The CA Assembly recently passed and Gov Brown signed, SB 48, mandating gay friendly instruction in all CA public schools, K-12. Catholic University of America recently announced that they would abolish co-ed dorms and move to all single sex dorms. In the wake of that decision, a DC attorney announced that he will sue them for sex segregation which he claims violates the DC Human Rights Law. Whatever became of sex education as a way of promoting good health and conservative values?  Listen to Dr J and Dr. Grossman as they discuss these crucial issues: July 18, 2011. For more on Dr Roback Morse see here

A federal court in Tacoma, Wash., has been asked to order that the names of signatories of a state petition seeking to protect traditional marriage be redacted to protect them from death threats from homosexual activists…According to the filing, "When some activists could sense that intimidation was not working … they resorted to threatening the families – even the children – of supporters. In one case, the perpetrator threated to 'kill' the supporter's child and the whole family; in another, to 'harm' the supporter's family; and in another, to rape the supporters' daughter."

Read here

The impact of gay marriage (see the coverage on NY) on the rest of us is just beginning to be manifest — see below from the New York Press, especially on 'non-monogamy' (formerly known as 'the affair' or 'being unfaithful'). According to its practitioners, gay marriage operates according to different ground rules from traditional marriage, which make it more progressive and trendy, even more therapeutic (!), than traditional marriage. This sexual opening up of marriage, launched by gay marrieds, may (or may not) work for them, but for the rest of us this is extremely worrying.  Marriage has meant sexual exclusivity (in theory, and often in practice) and been the means by which women and men attached to each other and to the children their sexual union had created, bonding them together to rear their offspring, who need both a mother and a father. Opening this up to other partners will destroy (or at least seriously damage) this mechanism; who most loses are the ones with greatest vulnerabilities, the children. Below is from the important poly site:  http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/.  

From gender-role squabbles to non-monogamy: What straight couples can learn from same-sex couples to be happier in their own marriages.

…Varied approaches to sexuality is probably the most taboo of the constructs that same-sex couples may import into marriage, and one that Coontz approaches very delicately. "I want to be very careful about how this is phrased, but there is a prevalence among some same-sex relationships, particularly gay male relationships, to establish long-term commitments while allowing for nonmonogamy," she says. "While this is not for every opposite-sex couple, just as it is not right for every same-sex couple, it is one of the ways that some people may handle the pressures of a world where people want partnerships but live long lives and have frequent opportunities."

It was just such frequent opportunities that led married New Yorkers Kurt Walters and George Karabotsos, both 48, to open up their relationship sexually. They were monogamous for the first three years of their relationship, but finally began to question whether or not it was the right choice for them….

Thirty-nine-year-old New Yorker Mikey Rox [says] "I prefer removing the temptation by allowing my partner and me to explore, provided we are both on the same page about it and have established rules." For Mikey, it lessens the chances that his marriage will dissolve.

But is this a model that same-sex couples should be frightened of? "Quite the contrary," says Manhattan-based psychotherapist Bob Bergeron, author of The Right Side of Forty: The Guide to Happiness for Gay Men at Midlife and Beyond. "Same-sex couples might not necessarily want non-monogamous relationships, but they can learn a great deal from non-monogamous, same-sex couples about how to talk to their partners about sexual desires inside and outside of the relationship." As Bergeron explains, "talking about your desires doesn't mean you act on them, but not talking about them can create more trouble."

"Don't knock it until you've tried it," Carrellas says of non-monogamous marriages…. "An open marriage might not be for you, but perhaps there is some other area in your marriage where you could use, to your benefit, the same tools that some other couple is using to negotiate their sexuality.  Read more here

"It was just great to see so much support from everybody in the room," said Burnaby School Board chair Larry Hayes, who along with fellow school trustees has been inundated with feedback ….

While the original theme of the breakfast was same-sex marriage, the event's organizers decided in the end to embrace a broader concept of queer relationships…

Kiki Christie, founder of Victoria Poly 101, challenged the audience to reconsider the heteronormative ideas that dominate society's view of partnerships. She highlighted social networking site Facebook and its limited relationship option tags as a prime example of how "couple normative" ideas permeate society and limit the choices of those who might identify differently. 

Read here

by Robert W. Patterson  The Ruth Institute

While boasting the know-how to fix the health care system and rebuild the economy, the political class claims a curious impotence when it comes to family breakdown.

From the retreat from marriage to rising cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth rates, policymakers of both parties echo sociologist James Q. Wilson’s dictum: “If you believe, as I do, in the power of culture, you will realize that there is very little one can do.”

Such fatalism, however, is merely an excuse to duck responsibility for indicting the legal and policy experiments of the 1960s and 1970s that departed radically from American ideals, history, and law. 

Read here

From Jennifer Roback Morse

The correct answer:  Less than 4 tenths of one percent, or 0.4%.

All these numbers come from combing information about gays and lesbians from Census Snapshot, US, 2007, ¹ with information from the US Census Bureau, American Community Survey,² describing the general population.

As of 2005, an estimated 270,313 of the U.S.’s children are living in households headed by same-sex couples. According to the American Community Survey, there were a total of 73,131,688 persons under the age of 18 in the US in 2005. (Calculated by subtracting total number of persons over 18 (215,246,449 from total population of 288,378,137.) Dividing the 270,313 children in households headed by same sex couples by the total number of children under 18 in the US, yields a figure of .00369, which is the less than 4 tenths of one percent figure given as the correct answer. This number is not reported by the pro-gay Williams Institute.
They do say that “20% of same-sex couples in the U.S. are raising children under the age of 18,” so if you had read their report, but not too carefully, you might have picked that 20% number.

You might have chosen 10%, since this is the figure given by Alfred Kinsey as the percentage of the population that is gay. However, this number has never been replicated in any large scale statistically representative sample of the population. The Williams Institute study shows that about 3% of the population is gay or lesbian. They do not report this percentage in this particular study, however. You have to do some math: they report that there were roughly 8.8 million self-identified gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the US in 2005. And the overall population of the US in 2005 was roughly 288 million. Dividing gives 3% of the population is gay, lesbian or bisexual. By the way, this is roughly consistent with the results reported more recently by the Williams Institute.

Given that less than four tenths of one percent of children is being raised in same sex households, it hardly seems unkind to say that this represents an exceptional situation. The law might justly treat this as an exception.

1 Census Snapshot, US, by Adam P. Romero, Amanda K. Baumle, M.V. Lee Badgett, and Gary J. Gates, (Los Angeles: Williams Institute, UCLA, 2007). The Williams Institute specializes in demographic and economic research on gay and lesbian populations.

2  American Community Survey, “General Demographic Characteristics, 2005”

by Anne Morse, The Ruth Institute

Philip M. Sutton, Ph.D., LMFT, LCSW, LP

We All Need Our “P’s” to Travel the 7 “C’s”

Some Suggestions for Responding Wisely to Another's Unacceptable Behavior

This portion of our talk covers what we as parents, other family members, friends  and/or pastoral caregivers can do, cannot do, may do, and ought not do to respond in love to the knowledge that a loved one, or a person to whom we are ministering, desires or is engaging in behavior which we believe is unacceptable and which may be harmful to him or her, and others. (It also may help us to consider how to love (more) wisely someone afflicted with a chronic or terminal disease or other unwanted suffering.)

I. The Seven “C’s” (please don’t count too carefully!):

·        We do not Cause our loved one’s unacceptable behavior. Things that we have or have not done may have Contributed to our loved one’s developing this desire for or habit of unacceptable behavior. Be wary of excessive or “false” guilt!

·        We cannot Cure, Control or Change our loved one’s unacceptable behavior. Be wary of a false sense of (over-) responsibility!

·        We may not Condone, excuse or enable behavior that is harmful to our loved one, ourselves, or others. “Misguided mercy” is not loving!

·        We can Communicate our Concern(s) and feelings about- and when wise, lovingly Confront- our loved one’s – and if relevant, our own- behavior.

·        We can show Compassion to our loved one and ourselves (especially over past hurts, weaknesses, and things they or we did or didn’t do; and Cry, i.e. grieve or mourn, our sadness, anger, and fear over their- and our-actual or anticipated suffering.

·        We can Confess what we did or did not do that may have harmed or been uncomfortable to our loved one, to God, our loved one, and supportive family, friends, etc. When necessary, our Contrition, wisely expressed, may lead to the giving and/or receiving of forgiveness, which may serve as the basis of re-Conciliation, if it is possible and wise to (re-)Construct mutual trust.

·        We can Care wisely for our loved one and ourselves in a Committed way., including staying Connected to family and friends who support us.

II. The “P’s” we need to move from Pain to Peace (inspired by Bob and Susan Cavera’s Encourage meeting handout):

·        Pray: Both by ourselves and with others, e.g., supportive family members and fellow prayer warriors. Seek to deepen your relationship with Our Lord Jesus Christ. Daily pray for, love and surrender your loved one to the Lord. “Let go and let God” take care of him or her. As we Pray, remember that Jesus promises that the Father will always answer a prayer for the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13), and that receiving and growing in the “gifts” ( Isaiah 11: 2-3) and “fruits” (Galatians 5: 22-23) of the Spirit make possible loving our loved one- and ourselves- as Jesus did (John 13: 34).

·        Personalize: Relate to your loved one and any of his or her companions as the unique person(s) who they are. As Pope Benedict XVI has said: “Look into the face of the other and see that he (or she) has a soul, a story and a life: He (or she) is a person and God loves him (or her) as he loves me.”

·        Prepare: Educate yourselves about the truth about the prevention, causes, consequences and treatment for the desire for and habit of unacceptable behavior.

·        Partner: Avoid trying to “do it alone” or isolating oneself. Connect with family members, friends, etc., with whom you can team up, receiving and giving support in confidentiality. Consider Participating in support groups for family and friends.

·        Petition for the needs of others who experience difficulties similar to your loved ones, for those inclined to treat our loved ones with “misguided mercy,” for pastors and ministries who try to speak and live the truth in love, and for mental health professionals who offer genuinely helpful psychological care for dealing with such desires for or habits of unacceptable behavior.

·        Participate: Remain or become involved in the life of your loved one, and his/her friend(s) if at all possible.

WASHINGTON

“The gay movement’s tactics smell more and more like Joe McCarthy than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). “Hounding people and going after their livelihoods, because they express a view held by numerous mainstream Christians is mean, intolerant, and unacceptable to most Americans. We call on Joe Solomonese, Evan Wolfson and other mainstream gay marriage groups to call off their dogs, renounce these tactics of intimidation and religious bigotry, and restore the face of their movement into something more resembling tolerance and fair play for all Americans.”

“Since Proposition 8 in California, hundreds of Americans of various faith traditions have faced threats to their livelihoods, their person, or their property solely because they exercised core civil rights to speak, to organize, or to donate on behalf of the idea that marriage is the union of husband and wife,” said Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM. “Lately we are seeing that a disproportionate share of the victims of this kind of raw hatred are African-American Christians. God bless the black Church for its courage, we are once again in your debt.”

“The gay rights movement is going to have to decide: are they about tolerance and “live and let live”–or do they want to dominate and deprive Americans who disagree with them of their rights? We cannot change what is happening to the face of your movement, only you can,” added Gallagher.

Background

In 2008, Ms. Dixon was wrongly fired from her position as a Vice President of Human Resources at the University of Toledo after publishing a letter to the editor objecting to the idea that gay rights are comparable to the African-American’s civil rights experience.

After she was recently hired as the Director of Human Resources of Jackson County, in eastern Michigan, Equality Michigan, among other LGBT groups, have called for her to be fired and have offered a form letter for the public to send to Dixon’s new superiors that states in part:

“I urge you to rescind Crystal Dixon’s job offer and find a replacement for her in a candidate that has the best interests of all of the city and county’s residents at heart."

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, or Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins, mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004 ext. 105 or Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004 ext. 130.

###  read here

Yet at the same time, there may be signs that the frost on the relationship between evangelicals and the natural law tradition is melting—or at least that the discussion between the two schools of thought is heating up. For one, evangelical retrievals of a distinctively Protestant natural law tradition have gained ground in recent years.  Stephen Grabill's Rediscovering the Natural Law attempted to wrest the Reformed ethical tradition away from Karl Barth's immense shadow, as has the work of David Van Drunen.  In February 2009, Robert George's own work Making Men Moral was the subject of a commemorative conference at Union University, which featured top natural law theologians and evangelical political theorists. The formula was replicated in mid-February of this year, as evangelical political theorists gathered at Westmont College to discuss the prospects and limitations for an evangelical appraisal of natural law.

Differences between the two traditions will remain. But the willingness among evangelicals to be challenged by the precision and reason of the natural law tradition is a hopeful sign for the renewal of evangelical political thought.  Read Christianity Today here

The problem with government endorsed same-sex marriage is not the damage it inflicts upon present heterosexual marriages.  The problem with legalized same-sex marriage is the further erosion of the institution of marriage that inevitably follows.

There are several liberal scholars who understand and ardently desire this. By their own admission Judith Stacey, Nan D. Hunter, Maria Bevacqua and David Chambers want the institution of marriage to die, and they champion same-sex marriage as a means to that end. 

From 'The Heart of the Matter'

David Blankenhorn analyzes data from 35 nations and demonstrates that support for marriage is weakest in those countries where support for same-sex marriage is strongest. For example, during the 1990s, Norway, Sweden and Denmark legalized same-sex marriage.  Far from a strengthening of marriage, what has ensued is an unremitting decline in marriage rates, and a surge in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births. 

Not coincidently, the number of polygamous families is increasing in Norway, Canada and, according to the February 1st issue of Bay State Parent, even in Massachusetts.  Polygamy activists are using legalized same-sex marriage as a wedge issue to further their own cause for government endorsement. 

'The Heart of the Matter' by Michelle A. Cretella, MD

I once believed that sexual orientation was equivalent to race. That was before a former lesbian forced me to acknowledge that there is a difference.  I had suggested that she was either denying her true self, or never was gay to begin with.  "You know Dr. Cretella it's not up to me to convince you that I exist. It is up to you to prove that I don't." Her response led me to review the scientific literature and rethink my beliefs.

No one is born gay. All attempts to demonstrate that homosexuality is simply biologically determined have failed to do so. Several experts ranging from "gay gene" researcher Dr. Dean Hamer to the former Director of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, have stated that homosexuality is not hardwired by DNA.

However, sexual attractions are also not a conscious choice. Instead, as the American Psychological Association noted in its 2008 statement, sexual attractions – like all human attractions – develop from a combination of environmental factors and biologically influenced traits. There are simply no variables that are by themselves totally predictive.

Since sexual attractions are due to a combination of nature and nurture, it is at least theoretically possible to encounter a former lesbian or an ex-gay man.

Skin color is hardwired by DNA; race is inborn. It is not theoretically possible to encounter an "ex-Caucasian" or an "ex-African-American."

More than 100 studies have documented that homosexuality is not invariably fixed in all people: Some people can and do change. Over time I have developed a collegial relationship with a number of therapists who help clients alter unwanted homosexual attractions and behavior. Diversity includes those who desire change and the providers who honor their right to self-determination.

Sexual orientation and race are not the same.

Consequently, objecting to same-sex marriage is not bigotry. When proponents of gay marriage falsely equate sexual orientation with skin color, they render defenders of marriage the equivalent of racists and avoid discussing the real

issue: marriage.

When it comes to the state and marriage the heart of the matter is children not romance.  The state has no interest in endorsing "loving relationships" except for the fact that when men and women have sex they often make babies. Marriage has always been a public institution with this gender-specific purpose:  to legally bind a man to his biological children and their mother.  The state has a compelling interest in ensuring that men do not abandon their biological children or the women they impregnate. Why? Because this is what best ensures that children grow into contributing members of society.

In his January 28th column "Life gets better when a daughter gets married" Bob Kerr sets up the same old tired straw man then knocks it down: "[N]ot once has a married, two-gender couple offered first-hand evidence of damage done to their marital bond by a man marrying a man or a woman a woman." The problem with government endorsed same-sex marriage is not the damage it inflicts upon present heterosexual marriages.  The problem with legalized same-sex marriage is the further erosion of the institution of marriage that inevitably follows.

There are several liberal scholars who understand and ardently desire this. By their own admission Judith Stacey, Nan D. Hunter, Maria Bevacqua and David Chambers want the institution of marriage to die, and they champion same-sex marriage as a means to that end. They argue that if marriage is determined by the sexual attractions of adults, then any and all combinations of marital unions are defensible. The coexistence of multiple forms of marriage such as polygamy, polyandry, intergenerational and group marriages will eliminate any meaningful shared public definition of marriage; the institution will weaken and die.

This scenario seems to be unfolding. In his book The Future of Marriage David Blankenhorn analyzes data from 35 nations and demonstrates that support for marriage is weakest in those countries where support for same-sex marriage is strongest. For example, during the 1990s, Norway, Sweden and Denmark legalized same-sex marriage.  Far from a strengthening of marriage, what has ensued is an unremitting decline in marriage rates, and a surge in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births.

Not coincidently, the number of polygamous families is increasing in Norway, Canada and, according to the February 1st  issue of Bay State Parent, even in Massachusetts.  Polygamy activists are using legalized same-sex marriage as a wedge issue to further their own cause for government endorsement.

Rhode Island has every interest in exclusively promoting traditional marriage.

Children fare best physically, emotionally and academically when nurtured by their two biological parents in the context of a loving marriage. Science has long recognized the importance of mothers in child development, and more recently the dire consequences when fathers are absent.  Fatherless families, for example, are associated with higher rates of violence, poverty, delinquency, substance abuse, sexual promiscuity and teen pregnancy.

Clearly, the decline of traditional marriage is very expensive in terms of state and federal dollars that must be poured into social programs. If we want to decrease human suffering in general and the suffering of children in particular

- if we want to improve the economic health of our state – we will do all we can to strengthen traditional marriage. Conversely, we will avoid at all cost enacting legislation that radically alters it.

Michelle A. Cretella, MD

Advisory board, Rhode Island Chapter of the National Organization for Marriage

REFERENCES:

My Genes Made Me Do It! (A review of the scientific lit re: homosexuality by Dr.

Neil Whitehead available to read/download and/or purchase here: 

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/ )

There are many reports on both Norway & Canada; here are a few:

http://www.norwaypost.no/news/polygamy-on-the-increase-in-norway.html

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/480

Canada being watched closely by Utah

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51081832-78/polygamy-law-utah-court.html.csp

Canadian Paper covering issue

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Supreme+Court+opens+debate+polygamy/3856195/story.html

Changing Families from Feb 1 issue of Bay State Parent http://www.baystateparent.com/news/2011-02-01/Feature_Articles/changing_families.html

In my various exchanges with people on the other side of the fence on this matter, they keep insisting that they want to argue for the Jeffrey John’s model (which is the gay equivalent of ‘traditional marriage’).  There are various problems with this.  In the main, LG people are neither subscribing to nor living by the JJ model (in terms of statistics and surveys). Moreover, LG people who provide secular leadership for and on behalf of the LG communities are not pushing the JJ model.  As well, from what I know of living on LG Christian sites, there are no Christian organizations which are presently providing an apologetic for and promoting the JJ model.

So, the voices we hear are all advocating (or at least not opposing) a much more open approach to relationships.  Contemplating a JJ model makes some relatively conservative Christians feel better about the situation but it does not correspond with gay world realities. 

GAY SINGLES and casual sex. 88% reported having casual sex in the last 6 months.http://www.atypon-link.com/GPI/doi/pdfplus/10.1521/aeap.2009.21.4.340?cookieSet=1 

GAY COUPLES Study – N.I.H. N.Y. Times – Over 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=1   

GAY ACTIVIST LEADER Dan Savage who started the “It gets better campaign.” lecturing on a college campus about how not being sexually monogamous helps make a couple stronger. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm9Bwpxy4V0   

GAY ACTIVIST LEADER Andrew Sullivan contrasts male-female marriages with same sex relationships and explains, "there is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman" (p202).

http://www.amazon.com/Virtually-Normal-Andrew-Sullivan/dp/0679746145   

GAY SUPPORTIVE THERAPISTS: Michael Shernoff, MSW: “Non-monogamy is ubiquitous in the gay world, and my gay clients often see it as a possible solution to their couple problems, particularly diminished sexual interest.” 

Jack Morin, PhD: “Non-monogamous options are thoroughly woven into the tapestry of queer love and are lived out on a richly diverse continuum.”

http://www.gaypsychotherapy.com/MONOGAMYCASE.htm  

GAY SUPPORTIVE THERAPISTS: Are Gay Male Couples Monogamous Ever After? Is it cheating if both partners agree to be non-monogamous?

GAY ACTIVIST LEADER David Nimmons, President of New York's Lesbian & Gay Community Services Center for six years: “David Nimmons cites numerous studies which show that 75% of gay male couples are in successful open relationships.” 

…“Gay couples often report that what works best for them is to engage in sexual encounters based on sexual attraction only and not emotions or affection.” 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/are-gay-male-couples-monogamous-ever-after

…When slavery was abolished, all slaves became free men and women. When women obtained the right to vote, the discrimination ended with the very next election. But for children of same sex marriage, the situation will be different. When we come to our senses 30 years from now and realize that we have perpetrated a grotesque injustice, not a single child born fatherless or motherless within a same sex marriage will get his missing parent back. Only prevention will protect children’s rights.  Read Dr Morse here