Summary: On June 28, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced that the U.S. birth rate had dropped to its lowest level on record. On the same date, the U.S. Supreme Court declared laws against same-sex sexual activity unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas. Both events illustrate the continuing deathward march of American social policy. By a 6 to 3 vote — wielding its dictatorial power — the Supreme Court overturned centuries of Christian-inspired laws against homosexual activity. In large part, the court’s decision stemmed from its contempt for, and desire to, diminish society. But its decision was also a failure of the current pro-family leadership. Attempting to enact a ‘marriage amendment’ to the U.S. Constitution as a ‘solution’ is a quixotic response. Instead, FRI proposes as a possible ‘fix’ laws against 1) anal-penile sex and 2) the supervision of children by homosexuals. §

Every society includes forces toward growth and life as well as darker forces toward death and decay. Vibrant societies recognize the darker forces as enemies, and typically punish those carrying out anti-social activities. Often they are called “criminals” and treated as such. In modern Western culture, however, intellectuals often support the darker forces. George Orwell saw this plainly when he commented upon our modern elite class:

Western civilization has given the intellectual security without responsibility, and it has educated him in skepticism while anchoring him almost immovably in the privileged class. He has been in the position of a young man living on an allowance from a father whom he hates.

The liberal wing of our society expresses this motivation most fully, what with its emphasis on abortion, the trashing of Christianity and traditional morality, and its push for freedom without responsibility. But elements of this same mindset permeate the Western elite, particularly those connected with social science, psychiatry, law, entertainment, and social service. Whether deliberately or not, out of their hatred of traditional American society, many intellectuals promote a ‘culture of death’ as well as the ‘decline of society.’ They lionize the criminal and criticize the productive. It would be wrong to say that they ‘don’t have values.’ They do. But those values are generally the antithesis of the ‘values and traditions that brought us here.’

The justices who sit on the Supreme Court are, of course, all members of our elite set of lawyers. As a class, lawyers are smart, competitive, and perhaps a bit greedier than most. They also tend to be relatively ignorant about the world in a technical sense. Unlike other professionals, who know how to build or fix or test something, lawyers specialize in verbal manipulation. What they know best is how to manipulate words and laws for a payoff — usually monetary, but often in power (recall former President Clinton’s “it all depends upon what the meaning of is, is”).

Although their contribution is important to social functioning, lawyers are overpaid for their efforts. Many of them, knowing in their heart-of-hearts that they are overpaid, show their contempt for a society that showers rewards upon them by shoving to the forefront of the ‘liberal’ commitment to social suicide. After all, who else, by the mere manipulation of words, can be so well compensated in wealth and social prestige? A society willing to ‘dole out’ such rewards for so little in substantive return is surely not worthy of respect, but rather of contempt. Or so the private, implicit moral calculus goes for many in our lawyerly class.

Pity the modern society that gives dictatorial power to lawyers — in the long run they will be satisfied only when char remains. And such is the United States.

Nine lawyers effectively made irrelevant the history of our country, thousands of elected officials, hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats, and even direct votes by the people (as in Amendment 2 in Colorado). In line with the infamous French King, they, and only they, are ‘the law.’ Instead of defending the long moral and legal tradition of America, the Supreme Court opted for the ‘brave new world’ of liberalism.

Liberal thought seeks to elevate the criminal and deviant even while it diminishes the productive and successful. To paraphrase Orwell, society is the ‘father liberals hate.’ And, as one offspring of the Enlightenment, liberalism also has the task of eliminating Christian influence on society and protecting man’s baser desires from religious suppression and control.

A week before the Lawrence v. Texas ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that ‘pro-minority race discrimination’ was a social good. This decision is likely to reduce the ability of the U.S. to utilize and train its brightest and best, all for the sake of ‘diversity.’ To some degree, it will weaken American competitiveness relative to other countries — at least those not currently jogging down the same path of self-destruction. But while the affirmative action decision was part of the ‘liberal, self-destruction package,’ the sodomy decision was more socially damaging. Why? Because it affects sexuality — the key to generating future members of society.

The Decision
The sodomy decision was raw dictatorial power trumping traditional morals for a new, liberal-inspired set of morals that have emerged, particularly over the past 50 years. The liberal morality is by its very nature designed for a societal march toward suicide — more abortion, more promiscuity, more divorce, weakened marriage, etc.

In the Lawrence decision, the court was so ambitious to destroy the Christian roots of our society that it seriously weakened, if it did not discard, stare decisis.

Stare decisis is the principle that the latest decision has to be accorded great respect, and should be overturned only for great cause. It is one of the major principles holding laws together, making possible what is called the ‘the rule of law.’ Nevertheless, the court brushed aside this fundamental principle in its haste, declaring that stare decisis “is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision.”

As might be expected of a decision made in a suicidal lurch, the majority opinion was an intellectual mess. However, one thing is abundantly clear: The U.S. Supreme Court believed it had the ‘facts’ to trump something as ‘changeable’ and ‘ephemeral’ as morality, and especially, Christian morality.

Clearly the court had Christianity in mind when it noted that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”

But other than to “mandate its own [replacement] moral code,” what did the Supreme Court really do? Consider, for instance, the central moral principle outlined by the majority of the Justices: At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. What anarchy lies ahead? Those who engage in homosexual activity are disturbed, anti-social, and dangerous. If they are given the “right to define” their “own concept of existence” there will be hell for all of us to pay.

The Supreme Court also demonstrated its disdain for the traditions of its social ‘father:’

In all events we think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here. These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.

The 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision validated the right of the people to outlaw same-sex sexual behavior. It was based on the notion that preservation of ‘traditional morality’ was a sufficient and ‘compelling state interest’ to trump the sexual desires of individuals. And just as in Lawrence, the Bowers case featured two men who had sex with each other in the privacy of their dwelling.
But in 2003, facing almost precisely the same situation, the court was now willing to lay bare its hatred for ‘the values of the father:’

The central holding of Bowers [that sustaining morality constitutes a compelling state interest] has been brought in question by this case, and it should be addressed. Its continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons.

The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.… The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Consider the full impact of the foregoing statements. Remember that those who engage in homosexuality are disturbed, anti-social, and dangerous. Such individuals disproportionately test as mentally ill, are much more apt to use illegal drugs and abuse alcohol, are less productive on the job, spread diseases much more frequently (e.g., HIV, hepatitis B and C, etc.), are more willing to spread disease when they have it, and are more apt to seduce or molest children and the underage.

Yet the Supreme Court ceded them ‘personhood’ as “homosexual persons.” Worse, the court was worried lest society “demean their existence” or “control their destiny.” Talk about unleashing the whirlwind!

Those who enjoy shooting or snorting drugs in their own homes are not free to “control their own destiny.” The state is free to “demean their existence.” “Drug-using persons” apparently don’t have the clout of “homosexual persons.” At least not yet.
Justice Sandra Day O’Conner’s separate but concurring opinion made many of the same points:

Under our rational basis standard of review, “legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”

Moral disapproval of this group, like a bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.

Texas’ sodomy law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class. “After all, there can hardly be more palpable discrimination against a class than making the conduct that defines the class criminal.”

Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations — the asserted state interest in this case — other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group. A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the State’s moral disapproval of that class and the conduct association with that class runs contrary to the values of the constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review.

Morality, the Supreme Court held, even when held by the majority, is irrelevant! Why? In part because the 2003 court accepted the American Law Institute’s 1955 assertion that same-sex sexual activity was “private conduct not harmful to others.” Although it was considered a somewhat radical proposition then, in the intervening years, both academia and the media have offered a slew of new ‘facts’ about the harmlessness of homosexual activity and why ‘homosexuals’ are ‘born to be that way’ or ‘destined’ to do the things they do. Today, the once radical proposition has become an accepted ‘truth’ among our elite. So much so that the Supreme Court could now say “The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.”

Private Conduct = Public Consequences
The real truth is that Texas and every other state has plenty of legitimate state interest in discriminating against homosexual behavior. The claim that homosexual behavior is harmless was false when it was written in 1955, though little evidence had accumulated on the point. Today, after experiencing waves of hepatitis and HIV, gay bowel syndrome, and excessive rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) within the homosexual subculture — not to mention a sharply reduced lifespan — we know that such “private conduct” between adults is harmful to both the individual and those with whom he has sex.

Almost nothing about homosexual relationships is analogous to heterosexual unions. Even behavior between marriage partners normally considered ‘safely private,’ consensual, and mutually beneficial cannot be assumed to be ‘safe’ among homosexual partners. The very latest empirical report from Amsterdam 1 — surely one of the most homosexual-friendly cities in the world — proves this point. “[D]espite the intensive campaigns promoting safe sex practices among homosexual men in Amsterdam, risk-taking remains at substantial levels, especially among steady partners. Such behaviour has increased recently, and there are worries that it may even counterbalance the beneficial effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in reducing HIV viral load and infectivity.” The upshot? “86% (range 74-90%) of new HIV infections occur within steady partnerships.”

Furthermore, it is only a twisted sort of logic — but one sadly consistent with our deathward social march — that would argue that private behavior has no public consequences. Although our sexual revolutionaries have been drumming the same slogan — “it’s nobody’s business what consenting adults do in their bedroom” — for many years, precisely the opposite is true. For at least three things that impact society emanate from the ‘privacy of the bedroom:’ children, disease, and broken relationships.

If children emerge they may be a blessing or a curse to greater society — a lot will depend upon by whom and how they are raised. But either way, the state has a compelling interest in kids, and the impact of those kids. Similarly, disease that comes from the ‘privacy of the bedroom’ deserves and garners state interest. The disease associated with HIV has poisoned the blood supply, killed blood recipients and health care workers who treated those infected with HIV, and has cost everyone in additional taxes and daily risks (think, for instance, of all the disposable gloves now worn). Many STDs similarly kill and cost.

There are also relational costs to ‘private bedroom behavior.’ Adulterous unions damage marriages, strain or destroy family relationships, and cause untold amounts of emotional scarring. Homosexual pairings do much the same, often including the alienation of spouses, parents, or children (In FRI’s national urban survey, about 5% of divorces involved homosexual activity by a spouse). All in all, the state has a compelling interest in regulating sexuality for all these reasons: 1) the production of children, 2) the spread of disease, and 3) the damaging of relationships and the breaking of social contracts (i.e., marriage). But none of this is evident from the Supreme Court’s decision.

Blind Eyes of the Justices
How could the Supreme Court get away with ignoring all of this evidence? Despite the best efforts of the media and our academicians to portray homosexuality in a positive light, the requisite knowledge not only exists but is employed by current public health officials. Because of our medical experience with HIV, since 1985, the blood of males who have sex with males (MSM) has been banned from the blood bank. Why? Because these health officials know that what MSM do is dangerous and that it contaminates their blood.

The legal argument about homosexuality, however, has not revolved around the concerns of public health. A few amicus briefs in the Lawrence case mentioned public health. But the oral argument as well as the Texas brief itself made no mention of public health. This despite the fact that ‘public health’ has taken over much the same territory once occupied by ‘morality.’ ‘Public health’ can still be used to trump ‘personal freedom’ in any number of areas: the desire to smoke, the desire not use seat belts, the desire to have sex even though infected with an STD, etc. Public health has indeed replaced traditional morality as the ‘greatest social good.’

Appeals to ‘traditional morality’ do not explicitly address public health issues. While the two value systems — ‘public health’ and Christianity — often reach the same conclusions, they are not identical. For public health reasons, driving without a seatbelt is illegal, because not wearing one increases the risk of injury to the non-wearer and because the costs of any injuries are borne by the entire community. Nonetheless, although seatbelts may be prudent to wear, Christianity has nothing directly to say about them.

The same is not true of homosexuality. Not only does Christianity condemn all same-sex sexual activity, the logic of public health also ‘condemns’ homosexual behavior as risky and dangerous. Public health is also concerned about the sexual molestation of children, a concern again shared by Christianity, particularly when it is done homosexually (see for instance the admonition of the Didache, a 2nd century catechism, that “thou shalt not corrupt boys”).

Bottom Line
The bottom line is that as long as our lawyers and jurists are allowed on the one hand to substitute public health for morality, and to subsequently treat traditional morality as simply a matter of opinion rather than the ‘highest social good,’ the battle will come down to whether or not public health considerations and empirical evidence frame the legal debate. In the Lawrence case, where public health was not ‘front and center,’ traditional morality was trumped by the liberal notion that homosexuality is a ‘victimless crime’ deserving of full privacy protections: individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of ‘liberty’ protected by due process.

This principle has not been widely applied (yet). But if this is now ‘part of the constitution,’ then as Justice Scalia opined, what’s to stop sex between adults willing to exchange money for sex, or ‘marriage’ between 5 adults, and so on? All bets will be off.

Initiatives That Might Work
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on “public health” versus the “right to sexual privacy.” Most of the precedents have implied that ‘public health’ trumps ‘sexual privacy,’ including the fact that the ban on blood donations by MSM has not been overturned as ‘unconstitutional.’ Clearly, the future is murky. Nevertheless, FRI is more convinced than ever that public health initiatives stand the best chance of surviving the inevitable legal challenge. For what ‘greater social good’ will the court use when it is forced to rule against the protection of public health in the name of liberal morality?

To this end, FRI has come up with several legislative initiatives that 1) can be supported with the best scientific evidence, and 2) might stand a chance in either state legislatures or the Congress. Most of these initiatives involve the denial of state or federal funding — not the prohibition of certain activities or relationships. For it does not appear likely that the Constitution can be construed by the courts as to make denial of funding illegal.

• Donation of blood by males who had sex with males since 1977 has been banned because of the dangerousness of their sexual activities. Specific same-sex sexual behavior such as penile-anal sex clearly ought to be banned for similar public health reasons. Indeed, since the lifespans of those who engage in same-sex sexual activity are appreciably shortened, perhaps all same-sex sexual contact should be criminalized on public health grounds. But short of this, the scientific literature overwhelmingly indicts penile-anal sex, so this activity should be made illegal, for the unmarried at least, since it harms the health of those who participate and creates financial burdens for the rest of society.

• The federal government withholds highway funding from any state that refuses to comply with its blood-alcohol level standards for drunk drivers. By analogy, Congress should pass a law withholding funds from any entity that could, but does not, criminalize penile-anal sex.
  

• Overwhelming scientific evidence establishes that homosexually partnered males are more apt to contract blood-borne germs such as HIV and hepatitis B. Since sexual partnering between males endangers the participants and the costs of their diseases are borne by the entire community, state and federal law should deny funding to any entity that encourages males who have sex with males to sexually partner.

• By the same token, a federal law should deny funding to those states or cities that provide marriage or marriage-like benefits to male homosexual couples.

• The scientific literature establishes that those who engage in homosexuality and who supervise children (for example, as teachers or foster-parents) are proportionately more apt to have sex with their charges. Because of this fact, state legislatures and the Congress ought to pass laws denying funding to, or cooperation with, any entity that permits supervisors or mentors of children who engage in homosexuality to supervise, foster-parent, or adopt children.

• There is good scientific evidence that children raised by those who practice homosexuality have more social difficulties, are more personally troubled, and are not as well socialized as children raised by traditional parents. Therefore, laws should be passed denying funding to, or cooperation with, any entity that encourages those who engage in homosexuality to have or adopt children.

None of these initiatives makes any mention of traditional morality or historical precedent. FRI believes future attempts to ‘roll back’ gay rights must be framed strictly through the lens of public health or be doomed to failure. For even were a state legislature or two to pass some of these proposals, they would inevitably be challenged in court, only to face the same dismissal of morality that surfaced in the Lawrence case. The scientific evidence exists to defeat the gay juggernaut. But it must be marshalled and it must be championed even by those who wish only to preserve traditional morality. There is no other winning formula. §

Reference:
1. Xiridou M, Geskus R, de Wit J, Coutinho R, & Kretzschmar. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS, 2003; 17:1029-1038.

When Christianity came on the scene, men could marry men in Gaul (approximately modern-day France). Now Canada is on the verge of abandoning the Christian sense of marriage for the primitive Gaulist version. Those who engage in homosexuality will have an incentive to get married and stay married. For suddenly, a fairly substantial unfunded mandate will be placed on businesses and governments - they will have to match their subsidy of man-woman marriage with similar benefits for woman-woman and man-man varieties.

We have decent experience with what marriage between a man and a woman entails. Such unions produce the majority of children and an even higher proportion of well-socialized children. Traditional marriages seem to improve the health of their participants, and prolong life. Traditionally married people almost always live together - and generally have sex only with each other.

Who knows what 'homosexuals' who are married will do? Most may live together. But, then again, they may not. [Current proposals in the British Parliament specifically rule out any requirement that 'married' gays live together.] Many may have sex with each other - here and there, possibly only with each other for a while. We know that lesbian couples report that they soon experience 'bed death' and generally live together in sexless unions until someone else is found to 'light the spark.' Retaining the 'benefits' of marriage will be possible even if they don't live together, or have sex with each other, or even see each other with any degree of regularity.

So, predictably, many will get 'married' and 'stay married' even though they have not seen each other for years. Ultimately, business and the taxpayer will be subsidizing 'gays' - who for much, and perhaps even most of the time - will be simply 'roaming around having sex.'

But the new Canadian law will not change the nature of homosexuality.

As we note elsewhere in this issue of Family Research Report, right now in the Netherlands, "despite the intensive campaigns promoting safe sex practices among homosexual men in Amsterdam, risk-taking remains at substantial levels, especially among steady partners. Such behaviour has increased recently,… 86% (range 74-90%) of new HIV infections occur within steady partnerships." [emphasis added] As near as can be determined, this phenomenon is worldwide - men with homosexual partners are much more apt to become infected with blood-borne pathogens.

Whether the Canadian inducement for men to 'marry' other men will result in more such couplings isn't known at this time. After all, at any given instant, only about a third of gays claim to have a 'regular partner.' But if it does - and it appears likely that the new law will have at least a small effect in that direction - then we can expect an even higher proportion of gays to become infected with HIV, hepatitis, and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The taxpayers of Canada will wind up 'donating' yet more to the 'gay community' for the health care of homosexuals because they enacted 'gay marriage.'

How very different from traditionally married men. Married men enjoy the lowest rate of infection of every known kind of sexually spread pathogen. And those who don't get infected save us all grief - both from health risks in living around them and in tax dollars.

Not only is Canada making a moral statement by siding with the psychological/sociological gurus instead of Christian tradition. Canada is also going to shell out a fair amount of money for the granting of this pre-Christian 'right.'

The children of Canada are going to pay as well. Undoubtedly there will be more placements of foster children with gays. And more of these children will be sexually assaulted. As a consequence, more of these children will become 'gay.'

Svend Robinson, the openly gay member of parliament, will now have had it all. Once he was married to a woman. Now he will be able to marry a man.

Real marriage is a valuable institution. Because marriage tends to keep its participants sexually 'locked-in' to each other, the whole of society benefits by the lower rates of STDs and other communicable diseases that are 'locked out' by marriage. Likewise, no better place than marriage has been found to conceive, bear, and raise a child. But now the sexually disturbed will be married - and will claim their 'right' to Canada's children. How 'Gauling' indeed!