Category archives: Human Sexuality

Obama’s Farewell Praised “Democracy” — But His Support for Judicial Tyranny On Marriage Shows He Doesn’t Mean It

by Peter Sprigg

January 18, 2017

President Obama’s farewell address in Chicago on January 10—although overshadowed in the news cycle by President-elect Trump’s press conference in New York less than a day later—deserves some attention.

There were some interesting tidbits in the speech for those of us who seek to bring our faith to bear in the world of public policy. My former boss, Rob Schwarzwalder, quickly took the president to task for declaring that “the essential spirit of this country … that guided our Founders” was “born of the Enlightenment … a faith in reason …” In reality, the Founders were guided by faith in divine Providence, as well as a biblical worldview that included a realistic understanding of the depravity of human beings.

Perhaps we should at least be grateful that President Obama did not censor out the Creator when he quoted the Declaration of Independence, citing “the conviction that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.” And after eight years of promoting a cramped vision of “freedom of worship,” Mr. Obama actually cited the broader “freedom of religion” as one of the principles of the post-World War II democratic order.

The Obama address had one over-arching theme: “the state of our democracy.” He used the word “democracy” a grand total of twenty-two times. The outline of the speech identified four “threat[s] to our democracy”—lack of economic opportunity, racial division, increasing polarization, and apathy.

I welcome Mr. Obama’s primary emphasis (appropriate under the circumstances) on over-arching principles rather than specific policy goals.

And I give him credit for laying down challenges that can apply to those on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. For example, there was this passage:

For too many of us, it’s become safer to retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods or on college campuses, or places of worship, or especially our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions. The rise of naked partisanship, and increasing economic and regional stratification, the splintering of our media into a channel for every taste — all this makes this great sorting seem natural, even inevitable. And increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether it’s true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there.

Unfortunately, when President Obama did recite a list of policy accomplishments, it belied his professed love of democracy—at least with respect to one issue. In a long paragraph (actually, one long sentence) beginning, “If I had told you eight years ago …,” he included this:

[I]f I had told you that we would win marriage equality … you might have said our sights were set a little too high. But that’s what we did. That’s what you did.”

Although the line drew cheers, it was historically inaccurate. “Marriage equality”—the left’s euphemism for changing the definition of civil marriage to include same-sex couples—was not something either “we” (President Obama and his administration) or “you” (the voters who supported him) achieved. Until the second to last year of his presidency, efforts by LGBT activists to achieve a redefinition of marriage in all fifty states were a notable failure in the vast majority of them.

No, nationwide marriage redefinition was not achieved by President Obama, his administration, or his supporters. It was certainly not achieved by the processes of democracy that the president extolled in his farewell address.

Instead, it was imposed upon the country by the smallest, most elite, and least democratic group imaginable—five justices on the Supreme Court, a bare one-vote majority.

Let’s look at some of the things President Obama said about democracy—and how the outcome of the marriage debate contradicts them.

For example, he declared that “the beating heart of our American idea” includes the conviction “that We, the People, through the instrument of our democracy, can form a more perfect union.” It seems, though, that Mr. Obama and the Court decided that “a more perfect union” required a different definition of our most basic social institution, and since “the instrument of our democracy” was not producing it, other means would have to be used.

President Obama also declared:

The work of democracy has always been hard. It’s always been contentious … Understand, democracy does not require uniformity. Our founders argued. They quarreled. Eventually they compromised. They expected us to do the same. 

Note that this is precisely what had been happening for two decades on the marriage issue. Both politicians and ordinary citizens “argued” and “quarreled.” A few states actually redefined marriage using the democratic process. Many more formally defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In some cases, people “compromised” by giving some or all of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through civil unions or domestic partnerships. States were fulfilling their role as the laboratory of democracy. This is what the founders “expected us to do”—but it wasn’t enough for President Obama, or for the Supreme Court. Instead, they decided to “require uniformity” by imposing marriage redefinition on all fifty states.

Continuing to extol the give-and-take of democratic debate, President Obama said:

[P]olitics is a battle of ideas. That’s how our democracy was designed.  In the course of a healthy debate, we prioritize different goals, and the different means of reaching them. 

He then went on to caution:

But without some common baseline of facts, without a willingness to admit new information, and concede that your opponent might be making a fair point, and that science and reason matter — then we’re going to keep talking past each other, and we’ll make common ground and compromise impossible. 

In referring to a “baseline of facts,” and to “science and reason,” Mr. Obama probably had in mind the liberal consensus on an issue like “climate change.” But a “common baseline of facts” on the marriage issue would have included an acknowledgment that same-sex relationships are not identical to natural marriages, and that children do best when raised by their own, married biological mother and father; and “science and reason” would have dictated that society has a greater interest in unions that can result in natural procreation than in those that never can.

President Obama spoke about the international order when he warned against

the fear of people who look or speak or pray differently; a contempt for the rule of law that holds leaders accountable; an intolerance of dissent and free thought; a belief that … the propaganda machine is the ultimate arbiter of what’s true and what’s right.

However, “the fear of people who look or speak or pray differently”—intended by Obama to refer to foreigners and immigrants—could just as easily be a warning to the left, who fear people who look like “rednecks,” speak with southern accents, or pray in faith to the God of the Bible. Advocates of marriage redefinition were outraged when Iowa voters used “the rule of law” to hold state Supreme Court justices who redefined marriage “accountable”—by removing them from office. And few social movements are as intolerant of “dissent and free thought,” or have built as effective a “propaganda machine,” as the LGBT movement, which seeks to discredit every dissenter from their agenda as being motivated by “hate.”

Finally, President Obama exhorted Americans to higher levels of citizen participation in our democracy. At the beginning of his speech, he said that Chicago was where “I learned that change only happens when ordinary people get involved and they get engaged, and they come together to demand it.” At the end, he warned:

Our democracy is threatened whenever we take it for granted. All of us, regardless of party, should be throwing ourselves into the task of rebuilding our democratic institutions. When voting rates in America are some of the lowest among advanced democracies, we should be making it easier, not harder, to vote . . .

It falls to each of us to be those anxious, jealous guardians of our democracy; to embrace the joyous task we’ve been given to continually try to improve this great nation of ours . . .

So, you see, that’s what our democracy demands. It needs you. Not just when there’s an election, not just when your own narrow interest is at stake, but over the full span of a lifetime. If you’re tired of arguing with strangers on the Internet, try talking with one of them in real life. If something needs fixing, then lace up your shoes and do some organizing. If you’re disappointed by your elected officials, grab a clipboard, get some signatures, and run for office yourself. Show up. Dive in. Stay at it. Sometimes you’ll win. Sometimes you’ll lose. 

It’s good advice. I worry, though, that historians will fail to note that one of the most effective examples of such citizen activism in recent decades was the movement to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman through state constitutional amendments. “Get a clipboard, get some signatures”? In virtually every state where a constitutional amendment can be placed on the ballot through citizen initiative (that is, a petition process without the involvement of those disappointing “elected officials”), marriage amendments were placed on the ballot and adopted.

Yet President Obama and his allies did everything they could to make it harder for citizens to vote on marriage, not easier. And they celebrated when the Supreme Court overturned the constitutions of thirty states, which had been amended through that admirable citizen activism.

President Obama declared that “our nation’s call to citizenship” was “what led patriots to choose republic over tyranny.” Yet when it came to marriage, Mr. Obama was happy to choose judicial tyranny over the product of our democratic republic.

And when it came to the activism of those who sought to defend marriage, his motto was not, “Yes, we can.”

It was, “No, you can’t.”

Loudoun Schools Say No to Sex Experiment

by Cathy Ruse

January 13, 2017

(EDITOR’S NOTE: A correction was made on 1/19/17 to the original post on 1/13/17)

Tuesday night in a 5-4 midnight vote, the Loudoun County School Board rejected a proposal to create a new identity category for transgenderism in its school system.

This is a big win in the “School Board Wars.” Loudoun is the second largest school district in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Its proximity to Washington is also important.

The proposal was to add “gender identity” to the policy against harassment and discrimination. This is the genius of the latest wave of LGBT activism: when you wrap your agenda in the cloak of “nondiscrimination,” you win easy votes from those not paying attention, and gain a powerful rhetorical rejoinder. Anyone against you is, by definition, a bigot.

But these so-called “nondiscrimination” measures, cropping up everywhere, go well beyond preventing harassment. And that is by design.

In the case of Loudoun, they would have opened girls’ locker rooms, showers, and sports teams to biological males. Because denying the use of the girls’ shower to a boy who identifies as a girl can be said to be “discriminatory.”

In Fairfax County, which has adopted this new identity category, concerned parents dominate the citizen speaker slots at every bi-monthly board meeting. Sports moms speak of the physical danger their petite daughters now face, with the prospect of facing off against larger, heavier, stronger biological males on the sports field. Religious minorities tell tearful stories of pulling their children out of school. Women who have been victims of sexual assault speak of the trauma their younger counterparts will face as they are forced to share intimate spaces with biological males.

Adopting the new identity category of “gender identity” provides the legal club to beat all students and teachers into compliance with the broader transgender movement agenda—even to the point of silencing dissent and forcing unwanted speech.

What if kids want to start a “Male and Female He Created Them” club? What are the penalties for a Muslim child who addresses his biologically male teacher, “Sir”? Can a student’s Facebook post on the anti-science stance of the transgender movement get him in trouble? In Fairfax it can, according to one school board member.

In Fairfax, the school board is dominated by hardcore leftists. Loudoun County is different. Loudoun has several conservatives, a blue dog Democrat, apparently even a “reasonable” liberal.  

On Tuesday night, 500 people filled the Loudoun County School Board meeting room. A dozen police officers kept another 300 outside.

There were television cameras. And lots of young people with angry faces holding rainbows.

Most of the people were there for the Principal Brewer issue, involving the Dominion High School principal’s handling of a former band leader accused of sexually assaulting male teen students. 

Over 200 people spoke; each was allotted one minute.

When the matter was first sprung on the public in December, speakers in favor of the policy change outnumbered those against it by a margin of 10-1. But on Tuesday night things were different.

While about a dozen people argued for the nullification of male and female in Loudoun schools, a dozen others rose in opposition: A pastor, a priest, and a bunch of moms and dads. 

The Loudoun School Board forbids audible reactions from the audience. Only “silent applause” is allowed, which looks like a bunch of people wiggling “Jazz Hands” in the air. The new Chairman, Jeff Morse, reminding the audience of the rules, actually called it “Jazz Hands.”

There is no silent disapproval symbol. At least not one announced from the dais. (The obvious one is likely not permitted.)

The pastor speaking against the transgender measure got hissed. Which, technically, is not silent.

Since the December surprise, nearly 600 people had signed a petition against the policy change, generating 600 individual email letters to each board member urging a no vote. 

In addition, the Catholic Diocese of Arlington had alerted its Loudoun County parishes through flyers and emails.

All of this made a difference, and in the end, the measure failed by the smallest of margins.

But it failed.

Male” and “Female” live on in Loudoun County. For now.

Action #15 - Address Regulations Regarding Military Service of People Identifying as Transgender

by Family Research Council

January 10, 2017

We are highlighting the top 20 ways that the Trump administration can address values issues in the first 100 days through administrative and agency actions in order to repair some of the damage that the Obama administration has inflicted on the dignity of life, natural marriage, and religious liberty.

Action #15 - Address Regulations Regarding Military Service of People Identifying as Transgender

The Obama administration decided to change the long-standing regulatory policy excluding persons who identify as transgender to serve in the military. In conjunction with that decision, the Department of Defense issued a number of regulations that undermine troop readiness, recruitment, and retention. Examples of regulations that should be addressed include the June 30, 2016 “In-Service Transition for Transgender Service Members,” the July 29, 2016 “Guidance for Treatment of Gender Dysphoria for Active and Reserve Component Service Members,” and the September 30, 2016 handbook on transgender service in the U.S. Military.

Action #14 - Rescind Regulations Redefining Sex to Include Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

by Family Research Council

January 9, 2017

We are highlighting the top 20 ways that the Trump administration can address values issues in the first 100 days through administrative and agency actions in order to repair some of the damage that the Obama administration has inflicted on the dignity of life, natural marriage, and religious liberty.

Action #14 - Rescind Regulations Redefining Sex to Include Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

The Obama administration issued regulations redefining sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity for multiple agencies. These redefinitions have far-reaching implications for homeless shelters that received funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, renters of facilities managed by the General Services Administration, medical care providers, and private employers.

For example, the Department of Health and Human Services issued the May 18, 2016, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” that defined “on the basis of sex” in Section 1557 of the Obamacare law to include “termination of pregnancy or recovery therefrom” and “gender identity.” The rule states that it is discriminatory for a covered entity to deny or limit coverage “or impose additional cost sharing or other limitations or restrictions on coverage, for any health services that are ordinarily or exclusively available to individuals of one sex, to a transgender individual.” It also prohibits covered entities from categorically excluding gender transitions from coverage, and from denying or limiting coverage or imposing additional costs for specific health services related to gender transition if such denial, limitation, or restriction results in discrimination against a transgender individual.

Similarly, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a resource guide addressing sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, in June of 2015, which prohibits private employers from taking sexual orientation and gender identity into consideration in the hiring and termination of employees. All of these regulations should be rescinded.

Action #12 - Rescind Obama’s Title IX Bathroom Guidance

by Family Research Council

January 5, 2017

We are highlighting the top 20 ways that the Trump administration can address values issues in the first 100 days through administrative and agency actions in order to repair some of the damage that the Obama administration has inflicted on the dignity of life, natural marriage, and religious liberty.

Action #12 - Rescind Obama’s Title IX Bathroom Guidance

The Obama administration’s Department of Education issued guidance to redefine sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity for schools, which is currently being litigated. This guidance would force schools to allow boys into the shower rooms and bathrooms with girls and vice versa. It is possible for the new administration to rescind the May 13, 2016, “Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students” and the May 2016 “Examples of Policies and Emerging Practices for Supporting Transgender Students,” and to rescind parts of the April 29, 2014 “Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence” and parts of the April 2015 “Title IX Resource Guide.”

Why True Feminism Means Skipping the Women’s March on Washington

by Brynne Krispin

January 3, 2017

On January 21, women from around the country will come together in our nation’s capital for the Women’s March on Washington. Hundreds of thousands of women will fill the streets near the U. S. Capitol with their Rosie the Riveter arms flexed and their “woman power” signs bouncing in the air. They’ll stand tall and confident, filled with determination for their voices to be heard during the next four years of a Trump presidency.

A march like this has great potential for admirable goals, but its mission is a bit vague – standing in solidarity together for the protection of women’s rights and sending a bold message to the new administration that “women’s rights are human rights.” The mission statement ends in all caps, “HEAR OUR VOICE.”

But while this information alone has prompted thousands to register for the event already, it’s purpose has left many of us confused and disappointed. It’s upsetting to read the three paragraph mission statement and not be able to answer the most basic question: What rights are we fighting for? And to take it a step further, are we even speaking in unison?

Nowhere on the website does it list plans for what they hope to accomplish by marching in Washington, nor do they discuss goals for the next four years.

Motivating hundreds of thousands of women to come together and fight for a cause is compelling, but if you’re organizing a women’s movement, it needs to be for a specific cause that affects many women in our country and around the world – the gender wage gap, equal rights to education, the list could go on and on. We need to know what we’re fighting for and have a clear strategy to get things done. 

Feminism encourages women to think for themselves – get the facts, use our brains, and make smart decisions. So why should we show up to march? According to the logic of the organizers for the Women’s March, simply because we’re women. They expect us to say, “Oh cool, I’m going to go to this awesome event with hundreds of thousands of women because… I’m a woman!” This dumbs us down to one-dimensional human beings; it is the exact opposite of feminism.

Feminism celebrates the diversity of all women and appreciates them for who they are. Our unique minds, personalities, race, culture, etc. cannot be easily lumped into one category or even one cause.

If women are being asked to take a stand, we should be certain we know exactly what we’re standing for. 

I know it’s tempting to still attend – you want to make Susan B. Anthony proud with a selfie at the Supreme Court surrounded by hundreds of your new best friends to prove to the world that you are a true feminist. But it’s time to move past the “I am woman, hear me roar” approach. Roaring is not the agent to affect change – strong, articulate ideas are. Being the loudest person in the room is not leadership. We need less women with noise makers and no agenda and more women with a vision and a strategy to move us forward.

To anyone who is attending the Women’s March and completely disagrees with this argument, gather your thoughts and comment below. Your opinion has value, and we want to hear it. We must work together in order to advance the desperate need for women’s equality and respect for women and girls in our nation and around the world. But we must be smart about how we do it, otherwise our cause will fall on deaf ears and no progress will be made.

The problem isn’t with our volume, it’s with our message.

As we stand on the shoulders of the great female leaders before us – Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and others – let’s make sure it isn’t merely our voices that are heard and our message itself actually sinks in.

Note: Already made your pro-woman sign and still want to march in January? Consider the March for Life, which stands for the most basic human right – the right to live. After all, this is the cause Susan B. Anthony would have marched for if she were alive today.

Unmasking the DOD’s Endorsement of the Humanism Religion

by Guest Author

December 16, 2016

Disclaimer: The following was written by an active duty Air Force officer who wishes to remain anonymous. It is not necessarily the view of Family Research Council, nor any of its member or partner organizations. While the author does not have legal training, the author has experienced firsthand the DOD’s “sensitivity” and “inclusion” efforts relative to LGBT service members. The Washington Free Beacon recently published a piece on the Naval Academy’s “Transgender 101” course. This officer offers readers a view from the inside of the DOD, further demonstrating just how indoctrinating the Armed Forces have become in their promotion of humanist ideals. 

When you hear the word “religion,” does Humanism immediately come to mind? Probably not. However, pragmatically and legally, Humanism is just as much of a religion as Christianity and Islam. This article articulates the claim that the DOD has endorsed the religion of Humanism by promoting the LGBT movement.

Statements in Humanist writings reveal the pragmatic aspect of Humanism as a religion. One definition of Humanism listed by the American Humanist Association states, “Humanism serves, for many humanists, some of the psychological and social functions of a religion, but without belief in deities, transcendental entities, miracles, life after death, and the supernatural.”[i] In regards to morality, the Bristol Humanist Group says “Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognizing that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone.”[ii] While most other religions look to the authority of God, gods, and associated sacred texts to define morality, Humanism establishes human opinion as its moral authority. As for the legal status of Humanism as a religion, a 1961 Supreme Court decision, Torcaso v. Watkins categorized “Secular Humanism” as a religion.American Humanist Association v. U.S. ruled that “…Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes…”[iv]

Specific views regarding sexual morality are based on presupposed beliefs grounded in a moral authority and religious philosophy. In this respect, sexual morality is no different than other religious topics such as origins, purpose of life, salvation, and so forth. For example, Christianity uses the Bible as its moral authority, Islam uses the Qur’an, Hinduism uses the Dharma Shastra, etc. In this article, religious labels will be used to identify worldviews, not individuals.  

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which considers itself the “largest civil rights organization,” assumes that sexual orientation and gender identity are civil rights issues such as gender and skin color.[v] However, the HRC fails to distinguish between physical characteristics and moral beliefs. Although an individual may have homosexual or transgender desires, that does not necessarily mean he or she automatically believes that acting on those desires is morally right. Columnist Matt Moore, among others, often writes about this struggle.[vi] While advocating for the “rights” of homosexuality and transgenderism, the HRC and other LGBT organizations inherently assume that these behaviors are morally right. This implies a moral authority and religious philosophy. A light analysis of various moral authorities identifies which one is most consistent with the LGBT movement.

The Christian worldview professes God as the highest moral authority via the Bible. Jesus, God in the flesh, affirms in Matthew 19:4-5 and Mark 10:6-9 that God created man and woman at creation, and implies that marriage is for one man and one woman.[vii] This concept opposes both same-sex marriage and transgenderism. Homosexual acts are condemned in biblical verses such as Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:10, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.[viii] Clearly, the LGBT movement does not submit to the authority of the Bible. Critics of this argument may point to various denominations professing Judaism or Christianity that support homosexuality and transgenderism.[ix] However, these are simply examples of inconsistency concerning moral authority. Individuals and organizations can (and often do) inconsistently submit to different moral authorities on different topics.

By continuing to apply this logic, other moral authorities and religious philosophies can be eliminated in determining which one suits the LGBT movement. The Islamic worldview professes Allah as the highest moral authority via the Qur’an. Homosexual activity is described as “transgressing beyond bounds” in Sürah 7:80-81 and “wickedness” in Sürah 29:28-29.[x] See also Sürah 26:165-166 and 27:55.[xi] Clearly, the LGBT movement does not submit to the Islamic moral authority. Hinduism has a large variety of gods and law books that practicing Hindus use for guidance. The HRC rates the Hinduism position on LGBT issues as “unclear” due to a lack of “central authority.”[xii] The HRC gives the Buddhism position on LGBT issues the same rating for similar reasons.[xiii] Since even a pro-LGBT group such as the HRC rates Hinduism and Buddhism as “unclear” at best on LGBT issues, these religions can be eliminated in this analysis. We have now eliminated the moral authorities of the largest religions of the world as the authority of LGBT beliefs, except one: human opinion, the moral authority of Humanism.

Although human opinion alone can certainly disagree with the LGBT movement, it is not arbitrary to say that the LGBT movement submits to the moral authority of human opinion. Humanist statements explicitly demonstrate the alignment of LGBT causes and the Humanist worldview. The HRC highlights Humanist advocacy for same-sex marriage and transgenderism, and cites the American Humanist Association’s LGBTQ Humanist Council as a resource.[xiv] One of the purposes of the LGBTQ Humanist Council is “…to articulate the values of the humanist philosophy and ethics across the country.”[xv] Similarly, the Galha LGBT Humanists organization is a section of the British Humanist Association (BHA).[xvi] According to the BHA, “…Galha LGBT Humanists is an integral section of the British Humanist Association, promoting Humanism and LGBT equality worldwide.”[xvii] Furthermore, the Galha website notes “For over 30 years Galha LGBT Humanists has promoted humanism as a rational, naturalistic worldview…”[xviii] Humanist groups are in philosophical agreement with the LGBT movement, as evidenced by the fact that they use LGBT Humanist groups to promote the Humanism religion. Since the LGBT movement is consistent with the religion of Humanism, then it is inappropriate for the DOD to endorse such a movement.  

Department of Defense directive (DODD) 1020.02E commits the logical fallacy of equating “sexual orientation” with physical characteristics such as gender and skin color.[xix] This mischaracterization has enabled the DOD to promote the “religion” of Humanism by celebrating LGBT Pride Month, similar to monthly celebrations of ethnic groups.[xx] Like many other military installations, Wright-Patterson AFB celebrates LGBT Pride Month. For example, in 2014 the LGBT Pride Month Committee Chair sent an e-mail to the entire base detailing the celebratory events, which included weekly base newspaper articles promoting LGBT “awareness,” and a Pride Month 5K “Fun Run.”[xxi] In 2016, the base Wing Commander invited the base to an LGBT celebratory luncheon.[xxii] While the DOD celebrates Humanist beliefs, it also reprimands those who oppose these beliefs.

Since the DOD started endorsing the LGBT movement, there have been multiple instances of service members being reprimanded for expressing their non-Humanistic beliefs on sexual morality. An Army chaplain’s assistant was accused of creating a “hostile and antagonistic” environment after sharing her biblical view of homosexuality via Facebook, and was threatened with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.[xxiii] A highly decorated 19-year Navy veteran, Chaplain Wes Modder faced involuntary separation for sharing his non-Humanistic beliefs on sexual morality in a private counseling session.[xxiv] SMSgt Phillip Monk, a 19-year veteran of the Air Force was relieved of his duties after he refused to comply with his commander’s viewpoint (who identifies as homosexual) that beliefs against same-sex marriage are “discrimination.”[xxv]

Evidently, the Humanist LGBT philosophy is the religious preference of choice for the DOD. The DOD needs to consider this matter and make appropriate policy changes. If the DOD fails to do so, the Humanism religion will continue to expand under the guise of “civil rights,” making authentic diversity, inclusion, and religious liberty an impossibility in the U.S. Armed Forces.



[i]. “Definitions of Humanism,” American Humanist Association, accessed 24 September 2015, http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Definitions_of_Humanism.

[ii]. Ibid.

[iii]. Torcaso v. Watkins, Supreme Court, 367 U.S. 488 (1961).

[iv]. American Humanist Association v. US, US District Court, Oregon, 3:14-cv-00565-HA (2014).

[v]. “The HRC Story,” Human Rights Campaign, accessed 27 September 2015, http://www.hrc.org/the-hrc-story/about-us.

[vi]. Consider the following: Matt Moore, “Ten Empowering Truths for Gay Christians,” The Christian Post, 31 October 2015,

http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-christians-bible-homosexuality-same-sex-attraction-148569/.

[vii]. New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), https://www.biblegateway.com.

[viii]. Ibid.

[ix]. “Faith Positions on Marriage Equality,” Human Rights Campaign, accessed 27 September 2015, http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/positions-of-faith-on-same-sex-marriage.

[x]. Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, trans. (London: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2000), https://www.scribd.com/read/235608069/The-Holy-Qur-an.

[xi]. Ibid.

[xii]. “Stances of Faith on LGBT Issues: Hinduism,” Human Rights Campaign, 10 June 2015, http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-hinduism.

[xiii]. “Stances of Faith on LGBT Issues: Buddhism,” Human Rights Campaign, accessed 29 September 2015, http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-buddhism.

[xiv]. “Stances of Faith on LGBT Issues: Humanism,” Human Rights Campaign, 29 October 2014, http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-humanism.

[xv]. “About the LGBTQ Humanist Council,” LGBTQ Humanist Council, accessed 3 October 2015, http://lgbthumanists.org/about/.

[xvi]. “LGBT Humanists,” British Humanist Association, accessed 3 October 2015, https://humanism.org.uk
 /community/lgbt-humanists/.

[xvii]. Ibid.

[xviii]. “Gahla–Home,” Gahla LGBT Humanists, accessed 3 October 2015, http://www.galha.org/.

[xix]. DOD Directive (DODD) 1020.02E, Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity in the DOD, 8 June 2015.

[xx]. “2015 Observances,” Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, accessed 3 October 2015.

[xxi]. CMSgt Shawn Sill, WPAFB LGBT Pride Month Committee Chair, to Wright-Patterson All Personnel, e-mail, 11 June 2014.

 

[xxiii]. Todd Starnes, “Fox Exclusive: Airman Facing Punishment for Religious Beliefs,” Fox News, 6 August 2013, http://insider.foxnews.com/2013/08/06/airman-facing-punishment-religious-beliefs.

[xxiv]. Todd Starnes, “Former SEALS Chaplain Could be Kicked Out of Navy for Christian Beliefs,” Fox News, 9 March 2015, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/09/former-seals-chaplain-could-be-kicked-out-navy-for-christian-beliefs.html.

[xxv]. Todd Starnes, “Airman Punished for Objecting to Gay Marriage,” Fox News Radio, 14 August 2013, http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/airmen-punished-for-objecting-to-gay-marriage.html.

Truth Wins at Arkansas Supreme Court Regarding Parentage on Birth Certificates

by Peter Sprigg

December 9, 2016

In June of 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could not be denied marriage licenses by states. However, on December 8, 2016, the Arkansas Supreme Court correctly ruled that the Obergefell decision should not be used to re-write all state laws relating to family, parenthood, and vital records, when they are unrelated to the issuance of marriage licenses.

The decision, in the case of Smith v. Pavan, overturned a lower court decision that had declared the Arkansas law governing birth registration unconstitutional. The statute in question says that in the absence of a court order or agreement by all parents and spouses involved,

If the mother was married at the time of either conception or birth or between conception and birth the name of the husband shall be entered on the certificate as the father of the child.”

The law had been challenged by three lesbian couples. In all three cases, one of the women had borne a child who was conceived through artificial insemination involving an anonymous sperm donor as the father. When the children were born, the couples sought to have the names of both women listed on the birth certificate as the child’s parents. The Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) refused.

The legal principle involved has long been known as the “presumption of paternity.” If a married woman gives birth to a child, her husband is presumed to be the father of that child. Something which is factually true in the vast majority of cases is simply presumed to be true under the law.

Advocates of same-sex marriage and homosexual parenting, however, seek to convert the “presumption of paternity” into a gender-neutral “presumption of parentage.” Under this view, the legal spouse—regardless of sex—of a woman who gives birth is presumed to be the child’s other parent.

In other words, they would have the law go from presuming something that is almost always factually true to presuming something that cannot possibly be factually true—namely, that two women are both the biological mother of a newborn child.

Fortunately, the Arkansas Supreme Court rejected the absurd outcome of presuming the impossible.

In a model of judicial restraint, they interpreted the words of the statute by “giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language.” Noting that the dictionary definition of “husband” is “a married man,” and of “father” is “a man who has begotten a child,” they concluded that “the statute centers on the relationship of the biological mother and the biological father to the child, not on the marital relationship of husband and wife.”

The court’s opinion cited an affidavit by the ADH’s Vital Records State Registrar elaborating on the rationale for this approach:

The overarching purpose of the vital records system is to ensure that vital records, including birth certificates as well as death certificates and marriage certificates, are accurate regarding the vital events that they reflect…

Identification of biological parents through birth records is critical to ADH’s identification of public health trends, and it can be critical to an individual’s identification of personal health issues and genetic conditions.

To emphasize the significance of—and differences between—biological motherhood and biological fatherhood, the Arkansas Supreme Court also cited language from a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a question of citizenship for children born out of wedlock and outside the United States to one American parent. Ruling (in Nguyen v. INS) that Congress could treat children of American fathers differently from children of American mothers, the Court said,

[t]o fail to acknowledge even our most basic biological differences—such as the fact that a mother must be present at birth but the father need not be—risks making the guarantee of equal protection superficial, and so disserving it. Mechanistic classification of all our differences as stereotypes would operate to obscure those misconceptions and prejudices that are real… The difference between men and women in relation to the birth process is a real one, and the principle of equal protection does not forbid [legislative recognition of that fact].

Ironically, the author of the decision in Nguyen was Justice Anthony Kennedy—who also wrote the Obergefell decision on marriage.

LGBT activists, of course, will deplore the Arkansas decision. Perhaps, in the wake of Donald Trump’s election to the presidency, they and other liberals will even be tempted to lump it together with what they stereotype as other acts of “bigotry” committed by “angry white males.” Yet the Arkansas Supreme Court has a female majority—four women and three men. Three of the four women joined the majority opinion in the birth certificate case, while two of the three men dissented. And the opinion of the court was written by Associate Justice Josephine Linker Hart—a female pioneer in the legal profession in Arkansas, an Army veteran, and a woman with Cherokee ancestry.

The truth is that every child has both a mother and a father—even if the latter is only an anonymous sperm donor. The truth is that two women (or two men) alone can never conceive a new human life. The truth is that a birth certificate or registration is supposed to record the factual circumstances of a biological event—the birth of a child.

When the Obergefell decision was handed down, those celebrating it used a simple slogan: “Love Wins.” (The fallacy in that was the assumption that any and every relationship characterized by “love” is constitutionally entitled to be designated a “marriage.”)

Pro-family Americans can be grateful that, at least in the Arkansas Supreme Court, “Truth Wins.”

The ACC’s Bullying of North Carolina is Unacceptable

by Chris Gacek

December 2, 2016

On Saturday, the Atlantic Coast Conference (“ACC”) is scheduled to hold its conference football championship at the Camping World Stadium in Orlando when No. 3 Clemson plays Virginia Tech. This championship had been held in Charlotte, North Carolina, since 2010 with an average attendance each year of 70,000.

Why the change? The Conference interjected itself into the political affairs of North Carolina when it decided to publicly repudiate the state’s rejection of transgender bathroom policies. Most outrageously, the ACC announced in mid-September that it would move ten 2016-17 neutral-site championships out of North Carolina. Hence the move to Orlando for the game tomorrow.

I have no issue with the ACC acting as a good citizen and promoting a society that judges young men and women according to their talent and perseverance. That is one of the great virtues of athletic competition. However, it is something altogether different for the ACC to dive into an ongoing political debate with the goal of overturning the will of the people of North Carolina and coerce them into submission.

The ACC was founded in North Carolina and has been embraced by it for many decades. Yet, at the drop of a hat, it appears the Commission has had little difficulty betraying those who have loved it for so long. And, make no mistake, it has done this by implying that the people of North Carolina are bigots. Nothing could be further from the truth. North Carolinians are merely skeptical about the wisdom and propriety of the government mandating that biological males be allowed to enter women’s restrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, and showers.

At the very least, one might have expected some humility from the ACC. After all, its new operating philosophy is novel, untested, and radically at odds with the biological basis of all human sexuality. Unfortunately, humility does not appear to be one of the ACC’s core values.

Over many decades, the ACC and the Christian community have forged an especially strong relationship in North Carolina. Good relationships are not one-way streets, and even the strongest partnerships can sour. If the ACC believes it can subjugate the rule of law to simple economics, it should think again. North Carolina citizens elected both their legislators and their governor. To insert yourself as de facto jury in this process and render a verdict on a law in which the ACC plays no part, is contemptible.

The ACC’s attitude resembles nothing so much as the self-satisfied arrogance of the Clinton campaign before the people spoke in the voting booth. The cultural elites running her White House bid managed to convince a multi-state swathe of America that it cared more about bathroom policies than whether men and women could find jobs and decent health insurance.

The ACC depends greatly on the continued support it receives from North Carolina’s local and state governments. Its member institutions are subsidized by evangelical Christians who, as taxpayers and voters, are needed to support its costly facilities, highly-paid Conference administrators, lavishly-funded coaching staffs, and numerous athletes—athletes who are unpaid, voiceless, and indentured to the Conference.

In an era of increased moral posturing and preening, perhaps the ACC’s business practices should be more closely scrutinized by those Republican super-majorities in both houses of the North Carolina legislature. Perhaps it is time for the much-condescended-to People to reevaluate the nature and terms of this relationship. Who does make all the money off those athletic shoe deals?

The ACC’s decision to enter the culture war as a partisan opponent of voting Christians needs to be reversed immediately. To the extent practicable, neutral site championships need to be rescheduled for play in North Carolina. Barring a return of prior policies and the recognition of the right of the people of North Carolina to enact reasonable laws regarding public health and safety, the relationship between the ACC and our community is indefinitely fractured.

Therapists Addressing Same-Sex Attractions are Joining the SAFE-T Patrol

by Peter Sprigg

November 1, 2016

If you follow news about the LGBT movement, you may have heard that there are major efforts underway to ban “conversion therapy.”

There are a number of serious problems with this effort—one of which is that no one who engages in the process of helping people overcome unwanted same-sex attractions refers to it as “conversion therapy.” The use of such an outdated term is proof that critics of change therapy are completely out of touch with (or deliberately distorting) what it actually entails.

Other terms that are sometimes used by therapists or counselors involved in helping people with unwanted SSA are “sexual reorientation therapy,” “reparative therapy” (which is not a general term but a very specific approach), or “sexual orientation change efforts” (“SOCE”—a broader term that may include either professional therapy or religious support or counseling).

These terms, while more accurate than “conversion therapy,” have their own weaknesses, however—particularly in a climate of vicious and distorted attacks upon both the purposes and the methodologies of such counseling.

The Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (formerly the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) is the leading scientific organization representing professional therapists committed to helping clients with unwanted SSA achieve their goals. The Alliance, which recently held its annual conference in Dallas, has coined a new term to overcome some of the weaknesses and distortions of older labels.

The new term is Sexual Attraction Fluidity Exploration in Therapy—or “SAFE-T” for short. Christopher Rosik, Ph.D., issued a statement explaining some of the rationale (I have added the bullet points, and my own comments are in brackets):

  • [The term SAFE-T] does not imply that categorical change is the goal and in so doing create unrealistic expectations for many clients.
  • Nor does it imply that change which is less than categorical in nature cannot be meaningful and satisfying to clients.
  • It also makes clear that SAFE can occur in any number of therapeutic modalities. [In other words, this is not a distinctive type of therapy at all, but rather a goal or topic that can be pursued using a range of therapy types.]
  • Furthermore, by focusing on sexual attractions it avoids the implicit assertion that orientation changes or that orientation as an immutable reality even exists. [I have noted that “sexual orientation” is a vague term that, depending on the context, is sometimes used to refer to sexual attractions, behaviors, self-identification, or some combination of the three. It is more meaningful to address these elements separately.]
  • By stressing therapeutic exploration, the new term accurately conveys that the therapist is not being coercive but merely assisting individuals in a client-centered examination of their sexual attractions.
  • … [T]he acronym SAFE-T immediately challenges portrayals of the professional therapy utilized by Alliance clinicians as harmful.

Rosik further notes:

Scientifically, the fluidity of sexual orientation (and, for our purposes, especially same-sex attractions) for many men and women is now beyond question. The language of SAFE-T highlights this reality and points to human experience that cannot be denied…

Rosik cites, for example, a recent (May-June 2016) journal article by LGBT-affirming scholars Lisa Diamond and Clifford Rosky which declared that “arguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unscientific, given what we now know from longitudinal, population-based studies of naturally occurring changes in the same-sex attractions of some individuals over time.”

The “SAFE-T” term has already been attacked in the Huffington Post, but the writer (therapist Michael J. Salas) is still under the sway of serious misconceptions about it—such as the idea that “SAFE-T promotes shame.” Every SAFE therapist I have ever talked to said their clients come into therapy with “shame,” and one goal of therapy is to overcome that. Salas, on the other hand, describes the goal of pro-homosexual “affirming” therapy as “accepting grief, fear, and shame”! While Salas claims that “affirming therapy has no agenda” and merely “helps people work through incongruence,” it is clear that he views reducing homosexual attractions or behavior as an unacceptable goal and probably an undesirable outcome.

That limitation on client autonomy sounds like an “agenda” to me.

Archives