Box Turtle Bulletin

Focus: “N.J. Pastors Spared From Performing Civil Unions”

Did all the anti-gay extremists skip class on the day they were to learn about the First Amendment? It’s beginning to look that way.

We’ve seen Focus and other anti-gay special interest groups falsely claim that passing hate crime laws to protect gays and lesbians would infringe on their religious freedoms. This, of course, is utter nonsense. The proposed hate crime laws covers only violent crimes, not speech or beliefs. And for good reason — any attempts to curb speech would quickly run afoul of the First Amendment. Anyone who passed high school civics can understand that.

They have also opposed gay marriage while claiming that pastors would be “forced” to conduct wedding ceremonies for gay couples. This, too, is nonsense. There has never been an instance in all of American history in which the government compelled a minister to perform a religious service. That would strike at the very heart of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment. But as ludicrous as that idea may be, anti-gay lobbyists continue to sound that drumbeat.

Now, in a move that advances that argument to the surreal, Focus on the Family has distributed a story in which Peter LaBarbera, of the terribly misnamed and fraudulently-classified “Americans for Truth” is joined by several other extremists to perpetuate the myth that New Jersey’s civil unions law (and gay marriage in general) might have forced ministers to perform civil unions against their will:

Gay couples in New Jersey will be allowed to apply for civil unions starting in February, but Attorney General Stuart Rabner has announced that clergy members are not required to perform such unions.

Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said the decision was a relief for ministers who feared being charged with hate crimes for refusing to perform the ceremonies. …

But Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, said pastors are not yet in the clear.

“To me, what’s shaping up is, yes, they are not forced to by the law,” he said, “but we will see the other side start to demonize and ostracize pastors that do not bless homosexual unions.”

C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League, said the weight of the law will likely eventually come to bear.

“The whole tendency is once something is legalized, it moves from being simply a liberty or a right, so-called, to something that is required,” he said. “This is something that is very dangerous.”

This is preposterous. One reason states like Vermont and New Jersey opted for civil unions was to avoid the religious connotation of the word “marriage.” While every religious tradition recognizes marriage, there is no such thing as a “civil union” in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other religious tradition. The very word “civil” in civil union should be the clue here. There is no religious ceremony that corresponds to a civil union because a “religious” civil union would be an oxymoron. This whole argument is beyond ridiculous.

But what if New Jersey had followed Massachusetts’ lead and enacted marriage instead of civil unions? Again, pastors are in the clear. There is nothing in the Constitution that empowers a government to force churches to accept beliefs they don’t want to accept. That’s the whole reason the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment exists in the first place. And there is no hate crime law anywhere in the land that can force pastors to perform a wedding. Hate crimes address acts of violence, not thoughts, beliefs, speech or religious practices.

C.J. Doyle of the Catholic Action League should know this better than anyone. The Catholic Church defends its teachings against divorce by refusing to marry divorced persons whose previous marriage hasn’t been annulled by the Church. Any couple who shows up with a marriage license from the state won’t get very far with the parish priest if one of them were divorced and doesn’t have an annulment. As far as that priest is concerned, that civil marriage license is meaningless. In fact, that couple won’t get very far if they haven’t completed Pre-Cana counseling to the pastor’s satisfaction. Marriage license or no, a wedding ceremony won’t go forward unless that couple complies with the teachings of the Church to that pastor’s satisfaction. This has been common practice for practically forever, and the Church has the full backing of the First Amendment in doing so.

The very idea that the state of New Jersey — or anyone else — can require a minister to perform a religious ceremony is preposterous. But when it comes to scaring ordinary Americans, nothing is beyond the pale for LaBarbera, Focus, or anyone else in the anti-gay lobby.

Focus on the Family Lies About Proposed Hate Crimes Bill

Focus on the Family is running around with a twisted interpretation of the proposed hate crime legislation before Congress. But before we delve into what they have to say, let’s take a look at what the proposed legislation actually looks like. It’s in legalese, but bear with me. Here’s the text of H.R. 254:

Section 245 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:

`(c)(1) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person–

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both if–

• `(i) death results from the acts committed in violation of this paragraph; or

• `(ii) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2)(A) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person–

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–

• `(I) death results from the acts committed in violation of this paragraph; or

• `(II) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that–

`(i) in connection with the offense, the defendant or the victim travels in interstate or foreign commerce, uses a facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce, or engages in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce; or

`(ii) the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.’.

Focus on the Family won’t quote from the proposed bill itself. Instead, they make stuff up by saying things like this:

“We oppose hate-crimes laws because they do not equally protect all Americans as the U.S. Constitution demands,” said Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family Action.

Wrong. The proposed legislation protect all Americans, just as the U.S. Constitution demands. It protects everyone regardless of race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. That includes white people, evangelical protestants, men, straight people, and able-bodied people. They are protected against violent bias-motivated crimes as well. The FBI reported that in 2005 there were 935 anti-white incidents (including one murder or manslaughter), 58 anti-Protestant incidents, and 23 anti-heterosexual incidents.

And these incidents are all either violent crimes or property crimes. Name-calling and letters to the editor aren’t crimes and aren’t counted. As I noted in Federal Hate Crime Statistics: Why the Numbers Don’t Add Up, there are many reasons to believe that these numbers represent an undercount. In fact, the undercount may be quite substantial since most people assume that hate crime laws only protect the minority. But that’s a problem with poor training and law enforcement, not a problem with the law itself.

And hate crimes protects everyone equally in another way: they protect everyone even if they are perceived to be something they are not. In other words, a straight man can be attacked by someone who simply thinks he’s gay. That’s what happened to National Guardsman Matthew Ashcraft two years ago in Newport, Kentucky:

Steven Ard, 38, of Newport, is accused of attacking Matthew Ashcraft on the evening of June 26, following a dispute outside Woolly’s on Monmouth Street. He is charged with assault and faces up to 20 years in prison.

Ashcraft, who is straight, and two gay friends were heading to the nightspot on June 26 when they saw Woolly’s customer Leon Hughes being harassed outside. When Ashcraft intervened, Ard left, then returned with a baseball bat and beat him, Campbell County prosecutors said.

Focus on the Family continues:

“The job of our law-enforcement agencies and courts is to punish crime, not thoughts. We must seek justice for those who are victims of violence, absolutely, but not by passing a law that tramples Americans’ right to free thought.”

Wrong again. Re-read the proposed legislation. It is all about violence: sexual assault, bodily injury, kidnapping, murder. Nothing in the proposed legislation even comes within five miles of “trampling American’s right to free thought”.

And as for Alan Chambers’ objections, we’ve already dealt with his strawman arguments.

Focus on the Family and Exodus both have tried to derail this bill by acting like Chicken Little, crying that our constitutional sky is falling. It isn’t. But Exodus and Focus may end up with egg on their faces.

Focus on the Family’s Reaction to Gen. Shalikashvili

Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, who retired as Charmian of the Joint Chiefs in 1997, says he supported the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which bans gays serving in the military when it was enacted in 1993. Now he says it’s time to rethink that policy:

Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers…

I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.

Gen. Shalikashvili cited the same Zogby poll we reported on earlier, which shows that only 37% opposed gays and lesbians serving in the military, and of those who said they were certain that a member of their unit was gay or lesbian, 64% didn’t believe it hurt their unit’s morale.

How did Focus on the Family react to Gen. Shalikashvili’s op-ed?

Military analyst and retired Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis said the general’s flip-flop appears to be motivated, at least in part, by lobbying from homosexual activists who may be trying to take advantage of Shalikashvili as he recovers from a stroke.

“I just believe he’s being used by those that want to use this as a political mechanism to pry open the military and to use it for their own social experimentation,” Maginnis said.

Gen. Shalikashvili’s stand doesn’t strike me as one taken by a wobbly, feeble-minded invalid. It’s a brave stand, a principled one driven by personal conversations, clear evidence that gays and lesbians won’t hurt morale, and concern over a military stretched thin in two wars. In contrast, Focus on the Family’s reaction didn’t come from any of those things, so they went with the only thing left: conspiracy theories and unwarranted attacks on Gen. Shalikashvili’s intelligence and fortitude. Which of these do you think are the hallmarks of the better argument?

See also:

American Family Association Picks Up The “Ailing General” Theme

New Survey: 95% Have Had Premarital Sex

Finer, Lawrence B. “Trends in premarital sex in the United States, 1954-2003.” Public Health Reports 122, no. 1 (January 2007): 73-78. Abstract available here.

A new study on premarital sex has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Public Health Reports by Lawrence Finer, Director of Domestic Research of the Guttmacher Institute. Dr. Finer observes that “Over the past decade, increasing amounts of advocacy, finding and programmatic effort have focused on encouraging Americans to abstain from sexual intercourse until they marry.” But Americans have been pushing the age of marriage later than previous generations, so that now the median age of first marriage for women has increased from 22.1 to 25.8 years in the past 25 years. The median age of first marriage for men increased from 24.4 to 27.4 years in the same period. This study examines whether Americans are actually likely to buy into the “abstinence until marriage” approach favored by social conservatives.

This study is based on the probability-sampled National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), a set of nationally representative surveys conducted in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002. From this data, we learn:

• By age 20, 75% of respondents had had premarital sex.
• By age 44, 95% of respondents had had premarital sex.
• Even among those who abstained until age 20, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44.
• Even among those women who turned 15 between 1954 and 1963 (generally before the “sexual revolution”), 82% had had premarital sex by age 30 and 88% had done so by age 44.

So, in short, the answer is no, the “abstinence until marriage” message is not taking root. What’s more, it wasn’t followed by more than four-fifths of the women born between 1939 and 1948. These figures are difficult to refute. They come from a very large set of nationally representative surveys, with margins of error of around a single percentage point or less.

As you can imagine, this survey has social conservatives in a tizzy. Focus on the Family has led the way with the talking points that other social conservatives have picked up on:

But Linda Klepacki, analyst for sexual health at Focus on the Family Action, said the motive behind the Guttmacher report is suspect, especially given the group’s close affiliation with Planned Parenthood.

“This is the condom cartel’s attempt at normalizing out-of-wedlock sexual behavior,” she said. “This is one in a series of documents that is designed to set the battle lines for January’s congressional battles over (funding for) sex education.”

Glenn Stanton, senior analyst for marriage and sexuality at Focus on the Family, questioned the method used to collect the data.

“These numbers seem a little high to me,” he said. “Additionally, what they don’t tell us is how active people were before marriage. Were most of these encounters among people who were engaged or were they simply casual hook-ups? We don’t know.”

Other reactions continue in that vein: Personal attacks on Dr. Finer’s integrity, vague references to un-named studies on unrelated issues, and comments like “these numbers seem a little high”. There are virtually no critiques of this study’s methodologies, just gripes about its findings.

Most telling in Focus on the Family’s reaction is their attempt to go after Dr. Finer’s reputation, citing his connections with Planned Parenthood and claiming that he is biased towards condom-based education. But as Paul Cameron recently wrote, “Accuracy is the most important aspect of empiricism. If investigators are clear about their method and employ it to generate ‘facts,’ their opinions are irrelevant.” (Letter: “Facts, not opinion, drive science: A reply to Morrison” Journal of Biosocial Science 39, no. 1 (January 2007): 155-156)

Far be it for me to ever agree with Paul Cameron, but as my father used to say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. If the methodology is sound, then it doesn’t matter what personal opinions the researcher holds. The data stands on its own. But if the methodology is flawed, it should be relatively easy to list those flaws and what they may mean for the findings. But because these findings are based on nationally representative surveys with margins of error of about 1% or less, Focus on the Family didn’t cite flaws in the methodology, apparently because they couldn’t find any. So they did the next best thing. They attacked the messenger.

But as far as I can tell, this data is solid. And it’s not the first time we’ve seen evidence that premarital sex is normative behavior in overwhelming numbers. Just last February, a survey of devout Baptist newlyweds (all of them “professed faith in Christ,” 99% attended church weekly, and 84% grew up in church) found that only 27% of them “entered the marriage bed chaste.” In other words, 73% of these devout Baptists had had premarital sex. And this came from a researcher who claimed that abstinence-until-marriage messages were successful!

And so the pattern continues. When Focus on the Family is caught manipulating research, they dig in their heels and claim they are victims of attacks by “homosexual activists” — even when the scientists themselves denounce Focus’ misrepresentations. But when Focus on the Family is confronted by real science like this, they do the very thing they claim “homosexual activist” are doing. They attack the messenger. That’s a very poor way to bolster scientific credibility, and it’s a funny way to promote values. But that’s what passes for scientific inquiry and family values at Focus on the Family.

A Third Researcher Condemns Dobson

A third researcher has come forward to speak out against Focus on the Family’s James Dobson and his misuse of research. In his online newsletter “How Boys Learn To Be Men“, Dobson claims that Angelina Phillips’ book, The Trouble with Boys blames homosexuality on absent fathers:

Whereas girls have a readily available model after which to pattern feminine behavior and attitudes (except when they are raised by single fathers), boys living with single mothers are left to formulate their masculine identity out of thin air. This is why early divorce is also devastating for boys. Writer Angela Phillips believes, and I agree, that the high incidence of homosexuality occurring in Western nations is related, at least in part, to the absence of positive male influence when boys are moving through the first crisis of child development.

But Professor Phillips does not agree with Dr. Dobson:

I certainly agree that boys suffer from a lack of positive men in their lives but I am at pains to point out that positive men are often as much lacking in two parent households as they are in lone mother (or two mother) households. I do not suggest that lack of positive male role models leads to homosexuality (or indeed that it would be problematic if it did). My concern is that boys without positive men around them are more likely to be violent, angry and lacking in self control. I have never heard that these are characteristics that are associated with homosexuality

Professor Phillips demands that Focus on the Family publish her letter on their website. We’ll see if that happens.

The scientific community has been silent for too long as their honest and hard work has been twisted for political goals. It’s very heartening to see that silence finally come to an end.

See also:

Dr. Kyle Pruett Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
A Third Researcher Condemns Dobson
Dr. Gilligan Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
Dobson Doesn’t Know When To Quit
James Dobson Misrepresents Research In Time Magazine

Dr. Gilligan Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video

Truth Wins Out has posted an amazing video of New York University’s Dr. Carol Gilligan. In the video, she reacts to Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson’s distortion of her research in a recent Time magazine commentary on Mary Cheney and Heather Poe’s decision to have a baby:

The “money-quote”, as they say, is here:

I have an issue with James Dobson, because if he picked up my book In A Different Voice and just read the beginning, the introduction, he would read a sentence I wrote saying that “a different voice” I describe is identified not by gender but by theme, and its association with women and empirical observation that admits exceptions. And in my book I write about men speaking about care and about women about fairness… And it’s such a simplification and really a caricature of my work, and I just think it’s not in the spirit of science… and for someone who represents morality and family , its disrespectful…

Dr. Gilligan reiterates later in the video that there are no grounds whatsoever in her research on which Dr. Dobson can attack Mary Cheney and Heather Poe’s decision to have a baby. She also discusses how people have responded to her speaking out:

This morning, I got emails from such a range of people … basically just saying “good for you for speaking out.” And I think that a lot of people have been frustrated that there isn’t more response to this kind of distorted use of science in the media. It’s not the first time, by any means.

I feel that same frustration. As a scientist, I have always worked with the operative axiom that good science happens when you let the data lead the way. The worst mark of a scientist is one who will fudge the data to fit a hypothesis. Fudging data is what causes rockets to explode in mid-flight, or drugs to cure diseases which instead kill through unintended side-effects. Fudging data gave tobacco companies cover when others suspected a link between smoking and cancer. Fudged data has been accused of bringing about any number of failed national policies and destroyed lives. And fudging data has long been a tool for those who marginalize others who cannot defend themselves.

We expect scientists to act with integrity in dealing with research, and we expect moral leaders to speak morally. I find the abuse of science to be unspeakably outrageous, both in its motivations and in its consequences. And I find moral leaders’ easy distortions and falsehoods to be utterly antithetical to their very status as moral leaders.

Kudos to Dr. Gilligan for speaking out so visibly and forcefully. And many thanks to Wayne Besen for bringing this to everyone’s attention.

See also:

Dr. Kyle Pruett Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
A Third Researcher Condemns Dobson
Dr. Gilligan Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
Dobson Doesn’t Know When To Quit
James Dobson Misrepresents Research In Time Magazine

Dobson Doesn’t Know When To Quit

Earlier this week, James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, published a commentary in Time magazine concerning Mary Cheney’s announced pregnancy with her partner Heather Poe. Dobson claimed that ” the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father.” In making his case, he named two researchers, Dr. Carol Gilligan and Dr. Kyle Pruett, while misrepresented their findings. Dr. Gilligan and Dr. Kyle Pruett separately wrote letters in which they condemned Dobson’s misuse of their research and demanded a retraction and apology.

But Dr. Dobson is having none of it. Focus on the Family has decided to ratchet up the controversy by sending out an E-mail to their many thousands of supporters asking them to inundate Time with letters in support of Dobson’s article. This is apparently intended only for Dobson’s supporters, since you won’t find it anywhere on Focus’ web site:

Gay-activist groups have mobilized to oppose an editorial in Time magazine written by Dr. James Dobson. Write the publication’s editors and let them know that you appreciate them publishing “Two Mommies Is One Too Many,” Dr. Dobson’s piece on why children “do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father.” …

Homosexual-advocacy groups posted Internet and email alerts this week expressing “outrage” that Time published Dr. Dobson’s essay. Supporters of same-sex marriage, parenting and adoption are trying to challenge long-standing social science data that children do best with a married mother and father, claiming that newer research discredits these findings — a claim that many respected experts in this field reject. As part of this effort, gay activist organizations are asking their supporters to write Time and complain that Dr. Dobson’s essay is inaccurate.

The boldness of this outright lie is startling. Nobody is “claiming that newer research discredits” Dr. Dobson’s position. In fact, the exact opposite is happening. The very research that Dobson tried to appropriate doesn’t say what he claims it says. And those very researchers who Dr. Dobson mentioned by name are now expressing their outrage at being misrepresented to support a conclusion that they do not share.

It’s not just “homosexual activists” who are outraged. It is well-respected scientists. And it is everyone else who values common decency and integrity, commodities which are in distressingly short supply at Focus on the Family.

You can write to Time yourself and let them know what you think. Letters to the editor should be about 200 words or less, and sent to letters@time.com.

See also:

Dr. Kyle Pruett Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
A Third Researcher Condemns Dobson
Dr. Gilligan Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
Dobson Doesn’t Know When To Quit
James Dobson Misrepresents Research In Time Magazine

James Dobson Misrepresents Research In Time Magazine

Updated: Dr. Kyle Pruett denounces James Dobson for misusing his research as well

Wayne Besen, of Truth Wins Out, is reporting that James Dobson distorted research in an op-ed that appeared in this week’s Time magazine. In his op-ed, Dobson comments on Mary Cheney’s pregnancy with a child she will raise with her partner Heather Poe. He claims that children do best in heterosexually-married families, citing Dr. Carol Gilligan’s research as “proof”:

According to educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty. Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences.

Wayne contacted Dr. Gilligan, who responded with a copy of a strongly letter she wrote to Dobson:

I am writing to ask that you cease and desist from quoting my research in the future. I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine. Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with. What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work.

Dr. Gilligan isn’t the only researcher whose work Dobson abused in the Time piece. Since the op-ed isn’t footnoted, it’s not easy to track down all of his sources. But in that same op-ed, Dr. Dobson writes:

The fact remains that gender matters–perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing. The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because “fathers do not mother.”

When Wayne Besen contacted Dr. Pruett about Dobson’s use of his work, Dr. Pruett responded with a letter to Dobson and Time, saying:

Dr. Dobson, I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission.

You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, “What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex.”

Wayne did a great job tracking this down and bringing this abuse of science to light.

In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics has undertaken an exhaustive review of the professional literature and found that “children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.” That is what the overwhelming research really shows.

See also:

Dr. Kyle Pruett Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
A Third Researcher Condemns Dobson
Dr. Gilligan Speaks Out Against Dr. James Dobson — On Video
Dobson Doesn’t Know When To Quit
James Dobson Misrepresents Research In Time Magazine

Concerned Women With Bad Manners

Mary Cheney, the daughter of vice president Dick Cheney, is expecting a baby with her partner, Heather Poe, in late spring. Now normally, you’d think that news like this would be greeted with cheers all around. But you’d be wrong:

Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America described the pregnancy as “unconscionable.”

“It’s very disappointing that a celebrity couple like this would deliberately bring into the world a child that will never have a father,” said Crouse, a senior fellow at the group’s think tank. “They are encouraging people who don’t have the advantages they have.” …

Carrie Gordon Earll, a policy analyst for the conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, expressed empathy for the Cheney family but depicted the pregnancy as unwise.

“Just because you can conceive a child outside a one-woman, one-man marriage doesn’t mean it’s a good idea,” Earll said. “Love can’t replace a mother and a father.”

Now you see, that’s the difference between Carrie & Janice and me. I was brought up to believe that when someone announces that they are expecting their first child, the proper response is “congratulations.”

And as for their “concern” over Mary and Heather’s child, they needn’t worry. The American Academy of Pediatrics has looked into this and has found nothing to worry about. Focus on the Family will claim that studies “prove” that children need both genders as parents, but the studies themselves say no such thing.

But Janice Crouse isn’t much swayed by science. Her real problem lies in politics:

Not only is she doing a disservice to her child, she’s voiding all the effort her father put into the Bush administration.

Say what you will about Dick Cheney. Many have, and I don’t need to add my opinions except this: I have a feeling that the cold icy exterior that we all see melts in the presence of a grandchild. Dick Cheney has stood by his daughter, I presume because, as is the case with most people, family comes first. Surely the “pro-family” Janice Crouse can recognize that, can’t she?

So everybody needs to relax and offer their congratulations and best wishes for a safe delivery to Mary and Heather.

The Priest, the Levite and Focus on the Family

It’s getting hard to keep up with the statistical spins coming out of the Focus on the Family factory lately. They’ve become so productive, I’m beginning to wonder of maybe they’re starting to outsource their work.

Last Thursday, they issued a CitizenLink release claiming that the “FBI finds few sexuality-based hate crimes.” They pretend to examine the FBI’s hate crime statistics and conclude:

Near the bottom of the list? Hate crimes based on a victim’s sexual orientation. …

Fifty-five percent of hate crimes were committed because of racial bias, while 17 percent were on religious bias.

“And once again, sexual orientation as a category of hate crimes comes in well behind crimes based on race and religion,” said Caleb H. Price, a gender issues analyst for Focus on the Family. “The problem is, when gay activists come to the table to play their victim card — they are bluffing. The card isn’t even in their hand.”

Bottom of the list? Out of five categories, hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation came in third. Where I learned to count, that would place sexual orientation square in the middle of the list.

I have constantly preached that when it comes to statistics, nobody should take anyone’s word for anything. And since the FBI’s Hate Crime Statistics are very conveniently posted on their web site, I invite you to have a look at Table 4, where they present offense types by hate crime motivation. (You can also download the Excel file so you can do your own math.)

Overall, the break down of hate crime statistics by bias motivation goes like this:

As you can see, sexual orientation trails religion by a mere two percentage points — that’s a funny definition for “well behind” crimes for religion.

Now let’s look further at the FBI’s Table 4. This table breaks down hate crimes according to different types of personal crimes and crimes against property. And when you look at who is at the greatest risk of personal crimes — assaults, rape, bullying, etc. — the trend is considerably more disturbing:

So according to official statistics, when gays, lesbians and bisexuals are singled out for hate crimes, they are are more likely to to suffer from personal attacks than any other group except Ethnicity/National Origin. And sexual orientation accounts for the second largest category for personal attacks behind race. That’s hardly “near the bottom of the list.”

Anti-gay activists often claim that many hate crime allegations are nothing more than name-calling. Since the intimidation category is so poorly defined, let’s take that away from the statistics. This leaves only the truly violent crimes:

Now we can clearly see that when gays, lesbians and bisexuals are victims of hate crimes, they are far more likely to be victimized by serious acts of violence than any other group besides the disabled. And sexual orientation is still firmly in the number two spot behind race.

When gays are singled out for hate crime attacks, the attacks are more likely to be personal and violent, and less likely to involve property crimes. This may explain why gays are more likely to suffer from depression, anger, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress when they become hate crime victims.

This makes Focus on the Family’s callous dismissal of this suffering especially inexcusable. Instead of trying to deny that a very serious problem exists, it would be better if they would instead join all of us to find a solution.

But like the priest and the Levite in the story of the Good Samaritan, they don’t want you to see the suffering of the stranger on the side of the road. Their acting in the role of the Levite and the priest instead the Samaritan speaks volumes about the values at Focus in the Family.

The “Root Cause” of AIDS

Focus on the Family, in an October 19th online CitizenLink article, joins the chorus in denouncing U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s remarks at the swearing-in ceremony for Mark Dybul as deputy global AIDS coordinator. Ambassador Dybul, who is openly gay, was joined by his partner Jason Claire, who held the Bible as Secretary Rice administered the oath of office and first lady Laura Bush looked on. Also in attendance was Claire’s mother, who Secretary Rice referred to as Dybul’s mother-in-law.

According to the Focus on the Family report, Secretary Rice’s chief of staff tried to backpeddle a bit, but Focus wasn’t having any of it:

Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on Family, called Rice’s comments “astonishing.”

“This is very provocative,” he said, “and very disappointing.”

In response to inquiries from Focus, Minnery heard from the State Department on Wednesday.

“Secretary Rice’s chief of staff called to say it was a mix-up,” he said. “That somebody should have checked this mother-in-law business, didn’t do it, and it got out.”

Perhaps, but such nuances are Rice’s stock in trade. Besides, she was standing right next to Dybul’s partner as he held the Bible for the swearing-in.

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, claimed this was evidence that “they’re really rather apathetic about the efforts to defend traditional marriage.” He also went on to cite a “conflict of interest” in having a gay man lead HIV/AIDS prevention efforts:

“If we are not willing to say that men should not engage in sex with other men,” Sprigg noted, “then we are really not willing to tackle the root causes of the AIDS problem.”

Sprigg added it’s unlikely a gay man can effectively articulate that point — if it’s still the point the administration wants to make

Clearly Peter Sprigg needs to be much more educated on the issue. Gay men are quite capable of articulating how to prevent AIDS. What other explaination is there for the dramatic drop in AIDS cases since the mid-1990’s? Since then, new AIDS cases fell by more than 60% in New York and Los Angeles while in San Francisco — that ever famous gay mecca — that drop was more than 80%.

But when it comes to “root causes of the AIDS problem,” it’s not men having sex with men. It’s people of all sexual orientations engaging in unsafe sexual practices. AIDS began as a heterosexually transmitted disease which was quietly killing generations in the Congo River basin of central Africa since the late 1950’s, long before the deaths of five gay men in Los Angeles grabbed the medical community’s attention twenty-five years ago. (You can read more about it in our report Opportunistic Infections.)

Demagoguery surrounding HIV/AIDS has been a persistent obstacle in dealing with AIDS, both here and around the world. Words like these continue to shore up the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS. And as long as that stigma continues, real answers to the problem will continue to remain elusive.

Linda Harvey’s “Studies”

Reader Scott passed this recent posting from Focus in the Family on to me:

Linda Harvey, president of Mission America, said even though the gay community brags about its buying power, the bravado is often more myth than muscle.

“The vast majority of people involved in homosexuality are projected by many studies to be people that are employed sporadically, because of their lifestyle,” she said. “They are more unstable.”

Unstable. Really?

Let’s see. I’ve been employed by the same employer ever since I graduated from college in 1984. Just last evening, I had dinner with a very nice gay couple who have been together for more than twenty-five years. They are enjoying a nice retirement after more than a quarter-century with their respective employers. Another good friend of mine retires later this year after more than thirty years working for the city.

Unstable. Really? I wonder what un-named “studies” Linda Harvey could be referring to?

It couldn’t have been Richard Florida’s The Rise of the Creative Class. He demonstrated that the most economically successful high-tech communities are also ones that are more welcoming and attractive to gays and lesbians. Surely these folks aren’t adversely affecting these communities by their “instability”.

And it couldn’t have been Dan Black, et al.’s “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States”, which appeared in the May, 2000 issue of Demographics (vol 37, no. 2 pp. 139-154). This study found that gays and lesbians were better educated on average — even though unstable people generally find it difficult to finish college. The study did find that gay men generally earn less than other men, but that lesbians generally earn more than other women. They attribute this lower earnings of men not to “instability”, but to differences in specialization in households, discrimination, and the particular labor markets where these men work.

And the possibility of discrimination was reinforced by another study by Michelle R. Hebl, et al.’s “Formal and Interpersonal Discrimination: A Field Study of Bias Toward Homosexual Applicants” in the June 2002 issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (vol 28, no. 6, pp. 815-825). This study found that while there was little evidence of formal discrimination among gay job applicants, there was very strong evidence of interpersonal discrimination — the type of discomfort that could lead employers to give these applicants less lucrative job assignments. Maybe it’s not gay folks who are unstable — maybe it’s their employers.

So, Linda. What studies are you referring to that says gays make for more “unstable” employees? I’d really love to know so I can check them out, but I can’t seem to find them. Could you help me, please? Perhaps you can begin by responding to the e-mail I sent you.

It’s not good enough to claim that a study supposedly supports what you’re saying, especially when you don’t give any details about which study you’re talking about. Linda Harvey basically performed a drive-by assault on ordinary hard-working gay and lesbian Americans. If she’s going to do that, she really should share where she got her data like I just did, don’t you think?

Why Activism?

I wonder sometimes if activists have lost sight of the purpose of activism.

Is it to try to convince the general public to listen to your views and consider your arguments, so they can form well-informed opinions which (hopefully) come close to reflecting yours?

Or is it to make a lot of noise so you can feel better afterwards?

I think we saw a little of both this past weekend in Palm Spring, CA, where Focus on the Family sponsored a “Love Won Out” conference, highlighting their programs for gay men and women who wish to try to change their sexual orientation. The conference took place on Saturday at Southwest Community Church in nearby Indian Wells.

I joined Daniel Gonzales and Timothy Kincaid of “Ex-Gay Watch (along with Ex-Gay Watch readers and frequent commenters Regan DuCasse and Scott) for a morning vigil to greet the 1,400 participants as they arrived at the church. (You can read Daniel’s description of the events here. He also provided the pictures for this post.)

We arrived bright and early at 6:45 in the morning and staked out our corner next to the entrance. From there, we smiled and waved and offered a cheerful “Good morning!” to everyone who arrived for the conference. Most smiled and waved back, others were more determined to ignore our presence. Only a few passersby yelled anything unfriendly, but only one was a conference participant. Out of 1,400 who attended, that’s pretty good.

Daniel observed that this is pretty common. When he attended other vigils, it wasn’t unusual for some participants to walk over to where they were gathered to engage in a friendly conversation with them. And sure enough, one very nice young lady came over to introduce herself and welcome us to Indian Wells. She commented on how great it is that we can all gather peacefully to offer our own perspectives on any subject, no matter what side of the debate we’re on – and no matter how strongly we may disagree.

On that point, at least, we were in agreement. Which is terrific, because all conversations have to start somewhere.

We were there to show by our own examples that gays and lesbians are not the disturbed, disease-ridden, depressed, lonely, intolerant, maladjusted malcontents that conference organizers would portray us to be. On that note, I think our mission was successful. And as a bonus, I’d have to say that we felt better afterwards.

Things were a little different with the “official” Unity Rally protest.

For the morning demonstration, their buses arrived late, some half-hour after the conference check-in had begun begun and the parking lot was nearly half full. They marched around in circles while the leader with the bullhorn prohibited anyone from stopping or engaging in any conversation.

I don’t know much about the rally organizers, but given that this was an ex-gay function we were there to greet, they didn’t appear interested in taking advantage of our backgrounds and knowledge. They did invite us to get in line and walk around in circles with them. We declined, and maintained our positions at the curb next to the entrance, where we could continue to offer our cheerful “Good Mornings!”, waving and smiling to everyone who approached the entrance. We felt that was the best message to send: a warm greeting, a smile, and a welcome.

The rally protestors left after about an hour, even though conference check-in was scheduled to continue for another half-hour. Timothy joked that if he were attending the conference, he probably wouldn’t arrive until about a minute before the official starting time. Me, I’m nearly always running about ten minutes late for just about anything. So we stayed and welcomed the stragglers.

The Unity Rally that was held later that morning at a park in Palm Springs was rather self-congratulatory – lots of speeches about who called whom to organize the community to do something, and about how proud they were that they had pulled it all off, and that it was a local effort.

Which, as far as that goes, is as it should be. They did a wonderful job with the logistics and organization of a mass-demonstration. It takes a lot of very committed local people to pull off a tremendous undertaking like that. The congratulations were well-earned.

But it could have been better. The rally organizers didn’t use this as an opportunity to educate themselves — let alone the larger community — on the specific issues facing those who are being drawn into the ex-gay movement. They barely had an awareness of what the ex-gay movement was even all about. And they didn’t seem to be much interested in learning. Ex-Gay Watch offered their assistance, but in end the rally organizers chose not to avail themselves of XGW’s background and knowledge.

Instead, they were satisfied to simply portray the participants at the Love Won Out conference as being motivated by hatred and bigotry — which is a pretty easy thing to do. In fact, “hate” was tossed around with remarkable frequency.

I think this was a tactical error to characterize these parents in this way, but I also think it was an error because for the most part, it just isn’t true. The parents who attended Love Won Our are not motivated by hatred or bigotry.

Think of it this way. Imagine if you are told that there is a group of people out there who molest children, spread disease, corrupt society, impose their will on others through non-democratic means, are depressed and suicidal, and are profoundly unhappy and incapable of experiencing true love and fulfillment. And imagine that your child may become a part of that group.

The emotion these parents are feeling is not hate. It is fear. Terror, to be exact. If the things that these conference organizers said were true, then what decent parent wouldn’t move mountains and swim raging rivers to protect their children from such a terrible fate?

Our society is not well educated on why people enter the ex-gay movement, or why parents are motivated to attend Love Won Out conferences. Nor is our society even much aware that there is such a thing as “ex-ex-gays.” And it turns out that gay people aren’t very well educated on these points either.

My first reaction was disdain for the Unity Rally organizers for their arrogance. (And yes, I do believe there was a certain amount of arrogance on their part — perhaps, ironically, a reflection of some arrogance on my part.) But now, after more reflection, my reaction is a bit more nuanced.

So this means that we really have a lot of work to do. We need to figure out how to educate our fellow LGBT organizations, the press, and the broader culture. We need to learn how to formulate our messages that convey real meaning to everyone we talk to. We need to leave aside words like “hate” and “bigotry”, which divide one side from another and put an abrupt halt to all attempts to persuade those parents caught in the middle of all this.

We won’t change many minds at Focus on the Family, nor will we reach any of the leaders who put on the Love Won Out road show. That’s not our purpose.

Instead, we need to change the minds of the many parents who attended the conference out of a genuine fear that their child may be gay. And we need to do this quickly.

I say this because of who I saw sitting in the back seat of a few of those cars (a very few) that drove into the conference that morning. There, slouched in the back seat, by himself or herself, sat a dejected or frightened teenager. A few looked out the window at us, but mostly they just looked down. I don’t think many of the Unity Rally marchers got a chance to look at these kids’ faces. They all wore that expression that I knew all too well, because I wore that same expression for so many years: an expression of deep, abiding shame.

And fear. Because, you know, they don’t want to grow up to molest children, spread disease, corrupt society, impose their will on others through non-democratic means, be depressed, or commit suicidal, or be incapable of experiencing true love and fulfillment., like the folks with Love Won Out say they will.

We really need to reach those parents.

Our aim is to reach them with a different message — one based on accurate facts, living examples, and most importantly, hope. Our objective was not to get something off our chests. Instead, over time, we wanted lift a burden from those parents shoulders. We didn’t go on this vigil so we would feel better at the end of the day. We did it because we wanted those kids to feel better now.

But if we want to be successful, we have to begin to use language that these parents can understand. Accusing them of hatred is not going to accomplish anything.

Barbara McPherson Doesn’t Want Gay Parents To Be Good Parents

Guess what? Focus on the Family, the same group that encourages parents to be deeply involved with their children’s education, doesn’t think gay and lesbian parents should be involved with theirs:

Gay-activist group Family Pride has produced a pamphlet to guide homosexual parents in introducing themselves to their children’s schools.

“Building Family Equality in the Classroom” suggests parents attend the first PTA meeting together and introduce themselves as a couple.

Barbara McPherson, legislative affairs coordinator for the California Family Council, told Family News in Focus such activism doesn’t belong in school.

Isn’t it amazing? James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, made his mark by offering some often persuasive advice on raising children. And he knows quite well (as we all do) that one of the keys to good parenting is for parents to get involved with their children’s education. This means meeting with your child’s teachers and principal, meet some of the other parents of your child’s classmates, get involved in extra-curricular activities, volunteer your time and talents whenever you can — all of this is common-sense advice for all parents.

Because as we all know, parents who take an active interest in all aspects of their child’s life raise children who are less likely to get in trouble, drink, do drugs, get pregnant, and all of those other nasty things we want our children to avoid that can mess up their lives.

But according to Barbara McPherson, the California Family Council, and Focus on the Family, gay and lesbian parents are “activists” when they do the same things that good straight parents do — the same things that all parents should do. But when gay and lesbian parents do these things, they’re not parents but “activists.”

Okay. On second thought, maybe that’s not a bad choice of words. After all, if a parent won’t be an activist for own child, then what kind of a parent is he or she anyway?

You can download Family Pride’s thoughtful brochure here (PDF: 112 KB/2 pages).

Doing Violence to Domestic Violence Statistics

Focus on the Family released another whopper today. Alan Chambers, president of the “ex-gay” group Exodus, claimed that gays and lesbians are far more likely to be raped or assaulted by their partners than heterosexuals:

“It’s something that we knew would come to light more as the issue of gay unions began to be on the radar screen of the American public.”

In fact, according to the National Violence against Women Survey, 39- percent of homosexuals report being raped, physically assaulted or stalked by their partners. Chambers says many gays grew up in a home where they were abused and that transfers into their relationships later in life.

Well, it’s true, sort of. Thirty-nine percent of women with a history of same-sex partnership report being raped, assaulted, or stalked by their partners. For men with a history of same-sex partnership, the figure is “only” 23%. For couples with a history of opposite-sex partnership, the figures are 21.7% for women, and 7.4% for men.

But the real question is who is doing the raping, assaulting, and stalking?

Getting to that answer is simple. But before I begin, I’d like for you to download the report for yourself directly from the government website so you don’t have to take my word for it. Go right ahead (PDF: 62 pages/1,475 KB).

Now, go to page 29 and look at Exhibit 8 at the bottom of the page. You will see that these figures I mentioned are all right there. It doesn’t look good for our side, does it?

But like I said, the real question is who is doing the raping, assaulting and stalking? For that answer, all you have to do is go to the very next page. In exhibit 9, you will see that —

Among women with a history of same-sex partnership:

• 30.4% were raped, assaulted or stalked by their husband/male partner
• 11.4% were raped, assaulted or stalked by their wife/female partner.

And among men with a history of same-sex partnership:

• 10.8% were raped, assaulted, or stalked by their wife/female partner.
• 15.4% were raped, assaulted, or stalked by their husband/male partner.

So here is what it all means. Many women with a history of same-sex partnership also have a history of opposite-sex partnership. Because of that, they are far more likely to report being raped, assaulted or stalked because it is the men in their lives who are doing the raping, assaulting or stalking. Not the women. Same-sex cohabiting women were nearly three times more likely to report being victimized by a male partner than a female partner.

And here is where the statistic gets really interesting: 20.5% of women in opposite sex relationships were raped, assaulted or stalked by their husband or male partner. That compares to 15.4% of men who were raped, assaulted, or stalked by their male partners. In other words, gay men are safer around their same-sex partners than straight women are around their husbands or opposite-sex partner.

But Alan Chambers blindly clings to his off-kilter interpretation and offers this gem of an explanation:

Chambers blames the violence on an extreme sense of unhappiness that often leads to addictive behaviors.

If that’s the case, then it looks like the straight men need to get over their unhappiness so the rest of us can live in peace.