Monthly Archives: October 2008

2008: NAACP Los Angeles President Alice Huffman Sells Out Black Families /

Conservatively religious Blacks … and that is about 80 percent of them … are more disturbed about the threat to marriage, family, and society that follows when gay marriage is approved than almost anyone else. That is why they are disgusted by the actions of the leader of the NAACP in the State of California for coming out against Proposition 8 without ever asking any other leaders or members about it. This disturbing story may show that she was paid about 200,000 dollars for the endorsement.

See the original article on the website at this link.

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair
NAACP Los Angeles President Alice Huffman Sells Out Black Families
Media Advisory
October 30, 2008
Contact: Chip White, 916-446-2956

LOS ANGELES, CA – Campaign finance records reveal that Alice Huffman, President of the California State NAACP, the only major African American leader in California to endorse legalized gay marriage, has received nearly $200,000 from the NO on 8 campaign in “fees” through her company AC Public Affairs.

African American leaders throughout California were shocked when Huffman, as a member of the NAACP Board, endorsed the No on 8 campaign despite the statewide, unified voices of African American political and religious leaders in support of traditional marriage. Huffman has never taken a vote of NAACP chapters and members, which is customary before endorsing any state measure or proposition. Records show that Alice Huffman, through her AC Public Affairs Company, received $100,000 from NO on 8 on October 2nd of 2008 and another $98,000 on the 14th of October 2008.

Trina Williams, Vice President of Inglewood’s NAACP Chapter, said today that “no endorsement of ANY proposition is ever authorized without a resolution, a vote, and a majority vote of its members.” Williams indicated that to date, “the Inglewood NAACP has yet to receive any word from the national organization telling us to vote NO on Proposition 8.” Huffman appears in print advertising and mailers for NO on 8 along with one or two civil rights leaders supporting NO on Proposition 8.

“Alice Huffman has used her position without support of the vast majority of African American people and interfaith leaders in our communities in Los Angeles or California. It is very disappointing and misleading to say that she is representing the African American community or the NAACP, which is and has always been passionately in support of traditional marriage and traditional families,” said Williams.
Huffman claims to have taken a vote of the “executive board” of the state NAACP, but would still have a conflict of interest in the matter having taken two hundred thousand dollars from the No on 8 campaign. According to an article in the January 18th 2008 edition of the Sacramento Bee Huffman said, “Campaigning and politics is my livelihood….that’s how I make my money to buy my Gucci handbags and other things that enhance my standard of living.”
Black leaders in Los Angeles, including Trina Williams and the interfaith ministers from the large African American congregations in Los Angeles, including Zoe Christian Fellowship, are calling for a national investigation of Alice Huffman’s dealings with the No on 8 campaign.
African American voters formed the largest supportive voting block for traditional marriage when it was on the ballot in California in 2000. Political experts anticipate that the African American vote will weigh in heavily on Tuesday, November 4th, thanks to the candidacy of Barack Obama. YES on Proposition 8 expects the turnout to be very helpful to its campaign.


Filed under Proposition 8

2007: Europe: Its Spiritual Foundation: Yesterday, Today and in the Future / Pope Benedict XVI

I have acquired and read with great excitement the book “Europe Today and Tomorrow” by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, and I agree that his understanding of the problems of Europe and Western Society are largely correct. I think that he is a great leader and great thinker, and is being used by the God we all worship to awaken the people of Europe to their Christian heritage and their current spiritual danger.

He is going about trying to implement his program, especially working with newly-elected leaders in Chancellor Merkur in West Germony and President Sarkozy in France who are religious themselves, and is making important progress, to the disappointment of the secular opinion leaders for whom the separation of church and state has resulted in the disappearance of the church.

This post consists of excerpts from Chapter 1 of that book.

Find the online text of this address on the Catholic Culture Library website at this link.

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair
Europe: Its Spiritual Foundation: Yesterday, Today and in the Future
Pope Benedict XVI

Exactly what is Europe? Very much this same question was posed anew quite explicitly by Jozef Cardinal Glemp during the work of one of the language groups at the Episcopal Synod on Europe: Where does Europe begin? Where does it end? Why, for example, isn’t Siberia part of Europe, even though it is also inhabited by Europeans whose way of thinking and living is European? Where do the borders of Europe end in the southernmost reaches of the community of Russian peoples? Where is the border in the Atlantic? Which islands are European and which aren’t? Why aren’t they European?

In encounters such as this one, it becomes perfectly clear that only in a completely secondary manner is Europe a geographical concept. Europe is a cultural and historical concept, not a continent clearly definable in geographical terms.

This becomes rather evident when we make an effort to return to the origins of Europe, which ordinarily means evoking Herodotus (484-425 BC). This historian was certainly the first person to look upon Europe as a geographical concept and he defined it in the following terms: “The Persians consider Asia and the barbarians who live there as their property, while they look upon Europe and the Greek world as a separate country.”

The confines of Europe had not been adopted as such, but it is clear that the lands now constituting the core of Europe lay completely outside the visual field of this ancient historian. In fact, the formation of the Hellenic states and the Roman empire led to the formation of a continent that became the basis for later Europe, but which had completely different borders. These borders encompassed all the lands around the Mediterranean, which, as a result of factors such as cultural bonds, sea traffic, trade and a common political system, together made up a continent in the true sense of the word.

Only the triumphal advance of Islam in the 600s and the beginning of the 700s traced a border through the Mediterranean, thereby cutting it into two. As a result, everything which until then had been a single continent was now subdivided into three: Asia, Africa and Europe.

The transformation of the ancient world took place in the East at a slower pace than in the West. With Constantinople as its focal point, the Roman Empire resisted there — albeit pushed to the outskirts more and more — until the 1400s. While, by the year 700, the southern part of the Mediterranean had fallen completely outside what up to then had been considered a cultural continent, a more decisive expansion northward was underway at the same time. The limes, or what up to then had been a continental confine, disappeared, and the way was opened towards a new historical space that now embraced Gaul, Germany and Britannia as core territories, along with an increasing propensity to reach out in the direction of Scandinavia.

In the course of this process of shifting confines, the ideal continuity with the previous Mediterranean continent — geographically gauged in different terms — was guaranteed by the construction of a theology of history: in line with the book of Daniel, the Roman Empire as renewed and transformed by the Christian faith was considered the ultimate and permanent kingdom of the history of the world in general. Therefore, the peoples and states in the process of coming into existence were defined as the Sacrum Imperium Romanum (Holy Roman Empire).

The process involving this new historical and cultural identification took place as an intentional pursuit under the reign of Charlemagne. Likewise, emerging once again was the ancient name “Europe,” but with a change in meaning: this title was now used to define the kingdom of Charlemagne, while at the same time expressing an awareness of the continuity and newness with which this new set of states was projecting itself as a force projecting itself into the future. Projecting itself into the future, precisely because it saw itself as the continuation of what had thus far been the history of the world and therefore anchored in what perseveres forever. Likewise expressed in this emerging self comprehension was an awareness of definitiveness, together with an awareness of a mission to be accomplished.

It is true that the concept of “Europe” practically disappeared once again after the demise of the Carolingian reign, while the word itself retained a certain pride of place only in the language of learned persons. In ordinary language, however, it then resurfaced at the beginning of the modem age, as a form of self identification in relation to the threat represented by the Turks, while its widespread and general use brings us all the way up to the 18th century. Independently from this history of the actual word “Europe.” the consolidation of the kingdom of the Franks as the never-faded and now reborn Roman Empire, marked the decisive step towards what we now mean when we speak of Europe.

At the same time, however, we certainly must not overlook the fact that there was also a second root of Europe, a non-Western Europe. As mentioned earlier, the Roman Empire resisted in Byzantium against tempests in the forms of the migration of peoples and the Islamic invasion. Moreover, Byzantium considered itself to be the true Rome because this was where the empire had never passed away. As a result. the “east” continued to advance claims against the other half of the empire. the western half. Now, this eastern Roman empire also expanded northward into the heartland of the Slavic world and created its own world, a Greek-Roman world distinct from the Latin Europe of the West because of a different liturgy, a different ecclesiastical constitution, a different culture and the abandonment of Latin as the common language learned by all.

Certainly the elements that could have made these two worlds a single one, a single and common continent, were more than sufficient. First, there was the common heritage of the Bible and the early Church, which, in both worlds, related beyond itself to an origin now outside Europe, in Palestine. Then there was the common idea of “Empire,” the common and basic comprehension of the Church, and hence a sharing of the fundamental ideas of rule of law and juridical instruments. Lastly among these elements, I would venture to mention monasticism, which, even in the throes of the major upheavals of history, basically remained the bearer not only of cultural continuity but, above all, of fundamental religious and moral values, ultimate orientations of man. As a pre-political and supra political force, monasticism became the wellspring of ever new and necessary rebirths.

Despite this sharing of an essential ecclesiastical heritage, there was still a profound difference between these two Europes and the importance thereof has been highlighted especially by Endre von Ivanka. In Byzantium, empire and Church were practically identified one with the other. The emperor was also the head of the Church and considered himself the representative of Christ. Much like Melchisedek, who was both king and priest (Gn 14:18), as of the 6th century, the emperor bore the official title of “king and priest.”

In the Western empire, however, the departure of the emperors from Rome &3151 begun by Constantine — enabled the autonomous position of bishop of Rome to develop as the successor of Peter and supreme pastor of the Church, in what had been the original capital of the empire. There was, therefore, a dualism of authority, taught already at the outset of the era of Constantine: in effect, Emperor and Pope had separate powers, and neither one of them exercised total authority. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) set forth the vision of the West in his famous letter to Emperor Anastasius and even more explicitly in his fourth treatise, where, in contrast to the Byzantine typology of Melchisedek, he stressed that the unity of authority was to be found exclusively in Christ: “Due to human weakness (pride!), He has separated the two ministries for times to come so no one may become arrogant” (c. 11).

For matters regarding eternal life, the Christian emperors needed Popes (pontifices), who, in their turn, abided by imperial orders regarding temporal affairs. In worldly matters, the Popes had to comply with the laws of the emperor enthroned by divine order, while the latter had to bow to Popes regarding divine affairs. A separation or distinction of powers was thereby introduced, which became of utmost importance for the later development of Europe. We could even say that it laid the foundations for what is specifically typical of the Western world.

Since rebellion against such delimitation was ever vivid on both sides, along with an impulse to concentrate powers and a yearning to impose power over the other side or party, this principle of separation has also become the source of infinite suffering. How this principle should be lived correctly and rendered concrete in both political and religious terms remains a fundamental issue for the Europe of both today and tomorrow.

While on the basis of what has been presented thus far we may consider, on the one hand, the rise of the Carolingian empire and, on the other, the continuation of the Roman empire in Byzantium with its mission towards the Slavic peoples, as the true birth of the continent Europe, the onset of the modem age meant a turning point for both Europes, a radical change affecting both the essence of this continent and its geographical contours.

Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 and O. Hiltbrunner commented upon this event in the following laconic terms: “the last… learned men emigrated towards Italy and to the humanists of the Renaissance handed on the knowledge of the original Greek texts; but the East collapsed in the absence of culture.”

Such an affirmation may strike us as being somewhat uncouth, because the reign of the Ottoman dynasty had its culture as well. It is true, however, that this event marked the end of the Greek-Christian, European culture of Byzantium. Therefore, one of Europe’s two wings ran the risk of disappearing, but the Byzantine heritage was not dead. Moscow declared itself as the third Rome, founded its own patriarchate on the grounds of the idea of a second translatio imperii, and therefore projected itself as a new metamorphosis of the Sacrum Imperium — a form of Europe in its own right which nonetheless remained united with the West, moving closer and closer — to such an extent that Peter the Great tried to turn Russia into a western nation.

This northward shift of Byzantine Europe also meant that the continent’s confines started moving broadly eastwards. The setting of the Urals as the frontier was an extremely arbitrary decision, but the world east of that mountain range was becoming more and more like a sort of substructure of Europe, neither Asia nor Europe; basically forged by Europe as the prime subject, without any possibility of exercising its own rights as a subject and therefore a mere object bereft of any chance to be the bearer of its own history. For all intents and purposes, perhaps that defines the essence of a colonial state.

At one and the same time we witness a dual process of substantial historical significance in the West as well.

First, a large part of the Germanic world separated itself from Rome and a new, enlightened form of Christianity saw the light of day. Therefore, then running through the West was a line of separation which clearly formed a cultural limes, a border between two different ways of thinking and entertaining relations. Within the Protestant world there was also a cleavage; firstly between Lutherans and Reformed believers, who were joined by Methodists and Presbyterians, while the Anglicans tried to assume a middle of the road stance between Catholics and Evangelicals. Then there was the difference between Christianity lived under the form of a state Church, which became the characteristic in Europe, and Christianity lived in the free churches that found refuge in North America. We will return to this at a later point.

Let’s take a close look at the second event, the discovery of America, which shaped the situation during the modern age of Latin Europe. Corresponding to the eastward extension of Europe, as Russia moved closer and closer to Asia, was Europe’s radical egress from its geographical confines towards America, towards that world on the other side of the ocean. The subdivision of Europe into a Latin Catholic half and a Germanic Protestant half also crossed those waters and had an impact in that part of the planet colonized by Europe. Initially, America was also a colony, a part of an expanded Europe, but, with the upheaval of Europe brought about by the French Revolution, America took on its own stature as an independent subject. Even though marked so deeply by its European birth, from the 19th century onwards America began to assume a position of equality with Europe.

In an effort to learn more about Europe’s profound and innermost identity by looking back over its history, we have considered two fundamental turning points in that history. First, the dissolution of the old Mediterranean continent caused by the creation of the Sacrum Imperium located farther north, where, beginning with the Carolingian epoch, Europe began to be formed as a Latin-western world. Together with this there was the continuation of the old Rome at Byzantium with its expansion towards the Slavic world. As a second step in this process, we looked at the downfall of Byzantium and the subsequent shift of a part of Europe northwards and eastwards, as well as the internal division of Europe into a Germanic-Protestant world and a Latin-Catholic world. This was then followed by the leap towards America, which also felt the impact of that internal division, but ended up assuming a position as an independent subject vis-a-vis Europe.

At this point we must focus our attention on a third turning point, whose readily visible beacon was the French Revolution. It is true to say that the Sacrum Imperium was already considered close to its natural demise as a political entity, beginning with the late Middle Ages. It had become increasingly fragile also as a sound and unchallenged interpretation of history. Only now was this spiritual framework formally crumbling into pieces, however; the spiritual framework without which Europe would never have become a reality.

This was a process of considerable magnitude in terms of both politics and ideals. From the viewpoint of ideals it meant that the sacred foundation of history and the existence of a state was rejected.

History was no longer to be gauged on the basis of an idea of God which preceded it and gave it form. Statehood was looked upon in purely secular terms, based on rationality and the will of citizens.

Witnessed for absolutely the first time in history was the emergence of a completely secular or non-denominational state, which abandoned and set aside the divine warranty and divine regulation of the political element, considering such elements as belonging to a mythical vision of the world. In addition, such a state declared God Himself to be a private matter, belonging to neither the sphere of public life nor the common formation of civic volition. The latter was considered to be solely a matter of reason, with respect to which God did not appear clearly knowable.

In other words, religion and faith in God belonged to the sphere of feelings and not that of reason. God and His will ceased to have any relevance in public life.

Towards the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century this gave rise to a new type of schism, whose seriousness we see only now in clearer terms. There is no real name for it in German, because it spread among German-speaking peoples at a slower pace, but in the neo-Latin languages it was identified as a division between clergy and laity or laypersons. During the last two centuries this laceration penetrated into the “Latin” nations like a deep wound, while Protestant Christianity initially had an easier time in granting freedom of expression to liberal and enlightenment ideas cropping up around it, without causing any destruction to the framework of broad Christian consensus. The realistic political aspect inherent in the dissolution of the old idea of empire can be described in the following terms: the nations or states which had become identifiable as such, following the formation of unified linguistic areas, appeared as the only true bearers of history, thereby obtaining a status unheard of or impossible in the past. The explosive and dramatic gravity of what had now become an historical subject in the plural may be seen in the fact that the major European nations knew they were the stewards of a universal mission. This mission had, of necessity, to lead to conflicts among them and we were the ones who suffered the mortal impact thereof in the century which recently ended.

We must now consider a further process which ushered the history of recent centuries into a new world. Prior to the modem age, the old Europe with its two halves basically knew only one “next door neighbor,” with whom it had to deal in matters regarding both life and death; in other words, the world of Islam.

Then there was the turning point of the modem age with the expansion of Europe towards America and parts of Asia essentially bereft of major cultural subjects. Now coming into the picture was a movement towards two continents thus far on the outskirts of Europe’s focus of interest: Africa and Asia. Here as well, efforts were made to transform them into branches of Europe, into colonies. To a certain degree this was a successful endeavor, since both Asia and Africa now pursue the ideal of a world forged by technology and its ensuing prosperity. As a result, ancient religious traditions struggle in the throes of crisis there as well, and expressions of purely secular thinking are becoming increasingly dominant in the public arena.

Equally evident, however, is an effect to the contrary. The rebirth of Islam is connected not only with the new material wealth of the Islamic countries, but is nourished by Islam’s ability to offer sound spiritual grounds for the life of peoples, grounds which seem to have slipped out of Europe’s steady hand. Therefore, despite its lasting political and economic might, Europe is increasingly looked upon as condemned to decline and downfall.

In addition, the major religious traditions of Asia, above all its mystical component expressed in Buddhism, are emerging as spiritual powers against a Europe in the process of denying its religious and moral foundations. The optimism regarding the victory of the European factor which Arnold Toynbee was still able to sustain at the beginning of the 1960s now seems strangely outdated: “Out of 28 cultures we have been able to identify … 18 have died and 9 of the remaining 10 — actually all of them except ours — reveal that they have already suffered a death blow.”

Who would dare to repeat such words today? And, perhaps in more general terms, what is our culture? What is there left of it? Is European culture that civilization of technology and trade so victoriously widespread through the world? Or didn’t that civilization come into being in a post European world following the end of the early European cultures? What I see here is a paradoxical synchrony: with things like the victory of the technical-secular/post-European world and the globalization of its model of life and way of thinking, people all over the world, especially in the non-European worlds of Asia and Africa, have the distinct impression that the values, culture and faith of Europe — the very bases of its identity — have reached their end and exited life’s stage, while now the center stage is being taken by the value systems of other worlds, such as pre-Colombian America, Islam and Asian mysticism.

At this time, when Europe seems to have reached the pinnacle of success, it seems like it has become empty within, paralyzed by a crisis of its circulatory system, paralyzed by a crisis threatening its very survival, which is entrusted to transplants that cannot help but alter its identity.

Corresponding to this interior sapping of its constituent spiritual forces is the fact that Europe seems to be taking its leave in ethnic terms. In Europe, there is a strange shortage of future-oriented willingness. Offspring represent the future, but children are looked upon as a threat for the here and now. They take something away from our life, people say and think. Children are considered a limitation on the present and not a source of hope for the future. Necessary here is a comparison with the fading Roman empire: it continued to work as a huge historical framework, but was actually living off those who were to dissolve it, because it had no life-giving energy at all.

This brings us to current problems and issues. Regarding Europe’s possible future there were two opposing diagnoses. On one hand there was the thesis propounded by Oswald Spengler, who believed he could set a sort of natural law for the major expressions of culture: there were the moments of birth and gradual growth of a culture, its moment of full bloom, followed by its slow corpulence, ageing and death. Spengler enriched this thesis of his in a most impressive manner, using documentation drawn from the history of cultures which depicted this law of natural destiny. His thesis sustained that the West had reached its final epoch, and was hastening towards its demise, despite all the efforts to avert it. Quite naturally, Europe could hand on its gifts to a new and emerging culture, as had already transpired in previous declines of a culture, but its life span as a subject had come to an end.

Branded as “biological,” this thesis met with numerous and impassioned opponents during the period between the two world wars, especially in Catholic circles. The most impressive opponent of all was Arnold Toynbee, even though he used postulates which wouldn’t find much of an audience today. Toynbee highlighted material-technical progress on the one hand, and, on the other, real progress which he defined as “spiritualization.” He admitted the fact that the West — the western world — was in crisis and saw as the cause of that crisis the lapse from religion to the worship of technology, nationhood, military might, etc. In the final analysis, he considered the crisis to be “secularism.”

Having ascertained the cause of the crisis, he felt it was possible to suggest the cure, which meant once again introducing the religious factor. In his mind this entailed the religious heritage of all cultures, but especially “what there is left of western Christianity.”

Opposed here to the biological vision is a voluntaristic one counting on the force of creative minorities and outstanding individual personalities.

Here comes the question: is this diagnosis correct? And if it is, do we have the power and means to once again introduce the religious moment, in a synthesis of residual Christianity and the religious heritage of humankind? Basically speaking, the issue at stake between Spengler and Toynbee remains an open one, because we are unable to see into the future.

Besides that, however, it is our task to ask ourselves what may guarantee the future, what is able to continue nourishing the interior identity of Europe through all its historical metamorphoses. Or, in much simpler terms, what promises, today and tomorrow, to bestow human dignity and life in conformity with that dignity.

In order to find an answer to such queries we must once again look within our present and, at the same time, keep ever in mind its historical roots. Earlier on we had reached the point of the French Revolution and the 19th century. That was the time characterized especially by the development of two European models. Adopted in the Latin nations was the secular model, where the state was clearly distinct from religious entities, which were attributed to the private sphere. The state itself rejected any religious foundation and considered itself based solely on reason and its insights. In the face of the frailty of reason, these systems turned out to be fragile and easily fell the victim of dictatorships. Where they did survive, it was because parts of the old moral conscience continued to persevere even without the previous foundations, thereby making basic moral consensus possible. In the Germanic world, on the other hand, there were various expressions of models of liberal Protestant state churches, in which an enlightened Christian religion — essentially considered as moral life, but with forms of worship guaranteed by the public authorities — guaranteed a moral consensus and a broad-based religious foundation, to which the individual, non-state religions had to adapt. In Great Britain, the Scandinavian countries and, initially also, in Prussian-dominated Germany, this model guaranteed national and social unity for a long time. In Germany, however, the decline of Prussian state Christianity created a vacuum which became an open space that was soon occupied by a dictatorship. Nowadays, state churches have fallen the victim of sheer wear and tear everywhere. Religious entities which are derivations of the state are no longer generating any thing akin to moral force. Then again, the state itself cannot create moral force, but must presuppose it and then construct upon it.

Between these two models we have the United States of America. Formed on the basis of free churches, it began nationhood with a rigid dogma of separation between church and state. Then again, above and beyond single religious denominations, it was molded by an underlying Protestant-Christian consensus not forged in confessional terms, which was linked to a particular awareness of a religious-type mission towards the rest of the world. This bestowed special public weight upon the religious factor, which, insofar as a pre-political and supra-political force, could be a determining element for public life. Certainly, it is quite evident that in the United States, as well, the dissolution of the Christian heritage continues inexorably, while at the same time the rapid increase of the Hispanic element and the presence of religious traditions from all over the world changes the general picture.

Perhaps we should also remark that the United States is actively promoting the spread of Protestantism in Latin America, and consequently the decline of the Catholic Church as a result of inroads made by free churches. This endeavor is based on the conviction that the Catholic Church could not guarantee a stable political and economic system, thereby failing in its duty as an educator of nations. Conversely, what people expect is that the model of free churches would pave the way for a moral consensus and a democratic formation of public volition similar to those in the United States. In order to complicate the picture even more, we must admit that the Catholic Church now forms the largest religious community in the United States and is resolutely on the side of Catholic identity in its life of faith. Regarding the relationship between church and state, however, American Catholics have embraced the traditions of the free churches, in the sense that a church clearly separate from the state constitutes a better guarantee for the moral foundations of everything.

Therefore, the democratic ideal appears as a moral duty in profound alignment with the faith. There are ample grounds for interpreting such a position as an updated continuation of the aforementioned model sustained by Pope Gelasius.

Let’s return to Europe. The two models illustrated earlier were joined by a third one in the 19th century; that is to say, socialism, soon subdivided into totalitarian socialism and democratic socialism. Beginning from its point of departure, democratic socialism was able to enter the mainstream of the two existent models as a healthy counterweight to radical liberal positions, both enriching and correcting them. Here, as well, it turned out to be something above and beyond confessions: in England it was the political party of Catholics, who didn’t feel comfortable in either the Protestant-conservative camp or the liberal party. In Wilhelm’s Germany the Catholic “center” felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly conservative Prussian and Protestant forces. In many ways, democratic socialism was, and is, close to the social doctrine of the Catholic Church and, in any case, did contribute quite a bit to the formation of a social conscience.

The totalitarian model of socialism, however, went hand in hand with a rigidly materialistic and atheistic philosophy of history. History, in this model, is understood deterministically as a process of progress passing through the religious phase to the liberal one, in order to reach the absolute and definitive society, where religion is transcended as a relic of the past and the correct interplay of material conditions can guarantee the happiness of all. The apparent scientific basis of this approach, however, conceals an intolerant dogmatism: spirit is produced by matter; morals are produced by circumstances and are to be both defined and practiced in keeping with the aims of society; everything which helps to foster the advent of the final and felicitous state is moral. The overturning of the values which had constructed Europe is complete here. Moreover, here is a complete rupture with respect to the overall moral tradition of humankind. No longer are there such things as values independent from the pursuits of progress. At a given moment in time, everything can be permitted and even necessary, can be “moral” in the new sense of the word. Man, as well, can become an instrument. The individual counts for nothing at all and the future becomes the one and only terrible divinity deciding every thing for everyone.

In the meantime, the Communist systems had run aground and sunk on the reefs of their false economic dogmatism. However, people all-too-readily overlook the fact that they sank, even more deeply, due to their scorn for human rights, for their subordination of morals to the requirements of the system and its promises of a glorious future. The real catastrophes they left in their wake are not economic in nature, but rather the drying up of the soul, the destruction of moral conscience. In this I see an essential problem for Europe and the world at large.

Old line Communists admit the extent of their economic failures and that’s why they’ve all become economic liberals. And yet the moral and religious issue that constitutes the very core of the problem is almost completely swept aside. Therefore, the problem left behind by Marxism is still with us in the dissolution of man’s primordial certainties about God, himself and the universe. The dissolution of the awareness of intangible moral values is once again our problem right now and could lead to the self-destruction of the European conscience. Apart from Spengler’s vision of cultural decline, we have to begin looking upon this as a real danger.

This brings us face to face with the following question: how must things forge ahead? In the violent upheavals of our time is there an identity of Europe with hopes of a future? An identity for which we can commit ourselves, heart and soul? I am not prepared to delve into a detailed discussion on the future Constitution of Europe. I would just like to indicate the constituent moral elements which, in my opinion, should be included.

A first element is the “unconditional manner” in which human dignity and human rights must be presented as values preceding any and all forms or expressions of state jurisdiction. These fundamental rights are not created by lawmakers, not are they conferred by citizens, “but rather exist by proper law, are always to be respected by lawmakers and are given to them beforehand as values of a superior order.” This validity of human dignity prior to any political deed and any political decision ultimately evokes the Creator. Only He can establish values based on the intangible essence of man. The fact that there are values which may not be manipulated by anyone is the real and true guarantee of our freedom and of human greatness. The Christian faith sees in this the mystery of the Creator, and the condition of the image and likeness of God which He has conferred upon man.
Nowadays, practically no one would directly contest the precedence of human dignity and fundamental human rights with respect to any political decision; all too recent are the horrors of Nazism and its racial policy. In the concrete area of the so-called progress of medicine, however, there subsist very real threats for these values: when we think of things such as cloning, or the conservation of human fetuses for purposes of research and organ donation, or the vast field of genetic manipulation, the slow consumption threatening human dignity cannot be disregarded by anyone at all. Added to this, in ever-increasing magnitude, is the trafficking of human beings, the new forms of slavery, the trafficking of human organs for transplants. Ever trumpeted are “good ends” in an effort to justify what can in no way be justified.
Regarding sectors such as these, the Charter of Fundamental Rights does enshrine a series of firm points which deserve applause. Regarding important points, however, the draft of the Constitution is still all too vague, while hanging in the balance there is the principle at stake and its seriousness.
In summary, inscribing the value, dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity of man in the basic affirmations of democracy and rule of law implies an image of man, a moral option and an idea of law, all of which are by no means obvious, but which are fundamental factors in the identity of Europe; an identity which should be guaranteed likewise in the concrete consequences of those factors and which can be defended only if there is a corresponding moral conscience formed, over and over again.
A second important point revealing the identity of Europe concerns marriage and the family. Monogamist marriage as the fundamental structure between man and women, as well as the basic cell in the foiniation of the state community, was forged on the basis of the Biblical faith. This is what bestowed upon both Western and Eastern Europe its particular countenance and humanness, also and precisely because the form of fidelity and sacrifice projected therein always had to be gained anew with great hardship and suffering. Europe would not be Europe if that basic cell of its social edifice were to disappear or be altered in any essential way. The Charter of Fundamental Rights stipulates the right to marriage, but fails to express any juridical and moral protection for it and doesn’t even define it in more precise terms. And we all know, the extent to which marriage and the family are threatened — on the one hand by the emptiness inflicted upon their indissolubility through increasingly easier forms of divorce and, on the other, by an increasingly widespread form of behavior involving domestic partnerships between men and women without any legal form of marriage.
In glaring contrast with all that is the request for the life communion of homosexuals, who, rather paradoxically, are now asking for a legal form which should be tantamount to marriage. Such a trend or propensity takes us completely outside the confines of the moral history of humankind, which, despite all kinds of juridical forms of matrimony, always knew that marriage in its essence is the special communion of man and woman open to offspring and hence to the family. It is not a matter of discrimination here, but rather the question of what is the human person insofar as man and woman. as well as how the “being together” of man and woman may receive a juridical form. If, on the one hand. their being together draws farther and farther away from juridical foi ns and, on the other, a homosexual union is increasingly considered as being of the same status as marriage, then we are face to face with a dissolution of the very image of man, whose consequences cannot but be extremely grave.
My final point has to do with the religious issue. I wouldn’t want to get involved in the complex debates so recurrent over the past few years, but rather highlight just one aspect fundamental for all cultures: respect for what is sacred for someone else: most especially, respect for sacredness in the loftiest sense, respect for God. If this respect fails to be observed, something essential in society is lost. In society at present, thanks be to God, whoever dishonors the faith of Israel, its image of God and its great personages is liable to punishment in the form of a fine. The same applies to anyone who publicly insults the Koran and the fundamental tenets of Islam. When it is a matter of Christ and what is sacred for Christians, however, freedom of opinion emerges as the supreme good and any limitation thereof is said to threaten or even destroy tolerance and freedom in general. And yet this is exactly where we see the limit of freedom of speech: it may not destroy the honor and dignity of anyone else. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to voice falsehoods or destroy human rights.
Here in the West there is a strange form of self-hate we can only consider pathological. Yes, in a rather praiseworthy manner, the West does strive to be open in full to the comprehension of external values, but it no longer loves itself. All it sees in its own history is what is disgraceful and destructive, while it no longer seems able to perceive what is great and pure. In order to survive, Europe needs a new, critical and humble acceptance of itself; but only if it really wishes to survive. The multi-culturalism now being encouraged and fostered with such passion comes across at times as mostly an abandonment and denial of what is one’s own, a sort of flight from self.
Multi-culturalism, however, cannot subsist without shared constants. without points of reference based on one’s own values. Part thereof involves reaching out with respect to elements sacred for others, but we may do this only if the Sacred One, God, is not extraneous to us.
We obviously can and must learn from what is sacred in the eyes of others, but before others and for others it is our duty to nurture respect within ourselves for what is sacred and reveals the face of God which has been revealed to us: the face of the God who has mercy on the poor and the weak, widows and orphans, foreigners; the face of the God who is so human that He Himself became man, a man who by virtue of His own suffering bestowed dignity upon distress and filled it with hope.
We would be denying the identity of Europe if we do not do this, but we would also fail to accomplish a service to others, which they have a right to receive from us. In the eyes of the cultures of the world, the absolute profanity gradually assuming form in the West is something profoundly alien. These cultures are convinced that a Godless world has no future. Therefore, multi-culturalism itself summons us to return within ourselves.
We have no idea how things will evolve in Europe. The Charter of Fundamental Rights may be a first step, a sign Europe is once again consciously seeking its soul. In this sense we have to agree with Toynbee that the destiny of a society always depends on creative minorities. Believing Christians should look upon themselves as such a creative minority and help Europe espouse once again the best of its heritage, thereby being at the service of humankind at large.

Leave a comment

Filed under Western Civilization

2008: Panic at "No on 8": Prop. 8 still trails, but margin narrows / San Francisco Chronicle

This report, worded as favorably of gay marriage as possible because of its origination in the San Francisco Chronicle, still clearly reveals the opposition to Prop 8’s panic, and with good reason. The fact is that, in Proposition 22, the Yes vote in the election surpassed the final poll by 8 percent, and by 15 percent among our wonderful Catholic brothers and sisters, who have a stronger conscience against destroying the civilization that they substantially created and preserved in the ballot booth than they do when called by pollsters who treat those who are against gay marriage with disdain.


The pattern of many undecideds automatically voting “NO” on Proposition Measures is real (and a stupidly-arbitrary power in the hands of the politicians who assign Proposition numbers). But if our opponents are counting on it helping this time, a larger factor comes into play when the subject is a law or amendment banning gay marriage; in those cases, without fail, a type of Bradley effect makes it so that a sizable percentage of people who told pollsters they would permit it, and then vote to ban it. Thus our glee among Proposition 8 supporters, and the meltdown and panic from the opponents.

Pastors, Priests, and Rabbis will be encouraging people to vote one way or the other. Because of the growth of conservative Evangelicals, Catholics, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asian (Chinese, Korean, and Filippino), Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics coming here from predominantly Muslim countries where they are being persecuted and killed, and orthodox Jews, who will be suggesting a YES vote, and the shrinking to the point of disappearance of their liberal counterparts who will be suggesting a NO vote, the demographics have caught up with you. 2008 is the turning point between Secularists and Conservative Religionists, in California, in the United States, and starting now, in the rapidly-declining Europe, Canada, and Australia.


See the original of this article in the San Francisco Chronicle at this link.

thanks much,
Steve St.Clair
Prop. 8 still trails, but margin narrows
John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2008

The struggle over Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage in California, has tightened dramatically in the past month, with opponents holding a slim 49 to 44 percent edge among likely voters, according to a new Field Poll.

“The ‘Yes’ campaign has raised some doubts and moved people over to their side,” said Mark DiCamillo, the poll’s director. “A relatively large segment of voters are in conflict over this measure.”

But the same-sex marriage battle is the top California issue on the ballot and the new poll suggests the final margin could be razor thin, with victory within reach for either side.

Opponents of Prop. 8 saw their 17-point lead in the September Field Poll melt away in the face of a multimillion-dollar onslaught of TV ads, leaving them hanging on desperately to their lead.

They still have a lead, however, with Prop. 8 supporters running out of time.

“I like the fact that the ‘Yes’ side is stuck in the mid-40s,” said Steve Smith, political consultant for the opposition effort. “The other side is clearly having trouble crossing the 50 percent barrier.”

History suggests that Prop. 8 supporters have a tough road ahead, DiCamillo said.

“Undecided voters in proposition races tend to come down on the ‘No’ side,” he added. 

But Prop. 8 supporters were pleased with the new numbers.

“We’re moving in the right direction,” said Chip White, a spokesman for Yes on Prop. 8. “Momentum is clearly on our side in what’s going to be a close race.”
The poll showed just how divided voters are over same-sex marriage. Sixty-five percent of likely voters agreed that traditional marriage is “one of the cornerstones of the country’s Judeo-Christian heritage” and 50 percent agreed that Prop. 8 restores the institution of traditional marriage without taking domestic partnership rights from gay or lesbian couples.

But 61 percent also agreed that Prop. 8 would deny one class of citizens “the dignity and responsibility of marriage” and 58 percent believe that domestic partnership laws don’t give same-sex couples “the same certainty and security that marriage laws provide.”

With individuals forced to deal with their own conflicting views on the same-sex marriage issue, “voters are giving this a much more nuanced look” in the days before the election, DiCamillo said.

The poll found that 22 percent of those surveyed already have voted and that this group backed Prop. 8, 50 to 44 percent. But the early voters are older and somewhat more conservative than those who will cast ballots at the polls, DiCamillo said.

Voters 65 and older is the only age group that supports Prop. 8, while people in California’s populous coastal region oppose the measure, 54 to 39 percent.

Minority groups, expected to come out strongly for Democrat Barack Obama on Tuesday, could play a key role in the Prop. 8 vote. Latino voters are split almost evenly, 46 to 48 percent, on the measure, while black voters back the same-sex marriage ban, 49 to 43 percent.

Catholics, who make up nearly a quarter of likely voters, also could make a difference, DiCamillo said. Catholics opposed Prop. 8 by a 48 to 44 percent margin, but that’s down from 55 to 36 percent a month ago.
When the Proposition 22 same-sex marriage ban was on the ballot in 2000, Catholics were split almost evenly in the final pre-election poll, DiCamillo said. But exit polls showed Catholics actually voting for Prop. 22 by 15 points.

“The Sunday before the election could be important, since people may hear priests and ministers preaching against same-sex marriage,” he said.


The survey is based on a telephone poll of 966 likely voters, taken between Oct. 18 and 28. Polls on ballot measures other than Prop. 8 were divided into random subsamples of 481 and 485 likely voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.3 percentage points in the overall sample and plus or minus 4.6 percent in the subsets. 

E-mail John Wildermuth at

This article appeared on page B – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Leave a comment

Filed under Proposition 8

2008: Pope restates gay marriage ban after California Supreme Court Decision / Reuters

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is, in my opinion, exactly right on the issue of gay marriage and the evil of homosexual relationships. I would be in favor of them having less rights than full civil unions, and not able to adopt children in any case. The three taboo’s or bans on incest / poedophilia, adultery, and homosexuality that societies have always had and which in my opinion should have, have their best defense in an article by a Hoover Institution scholar , found on my blog at this link. 2003: The Libertarian Question: Incest, Homosexuality, and Adultery / Stanley Kurtz
Taboo’s are not on things that no one does; they are on things that too many people do, and that societies need to strongly discourage or the family breakdown destroys their successful operation as a society and their future.

See the original article on the Reuters News website at this link.

Thanks much,
Steve St.Clair

Pope restates gay marriage ban after California Supreme Court Decision
Fri May 16, 2008 10:22pm BST
By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Pope Benedict, speaking a day after a California court ruled in favour of same-sex marriage, firmly restated on Friday the Roman Catholic Church’s position that only unions between a man and a woman are moral.

Benedict made no mention of the California decision in his speech to family groups from throughout Europe, but stressed the Church’s position several times.

“The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions,” he said.

The pope also spoke of the inalienable rights of the traditional family, “founded on matrimony between a man and a woman, to be the natural cradle of human life”.

On Thursday, the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriages in a major victory for gay rights advocates that will allow homosexual couples to marry in the most populous U.S. state.

Last year, Italy’s powerful Catholic Church successfully campaigned against a law proposed by the previous centre-left government that would have given more rights to gay and unmarried couples.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is not sinful but homosexual acts are, and is opposed to gays being allowed to adopt children.

The California court found laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples are at odds with rights guaranteed by the state’s constitution.

U.S. President George W. Bush, who is opposed to gay marriage, prayed “for the family” with the pope at the White House last month during the pontiff’s visit there.

Last year, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the head of the Italian Bishops Conference, made headlines with comments that critics said equated homosexuality with incest and paedophilia.

After he made the comments — which Bagnasco said were misunderstood — graffiti reading “Shame” and “Watch Out Bagnasco” appeared on the door of the cathedral in northern Genoa, where Bagnasco is archbishop.

The pope, who backed Bagnasco, will visit Genoa his weekend.

Opponents of gay marriage in the United States vowed to contest the ruling with a state-wide ballot measure for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.

1 Comment

Filed under Same Sex Marriage, Strengthening Families

2008: Claims by No on Prop 8 grow more Desperate as Polling Numbers Sink /

See this original of this post of the Protect Marriage website at this link.

Thanks very much,

Steve St.Clair
Claims by No on Prop 8 grow more Desperate as Polling Numbers Sink
October 30, 2008
Contact: Chip White, 916-215-4392

SACRAMENTO— Polls continue to slide for No on Prop 8 Equity for All, as reports leak out that the campaign’s management structure is in utter disarray. A series of orchestrated, factually false press statements have been issued alleging the sky will fall if Proposition 8 passes on Tuesday.

“Clearly, this is nothing more than a floundering campaign grasping at straws to save its effort,” said Chip White, – Yes on 8 campaign spokesman. “It’s quite sad because those who are hurt most are voters.

We invited the No on Prop 8 campaign to debate Proposition 8 this weekend in a live, televised format, but it declined our invitation. If the No campaign is so confident in its arguments, why refuse the debate?”

Claims reporting Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools, to Proposition 8 will cause a high-tech brain drain, are being passed off as fact. These claims are nothing but noisy rhetoric and last minute campaign stunts aimed at confusing voters instead of educating them.

Claim One: Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools.
Truth: A few weeks ago children in a 1st grade class attended their teacher’s gay wedding in San Francisco on a school-organized field trip. The principal called it a “teachable moment.” That sure sounds like same-sex marriage instruction in schools.

This week kindergartners at Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, CA, were

asked to sign pledge cards saying they would not use anti-LGBT language. Parents who felt their children were far too young for such a discussion, most at an average age of 5 who are just learning the basics of reading and writing, were not permitted to opt-out, but instead had to keep their children home from school.

As we have clearly demonstrated, California Education Code Section 51933 states schools “shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.” According to the California Department of Education website, 96% of schools teach this curriculum. And under the Supreme Court’s ruling, current California law means teaching about marriage includes instruction on gay marriage. Thus, gay marriage is already part of the curriculum. Perhaps because of these simple facts, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell refuses to debate..

Claim Two: Proposition 8 would have no effect on a church’s tax-exempt status.
Truth: The No on 8 campaign used a classic lawyer trick, rolled out a group of lawyers yesterday to falsely state our concern about the impact of same sex marriage on religious freedoms, and then saying our concerns are false. For the record, the Yes on 8 campaign has never said that churches, acting as churches, would be forced to perform gay marriages. However, it is clear that where churches interact with the public square, in providing social services or even conducting business, their tax exempt status is at risk.

In one well publicized case, Catholic Charities in Boston ran adoption facilities that managed 700 cases since 1987, most involving children with special needs. Catholic Charities placed such children into parents in traditional marriages, according to their faith. After gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, the state told Catholic Charities it had to place children with gay marriage couples as well. Faced with such a decision, Catholic Charities reluctantly decided to stop providing adoption services.

Another religious non-profit, Ocean Grove Campground in New Jersey, lost a portion of its tax-exempt status on a rental pavilion because it refused to rent the facility to a lesbian couple for a civil commitment ceremony.

Claim Three: Proposition 8 discriminates against gays and lesbians.
Truth: Under California’s current domestic partnership law, (Family Code Section 297), gay couples are awarded the same legal rights and privileges as married couples. California has the strongest civil union/domestic partnership law in the nation, and Proposition 8 does not take away any of those rights.

Claim Four: If Proposition 8 passes there will be a brain drain to gay-friendly Massachusetts.
Truth: Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for five years and California still remains the epicenter of technology, biomed and other science-based industries. If a “gay brain-drain” was going to happen, shouldn’t it have started 5 years ago?

“The claims being disseminated by the No on 8 campaign are preposterous,” said White, “and have no basis in fact. We realize the No on 8 has a new team that has to justify their hiring, but cheap campaign stunts and false claims do not serve the public.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Proposition 8

2008: Stoning Mormons for standing up for their values by funding Prop. 8 is Wrong / Manteca Bulletin

This is an outstanding reaction to people upset the the Latter-day Saints’ involvement in the Proposition 8 issue.

See the original of the article on the Manteca Bulletin website at this link.

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair
Stoning Mormons for standing up for their values by funding Prop. 8
Managing Editor
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The scariest thing about Proposition 8 isn’t what passage or failure to pass the measure will do.
It is the unrelenting attack on Mormons for having the courage to not just espouse their beliefs and values but to put their money where their principles are.
Mormons – unlike Catholics and others who are contributing to the campaign to pass Proposition 8 on Tuesday’s California ballot – are getting the Full Monty.
One such effort is the web site ran by those opposing Proposition 8 who are against the concept of marriage being strictly between a man and a woman. The site lists the name and hometown of every Mormon who has contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign.
The site is used by the Daily Kos – it definitely isn’t a conservative blog – as part of a campaign to look into the personal lives of those Mormons backing the measure. It has led to incidents such in San Jose where the Sundstrom family that exercised their right to donate to the campaign had two women parked in front of their home in a SUV that had “bigots live here” painted on the windshield.
In the early going, those adamantly opposed to Proposition 8 attacked all religious groups that had contributed money including the Catholic Church. But as the election draws closer, they are showing their true bias and denouncing only Mormons.
Anti-Prop. 8 groups have taken to calling for the denouncing of the church for supporting a measure that basically reflects their values. Gee, is anyone denouncing the opponents of Prop. 8 who fund that campaign for their actions reflecting their values?
There have been efforts afoot to have the IRS delve into the church’s tax status.The Mormons haven’t crossed the line. Even so, separation of church and state in the context of this nation’s founding wasn’t to prevent churches from being active in politics but to keep the state from creating a church such as Henry VIII did when he created the Church of England because the Pope wouldn’t change the tenets of the Catholic faith to fit his decrees.
Its not a good idea to have a government in control of secular and spiritual thoughts unless, of course, you loved the old USSR model. The only way those two can work in concert is to suppress the idea of individual freedoms. And when you’re doing that, you can’t just take away the right of religious freedom to make it work.
Even so, it’s a free country. Those who oppose Proposition 8 are free to harass and do what they want as long as they don’t cross the line. The goal of their campaign, obviously, is to make people fearful of expressing their views and doing so in the public arena that counts – elections.
Lecturing the Mormon Church, though, about the importance of the separation of church and state is like lecturing Jews about the dangers of totalitarian regimes.
The Mormons are historically the most persecuted religion in the United States.What brought down the wrath of Congress to pass a law going after the Mormons? Yes, polygamy was part of it but when push came to shove it was the entire faith that irked the powers that be.
The Mormons had been chased from New York and Illinois.
The church’s Relief Society – long before it was the fashion -campaigned for women’s rights. In 1870, Utah became the first state to give women the right to vote. The Mormon faith blossomed with one important caveat – not all Mormons by far were polygamists.
Congress in 1882 passed the Edmunds Act to outlaw cohabitation with more than one woman. President Arthur sent federal agents to Utah. In clear violation of the U.S. constitutional law forbidding de facto laws, all Mormons who practiced polygamy were disenfranchised, stripped of the right to vote and many jailed. Idaho in 1885 put in effect a loyalty oath requiring all residents to swear they opposed polygamy or any organization that taught it in order to vote to effectively disenfranchise all Mormons even if they didn’t practice polygamy.
Congress in 1887 passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act to break up the Mormon Church and seize all of its property. It required loyalty oaths from local officials, which kept even Mormons not practicing polygamy from holding office, and gave the government the say in what textbooks could be allowed in classrooms. Many thousands of Mormons were imprisoned.
Congress sent the U.S. Army to attack the Mormons. Why? Because 140 non-Mormon settlers – many who had abused local Indians – were massacred by the Indians at Mountain Meadows. Newspapers urged the government to invade Utah on the false assumption the Mormons were behind the attack.
Yes, the Mormon Church excommunicates gays.
Mormons in the 19th century – and by many today – aren’t cut slack for their faith and are painted with a wide brush. The church has never advocated the stoning of gays. And under Proposition 8, they are expressing their belief marriage is between a man and a woman. It is the church’s right as to the status of the openly gay in their own church. It’s call free association. It’s called freedom of religion.
Branding Mormons for the practice of polygamy that was abandoned over a hundred years ago by all but a handful of fringe former church members who believe they’re the true Mormons makes them an easy target in the mind of some.
It is no different, however, than those who bash gays on old premises and prejudices.Unless the highest court in this land or Congress itself makes it clear that it isn’t the case, the issue of defining a marriage is a right reserved to the states.
Bashing the Mormons for doing what is clearly legal within the framework of the laws of this land – campaigning to protect a marriage as they define it – is just plain wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Proposition 8

2008: Pro-family group ends McDonald’s boycott / Christian News

This is certainly the most productive, and the most effective, way to protect our civilization and our families: by hitting the companies involved where it hurts — their bottom line. I proudly participated in this action against McDonalds, and I’m certain I’m healthier for the change.
Tens of millions of conservative Christian and orthodox Jews eat a lot more hamburgers, watch a lot more movies, go to a lot more concerts, buy a lot more i-phones, do a lot more google searches, than almost any other group.

Doing this act, in concert with others, and TELLING THE STORES, RESTAURANTS, WHY YOU ARE DOING IT, will work wonders.

I can’t help but think that many family-values people will carefully note companies that have become hyper-active in the gay marriage movement and other attacks on families and children, and will act accordingly. For example, I will move my blog to WordPress when the election season is over.
See the original of this article on the website of the Christian Post at this link.

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair

Pro-family group ends McDonald’s boycott
by Eric Young, Christian Post
Posted: Sunday, October 12, 2008, 8:37 (BST)

Pro-family groups this week lauded the recent decision by McDonald’s to no longer support activists working to advance the homosexual agenda. “The Big Mac attack on family values is finally over,” exclaimed Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, to supporters Friday. “After a five-month boycott, Americans finally got what they ordered – McDonald’s agreement to stop financing the homosexual agenda.”
In late March, McDonald’s sparked controversy after the company’s vice president of communications joined the board of directors of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC) – an organisation “dedicated to expanding the economic opportunities and advancements of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender/Transsexual (LGBT) business community.”
The American Family Association, in response, said that the move – combined with a $20,000 donation McDonald’s handed over to the NGLCC and the fast-food chain’s frequent and boastful support in sponsoring gay pride parades – was detrimental to pro-family causes and the sanctity of marriage.
The AFA requested McDonald’s to remove its name and logo from the NGLCC website and drop the vice president of communications’ endorsement of the organisation. When McDonald’s rebuffed the requests, AFA began asking its two million supporters to boycott the popular fast-food chain. “[T]he company has ramped up its support of the gay agenda and it leaves us no option but to call for a boycott,” said AFA Chairman Don Wildmon in a statement earlier this summer.
Whilst some criticised AFA’s efforts, accusing them of being “haters”, the pro-family group emphasised that the boycott was not about hiring homosexuals, or homosexuals eating at McDonald’s, or how homosexual employees are treated. “Our concern was: Here is a family-friendly company that has, all of a sudden, joined hands and became a partner and ally with an organisation that is absolutely attacking the moral foundation of our nation; trying to redefine marriage in our nation,” recalled Buddy Smith, executive assistant to AFA’s chairman.
“All we were asking is that they just simply be neutral in the culture wars and focus on doing their business and remain neutral,” he told the Chicago Sun-Times. Supporters of the boycott further noted that McDonald’s could have chosen to support efforts such as those against poverty, hunger or child abuse rather than controversial issues.
After the months-long boycott, McDonald’s eventually informed AFA of their decision to remain neutral in the culture war regarding homosexual “marriage”, reporting that they have no plans to renew their membership in NGLCC when it expires in December. Furthermore, in a September 23 memo revealed this week to AFA, the nation’s No 1 hamburger chain told franchised owners that its policy is “to not be involved in political and social issues”.
“McDonald’s remains neutral on same sex marriage or any ‘homosexual agenda’ as defined by the American Family Association,” the memo stated.
Following McDonald’s report to AFA, group chair Wildmon told supporters that the boycott of McDonald’s was ending. “We appreciate the decision by McDonald’s to no longer support political activity by homosexual activist organisations,” he stated in his message on Thursday.
Earlier this year, AFA ended a two-year boycott of Ford Motor Co, saying the company had met most of its demands, which included ending donations to groups that support same-sex “marriage”. Other companies that have been the targets of AFA boycotts include 7-Eleven, the Walt Disney Company, and Abercrombie & Fitch. Most recently, on August 25, the AFA announced its boycott of Hallmark Cards for their decision to start selling same-sex wedding cards.


Filed under Same Sex Marriage, Strengthening Families

2008: Comment on Proposition 8 in Response to Morris Thurston / Blake Ostler

See the original of this reponse to MorrisThurston and the Mormons for Marriage website by Blake Ostler at the New Cool Thang website at this link.

My sense is that Blake’s kind, wise, loving suggestions about how homosexual couples should be treated when they wish to be active in the LDS Church, which we all hope and will work to exemplify.

Love & Thanks,
Steve St.Clair

Comment on Proposition 8 in Response to Morris Thurston
Blake Ostler
New Cool Thang
October 2008

The website
Mormons for Marriage (which opposes the church in its support of Proposition 8) has failed (or refused) to post my response that I wrote to Morris Thurston, so I decided to post it here:

Mr. Thurston: I have read your document responding to the Church’s 12 points. Let me say that I appreciate your taking the time to write, but ultimately find it to be misleading. Let me elucidate.

First, a little about my background. I have practiced in the areas of Constitutional litigation and education law for approximately 23 years. I have represented LDSFS in several cases, though I haven’t done so in the last 10 years. I believe that I can assess your arguments based on my experience and knowledge of these areas. Let’s take them one-by-one:

1. Teaching about same sex marriage. You claim that passage of proposition 8 will not require teachers to teach that “same sex marriage is ‘just as good as’ as traditional marriage.” However, your response is both misleading and uninformed. Given that SSM is legal, you are correct that it follows that teachers will teach that same sex marriage is lawful. It won’t and cannot stop there. Teachers will be prohibited from making any distinctions between traditional and SSM. It therefore follows that teachers will be barred from stating that the State, e.g., has a greater interest in protecting traditional heterosexual marriage than SSM. The problem as I see it is that no distinction can be made between SSM and traditional marriage. Any student who expressed opinions regarding the distinction, for instance that that homosexual conduct is sinful, could possibly be regarded by a school district as engaging in hate speech. What is to stop that kind of inference? Does the law mandate that it be so treated? Of course not — but it leaves such responses as an open possibility. The implication easily arises that SSM is just as important and on equal footing with traditional marriage in all respects and no student or teacher can teach that there are distinctions of value or that homosexuality even within a “marriage” is a sin. That was the Church’s point as I saw and to that extent it is accurate.

2. The tax exempt status of churches may be challenged.
You state flatly that this is a “false consequence,” arguing that the argument is based on a New Jersey case. In fact, it is easy to see how the challenge can and will arise. As you are well aware, the concern is actually based on Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983). For those interested, here is a short link: It is easy to see how Bob Jones could be extended in California to deny tax exempt status to the Church in many respects (education, social services,etc.) in California if Proposition 8 fails. Here is how: the Ca. Supreme Court held that the right to SSM is a “basic and fundamental right” that is on par in every respect with traditional marriage. Those who deny “fundamental rights” to others can be denied tax exempt status. Nor is the LDS Church the only organization to express such concerns. See e.g., I’m surprised that you didn’t discuss this possible extension of the rationale of the Bob Jones case.

3. There is no concern that religious organization might be denied the right to originate adoptions.
You argue that the Church misleads because it states that Catholic Charities was forced to shut its doors. The Church doesn’t state that. Further, there is a legitimate concern here. The State of Mass. would not exempt Catholic Charities from the demand that it perform gay adoptions. The Church looked at the statutory framework and how the Mass. Supreme Court had interpreted and expressed extreme concern that it would lose a costly lawsuit — and the mere requirement to defend its religious position was prohibitive for it.

You are correct that there are difference between LDSFS (whom I have represented) and the Catholic Charities — primarily in the refusal of LDSFS to accept government support. However, as you well know, the courts often search far and wide to find a way to interpret any connection with federal or state funding as receipt of such funds — and the tentacles of the government are far reaching. This concern is very legitimate. No, the case against LDSFS would not be identical to the Catholic Charities case, but the distinctions that you point to are far from dispositive and there is a very real concern that California would interpret its law much like Mass. thus forcing a legal showdown. However, unlike Mass., California has interpreted its State Constitution to establish a fundamental right and thus the case would be much stronger in California that it would have been in Mass.

You suggest that California’s already existing broad civil unions statute means that passage of Proposition 8 would have no effect on the outcome of such a case. You miss the fact that a statutory protection of equality between traditional marriage and a State Constitutional provision that has been construed to create a fundamental right will be interpreted very differently. The case against LDSFS would be much stronger if Proposition 8 does not pass — and in fact the concern will likely evaporate if it does. Your response is thus very misleading and shortsighted in my opinion.

However, the recognition that California already has a very broad civil unions statute that guarantees all of the same contractual and visitation rights as a marriage demonstrates that the battle is not over treatment or rights of same sex couples. The real issue is whether the State will bless the union of same sex couples as being just as valuable and morally legitimate as heterosexual couples. I take is as at least arguable, and in my view obvious, that the State has a much greater interest in fostering and protecting heterosexual relations and natural reproduction (by that I mean that mean and women often have babies when they get together). Proposition 8 allows the State to recognize that much greater interest while the novel and current California Supreme Court reading of its state Constitution does not.

4. You suggest that passage of Proposition 8 would have no effect on university housing.
This is your most misleading claim. The fact is that it is easy to see how the Yeshiva University precedent would be adopted and extended in California unless Proposition 8 passes. That it hasn’t been tested to date doesn’t entail that passage of Proposition 8 would have no effect as you misleadingly contend. Your argument is a simple non-sequitur, i.e, it hasn’t been ruled on yet so passage of Proposition 8 won’t have an effect if it is ruled upon. That is just non-sense. The fact that the issue may not arise with a religious school is beside the point when we speak of state sponsored institutions. It may well change the requirement that an LDS student will be required to house with someone of the opposite or same sex given the equal protection arguments of the California Supreme Court.

5. We are largely in agreement that ministers who teach that homosexual conduct is a sin will not be charged with hate crimes — but because these rights are well-established under the United States Constitution and California is powerless to change them.

6. I don’t know enough to comment on the financial effect, but I am highly dubious that the revenues from marriage will off-set the tax-payer burden for benefits for room-mates.
Further, you miss the point. The issue isn’t cost with respect to net government revenues, but the cost to private litigants who disagree with SSM.

I believe that you are also incorrect about the effect of passage of Proposition 8 on the North Coast Women’s Care case. You are correct that it was decided under California’s very broad anti-discrimination statues. However, if Proposition 8 passes, these statutes are likely to be read in pari materia with Proposition 8 and therefore the outcome may well be different. Passage of a new law has an effect on interpretation of existing laws and you well know. This fact points to a serious defect in your legal analysis throughout your response. You assume that if a case is decided based on the existing laws that Proposition 8 will not have any effect. It is a basic failure to acknowledge the effect on interpretation of existing laws when a new law is passed. This is the kind of argument that I find used in your response repeatedly and it is misleading and quite incomplete.

For these reasons, your analysis critically misleads in many respects and fails to engage in the relevant analysis at several critical points. The chief failing is the refusal to address how the passage of Proposition 8 will affect statutory and Constitutional interpretation in the future — the effect would be profound.

Now let me be clear — nothing I have said ought to be interpreted as a suggestion that there is anything inherently wrong with a person who has homosexual tendencies. Nevertheless, the claim made on the Mormons for Marriage site that no homosexuals have a choice about their orientation is just dead-wrong. The scientific evidence established quite conclusively that there is in fact a continuum and many who have such tendencies can swing either way. However, there are likely some who have no choice about whether they have tendencies. However, they do have choice about their actions — such a distinction is fundamental to the gospel of Jesus Christ and the failure of this site to even acknowledge that fact is deplorable in my view.

Notwithstanding my support for Proposition 8, nothing should deter us from accepting those who may have same sex attraction tendencies in full fellowship, with affirmation of love and support for them. If they choose to sin, then I am not called to judge, (I have plenty of my own sins to deal with).

I support civil unions — and I support them for all state sponsored ceremonies that establish contractual protections for relationships. I do not support state sponsored marriage of any sort and I believe that it in a world where folks are properly informed the institution of marriage will be seen as solely a religious rite. It therefore violates the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause for the State to perform marriages on par with religious rites. Some day we’ll make such a distinction and the issue can be resolved in that way.

(Response by Blake to another Poster)
Bob W. I admit that you just lost me because your comment seems to distort what I say so badly. Where did I claim that schools teach sex ed to “small children.”? Certainly you agree that schools teach sex ed don’t you? In Utah it is contrary to law to teach a homosexual lifestyle. I know that I don’t want my children in public schools of any age being taught that homosexual relationships are just as valuable as traditional marriages. I don’t want them taught that any configuration of humans where children are present is a family as you suggest. I don’t want room-mates to be family members.

I’m certainly not advocating that anyone teach that another child’s parents are sinners. I never stated anything to suggest that I did. However, I don’t want my children to be taught that there are no immoral kinds of relationships or that anything at all goes as long as two mature people consent.

Since I support civil unions, I would agree that homosexual couples ought to have all of the intestate and contractual protections of others.

Let me also state that I view homosexuals as a very vulnerable group and that we ought to go out of our way to love and accept them and see them as infinitely valuable children of our Father in Heaven. It serves us to avoid judgment and to simply accept. That doesn’t mean that homosexual conduct is not sinful — it just means we’ve all got enough of our own sins to deal with before we can judge.

I certainly abhor any suggestion that I am suggesting that we should not fully accept homosexual couples among us and give extra support to those who choose to remain celibate — just like the faithful single people throughout the Church. However, I have never seen anyone come close to elucidating a coherent standard of sexual conduct where it is fine for homosexuals to engage in sexual relations but not for heterosexuals. I recognize that for heterosexuals there is at least the theoretical possibility of marriage. However, it doesn’t make any pragmatic difference for those singles who would love to marry but for whatever reason just haven’t. There is not one standard of moral conduct for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals.

Interesting issues are raised for homosexual couples who enter into civil unions. I’m not quite sure how to address all of these issue. I believe that perhaps the Church ought to accept those who enter into civil unions into fellowship in the sense that they are welcome as members and their civil union ought to be viewed as superior to rampant promiscuity that generally prevails in the gay community. If homosexual couples have entered a civil union, then I can see perhaps allowing them to remain in fellowship and to partake of the sacrament though not attend the temple. Perhaps we could give them callings with the recognition that we’re all afflicted by sin and we are no better in this respect than anyone else. I’m still unsure how to address such issues.

Leave a comment

Filed under Proposition 8, Same Sex Marriage

2008: California could lose lead to gay-friendly Massachusetts? THATS GREAT! / San Diego Union Tribune

The important paragraph from this article is:

“We are working at the cutting edge of biomedical knowledge and we should be as open-minded as possible,” Xanthopoulos said. “Biotechnology companies are supposed to be agile, flexible, creative, innovative and committed to thinking out of the box. All these things don’t line up with Proposition 8. They are exactly to the contrary.”

Being open-minded and the rest of the list of adjectives that is supposed to lead to progress has led instead to out-of-control morality, the worship of whatever is profitable, and the threat of destruction of the pillars of society that really mark a civilization: Honor, Family, Marriage, Truth, Honesty, Self-Control, Discipline, Dedication, Religion, and Safe and Flourishing Children; rather than the empty shell that following our current “elites” in the media, publishing, education, and high-tech industry leaders has brought for us. We are tired of it, and we are reclaiming our civilization.

Gay-friendly Massachusetts? That was done by judges, not the people, as it was in California. You may want to consider Canada or Europe. But the problem with them is that their pseudo-intellectuals took them down the same road two generations ago, and they are athiestic, secular humanistic, post-modernist societies whose economies are collapsing on the burden of paying for a dying civilization. Their birthrates among ethnically-European people are so far below replacement rates that they will disappear within three generations.

The rapidly-growing population in Europe and Canada is the followers of Islam, because of immigration and very high birth rates. My calculation is that they will be implementing Sharia law within 75 years, at which time the secular and gay / lesbian “creative people” will move back to a religious and robust America, because they don’t like Islam’s historical approach to people who are “openminded, agile, flexible, creative, innovative and committed to thinking out of the box”, or to gays and lesbians.

Suggesting to thinking people that becoming more like Massachusetts or Canada or, heaven forbid, Europe is some kind of advantage will have less and less appeal.

See the original of this article on the San Diego Union Tribune website at this link.

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair
Proposition 8 would blunt biotech edge, execs say
Calif. could lose lead to gay-friendly Mass.
By Terri Somers
October 29, 2008

A group of San Diego biotechnology executives have banded together to oppose Proposition 8, saying the proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage would be bad for business.

Proposition 8, which would overturn a state Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriages, would put California at a competitive disadvantage to Massachusetts, where gay marriage is allowed, said Laurent Fischer, chief executive of Ocera Therapeutics. The Boston/Cambridge area has a dense and thriving cluster of biotechnology companies.

San Diego and the San Francisco Bay Area account for more than 50 percent of the world’s biotechnology might. The California biotech industry competes with other regions for funding, employees and companies that bring in millions of dollars annually in revenue and high-paying salaries.

The proposition could be the impetus for people working here to pack up and leave for friendlier environs, said Fischer, who is also chairman of the AIDS Healthcare Network, a Los Angeles nonprofit that provides medical care to AIDS patients around the globe.

“The governor of Massachusetts has made it very clear that he recognizes this is a competitive and lucrative industry and he’d do everything he can to attract companies,” Fischer said. “And this is a sure opportunity for Massachusetts to feature its benefits that are not available in California should Proposition 8 pass.”

In San Diego, biotechnology companies and those that provide services to them employ nearly 40,000 people at 710 companies. Biotechnology is the state’s second largest high-tech industry, generating $73 billion in revenue annually and employing more than 267,000 people.

Companies in other high-paying and globally competitive industries also oppose Proposition 8. They include Silicon Valley giants Google and Apple and San Diego’s Qualcomm, which donated $5,000 to the opposition campaign, according to state records.

“Qualcomm has earned a reputation as one of the nation’s leading employers with a long-standing commitment to diversity and inclusion regardless of people’s backgrounds, lifestyles or perspectives,” the company said in a statement. “Qualcomm was one of the first companies to offer same-sex domestic partner benefits to its employees because we believe that no one group should be singled out or be treated differently.”

Proposition 8 has attracted nationwide interest, with some analysts estimating that it will generate more than $30 million in campaign spending.

The San Diego biotechnology executives are trying to persuade the local industry trade group, Biocom, to join in opposing it. Fischer and 21 other executives sent letters to Biocom and their friends and family, outlining how the proposition would hurt California.

“Our industry is vitally important to San Diego and we cannot allow other states become more appealing to our talented work force,” the executives said. “In today’s economy we cannot afford to lose the potential of a single job or company.”

The executives gave the letter to Biocom leaders last week, after the trade group’s policy committee had met to determine which candidates the organization would support in Tuesday’s election. Biocom did not take a stance on any ballot initiatives.

Kleanthis Xanthopoulos, chief executive of Carlsbad-based Regulus Therapeutics and a member of Biocom’s board, acknowledged yesterday that the letter may have been submitted too late for the organization’s official endorsement, but it’s still an important issue.

“We are working at the cutting edge of biomedical knowledge and we should be as open-minded as possible,” Xanthopoulos said. “Biotechnology companies are supposed to be agile, flexible, creative, innovative and committed to thinking out of the box. All these things don’t line up with Proposition 8. They are exactly to the contrary.”

Staff writer Jonathan Sidener contributed to this report.
Terri Somers: (619) 293-2028;

Leave a comment

Filed under Same Sex Marriage

2002: The Health Risks of Gay Sex / John R Diggs Jr MD

Why an article about the Health Risks of Gay Sex on a blog about Latter-day Saints Focusing on Jesus Christ?

First and foremost, understanding this lifestyle, and how incompatible it is with what we think of Marriage, a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman for life, strengthens the idea that stretching the definition of marriage to include them is completely unthinkable.

Second, from a health perspective, I am concerned that no one in businesses and governmental organizations that are offering health benefits to same-sex partners without discussion of what their terrible health practices and early deaths is is doing to the overall expenses of health coverage. Companies are increasingly pressing heterosexual employees to adapt a more healthy lifestyle, exercise, lose weight, stop hang-gliding, and other factors that impact the health costs. Why not certify from gay or lesbian employees that they are not engaging in these self-destructive behaviors, and drop them from the plan if they do not?

Thirdly, at the risk of some of my family members, fellow Latter-day Saints, and members of other Christian denominations reading this and thinking it sound like an enjoyable lifestyle, I think it is more likely that knowledge of the tremendous risks to physical, mental, emotional, nad spiritual health should be an incentive for others to see this as a no-win situation.

Marriage between one man and woman for life!!! It is perhaps the greatest sacrifice to those enter into it, requiring intense self-control; but it ends up as the only truly satisfying way to live. Come try it out!

For our gay and lesbian acquaintances: become celibate, become monks and nuns, perform the spiritual exercises that lead to self-control, and have a life pleasing God and mankind and, most of all, yourselves.

Love & Best wishes,

Steve St.Clair


The Health Risks of Gay Sex

As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and wellbeing. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, and homosexual sex, it is my duty to discourage it.

The Health Risks of Gay Sex
Executive Summary
Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span. There are five major distinctions between gay and heterosexual relationships, with specific medical consequences. They are:

Levels of Promiscuity
Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s. The medical consequence of this promiscuity is that gays have a greatly increased likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, syphilis and other STDs.

Similar extremes of promiscuity have not been documented among lesbians. However, an Australian study found that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Any degree of sexual promiscuity carries the risk of contracting STDs.

Physical Health
Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs. In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.

Mental Health
It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians. This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S. Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems.

Life Span
The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.

Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years.

Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span. Yet that is exactly what employers and governmental entities are doing when they grant GLB couples benefits or status that make GLB relationships appear more socially acceptable.

The Health Risks of Gay Sex

Back in the early 1980s, while working at Beth Israel Hospital, I vividly remember seeing healthy young gay men dying of a mysterious disease that researchers only later identified as a sexually transmitted disease — AIDS. Over the years, I’ve seen many patients with that diagnosis die.

As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and wellbeing. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, it is my duty to discourage it.

When sexual activity is practiced outside of marriage, the consequences can be quite serious. Without question, sexual promiscuity frequently spreads diseases, from trivial to serious to deadly. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 65 million Americans have an incurable sexually transmitted disease (STD).1

There are differences between men and women in the consequences of same-sex activity. But most importantly, the consequences of homosexual activity are distinct from the consequences of heterosexual activity. As a physician, it is my duty to inform patients of the health risks of gay sex, and to discourage them from indulging in harmful behavior.

The current media portrayal of gay and lesbian relationships is that they are as healthy, stable and loving as heterosexual marriages — or even more so.2 Medical associations are promoting somewhat similar messages.3 Nevertheless, there are at least five major areas of differences between gay and heterosexual relationships, each with specific medical consequences. Those differences include:

A. Levels of promiscuity B. Physical health C. Mental health D. Life span E. Definition of “monogamy”

A. Promiscuity

Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.'”4 Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.5By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.6

In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.7 Despite its continuing incurability, AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex.8

The data relating to gay promiscuity were obtained from self-identified gay men. Some advocates argue that the average would be lower if closeted homosexuals were included in the statistics.9 That is likely true, according to data obtained in a 2000 survey in Australia that tracked whether men who had sex with men were associated with the gay community. Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.10 This may imply that it is riskier to be “out” than “closeted.” Adopting a gay identity may create more pressure to be promiscuous and to be so with a cohort of other more promiscuous partners.

Excessive sexual promiscuity results in serious medical consequences — indeed, it is a recipe for transmitting disease and generating an epidemic.11 The HIV/AIDS epidemic has remained a predominantly gay issue in the U.S. primarily because of the greater degree of promiscuity among gays.12 A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50 percent chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55.13 As of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.14 Syphilis is also more common among gay men. The San Francisco Public Health Department recently reported that syphilis among the city’s gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

“Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners.”15

A study done in Baltimore and reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that gay men contracted syphilis at three to four times the rate of heterosexuals.16 Promiscuity is the factor most responsible for the extreme rates of these and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases cited below, many of which result in a shortened life span for men who have sex with men.

Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men. But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.17 Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.18

B. Physical Health
Unhealthy sexual behaviors occur among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Yet the medical and social science evidence indicate that homosexual behavior is uniformly unhealthy. Although both male and female homosexual practices lead to increases in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, the practices and diseases are sufficiently different that they merit separate discussion.

1. Male Homosexual Behavior
Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women19 not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men. A British researcher summarizes the danger as follows:

“Male homosexual behaviour is not simply either ‘active’ or ‘passive,’ since penile-anal, mouth-penile, and hand-anal sexual contact is usual for both partners, and mouth-anal contact is not infrequent. . . . Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals. Trauma may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area. . . . In addition to sodomy, trauma may be caused by foreign bodies, including stimulators of various kinds, penile adornments, and prostheses.”20

Although the specific activities addressed below may be practiced by heterosexuals at times, homosexual men engage in these activities to a far greater extent.21

a. Anal-genital
Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.22 Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an “exit-only” passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient.23 Semen may have a similar impact on humans.24

The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer Chlamydia trachomatis Cryptosporidium Giardia lamblia Herpes simplex virus Human immunodeficiency virus Human papilloma virus Isospora belli Microsporidia Gonorrhea Viral hepatitis types B & C Syphilis25

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.26 And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.27

A 1988 CDC survey identified 21 percent of all Hepatitis B cases as being homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted.28 Since homosexuals comprise such a small percent of the population (only 1-3 percent),29 they have a significantly higher rate of infection than heterosexuals.30

Anal intercourse also puts men at significant risk for anal cancer. Anal cancer is the result of infection with some subtypes of human papilloma virus (HPV), which are known viral carcinogens. Data as of 1989 showed the rates of anal cancer in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times that of heterosexual males, and growing. 30 Thus, the prevalence of anal cancer among gay men is of great concern. For those with AIDS, the rates are doubled.31

Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:

hemorrhoids anal fissures anorectal trauma retained foreign bodies.32

b. Oral-anal
There is an extremely high rate of parasitic and other intestinal infections documented among male homosexual practitioners because of oral-anal contact. In fact, there are so many infections that a syndrome called “the Gay Bowel” is described in the medical literature.33 “Gay bowel syndrome constitutes a group of conditions that occur among persons who practice unprotected anal intercourse, anilingus, or fellatio following anal intercourse.”34 Although some women have been diagnosed with some of the gastrointestinal infections associated with “gay bowel,” the vast preponderance of patients with these conditions are men who have sex with men.35

“Rimming” is the street name given to oralanal contact. It is because of this practice that intestinal parasites ordinarily found in the tropics are encountered in the bodies of American gay men. Combined with anal intercourse and other homosexual practices, “rimming” provides a rich opportunity for a variety of infections.

Men who have sex with men account for the lion’s share of the increasing number of cases in America of sexually transmitted infections that are not generally spread through sexual contact. These diseases, with consequences that range from severe and even life-threatening to mere annoyances, include Hepatitis A,36 Giardia lamblia, Entamoeba histolytica,37 Epstein-Barr virus,38 Neisseria meningitides,39 Shigellosis, Salmonellosis, Pediculosis, scabies and Campylobacter.40 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) identified a 1991 outbreak of Hepatitis A in New York City, in which 78 percent of male respondents identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual.41While Hepatitis A can be transmitted by routes other than sexual, a preponderance of Hepatitis A is found in gay men in multiple states.42 Salmonella is rarely associated with sexual activity except among gay men who have oral-anal and oral-genital contact following anal intercourse.43 The most unsettling new discovery is the reported sexual transmission of typhoid. This water-borne disease, well known in the tropics, only infects 400 people each year in the United States, usually as a result of ingestion of contaminated food or water while abroad. But sexual transmission was diagnosed in Ohio in a series of male sex partners of one male who had traveled to Puerto Rico.44

In America, Human Herpes Virus 8 (called Herpes Type 8 or HHV-8) is a disease found exclusively among male homosexual practitioners. Researchers have long noted that men who contracted AIDS through homosexual behavior frequently developed a previously rare form of cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma. Men who contract HIV/AIDS through heterosexual sex or intravenous drug use rarely display this cancer. Recent studies confirm that Kaposi’s sarcoma results from infection with HHV-8. The New England Journal of Medicine described one cohort in San Francisco where 38 percent of the men who admitted any homosexual contact within the previous five years tested positive for this virus while none of the exclusively heterosexual men tested positive. The study predicted that half of the men with both HIV and HHV-8 would develop the cancer within 10 years.45 The medical literature is currently unclear as to the precise types of sexual behavior that transmit HHV-8, but there is a suspicion that it may be transmitted via saliva.46

c. Human Waste
Some gay men sexualize human waste, including the medically dangerous practice of coprophilia, which means sexual contact with highly infectious fecal wastes.47 This practice exposes the participants to all of the risks of anal-oral contact and many of the risks of analgenital contact.

d. Fisting
“Fisting” refers to the insertion of a hand or forearm into the rectum, and is far more damaging than anal intercourse. Tears can occur, along with incompetence of the anal sphincter. The result can include infections, inflammation and, consequently, enhanced susceptibility to future STDs. Twenty-two percent of homosexuals in one survey admitted to having participated in this practice.48

e. Sadism
The sexualization of pain and cruelty is described as sadism, named for the 18th Century novelist, the Marquis de Sade. His novel Justine describes repeated rapes and non-consensual whippings.49 Not all persons who practice sadism engage in the same activities. But a recent advertisement for a sadistic “conference” included a warning that participants might see “intentional infliction of pain [and] cutting of the skin with bleeding . . . .” Scheduled workshops included “Vaginal Fisting” (with a demonstration), “Sacred Sexuality and Cutting” with “a demonstration of a cutting with a live subject,” “Rough Rope,” and a “Body Harness” workshop that was to involve “demonstrating and coaching the tying of erotic body harnesses that involve the genitals, male and female.”50 A similar event entitled the “Vicious Valentine” occurred near Chicago on Feb. 15-17, 2002.51 The medical consequences of such activities range from mild to fatal, depending upon the nature of the injuries inflicted.52 As many as 37 percent of homosexuals have practiced some form of sadism.53

f. Conclusion
The consequences of homosexual activity have significantly altered the delivery of medical care to the population at-large. With the increased incidence of STD organisms in unexpected places, simple sore throat is no longer so simple. Doctors must now ask probing questions of their patients or risk making a misdiagnosis. The evaluation of a sore throat must now include questions about oral and anal sex. A case of hemorrhoids is no longer just a surgical problem. We must now inquire as to sexual practice and consider that anal cancer, rectal gonorrhea, or rectal chlamydia may be secreted in what deceptively appears to be “just hemorrhoids.”54 Moreover, data shows that rectal and throat gonorrhea, for example, are without symptoms in 75 percent of cases.55

The impact of the health consequences of gay sex is not confined to homosexual practitioners. Even though nearly 11 million people in America are directly affected by cancer, compared to slightly more than three-quarters of a million with AIDS,56 AIDS spending per patient is more than seven times that for cancer.57 The inequity for diabetes and heart disease is even more striking.58 Consequently, the disproportionate amount of money spent on AIDS detracts from research into cures for diseases that affect more people.

2. Female Homosexual Behavior
Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals.59 However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals. This is partly because the devastation of AIDS has caused male homosexual activity to draw the lion’s share of medical attention. But it is also because there are fewer lesbians than gay men,60 and there is no evidence that lesbians practice the same extremes of same-sex promiscuity as gay men. The lesser amount of medical data does not mean, however, that female homosexual behavior is without recognized pathology. Much of the pathology is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians.

Among the difficulties in establishing the pathologies associated with lesbianism is the problem of defining who is a lesbian.61 Study after study documents that the overwhelming majority of self-described lesbians have had sex with men.62 Australian researchers at an STD clinic found that only 7 percent of their lesbian sample had never had sexual contact with a male.63

Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. They were 4.5 times as likely as exclusively heterosexual controls to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners.64 Consequently, the lesbians’ median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women.65 Lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV disease-homosexual, bisexual, or IV drug-abusing men.66 The study “demonstrates that WSW [women who have sex with women] are more likely than non- WSW to engage in recognized HIV risk behaviours such as IDU [intravenous drug use], sex work, sex with a bisexual man, and sex with a man who injects drugs, confirming previous reports.”67

Bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among female homosexual practitioners.68 Intravenous drug abuse was nearly six times as common in this group.69In one study of women who had sex only with women in the prior 12 months, 30 percent had bacterial vaginosis.70 Bacterial vaginosis is associated with higher risk for pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections.71

In view of the record of lesbians having sex with many men, including gay men, and the increased incidence of intravenous drug use among lesbians, lesbians are not low risk for disease. Although researchers have only recently begun studying the transmission of STDs among lesbians, diseases such as “crabs,” genital warts, chlamydia and herpes have been reported.72 Even women who have never had sex with men have been found to have HPV, trichomoniasis and anogenital warts.73

C. Mental Health

1. Psychiatric Illness
Multiple studies have identified high rates of psychiatric illness, including depression, drug abuse and suicide attempts, among selfprofessed gays and lesbians.74 Some proponents of GLB rights have used these findings to conclude that mental illness is induced by other people’s unwillingness to accept same-sex attraction and behavior as normal. They point to homophobia, effectively defined as any opposition to or critique of gay sex, as the cause for the higher rates of psychiatric illness, especially among gay youth.75 Although homophobia must be considered as a potential cause for the increase in mental health problems, the medical literature suggests other conclusions.

An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries — in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands.76 So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.

The Dutch study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, did indeed find a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex.77 Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence. In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study.78 The researchers found “that homosexuality is not only associated with mental health problems during adolescence and early adulthood, as has been suggested, but also in later life.”79 Researchers actually fear that methodological features of “the study might underestimate the differences between homosexual and heterosexual people.”80

The Dutch researchers concluded, “this study offers evidence that homosexuality is associated with a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders. The outcomes are in line with findings from earlier studies in which less rigorous designs have been employed.”81 The researchers offered no opinion as to whether homosexual behavior causes psychiatric disorders, or whether it is the result of psychiatric disorders.

2. Reckless Sexual Behavior
Depression and drug abuse can lead to reckless sexual behavior, even among those who are most likely to understand the deadly risks. In an article that was part of a series on “AIDS at 20,” the New York Times reported the risks that many gay men take. One night when a gay HIV prevention educator named Seth Watkins got depressed, he met an attractive stranger, had anal intercourse without a condom — and became HIV positive. In spite of his job training, the HIV educator nevertheless employed the psychological defense of “denial” in explaining his own sexual behavior:
“[L]ike an increasing number of gay men in San Francisco and elsewhere, Mr. Watkins sometimes still puts himself and possibly other people at risk. ‘I don’t like to think about it because I don’t want to give anyone H.I.V.,’ Mr. Watkins said.”82

Another gay man named Vince, who had never before had anal intercourse without a condom, went to a sex club on the spur of the moment when he got depressed, and had unprotected sex:

“I was definitely in a period of depression . . . . And there was just something about that particular circumstance and that particular person. I don’t know how to describe it. It just appealed to me; it made it seem like it was all right.”83

Some of the men interviewed by the New York Times are deliberately reckless. One fatalistic gay man with HIV makes no apology for putting other men at risk:

“The prospect of going through the rest of your life having to cover yourself up every time you want to get intimate with someone is an awful one. . . . Now I’ve got H.I.V. and I don’t have to worry about getting it,” he said. “There is a part of me that’s relieved. I was tired of always having to be careful, of this constant diligence that has to be paid to intimacy when intimacy should be spontaneous.”84

After admitting to almost never using condoms he adds:

“There is no such thing as safe sex. . . . If people want to use condoms, they can. I didn’t go out and purposely get H.I.V. Accidents happen.”85

Other reports show similar disregard for the safety of self and others. A1998 study in Seattle found that 10 percent of HIV-positive men admitted they engaged in unprotected anal sex, and the percentage doubled in 2000.86 According to a study of men who attend gay “circuit” parties,87 the danger at such events is even greater. Ten percent of the men surveyed expected to become HIV-positive in their lifetime. Researchers discovered that 17 percent of the circuit party attendees surveyed were already HIV positive.88 Two thirds of those attending circuit parties had oral or anal sex, and 28 percent did not use condoms.89

In addition, drug use at circuit parties is ubiquitous. Although only 57 percent admit going to circuit parties to use drugs, 95 percent of the survey participants said they used psychoactive drugs at the most recent event they attended.90 There was a direct correlation between the number of drugs used during a circuit party weekend and the likelihood of unprotected anal sex.91 The researchers concluded that in view of their findings, “the likelihood of transmission of HIV and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases among party attendees and secondary partners becomes a real public health concern.”92

Good mental health would dictate foregoing circuit parties and other risky sex. But neither education nor adequate access to health care is a deterrent to such reckless behavior. “Research at the University of New South Wales found well-educated professional men in early middle age — those who experienced the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s — are most likely not to use a condom.”93

D. Shortened Life Span
The greater incidence of physical and mental health problems among gays and lesbians has serious consequences for length of life. While many are aware of the death toll from AIDS, there has been little public attention given to the magnitude of the lost years of life.

An epidemiological study from Vancouver, Canada of data tabulated between 1987 and 1992 for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy. The study concluded that if 3 percent of the population studied were gay or bisexual, the probability of a 20-year-old gay or bisexual man living to 65 years was only 32 percent, compared to 78 percent for men in general.94 The damaging effects of cigarette smoking pale in comparison -cigarette smokers lose on average about 13.5 years of life expectancy.95

The impact on length of life may be even greater than reported in the Canadian study. First, HIV/AIDS is underreported by as much as 15-20 percent, so it is likely that not all AIDSrelated deaths were accounted for in the study.96 Second, there are additional major causes of death related to gay sex. For example, suicide rates among a San Francisco cohort were 3.4 times higher than the general U.S. male population in 1987.97 Other potentially fatal ailments such as syphilis, anal cancer, and Hepatitis B and C also affect gay and bisexual men disproportionately.98

E. “Monogamy”
Monogamy for heterosexual couples means at a minimum sexual fidelity. The most extensive survey of sex in America found that “a vast majority [of heterosexual married couples] are faithful while the marriage is intact.”99 The survey further found that 94 percent of married people and 75 percent of cohabiting people had only one partner in the prior year.100 In contrast, long-term sexual fidelity is rare among GLB couples, particularly among gay males. Even during the coupling period, many gay men do not expect monogamy. A lesbian critic of gay males notes that:

“After a period of optimism about the longrange potential of gay men’s one-on-one relationships, gay magazines are starting to acknowledge the more relaxed standards operating here, with recent articles celebrating the bigger bang of sex with strangers or proposing ‘monogamy without fidelity’-the latest Orwellian formulation to excuse having your cake and eating it too.”101

Gay men’s sexual practices appear to be consistent with the concept of “monogamy without fidelity.” A study of gay men attending circuit parties showed that 46 percent were coupled, that is, they claimed to have a “primary partner.” Twenty-seven percent of the men with primary partners “had multiple sex partners (oral or anal) during their most recent circuit party weekend . . . .”102

For gay men, sex outside the primary relationship is ubiquitous even during the first year. Gay men reportedly have sex with someone other than their partner in 66 percent of relationships within the first year, rising to approximately 90 percent if the relationship endures over five years.103 And the average gay or lesbian relationship is short lived. In one study, only 15 percent of gay men and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that lasted more than three years.104 Thus, the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in GLB relationships.

“Don’t tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.” ~ African proverb

The societal implications of the unrestrained sexual activity described above are devastating. The ideal of sexual activity being limited to marriage, always defined as male-female, has been a fence erected in all civilizations around the globe.105 Throughout history, many people have climbed over the fence, engaging in premarital, extramarital and homosexual sex. Still, the fence stands; the limits are visible to all. Climbing over the fence, metaphorically, has always been recognized as a breach of those limits, even by the breachers themselves. No civilization can retain its vitality for multiple generations after removing the fence.106

But now social activists are saying that there should be no fence, and that to destroy the fence is an act of liberation.107 If the fence is torn down, there is no visible boundary to sexual expression. If gay sex is socially acceptable, what logical reason can there be to deny social acceptance of adultery, polygamy, or pedophilia? The polygamist movement already has support from some of the advocates for GLB rights.108 And some in the psychological profession are floating the idea that maybe pedophilia is not so damaging to children after all.109

Lesbian social critic Camille Paglia observes, “history shows that male homosexuality, which like prostitution flourishes with urbanization and soon becomes predictably ritualized, always tends toward decadence.”110 Gay author Gabriel Rotello writes of the changes in homosexual behavior in the last century:

“Most accounts of male-on-male sex from the early decades of this century [20th] cite oral sex, and less often masturbation, as the predominant forms of activity, with the acknowledged homosexual fellating or masturbating his partner. Comparatively fewer accounts refer to anal sex. My own informal survey of older gay men who were sexually active prior to World War II gives credence to the idea that anal sex, especially anal sex with multiple partners, was considerably less common than it later became.”111

Not only has the practice of anal sex increased, condom use has declined 20 percent and multi-partner sex has doubled in the last seven years,112 despite billions of dollars spent on HIV prevention campaigns. “In many cases, the prevention slogans that galvanized gay men in the early years of the epidemic now fall on deaf ears.”113 As should be expected, the health-care costs resulting from gay promiscuity are substantial.114

Social approval of gay sex leads to an increase in such behavior. As early as 1993, Newsweek reported that the growing media presence and social acceptance of homosexual behavior was leading to teenager experimentation to the extent that it was “becoming chic.”115 A more recent report stated that “the way gays and lesbians appear in the media may make some people more comfortable acting on homosexual impulses.”116 In addition, one of the goals of GLB advocates’ quest for domestic partner benefits from employers is to motivate more gays and lesbians “to come out of the closet.”117 If, as suggested above, being “out” results in a greater incidence of promiscuity, employer decisions to provide domestic partner benefits may have a negative impact on employee health. Indeed, giving gays and lesbians the social approval they desire may ultimately lead to an early death for employees who otherwise might have restrained their sexual behavior.

Research designed to prove that gays and lesbians are “born that way” has come up empty — there is no scientific evidence that being gay or lesbian is genetically determined.118 Even researcher Dean Hamer, who once hoped he had identified a “gay gene,” admits “there is a lot more than just genes going on.”119

It is clear that there are serious medical consequences to same-sex behavior. Identification with a GLB community appears to lead to an increase in promiscuity, which in turn leads to a myriad of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and even early death. A compassionate response to requests for social approval and recognition of GLB relationships is not to assure gays and lesbians that homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual ones, but to point out the health risks of gay sex and promiscuity. Approving same-sex relationships is detrimental to employers, employees and society in general.

Definitional Impediments to Research
Unfortunately, endeavors to assess the actual practices and the health consequences of male and female homosexual behavior are hampered by imprecise definitions. For many, being gay or lesbian or bisexual is a political identity that does not necessarily correspond to sexual behavior. And investigators find that sexual behavior fluctuates over time:

“[P]eople often change their sexual behavior during their lifetimes, making it impossible to state that a particular set of behaviors defines a person as gay. A man who has sex with men today, for example, might not have done so 10 years ago.”120

Defining the terms becomes even more difficult when people who identify as gay or lesbian enter heterosexual relationships. Joanne Loulan, a well-known lesbian, has talked openly about her two-year relationship with a man: “‘I come from this background that sex is an activity, it’s not an identity,’ says Loulan. ‘It was funny for a while, but then it turned out to be something more connected, more deep. Something more important. And that’s when my life started really going topsy turvy.'” While critics complain that “You can’t be a lesbian and be having sex with men,” Loulan sees no contradiction in the fact that she “adamantly refuses to call herself a bisexual, to give up the lesbian identity.”121

Several high-profile lesbian media stars that have abandoned lesbianism further illustrate the difficulty in defining homosexuality. An article about the now defunct couple, Anne Heche and Ellen Degeneres, said, “Although the pair never publicly discussed the reason for their breakup, it has been heavily rumored that Heche decided to go back to heterosexuality.”122 Heche married a man on Sept. 1, 2001.123

As recently as June 2000, pop-music star Sinead O’Connor said, “I’m a lesbian . . . although I haven’t been very open about that, and throughout most of my life I’ve gone out with blokes because I haven’t necessarily been terribly comfortable about being a lesbian. But I actually am a lesbian.”124 Then, shocking the gay world that applauded her “coming out,” O’Connor’s sexual identity fluctuated again when she withdrew from participating in a lesbian music festival because of her marriage to British Press Association reporter Nick Sommerlad.125

Although women get most of the press coverage of fluctuating between same-sex and heterosexual relationships, men can experience similar fluidity. Gay author John Stoltenberg has lived with a lesbian, Andrea Dworkin, since 1974.126 And a 2000 survey in Australia found that 19 percent of gay men reported having sex with a woman in the six months prior to the survey.127 This fluctuation in sexual “orientation” inhibits the creation of a fixed definition of homosexuality. As one group of researchers stated the problem:

“Does a man who has homosexual sex in prison count as a homosexual? Does a man who left his wife of twenty years for a gay lover count as a homosexual or heterosexual? Do you count the number of years he spent with his wife as compared to his lover? Does the married woman who had sex with her college roommate a decade ago count? Do you assume that one homosexual experience defines someone as gay for all time?”128

Despite the difficulty in defining homosexuality, the one thing that is clear is that those who engage in same-sex practices or identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual constitute a very small percentage of the population. The most reliable studies indicate that 1-3 percent of people — and probably less than 2 percent — consider themselves to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, or currently practice same-sex sex.129

1. “Tracking the Hidden Epidemics: Trends in STDs in the United States, 2000,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), available at
2. Becky Birtha, “Gay Parents and the Adoption Option,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 04, 2002, 2787531.htm; Grant Pick, “Make Room for Daddy — and Poppa,” The Chicago Tribune Internet Edition, March 24, 2002, 0203240463mar24.story
3. Ellen C. Perrin, et al., “Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics, 109(2): 341-344 (2002).
4. Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 112, New York: Penguin Group, 1998 (quoting gay writer Michael Lynch).
5. Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978.
6. Leon McKusick, et al., “Reported Changes in the Sexual Behavior of Men at Risk for AIDS, San Francisco, 1982-84 — the AIDS Behavioral Research Project,” Public Health Reports, 100(6): 622-629, p. 625, Table 1 (November- December 1985). In 1982 respondents reported an average of 4.7 new partners in the prior month; in 1984, respondents reported an average of 2.5 new partners in the prior month.
7. “Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men — San Francisco, California, 1994-1997,” Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, CDC, 48(03): 45-48, p. 45 (January 29, 1999).
8. This was evident by the late 80’s and early 90’s. Jeffrey A. Kelly, PhD, et al., “Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/ Human Immunodeficiency Virus Risk Behavior Among Gay Men in Small Cities,” Archives of Internal Medicine, 152: 2293-2297, pp. 2295-2296 (November 1992); Donald R. Hoover, et al., “Estimating the 1978-1990 and Future Spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Subgroups of Homosexual Men,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 134(10): 1190-1205, p. 1203 (1991).
9. A lesbian pastor made this assertion during a question and answer session that followed a presentation the author made on homosexual health risks at the Chatauqua Institute in Western New York, summer 2001.
10. Paul Van de Ven, et al., “Facts & Figures: 2000 Male Out Survey,” p. 20 & Table 20, monograph published by National Centre in HIV Social Research Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of New South Wales, February 2001.
11. Rotello, pp. 43-46.
12. Ibid., pp. 165-172.
13. Hoover, et al., Figure 3.
14. “Basic Statistics,” CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, (Nearly 8% (50,066) of men with AIDS had sex with men and used intravenous drugs. These men are included in the 64% figure (411,933) of 649,186 men who have been diagnosed with AIDS.)
15. Figures from a study presented at the Infectious Diseases Society of America meeting in San Francisco and reported by Christopher Heredia, “Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F.: Gay, bisexual men affected most,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 26, 2001, article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/26/MN7489 3.DTL.
16. Catherine Hutchinson, et al., “Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics,” Archives of Internal Medicine, 151: 511-516, p. 513 (1991).
17. Katherine Fethers, Caron Marks, et al., “Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345- 349, p. 347 (October 2000).
18. James Price, et al., “Perceptions of cervical cancer and pap smear screening behavior by Women’s Sexual Orientation,” Journal of Community Health, 21(2): 89-105 (1996); Daron Ferris, et al., “A Neglected Lesbian Health Concern: Cervical Neoplasia,” The Journal of Family Practice, 43(6): 581-584, p. 581 (December 1996); C. Skinner, J. Stokes, et al., “A Case-Controlled Study of the Sexual Health Needs of Lesbians,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, 72(4): 277-280, Abstract (1996).
19. The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) recently published a press release entitled “Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers” (July 17, 2002), releases/n02071710gaythings.html. The list includes: HIV/AIDS (Safe Sex), Substance Use, Depression/ Anxiety, Hepatitis Immunization, STDs, Prostate/ Testicular/Colon Cancer, Alcohol, Tobacco, Fitness and Anal Papilloma.
20. R. R. Wilcox, “Sexual Behaviour and Sexually Transmitted Disease Patterns in Male Homosexuals,” British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(3): 167-169, 167 (1981).
21. Robert T. Michael, et al., Sex in America: a Definitive Survey, pp. 140-141, Table 11, Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1994; Rotello, pp. 75-76.
22. Rotello, p. 92.
23. Jon M. Richards, J. Michael Bedford, and Steven S. Witkin, “Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits,” Science, 27(224): 390-392 (1984).
24. S. S. Witkin and J. Sonnabend, “Immune Responses to Spermatozoa in Homosexual Men,” Fertility and Sterility, 39(3): 337-342, pp. 340-341 (1983).
25. Anne Rompalo, “Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men,” Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6): 1633-1645 (November 1990); “Anal Health for Men and Women,” LGBTHealthChannel,; “Safer Sex (MSM) for Men who Have Sex with Men,” LGBTHealthChannel,
26. “Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Men Who Have Sex With Men — King County, Washington, 1997-1999,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 48(35): 773-777 (September 10, 1999).
27. Heredia, “Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F.: Gay, bisexual men affected most.”
28. “Changing Patterns of Groups at High Risk for Hepatitis B in the United States,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 37(28): 429-432, p. 437 (July 22, 1988). Hepatitis B and C are viral diseases of the liver.
29. Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, et al., The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States, p. 293, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994; Michael, et al., p. 176; David Forman and Clair Chilvers, “Sexual Behavior of Young and Middle-Aged Men in England and Wales,” British Medical Journal, 298: 1137-1142 (1989); and Gary Remafedi, et al., “Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents,” Pediatrics, 89: 714-721 (1992). See appendix A.
30. Mads Melbye, Charles Rabkin, et al., “Changing patterns of anal cancer incidence in the United States, 1940-1989,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 139: 772-780, p. 779, Table 2 (1994).
31. James Goedert, et al., for the AIDS-Cancer Match Study Group, “Spectrum of AIDS-associated malignant disorders,” The Lancet, 351: 1833-1839, p. 1836 (June 20, 1998).
32. “Anal Health for Men and Women,” LGBTHealthChannel,; J. E. Barone, et al., “Management of Foreign Bodies and Trauma of the Rectum,” Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, 156(4): 453-457 (April 1983).
33. Henry Kazal, et al., “The gay bowel syndrome: Clinicopathologic correlation in 260 cases,” Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science, 6(2): 184-192 (1976).
34. Glen E. Hastings and Richard Weber, “Use of the term ‘Gay Bowel Syndrome,'” reply to a letter to the editor, American Family Physician, 49(3): 582 (1994).
35. Ibid.; E. K. Markell, et al., “Intestinal Parasitic Infections in Homosexual Men at a San Francisco Health Fair,” Western Journal of Medicine, 139(2): 177-178 (August, 1983).
36. “Hepatitis A among Homosexual Men — United States, Canada, and Australia,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 41(09): 155, 161-164 (March 06, 1992).
37. Rompalo, p. 1640.
38. H. Naher, B. Lenhard, et al., “Detection of Epstein-Barr virus DNA in anal scrapings from HIV-positive homosexual men,” Archives of Dermatological Research, 287(6): 608- 611, Abstract (1995).
39. B. L. Carlson, N. J. Fiumara, et al., “Isolation of Neisseria meningitidis from anogenital specimens from homosexual men,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 7(2): 71-73 (April 1980).
40. P. Paulet and G. Stoffels, “Maladies anorectales sexuellement transmissibles” [“Sexually-Transmissible Anorectal Diseases”], Revue Medicale Bruxelles, 10(8): 327-334, Abstract (October 10, 1989).
41. “Hepatitis A among Homosexual Men — United States, Canada, and Australia,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 41(09): 155, 161-164 (March 06, 1992).
42. Ibid.
43. C. M. Thorpe and G. T. Keutsch, “Enteric bacterial pathogens: Shigella, Salmonella, Campylobacter,” in K. K. Holmes, P. A. Mardh, et al., (Eds.), Sexually Transmitted Diseases (3rd edition), p. 549, New York: McGraw-Hill Health Professionals Division, 1999.
44. Tim Bonfield, “Typhoid traced to sex encounters,” Cincinnati Enquirer, April 26, 2001; Erin McClam, “Health Officials Document First Sexual Transmission of Typhoid in U.S.,” Associated Press, April 25, 2001, cdc/news_updates_archive/apr26_01/typhoid.html. A representative of the Foodborne and Diarrheal Diseases Branch, Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases at the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, confirmed this report and provided a link to the AP story on October 4, 2002.
45. Jeffrey Martin, et al., “Sexual Transmission and the Natural History of Human Herpes Virus 8 Infection,” New England Journal of Medicine, 338(14): 948-954, p. 952 (1998).
46. Alexandra M. Levine, “Kaposi’s Sarcoma: Far From Gone,” paper presented at 5th International AIDS Malignancy Conference, April 23-25, 2001, Bethesda, Maryland,
47. “Paraphilias,” Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, p. 576, Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Karla Jay and Allen Young, The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles, pp. 554-555, New York: Summit Books (1979).
48. Jay and Young, pp. 554-555.
49. Sade, Marquis de, Justine or Good Conduct Well Chastised (1791), New York: Grove Press (1965).
50. Michigan Rope internet advertisement for “Bondage and Beyond,” which was scheduled for February 9-10, 2002, near Detroit, Michigan, MichiganRopeWorkshop.html. The explicit nature of the advertisement was changed following unexpected publicity, and the hotel where the conference was scheduled ultimately canceled it. Marsha Low, “Hotel Ties Noose Around 2-Day Bondage Meeting,” Detroit Free Press, January 25, 2002, nrope25_20020125.htm.
51. Allyson Smith, “Ramada to host ‘Vicious Valentine’ Event,” WorldNet Daily, February 14, 2002, http://www.worldnetdaily. com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26453; “Vicious Valentine 5 Celebrates Mardi Gras, Feb 15-17, 2002,”
52. The sadistic rape of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising on September 26, 1999, left him dead. See Andrew Sullivan, “The Death of Jesse Dirkhising,” The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 1, 2001.
53. Jay and Young, pp. 554-555.
54. Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, “MSM: Clinician’s Guide to Incorporating Sexual Risk Assessment in Routine Visits,” html.
55. S. Bygdeman, “Gonorrhea in men with homosexual contacts. Serogroups of isolated gonococcal strains related to antibiotic susceptibility, site of infection, and symptoms,” British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(5): 320-324, Abstract (October 1981).
56. As of January 1, 1999, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) estimated the cancer prevalence in the United States to be 8.9 million. “Estimated US Cancer Prevalence Counts: Who Are Our Cancer Survivors in the US?,” Cancer Control & Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, April 2002, In 1999, the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated 1,221,800 new cancer cases in the US and an estimated 563,100 cancer related deaths, “Cancer Facts and Figures 1999,” p. 4, American Cancer Society, Inc., 1999, downloads/STT/F&F99.pdf; in 2000, the ACS estimated 1,220,100 new cancer cases and 552,200 deaths from cancer, “Cancer Facts and Figures 2000,” p. 4, American Cancer Society, Inc., 2000, F&F00.pdf; in 2001, the ACS estimated a total number of 1,268,000 new cases of cancer and 553,400 deaths, “Cancer Facts and Figures 2001,” p. 5, American Cancer Society, Inc., 2001, F&F2001.pdf. This results in an estimated growth of 2,041,200 new cancer cases over the past three years and an estimated 10,941,200 people with cancer as of January 1, 2002. In 2001 there were 793,025 reported AIDS cases. “Basic Statistics,” CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001,
57. The federal spending for AIDS research in 2001 was $2,247,000,000, while the spending for cancer research was not even double that at $4,376,400,000. “Funding For Research Areas of Interest,” National Institute of Health, 2002, FundingResearchAreas.htm.
58. Ibid.; “Fast Stats Ato Z: Diabetes,” CDC — National Center for Health Statistics, June 04, 2002, fastats/diabetes.htm; “Fast Stats A to Z: Heart Disease,” CDC — National Center for Health Statistics, June 06, 2002,
59. Gay and Lesbian Medical Association Press Release, “Ten Things Lesbians Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers” (July 17, 2002), releases/n02071710lesbianthings.html. The list includes Breast Cancer, Depression/Anxiety, Gynecological Cancer, Fitness, Substance Use, Tobacco, Alcohol, Domestic Violence, Osteoporosis and Heart Health.
60. Michael, et al., p. 176 (“about 1.4 percent of women said they thought of themselves as homosexual or bisexual and about 2.8% of the men identified themselves in this way”).
61. See Appendix A.
62. Skinner, et al., Abstract; Ferris, et al. p. 581; James Price, et al., p. 90; see Appendix A.
63. Katherine Fethers, et al., “Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345-349, p. 348 (2000).
64. Ibid., p. 347.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid.
67. Ibid., p. 348.
68. Ibid., p. 347, Table 1; Susan D. Cochran, et al., “Cancer- Related Risk Indicators and Preventive Screening Behaviors Among Lesbians and Bisexual Women,” American Journal of Public Health, 91(4): 591-597 (April 2001); Juliet Richters, Sara Lubowitz, et al., “HIV risks among women in contact with Sydney’s gay and lesbian community,” Venereology, 11(3): 35-38 (1998); Juliet Richters, Sarah Bergin, et al., “Women in Contact with the Gay and Lesbian Community: Sydney Women and Sexual Health Survey 1996 and 1998,” National Centre in HIV Social Research, University of New South Wales, 1999.
69. Fethers, et al., p. 347 and Table 1.
70. Barbara Berger, Shelley Kolton, et al., “Bacterial vaginosis in lesbians: a sexually transmitted disease,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 21: 1402-1405 (1995).
71. E. H. Koumans, et al., “Preventing adverse sequelae of Bacterial Vaginosis: a Public Health Program and Research Agenda,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 28(5): 292-297 (May 2001); R. L. Sweet, “Gynecologic Conditions and Bacterial Vaginosis: Implications for the Non-Pregnant Patient,” Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 8(3): 184-190 (2000).
72. Kathleen M. Morrow, Ph.D., et al., “Sexual Risk in Lesbians and Bisexual Women,” Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, 4(4): 159-165, p. 161 (2000).
73. Ibid., p. 159.
74. For example, Judith Bradford, Caitlin Ryan, and Esther D. Rothblum, “National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2): 228-242 (1994); Richard C. Pillard, “Sexual orientation and mental disorder,” Psychiatric Annals, 18(1): 52-56 (1988); see also Mubarak S. Dahir, “The Gay Community’s New Epidemic,” Daily News (June 5, 2000), detail.cfm?Section=12&ID=148&ShowDate=1.
75. Katherine A. O’Hanlan, M.D., et al., “Homophobia As a Health Hazard,” Report of the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association, pp. 3, 5,; Laura Dean, et al., “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health: Findings & Concerns,” Journal of the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association, 4(3): 102-151, pp. 102, 116 (2000).
76. “Netherlands Ends Discrimination in Civil Marriage: Gays to Wed,” Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Press Release, March 30, 2001, pages/documents/record?record=814.
77. Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001).
78. Ibid.
79. Ibid., p. 89.
80. Ibid., p. 90 (emphasis added).
81. Ibid.
82. Erica Goode, “With Fears Fading, More Gays Spurn Old Preventive Message,” New York Times, August 19, 2001.
83. Ibid.
84. Ibid.
85. Ibid.
86. “Officials Voice Alarm Over Halt in AIDS Decline,” New York Times, August 14, 2001.
87. “A uniform definition of a circuit party does not exist, partly because such parties continue to evolve. However, a circuit party tends to be a multi-event weekend that occurs each year at around the same time and in the same town . . . .” Gordon Mansergh, Grant Colfax, et al., “The Circuit Party Men’s Health Survey: Findings and Implications for Gay and Bisexual Men,” American Journal of Public Health, 91(6): 953-958, p. 953 (June 2001).
88. Ibid., p. 955.
89. Ibid., p. 956.
90. Ibid., pp. 956-957, Tables 2 & 3.
91. Ibid., pp. 956-957.
92. Ibid., p. 957. The authors’ recommendation was more education.
93. Julie Robotham, “Safe sex by arrangement as gay men reject condoms,” Sydney Morning Herald, June 7, 2001. Data source: 2000 Male Out Survey, National Centre in HIV Social Research, Australia.
94. R. S. Hogg, S. A. Strathdee, et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661, p. 659 (1997). Death as the result of HIV infection has dropped significantly since 1996. “Life Expectancy Hits New High in 2000; Mortality Declines for Several Leading Causes of Death,” CDC News Release, October 10, 2001, Nevertheless, it remains a significant factor in shortened life expectancy for homosexual practitioners.
95. Press Release, Smoking costs nation $150 billion each year in health costs, lost productivity, CDC, Office of Communication, April 12, 2002, pressrel/r020412.htm.
96. Hogg, et al., p. 660.
97. Ibid.
98. “Hepatitis A vaccination of men who have sex with men — Atlanta, Georgia, 1996-1997,” Morbidity and Mortality Report, CDC, 47(34): 708-711 (September 4, 1998).
99. Robert T. Michael, et al., p. 89.
100. Ibid., p. 101.
101. Camille Paglia, “I’ll take religion over gay culture,” online magazine, June 1998, paglia/gayculture.htm.
102. Gordon Mansergh, Grant Colfax, et al., p. 955.
103. Joseph Harry, Gay Couples, p. 116, New York: Praeger Books, 1984.
104. Marcel T. Saghir, M.D. and Eli Robins, M.D., Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation, p. 57 Table 4.13, p. 225 Table 12.10, Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company, 1973.
105. The existence of limited homosexual relationships in primitive cultures, or even extensive homosexuality in declining civilizations, such as those cited by advocates of same-sex marriage, does not challenge the existence of a prevailing norm. See, for example, William N. Eskridge, Jr., The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, Chapter 2, New York: The Free Press, 1996.
106. Joseph D. Unwin, “Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behaviour,” pp. 18-19, reprint of Oxford University Press publication of speech given before the Medical Section of the British Psychological Society, March 27, 1935.
107. For example, see the website of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, Inc.,
108. “The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections . . . .” 1992 Policy Guide of the ACLU, Policy #91, p. 175.
109. Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002; Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman, “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” Psychological Bulletin, 124(1): 22-53 (July 1998).
110. Paglia, June 23, 1998.
111. Rotello, p. 42.
112. Goode, August 19, 2001.
113. Ibid.
114. See Michael Hamrick, The Hidden Costs of Domestic Partner Benefits, pp. 3-4 (Corporate Resource Council, 2002).
115. David Gelman, et al., “Tune In, Come Out,” Newsweek, p. 70, November 8, 1993.
116. “Iowa study suggests tolerance of homosexuals is growing,” Associated Press, March 23, 2001.
117. Sally Kohn, The Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual for Employee Benefits, p. 1, the Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, downloads/dp-/dp_99.pdf.
118. John Horgan, “Gay Genes, Revisited,” Scientific American, p. 26, November 1995.
119. Matthew Brelis, “The Fading ‘Gay Gene,'” The Boston Globe, March 20, 2002, p. C1.
120. Michael, et al., p. 172.
121. Lynn Scherr, “Lesbian Leader Loves a Man,”, April 17, 1998.
122. “Former Lesbian Anne Heche Engaged to Cameraman,”, June 1, 2001 (emphasis added), reprinted at m&Section=68&ID=5304.
123. “The Facts: Anne Heche,” Eonline.msn, April 1, 2002,,128,31319,00.html.
124. “Sinead O’Connor to Marry a Man,” Reuters, June 27, 2000,
125. “Sinead Drops out of Wotapalava Tour,” JAM! Music, May 31, 2001, sinead.html.
126. John Stoltenberg, “Living with Andrea Dworkin,” Lambda Book Report, May/June 1994, reprinted at rea.html.
127. Julie Robotham, “Safe sex by arrangement as gay men reject condoms,” The Sydney Morning Herald, June 7, 2001. Data source: “2000 Male Out Survey,” National Centre in HIV Social Research, Australia.
128. Michael, et al., p. 172.
129. Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, et al., The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States, p. 293, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994; Michael, et al., p. 176; David Forman and Clair Chilvers, “Sexual Behavior of Young and Middle-Aged Men in England and Wales,” British Medical Journal, 298: 1137-1142 (1989); and Gary Remafedi, et al., “Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents,” Pediatrics, 89: 714-721 (1992).
For additional information about how corporate policies can improve employees’ health as well as their work-life balance, please contact Paul Weber at the Corporate Resource Council, (480) 444-0030.

Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr., “The Health Risks of Gay Sex.” Corporate Resource Council (2002).
All rights reserved. Permission is granted to reprint this document in its entirety, with proper attribution.

Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr. is a practicing Internist with first-hand experience in treating many of the problems described in this paper. He also travels and lectures on a variety of medical topics to audiences around the world.
Copyright © 2002
Corporate Resource Council.

1 Comment

Filed under Same Sex Marriage