNN News, pulls a $4 million salary.

3. Ellen DeGeneres hosts her own talk show that draws 2.3 million viewers on a daily basis. This out and proud lesbian is reportedly worth $65 million.

4. Tim Gill is the country's biggest gay political donor who made his fortune as founder of the publishing software Quark.

5. Barney Frank, Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts, assumed chairmanship of the House Committee on Financial Services when Democrats took control of the House and Senate.

Bankrolling the Battle 2.

Tim Gill, the leading funder of the homosexual agendas, is perhaps the most powerful force for homosexual activism. Gill grew up in Denver and became involved in homosexual activism after enrolling at the university of Colorado at Boulder in the early 1970's. With a passion for computer technology and making money he launched the software company Quark, which became a major international software firm, making Gill a very rich man.

In 1992, Gill refocused on gay activism after the passage of Amendment 2, which prohibited Colorado localities from passing gay-right ordinances. Feeling angry that "the forces of evil are out to destroy us" he began to funnel his wealth to work for pro-homosexual agendas. In 1994, he formed the Gill foundation through which he was able to use his fortune to "seed gay-rights organizations in all 50 states."

His support enabled the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) to grow into the leading gay-activist group in America's schools. By 2001, USA Today reported that the "Gill Foundation donations to homosexual-rights organizations around the country represented 20 percent of their annual budgets. As of this year, the foundation has made grants of well over $115 million."

Besides huge donations, Gill used creative and effective ways to promote the gay agenda. He launched training seminars across the country to "help the organizations sharpen their message, hone their efficiency and raise money more effectively." To portray homosexuality as mainstream, Gill also gave large grants to symphonies, libraries and colleges with the stipulation that the organization have a non-discrimination policy toward homosexuals and that they advertise through plaques, event programs, and annual reports that the funding came from the Gay & Lesbian Fund of Colorado.

In 2000, Gill became involved in "strategic politics". Focusing on local campaigns, Gill gave $300,000, followed by $800,000, followed by $5 million to influence political races. He recruited three multi-millionaires to join his pro-gay cause: Jared Polis; Rutt Bridges; and billionaire heiress, Pat Stryker, sister to a homosexual billionaire from Michigan, Jon Stryker. The four "Gillionaires" fed money into local races to shift control of legislatures in favor of gay-friendly candidates. In 2006, Gill and his allies targeted 70 state and local races in a dozen states. When Gill funneled $5 million into Colorado politics, Democrats took control of both the House and Senate for the first time in three decades. In New Hampshire, a new Democrat majority passed a civil-unions law. In Iowa, the Republicans lost the House; the Democratic majority was able to stop the state marriage amendment and the Legislature enacted a homosexual nondiscrimination law.

Obama's Rainbow World 3.

When Barack Obama was elected president, lavender, the signature color of the gay movement, became the preferred color of major media newscasters and talk show hosts. Purple and lavender ties, shirts, dresses, and suit coats blossomed. On inauguration Day of 2009 the Human Rights Campaign president, Joe Solmonese said, "Today's inauguration represents a paradigm shift. The pendulum has swung away from the anti-gay forces and toward a new president and vice president who acknowledge our equality."

Throughout his campaign, Obama made it clear that he supported the homosexual "civil rights" movement. Immediately after his inauguration, the Obama White House web site posted it's agenda, which include a section addressed to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) community. Obama is quoted, "Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us... But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."

On the web site (www.whitehouse.gov) Obama spoke to the relevant political concerns:

Hate-Crimes - We will "expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act."

ENDA - Obama "supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act...our anti-discrimination laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity."

Gays in the Military - "we need to repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy".

Defense of Marriage Act - the President wants to "repeal the Defense of Marriage Act which was signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton. Obama wants to "enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions."

Gay adoption - In a letter to a gay rights group in Massachusetts, Obama said, "We have to eliminate discrimination against LGBT families. And that's why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws."

After taking office Obama disappointed many gay activists by not moving aggressively forward in pursuit of gay rights, and even defending some of the policies he criticized. Gay rights groups became outraged when the Obama administration filed a legal brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which Obama had opposed during his campaign. To lessen the anger, In June of 2009 Obama signed a presidential memo extending some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. 4.

In February of 2010, Obama again disappointed homosexuals who were wanting to serve openly in the armed forces. Michael Mullen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm, reported that the Pentagon is conducting a year long review of policy change. President Obama and Congress will table this issue for the rest of the year. 5.

REFERENCES

1. Out.com. "The Power 50: The Most Powerful Gay Men & Women in America." http://out.com/detail.asp?id=22394. 2/26/10.

2. Paulton, John. "In the Image of Gill". Citizen magazine. Focus on the Family. Vol. 21, No. 12. December, 2007:24-27.

3. Vitagliano, Ed. "Homosexual Agenda." American Family Association Journal. Vol. 33, No. 3, March 2009:20-21.

4. Froomkin, Dan. "Consolation Prize for Gays." 6/17/2009. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/a-consolation-prize-for-gays_pf.html. 2/26/2010.

5. The Washington Times. "Editorial: Obama disappoints gays again." Feb. 3, 2010. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/o3/homosexuals-disappointed-again. 2/26/2010.

(13) Gays Confront the Church: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

Although prostitution and homosexuality were sometimes included in practices of early religions, the moral commandments of the Hebrew people protected sexual relationships in support of family values. The formation of the family unit through the love and sexual union of a man and a woman was seen as the way in which the love of God was shown to individuals in the present and passed on to future generations through their children. Scriptures from the Jewish Bible and the New Testament supported husband/wife unions and condemned homosexual relationships.

When gay activist groups emerged in the 1960's, churches were challenged to include homosexuals and allow them to participate without discrimination in church activities and events. Fundamental groups held firm to scriptural guidance, while mainline churches, especially within the leadership of the denominations, were moving toward inclusion.

Churches Challenged

The Southern Baptists, the largest Protestant denomination with sixteen million members, was not without challenge in its effort to preserve conservative family values. In 1965 Anne and Fred Alexander, members of the Southern Baptist Church, started the publication of The Other Side magazine "to keep alive the possibility of fundamental change." In 1978 The Other Side published an issue dealing with homosexuality, which included groundbreaking articles offering gay and lesbian speakers the opportunity to express their feelings and experiences. 1.

Organized elements within the mainline Protestant churches began a systematic push to change thinking related to theological and ethical issues involving sexuality. In 1978 a Task Force on Homosexuality submitted a report to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) recommending that avowed practicing homosexuals be ordained as ministers, ruling elders, and deacons. The 1978 General Assembly of PCUSA declared homosexual behaviors contrary to scripture and persons who practiced it could not be ordained. In 1978 the General Assembly appointed a seventeen-member committee, heavily weighted with members who condoned homosexuality, to develop a study on human sexuality. The report repudiated scriptural morality and proposed legitimizing premarital, extramarital, and homosexual relationships. The Human Sexuality Report was rejected by 94% of the delegation at the 1991 PCUSA General Assembly. A committee moderator stated, "We are convinced that the issue raised by this report will not go away." 2.

In 2006 a report titled "A Season of Discernment" that devoted 100 pages to "Sexuality and Ordination" was passed by the General Assembly of PCUSA. Agreement was reached on some matters. While ordination would be denied to anyone who demonstrated licentious behavior, celibate homosexuals and bisexuals were not barred from consideration for ordination. Every ordaining body was given the opportunity to decide what departures can be tolerated. 3.

Aggressive Attacks on the Church

In December of 1989 the late Cardinal John O'Connor was beginning his sermon in New York City's St. Patrick's Cathedral when angry shouts came from the congregation. Members of the militant homosexual group ACT-UP stretched themselves out in the aisles or chained themselves to the pews. An angry man yelled, "You bigot, O'Connor, you're killing us." Forty-three protesters were arrested while O'Connor tried to go on with the service.

In 1992 the voters of Colorado had passed Amendment 2 that denied homosexuals special legal privileges. Will Perkins, the man who helped get Amendment 2 on the Colorado ballot, attended the Village Seven Presbyterian Church. In the middle of a Sunday service in 1993 a dozen homosexual activists leaped out of their seats and bombarded the parishioners with condoms. Focus on the Family in Colorado had rocks thrown through the windows, dead animal parts left on the ministry's front door, and flyers posted on light poles in front of the ministry and throughout the downtown area calling for conservative Christians to be thrown to the lions. 4.

Soulforce, Inc: We Will Split You

Soulforce, Inc. was a roving protest group of multi-denominational gays, lesbians and transgendered persons committed to nonviolent action with a goal to challenge church doctrines on homosexuality. The organization was founded in 1998 by the Rev. Mel White who had co-authored books in the 1980's with Evangelical elites including Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. After 25 years of trying to 'cure' himself, the father of two left his wife and moved in with his male partner. In the summer of 2000, protests were organized to disrupt the general assemblies of the Methodist, Baptist, and Episcopalian denominations. Working with activists within the denominations, Soulforce staged demonstrations. White's attitude was "We don't debate anymore. Change your policies or we're going to split you apart and leave." 5.

Denominations Divided

The demonstrations brought fervent opposition from evangelical forces within the churches. The vote by the delegates at the 2000 annual conference of the United Methodist Church rejected by a two-thirds majority any effort to alter the denominations's marriage centered sexual morality or sexual standards for ordination. 6.

Episcopalians were also divided by the debates on homosexuality. In 1998 conservative members formed a reform movement called Concerned Clergy and Laity of the Episcopal Church. In 2003 the election of a partnered homosexual bishop created turmoil in the church. The 2009 General Convention adopted two resolutions that seriously departed from biblical sexuality by repealing a moratorium on the consecration of additional gay bishops, while opening the doors to blessing same-sex unions. 7.

In August of 2009 the Evangelical Lutheran Church in American (ELCA) adopted policies that were a departure from traditional Christian teaching. "The new policies allow ELCA churches to give approval to non-marital sexual relationships, both homosexual and heterosexual, and to ordain persons in such relationships." 8.

Priestly Sexual Abuse Challenges the Church

Accusations of priestly pedophilia exploded in the Catholic Church in the 1980's. The dual system of sexuality within the Catholic Church created problems in the development of a consistent understanding of sexuality. Church leaders for centuries have been called to celibacy. However seminary training did not adequately address the realities of leading a sexually celibate life. A church sponsored panel reported that 2 to 4% of Catholic priests may have been guilty of sexually abusing children, mostly teen boys. 9.

Many Catholic seminaries have a gay subculture. R. Scott Appleby, professor of history at Notre Dame University, said "People I know quite well have left the seminary either in disgust because people are not keeping their vows, or in alienation because they're not gay." 10

AIDS has taken a toll among Catholic priests. By the beginning of the new millennium, hundreds of Catholic priests had died of AIDS-related illnesses, and hundreds more were living with HIV. Priests were dying of AIDS at a rate four times that of the general population. 11.

Priestly sexual abuse of children and young teens raises two questions.

1. How many young boys were drawn into the homosexual lifestyle by early experiences of sexual behaviors with priests.?

2. To what extent has the homosexual challenge to traditional family patterns been supported and encouraged through these behaviors?

These questions become especially relevant in light of the high rate of AIDS among the priesthood.

ENDA and Hate Crimes Challenges Religious Liberty

Since 1994, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has been repeatedly introduced in Congress. If the bill passes, 'sexual orientation' would be added to the list of federally protected classes under the 1964 act that prohibits job discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. ENDA would make it illegal to make decisions on hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee based on sexual orientation. Supporters argue that ENDA is necessary to protect a minority from discrimination while opponents argue that religious employers who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle would be discriminated against. Church related facilities or non-profits could lost their tax exempt status if they refused to hire a person on the basis of their sexual orientation. 12.

After a decade of political struggle, President Obama signed the federal hate crime bill into law on Oct 28th of 2009. A hate crime is identified as a crime of violence motivated by the hatred of the group to which the victim belongs. The federal hate crime protects against violence based on the race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity of the victim.

BACKLASH- Protecting Religious Liberties

When church leadership moved toward changing sexual expectations to include practicing homosexuals as clergy and leaders, church members who leaned toward maintaining a scriptural foundation to the faith voted with their feet. Between 1965 and 1989 six mainline denominations (Evangelical Lutheran, United Methodist, United Church of Christ, Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Disciples of Christ) reported a combined membership loss of 6.2 million members. The churches that increased in membership were conservative and evangelical, in contrast to the secular liberalism of mainline denominations. 13.

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council contends that state-sanctioned same-sex unions pose a dangerous threat to religious liberties, not just for churches but for everyone. Heterosexual relationships, although the only relationships that can naturally reproduce, would be officially declared 'nothing special'. Non-discrimination laws would threaten the rights of individual believers trying to live their daily lives in accordance to their faith. 14,

Perkins lists ways in which individuals may be challenged in their faith or denied the right to express their personal religious values.

* Individuals would be denied the right to express their views in regard to the gay lifestyle in public.

* Private business owners would be required to provide benefits for same-sex domestic partners.

* Organizations that challenged same-sex relationships may be denied government grants.

* Organizations may be denied access to public events.

* Professionals may face lawsuits or be denied licensing.

* Religious non-profits or educational establishments may lose their tax-exempt status.

* Religious clubs at secular universities may be denied recognition.

* Private business owners and religious non-profits would be required to include gays as employees.

Perkins notes occasions in which these conditions have already occurred.

* Catholic charities in Boston were told they could no longer do adoptions if they refused to place children with same-sex couples.

* A fertility doctor was sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian.

* A Christian camp meeting lost it's tax-exempt status for refusing to rent their pavilion for a lesbian 'civil union' ceremony.

* A Lutheran school in California was sued for expelling two girls in a lesbian relationship.

The late Dr. D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Ministries, sounded the alarm on the federal hate crime law, which is named after Matthew Shepherd. Shepherd, who was a homosexual, was brutally pistol whipped and left tied to a split-rail fence in Laramie, Wyoming by two thugs in an attempt to get money and drugs. Homosexual protesters turned the tragic event into an attack against the Christian community, claiming that anti-gay messages by Christians who opposed homosexuality contributed to the 1998 murder of Shepherd.

Hate crimes add additional penalties for crimes committed against homosexuals or other designated groups when hatred or bias is a motivating factor.

Dr. Kennedy contended that "hate crime laws have been used to silence Christians, while providing special protection to homosexuals." 15.

Opponents of hate crime laws argue that the legislation leads to criminalizing speech that opposes the homosexual lifestyle. Current laws punish behaviors while hate crime laws punish offenders for what they think or say. In 2004 eleven Christians were arrested for committing a hate crime when they preached at a homosexual gay-pride event in Philadelphia. Matt Barber, Director for Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel, calls hate crime legislation "Constitutionally dubious and dangerous to religious liberties and freedom of speech" and "entirely unnecessary."

16.

REFERENCES

1. Davidson, Doug. "Disturbing the Peace:Thirty years on The Other Side." The Other Side. 30th Anniversary . Vol. 31, No. 6 (Nov/Dec) 1995:7.

2. Presbyterian Layman. "Highlights from the Layman's years of reporting on Presbyterian Church (USA)." Vol. 28, No. 6 (Nov/Dec) 1995.

Jameson, Vic. "Assembly maintains traditional Presbyterian sexuality policies." Presbyterian Survey. (July/Aug) 1991:24-25.

3. Religious Tolerance. "Statement on homosexuality: 2000 to now." 2008. http://www,religioustolerance.org/hom_pru22.htm. 2/22/2010.

4. Sears, Alan & Craig Osten. The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. (Revised and updated) Nashville,TN: B&H Publishing. 2003:127,156.

5. Van Biema, David. "Out of the Fold.". Time. Vol. 156, No. 1 (July 3) 2000:48-51.

6. Tooley, Mark. "United Methodists move to the center." Faith and Freedom. Vol. 19, No. 3-4 (Summer/Fall)2000:6-7.

7. Walton, Jeffrey H. "Episcopalians Roll Down the Slope". Faith and Freedom. Vol. 28, No. 4. Fall 2009:7.

8. Wisdom. Alan F. H. "Evangelical Lutherans Go Over the Edge." Faith and Freedom. Vol. 28, No. 4, Fall 2009:6.

9. Associated Press. "Catholic bishops urge new rules over sex abuse." San Antonio Express News. November 18, 1993:15A.

10. Sears, Alan & Craig Osten, 2003:152.

11. Thomas, Judy L. "AIDS taking toll among Catholic priests in U.S." San Antonio Express News. Sat., Feb. 5, 2000:10B.

12. Riley, Jennifer. "Gay Employment Bill on Queue for Returning Congress." Aug. 21, 2009. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090821/gay-employment-bill-on-agenda... 2/21/2010.

13. Ostling, Richard N. "The Church Search." Time. Vol. 141, No. 14 (April 5) 1993.44-51.

14. Perkins, Tony. "Same-sex 'Marriage' vs. 'Religious Liberty." Truth & Triumph. Alliance Defense Fund. Vol. II, Issue 3. 2009:14-15.

15. Kennedy, D. James. "CRM Sounds Alarm on Hate Crime Laws." IMPACT. Vol.XX, No. 10. Coral Ridge Ministries. 2008

16. Ibid

(12) Moving Toward Marriage: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

"We're here, we're queer, we're redefining the term 'family'." A 1992 study reported that 55% of gay men and 71% of lesbians were in committed or steady relationships. However, they were unable to marry and obtain the legal benefits of marriage, including insurance coverage as spouse and access to the hospital to visit a dying partner. Seeking to change this, lesbians and gay men created their own weddings and ceremonies. In 1993 at the third March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Rights three-thousand couples gathered for a mass wedding. That same year the Hawaii Supreme Court, in response to an appeal from a lower court decision denying marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, ruled that the prohibition of same-sex marriages constituted discrimination and was probably unconstitutional. 1.

The Lambda Legal Defense and Educational Fund had worked to lay a groundwork for winning the right for gays to marry. In 1995 they announced the formation of its Marriage Project to serve as a national coordinator and clearinghouse. A network of volunteer attorneys, law professors, and law students were mobilized to research legal arguments against backlash. The Project developed the Marriage Resolution:

"Because marriage is a fundamental right under our Constitution, and because the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, RESOLVED, the State should permit gay and lesbian couples to marry and share fully and equally in the rights and responsibilities of marriage." 2.

Federal and State Defense of Marriage Acts

When Hawaii became the first state to move toward gay marriage, other states and the Federal Government wrestled with the possibility that through the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause they would be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Hawaii. In 1996 Congress adopted the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with votes of 342 to 67 in the House and 85 to 14 in the Senate. DOMA was signed by President Clinton on Sept. 21, 1996. DOMA refined marriage for purposes of federal law. The "word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." 3.

In 1998, the Hawaiian movement toward same-sex marriage was rescinded when Hawaii and Alaska passed constitutional amendments supported by approximately 70% of the voters in each state to ensure that marriage could not be redefined by judges in the court system. 4.

In July of 2000 Vermont became the first U.S. state to recognize homosexual 'unions', marriages in virtually every legal sense. By May of 2001 80% of gay-union licenses had gone to nonresidents. Other states were concerned that gay activists would travel to Vermont, get 'married', return home and sue for legal recognition of their status. Many states made efforts to protect marriage from legal assault by passing a state Defense of Marriage Act. 5.

Promoting a Constitutional Amendment

Following a decision in June of 2003 by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the nation's sodomy laws, the highest court in Massachusetts ruled, 4 to 3, in November of 2003 that same-sex marriage was permissible under the State's Constitution.

A growing concern developed about having courts set social agendas that hadn't been approved by the legislatures. Because of a concern that same-sex marriage activists would encourage federal courts to intervene in the debate over marriage to remove state law barriers to same-sex marriage, a movement developed in support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriages. A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2003 found that 55 % of Americans favored an amendment to the Constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman.

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., with 106 co-sponsors, introduced a constitutional amendment in the House in May of 2003, although the measure in the Senate had only a few supporters. Musgrave said,"...if the definition of marriage is to be changed, it should be done by the American people, not four judges in Massachusetts." President Bush voiced support saying, "I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman." 6.

State Scorecard on Same-Sex Marriage

By November of 2008, 37 states had established their own Defense of Marriage Acts, and 30 states had constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage. The constitutional amendments to protect marriage as a union between one man and one woman were passed by typically large margins, crossing party lines. The vote passed in fifteen states by majorities between 70 and 86%. The vote passed in twenty-eight states by majorities of 55% or above.

By January of 2010, forty-one states prohibited same-sex marriage. 7.

However, same-sex marriage was gaining acceptance. As of early 2010, 6 states and the District of Columbia allowed same-sex marriage, although no state had legalized gay marriage by referendum of the people. Decisions by the State Supreme Court of Massachusetts (2003), Connecticut (2008) and Iowa (2009) ruled affirmatively on the legality of same-sex marriage.

In 2009, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire passed same-sex marriage bills through legislative action. In November of 2009 the District of Columbia approved a same-sex marriage bill. 8.

Arguing for Gay Marriage

Jonathan Rauch's book Gay Marriage argues in favor of gay marriage. He writes, "I would say that marriage is two people's lifelong commitment, recognized by law and society to care for each other."..."They promise to look after each other and their children so society won't have to; in exchange, society deems them a family and provides an assortment of privileges, obligations, and caregiving tools...The example gay couples set by marrying instead of shacking up might even strengthen marriage itself." 9.

Other proponents of gay marriage fail to agree with Rauch about the importance of marriage as a social institution. Sociologist Judith Stacey views marriage as a flawed and dangerous institution. Her strategy is to deconstruct marriage's 'customary forms': marriage as between a man and a woman; marriage as between two people; and marriage as connected to sexuality and procreation. Many activists seek to deinstitutionalize marriage and weaken its public influence as an important step to larger goals. Ellen Willis, a professor at New York University, foresees other changes. "For starters, if homosexual marriage is OK, why not group marriage." 10.

BACKLASH to Same-Sex Marriage

David Blankenhorn, a family scholar and researcher, is the founder and president of the Institute for American Values, an academic think tank dealing with the importance of families. In his book, The Future of Marriage he challenges the movement toward gay marriages. He writes, "Marriage is fundamentally about the needs of children...What children need most are mothers and fathers. Not caregivers, Not parent-like adults...the mother and the father who together made the child, who love the child, and who love each other... Redefining marriage to include gay and lesbian couples would eliminate entirely in law, and weaken still further in culture, the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child... Once this proposed reform becomes law, even to say the words out loud in public ...would probably be viewed as explicitly divisive and discriminatory, possibly even as hate speech." 11.

In November of 2009 the National Organization for Marriage under the leadership of Rick Santorum and Maggie Gallagher invited the American people to join the Two Million for Marriage Campaign to tell Congress: "Enough, Don't Mess with Marriage!" The concern focused on a bill introduced by Congressman Jerrold Nadler to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Santorum notes, "If we don't act today, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and others in Congress will succeed in their efforts to repeal DOMA, an effort which the White House has already noted is one of its highest 'civil rights' priorities."

Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on The Family, donated $25,000 to the National Organization for Marriage. He said, "It's not just marriage that is at stake; it's absolutely everything." 12.

REFERENCES

1. The Gay Almanac. Compiled by the National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History. New York: Berkley Books. 1996:231,235.

2. Ibid:258.

3. Advocate.com. "Hawaii Gay Marriage, 10 years later." http://www.advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=102704. Nov. 20, 2009.

Goldberg, Carey. "Hawaii Judge Ends Gay-Marriage Ban." New York Times (NYTime.com)

December 4,1996.

DOMA Watch. "Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)" Alliance Defense Fund. 2008.

http://www.domawatch.org/about/federaldoma.html. 2/17/1020.

4. Daniels, Matt. "United, We Fall". World magazine. Vol. 15, No. 24, June 17, 2000:65-67.

5. Daniels, Matt. Ibid.

Drummond, Tammerlin. "The Marrying Kind". Time. Vol. 157, No. 19. May 14, 2001:52.

6. Seelye, Katharine Q. and Janet Elder. "Discomfort over gays seen on rise. San Antonio

Express News. Sunday, December 21, 2003:15A.

7. Buss, Dale. "Gay activists seek to repeal state marriage amendments in U.S." Citizen. Vol. 23, No. 10. Dec. 2009:8.

8. Fitzpatrick, Laura. "Spotlight - Same-Sex Marriage." Time. Vol. 175, No. 3. Jan.25, 2010:20.

9. Blankenhorn, David. The Future of Marriage. New York: Encounter Books. 2007:xii.

10. Ibid:130-137.

11. Ibid:2-3.

12. Santorum, Rick. National Organization for Marriage. www.TwoMillionForMarriage.com. Nov. 2009.

(11)Gay Adoption: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

A study done in 1993 indicated that there were 3-8 million lesbian or gay parents raising 6-14 million children in the United States. While most were children from a former heterosexual relationship or marriage, a growing number were opting to become parents through commercial reproductive services or adoption. 1.

Adoption becomes controversial

A March 2007 study reported that 65,000 adopted children were being raised in the U.S. by same-sex parents and an estimated 14,100 foster children were living with one or more gay or lesbian foster parents. States differ in their laws for single gays and lesbians and same-sex couples who seek to adopt.

*Florida is the only state that bans gay adoption by both singles and couples but it does allow gays to become foster parents.

* Arkansas, Utah and Virginia prohibit all singles or unmarried couples from adopting a child.

* California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and the District of Columbia have laws permitting gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered (GLBT) single, joint or second parent adoptions.

* Colorado permits same-sex couple adoptions while also allowing grandparents and other people who are raising a child to adopt.

Many states do not have specific laws covering gay adoptions or foster parenting. Gay singles have an easier time adopting than do gay couples. Twenty states permit single GLBT adoptions but are unclear in regard to joint adoptions. In these states gay couples wishing to adopt or foster a child are at the mercy of judges and adoption agencies. The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a non-profit organization that studies adoption and foster care claims that about 60 percent of adoption agencies accept applications from gays and lesbians, but they often are confronted with prejudice during the process 2.

Rob Calhoun and his partner, Clay Calhoun, have two adopted children, a 4 year-old daughter and an 18 month old son. Calhoun said, "We're not moms, we're not heterosexual, we're not biological parents... But we're totally equal and just as loving as female parents, as straight parents, and biological parents. Love makes a family, not biology or gender." 3.

BACKLASH/ Americans divided

A 2006 Pew Research Center poll reported that 46 percent of Americans support gay and lesbian adoptions. Opponents argue that children raised in gay or lesbian households suffer from not having both a mother and a father. Others argue that there are millions of single heterosexual mothers and fathers raising children across the country. They question why children of single or same-sex couples would be worse off.

Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, wrote in a commentary for Time magazine.

"Love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development...The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy, any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl." 4,

The Catholic Church opposes gay adoption. On the Catechism on Call website, Robert Fry speaks for the church in saying, "A child who grows up with a mother and a father is exposed to both the masculine and the feminine, which according to God's plan, allows that child to grow up with an intimate and connected experience to both sexes. A boy, for example, raised by two women is deprived of the right to learn what society expects of men, and how men are expected to handle the challenges they will face in that society. A woman cannot transmit this knowledge to a child! You can't pass on what you don't know! Every child has a right to a mother and a father...Two men, for example, who choose to adopt a little boy, make a conscious decision that this boy will never have a mother. The situation is much worse when artificial insemination is involved, and the father's role is reduced simply to that of being a 'sperm donor'...To think that we've now decided to tamper with this foundation of our civilization, just so that a minority of adults can have their lifestyle sanctioned and codified as both normal and even 'healthy' should concern us all." 5.

The Catholic Church has been highly involved in adoption services. Changes in legislation which prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation places in jeopardy the ability of the church to continue offering this family service. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, is deeply concerned about how same-sex legislation will effect religious liberty in the country. He reports, "When Catholic Charities in Boston insisted that they would stay true to principle and refuse to place children for adoption with same-sex couples, they were told by the Commonwealth that they could no longer do adoptions at all." 6.

REFERENCES

1.The Gay Almanac. Compiled by the National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History. New York:Berkley Books, 1996:232.

2. Gandossy, Taylor. "Gay adoption: A new take on the American Family". http://www. cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption.

Johnson, Ramon. "Where is Gay Adoption Legal?" http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt.htm?p=1. 2/11/2010.

3. Gandossy.

4. Ibid.

5. Fry, Robert. "Learn What the Catholic Church Really Teaches: Catholic Church and Adoption." http://wwwcatechismoncall.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/catholic-church-gay-adoption/. 2/11/2010/

6. Perkins, Tony. "Same-Sex 'Marriage' vs. Religious Liberty." Truth & Triumph. Alliance Defense Fund. Vol. 11, Issue 3. 2009:14-15.

(10)Gay Reproduction: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

Reshaping the Superstructure

Marxism became politically correct in American universities in the 1960's. The universities became radicalized. Religious faith and traditions were questioned and dismissed as authority for modern society. Marx contended that the framework of society was not determined by spiritual absolutes, but was rather determined by material conditions. The material conditions available through technology, identified by Marx as the infrastructure, were the determining factors responsible for shaping social relationships, identified by Marx as the superstructure. The superstructure of politics, family, religion, and education, were to be reshaped progressively to change in support of the prevailing conditions of technology and material means of production.

Marx summarized his theory of historical materialism. "The mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political and spiritual processes of life...At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of production in society come into conflict with the existing relations of production...Then comes the period of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation, the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed." 1.

Reproductive Technologies Challenge the Traditional Family

The developing science of reproductive technology presented many questions about the future of social, ethical, and family practices that drastically and dramatically changed the moral and relationship variables of human life. At the beginning of the 20th Century a small band of doctors began to experiment with artificial insemination. In the 1920's Margaret Sanger, concerned about eugenics and planned reproduction, organized what was to become the Planned Parenthood Federation. The Great Depression and the World Wars slowed down movements for social change.

When the pill was introduced in 1960, times had changed. Universities increased their advancement into the science of reproduction. Medical students were able to make cash by donating sperm for $50 a pop. The commercialization of reproduction developed when the first for-profit sperm bank opened its doors in Minnesota in 1970.

In 1979 fewer than 10% of infertility doctors would provide sperm to single women. In 1982 the Sperm Bank of California was created to provide sperm to unmarried and heterosexual singles and lesbian women. The sperm, delivered to their door in a liquid nitrogen tank, could be taken to their doctor for insertion, or they could do it themselves with a turkey baster. 2.

Egg donation became commercialized in 1984. Egg donation and surrogacy offered the possibility for a man to create a family. In the 1990's homosexual couples began to use surrogacy in what was labeled a "gayby" boom when a West Los Angeles company, Growing Generations began helping gay men become fathers. 3

The bottom line of business is "Expand the market." In the summer of 2004, R Family Vacations became the first travel company dedicated to the gay family market. They organized a family-friendly cruise which included seminars on surrogacy, adoption and artificial insemination for would be parents.4.

Buying egg and sperm became a spectator sport. Catalogs and Web sites became baby brokerage firms with donors' self descriptions of their interests and abilities, their IQ's, and pictures. Buyers could design a baby by selecting an egg and sperm and have it created by in vitro fertilization. The process was not inexpensive. A surrogacy may run from $10,000 to $30,000.5. Fertility doctors charge between $6,000 to $14,000 a cycle for in vitro fertilization and it takes an average of three cycles before conceiving. 6.

Gay couples stepped up to the opportunity to create a child. In 1988 a newspaper article reported 1,000 surrogacy births in the ten years prior, although 2,000 was considered more accurate a number by some experts. 7.

Rights in Conflict 8.

Gay activists want society to adopt a flexible definition of the right to marry and form a family. They embrace the idea that "Adults have the right to marry the person they choose and form the families they choose." Michael Ignatieff, a human rights scholar, endorses the "rights revolution in private life" as simply an outgrowth of the idea of equality and freedom.

David Blankenhorn, a family scholar and founder of the Institute of American Values contends that changing marriage radically changes parenthood. He argues that in community the rights of one group often exist in tension with the rights of others. and the 'right to form the family I choose' bumps up against the rights of children. In 1989 the U.N. Convention on The Rights of the Child , stated, "The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the rights to acquire a nationality, and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents."

The U.N. declaration supports the rights of a child to know the mother and father who created him or her. Divorce and unwed childbearing revolutions have created a situation where more and more children are not cared for by their own two natural parents. Because same-sex bonding cannot produce children naturally, reliance on reproductive technologies will increasingly create a situation where children do not even know who their natural parents are. The child's right to a natural biological heritage is denied to him or her.

Blankenhorn argues, "For those who ask 'Where's the harm?' regarding same-sex marriage, here is the inescapable fact:Changing marriage changes parenthood, and changing parenthood in ways that permit and even encourage adults to wipe out the double origin of some children is a threat to all children...When Canada, by way of implementing same-sex marriage, erased the concept of natural parent from basic Canadian law, there was no asterisk saying 'for gay and lesbian couples only'. The idea of the natural parent got wiped out in law for every child and every couple in Canada." The tern 'natural parent' was removed from Canadian law and replaced with the term 'legal parent'.




REFERENCES
1. Aron, Raymond. Main Currents in Sociological Thought. Garden City, NY:Anchor Books.1968:155.
2. Andrews, Lori. The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive Technology. NY:An Owl Bookl/Henry Holt & Co. 1999:87.
3. Ibid:95,120-121.
4. Bly,Laura. "A gay new time:Family cruises, vacations." USA Today. Friday, July 9, 2004:D1.
5. Andrews: 1996:103.
6. Spar, Debora L. The Baby Business: How Money, Science, and Politics DRive the Commerce of Conception. Boston,MA:Harvard Business School Press. 2006:53.
7. The Gay Almanac. Compiled by the National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History. New York: Berkley Books. 1996:233.
8. Blankenhorn, David. The Future of Marriage. New York: Encounter Books. 2007:183-199.