The media is launching a full-court press trying to influence the Boy Scouts and the U.S. Supreme Court to bless homosexuality. The Washington Post, in a clear attempt to influence the Supreme Court on gay marriage, just published a book review by Nathaniel Frank, visiting scholar at Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law. In his review Frank exposes the general weakness of the typical pro-family defense of traditional man-woman marriage, while asserting that no rational argument can be made against ‘gay equality:’

“Arguing that same-sex love deserves equal recognition, as President Obama said eloquently in his second inaugural address, is a moral project. It amounts to saying “gay is good,” not something to be tolerated despite being morally reprehensible.”

“Indeed, one of the most notable but little noted recent culture-war developments has been the stark role reversal by advocates and opponents of gay equality on the relevance of morality to their arguments. For decades, anti-gay activists freely expressed moral opprobrium — even disgust — at the thought of homosexuality, successfully opposing gays’ right to teach, serve in uniform, have sex, become Boy Scouts, be ordained or marry, all based on condemning some variation of their ‘unmentionable vice.’ Without the tools to assert their moral worth in response, gay advocates replied with the language of tolerance, privacy and liberty, almost as if they were demanding the right to be morally bad.”

“Yet in competing briefs for the Supreme Court, it was the pro-gay arguments that were redolent with the language of morality, while opponents bent over backward to insist that they had no moral argument against gays. ‘The absence of any rational justification for depriving gay men and lesbians of their right to marry,’ proponents of marriage equality wrote, regarding the California initiative that is before the Supreme Court, ‘leads inexorably to the conclusion that Proposition 8’s principal purpose was to advance the majority’s moral disapproval of gay relationships.'”

“Bristling at the allegation of moral judgment, opponents countered by arguing that marriage can properly be restricted to heterosexual unions ‘not because individuals in such relationships are virtuous or morally praiseworthy, but because of the unique potential such relationships have’ to affect ‘vital interest[s]’ of society.”

As Frank rightly points out, the National Organization for Marriage and its allies are before the Supreme Court this week with a strategy of ‘we have nothing against homosexuality per se; man-woman marriage is just better.’ This equivocating argument lost in Federal court and in last year’s popular votes in Maine and Minnesota.

Frank also takes aim at the supposed “base” motivations of traditionalists:

“whatever clever rationales… opponents [of gay marriage] offer, the real source of their opposition is a feeling that homosexuality is ‘exceedingly yucky’….”

“Armed with the cover of religion and tradition, opponents of equality may sincerely believe that they are not acting out of animus and yet be wrong in that belief — that is, unaware of their more base or hostile motivations.”

“Unpacking these motivations is key to understanding the entire debate over homosexuality, both in the courts and in the effort to change hearts and minds. While speculating on the motives behind laws can be risky business for the courts, it can also be critical: If a law implicating a fundamental right is found to have no rational relationship to furthering an important government interest, it will be hard to pass constitutional muster, since the law will be reduced to what the court has called a ‘bare desire to harm.'”

“Motives are important beyond the courts, too. The rational case for gay equality has now been made so convincingly for those open to reasoned debate that the question ‘What’s wrong with homosexuality?’ seems no longer to be the relevant one. The real question is why, despite the strong trend toward approval, millions continue to believe that homosexuality is wrong, even though so much evidence has emerged that it harms no one.“

With this accusation that the only reason people still oppose homosexuality is that they think it’s “yucky,” as well as the demonstrably false claim that homosexuality “harms no one,” the Boy Scouts are among those being pressured — at times even by supposed conservatives — to also prove they have ‘nothing against homosexuality’ by opening up their ranks to male homosexuals.

But the Supreme Court and the Boys Scouts have to be reached with the truth:

• Homosexuality is dangerous — it spawns despair, spreads disease, and shortens life.
• Homosexuals recruit our kids, robbing our future.

FRI needs money right away to publicize two new studies — and we’ve got to do it over the next few weeks:

• For the Supreme Court: Hard new evidence that homosexuality reduces the average lifespan by 10 to 20 years! Some of this evidence has just come in from Denmark, which has had the equivalent of gay marriage for over two decades. By examining 1) all the deaths (1,709,850) in Denmark since formal homosexual partnerships were legalized and 2) thousands of new U.S. obituaries from urban centers, it is clear that gay marriage, if anything, shortens the lives of homosexuals even further!
• For the Boy Scouts: Rush Limbaugh was right, Bill O’Reilly was wrong about male homosexuals molesting boys. New, systematic Google-based evidence shows homosexuals are far more apt to sexually molest kids, entirely consistent with past research and traditional wisdom.

We are working to publish these studies in scientific journals. But the publishing and approval process takes substantial time (usually many months at the least). So until then, our goal is to reach decision makers in time through a series of press releases and connections through email, the internet, and social media.

If you agree with FRI that homosexuality is harmful to health and that homosexuals disproportionately molest our young, please support our efforts now.