November 15th, 2011 by Michael L. Brown

While millions of Americans are rightly sickened and outraged over the alleged pedophile acts of Jerry Sandusky at Penn State, millions more are totally unaware that gay activists have conveniently swept homosexual pedophilia under the rug.

To be clear, I personally believe that the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts. At the same time, there is a very large pedophile elephant that is hiding in the gay activist closet. Dare we expose it?

Let’s start with our children’s schools, where GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight, Education Network, has long advocated for the celebration of homosexual history, using tools like “North American History Game Cards,” where elementary school children learn that famous Americans like Allen Ginsberg and Walt Whitman were gay.

What the children don’t learn is that if Whitman was a homosexual, he was also a pederast, that Ginsberg was a defender of NAMBLA, the notorious North American Man Boy Love Association, and that he (in)famously said, “Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”

During a radio interview earlier this year on the Rick Amato show, Jimmy LaSalvia of GOProud stated, “I happen to think that a good school teacher, when they’re teaching literature, would mention that Oscar Wilde, when they’re teaching his work, would mention that Oscar Wilde was locked in an asylum because he was gay.”

Would they also mention that he was a boy lover and that he wrote about his passionate sexual encounters with young teens no older than some of the boys allegedly molested by Sandusky?

As noted by Jim Kepner, formerly curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles, “If we reject the boylovers in our midst today we’d better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, [and others]. We’d better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay today.” (There is, of course, dispute about the sexuality of some of these men on the list, but if, in fact, they were homosexual, they were also pederasts.)

And remember that SB 48, mandating the celebration of LGBT history in all California schools for all children in all grades, is now law.

The outrage over the alleged pedophile acts of Sandusky is only matched by the gay silence over the alleged pedophile (or pederast) acts of Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, and others.

There is already a Harvey Milk Day in California, commemorating the life and death of this gay pioneer politician who has also been celebrated in an Academy Award winning film, but there’s more to the Harvey Milk story.

According to the acclaimed gay journalist Randy Shilts, at age eleven, Milk began attending performances of the New York Metropolitan Opera where he met with “wandering hands,” and soon was engaged in “brief trysts [with grown men] after the performances.” While still in junior high, he “dove headfirst into the newly discovered subculture,” and by the age of fourteen, Milk was “leading an active homosexual life.” As he grew older, the pattern reversed itself to the point that, at age thirty-three, Milk hooked up with a sixteen-year-old named Jack McKinley, one of a number of younger men with whom he was intimate.

And our kids celebrate Harvey Milk Day in their schools? Will they also celebrate the memory of Harry Hay, widely considered to be the founder of America’s gay liberation movement and another well-known friend of NAMBLA? When a gay pride parade in Los Angeles banned NAMBLA from participating, Hay decided to march in the parade carrying a sign that said, “NAMBLA walks with me.”

From 2001-2006, Yale University’s LGBT program was greatly helped by the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies, named after the famous gay activist and author. Kramer too was a NAMBLA supporter, and in a 2004 speech in New York City, he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me. I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him” (meaning, by infecting him with AIDS). Where is the gay outcry over this?

And what are we to make of these statements by Kramer, proudly quoted by NAMBLA? “In those cases where children do have sex with their homosexual elders . . . I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it, either because of a natural curiosity . . . or because he or she is homosexual and innately knows it.” He even claimed that, “And unlike girls or women forced into rape or traumatized, most gay men have warm memories of their earliest and early sexual encounters; when we share these stories with each other, they are invariably positive ones.”

This is despicable, deplorable, and disgusting, yet Kramer remains a revered figure in gay activist circles.

And I haven’t said a word about gay activist attempts to reduce (or repeal!) the age of consent in different countries, including America (see, for example, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform), but the inescapable truth is clear: The gay activist closet has been opened, and the pedophile elephant is there.

Let gay activists demonstrate their categorical rejection of all forms of pedophilia and pederasty by denouncing its very obvious presence in gay history (from the ancient Greeks to Harvey Milk), by renouncing all gay attempts to lower (or eliminate) the age of consent, and by agreeing not to sexualize our children’s education.

Will they do that, or will they attack the messenger? We shall see.

(Everything cited in this article is carefully and painfully documented in A Queer Thing Happened to America.)

Dr. Michael Brown is the author of A Queer Thing Happened to America and the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network.

Posted in Featured Articles, Sexuality & Gender Tagged with: , , , ,

September 1st, 2011 by Michael L. Brown

Jonathan Dudley’s June 21 article on CNN’s Belief Blog, “Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?” has received over 6,000 comments and more than 31,000 Facebook recommendations. Unfortunately, the author has seriously misled his reading audience.

Dudley explains that as a result of his seminary studies at Yale, he cast off the evangelical faith of his youth, including the idea that the Bible clearly condemned homosexuality. He now claims that his “childhood community’s approach to gay rights—though well intentioned—is riddled with self-serving double standards.”  And he exhorts his readers: “So let’s stop the charade and be honest. Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.”

Self-serving double standards? A charade? Could it be that Dudley still has something to learn? Could it be that, had he attended another seminary and studied with other scholars, he would have come to different conclusions? At the least, could it be that there is simply another side to the story?

Dudley’s views were influenced by Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin (whom Dudley failed to point out is openly gay and well-known for his gay-leaning interpretations), according to whom “today’s ‘pro-family’ activism . . . would have been considered ‘heresy’ for most of the church’s history.” Heresy? Really?

Dudley admits that the Apostle Paul felt that “male-male intercourse” was a sin (for the record, Paul said the same things about female-female relations), but he now believes that Paul was mistaken, meaning that Dudley has not only cast off the faith of his youth but also the faith of Paul. He claims that, Romans 1 is “the only passage in the Bible where a reason is explicitly given for opposing same-sex relations,” and in the chapter, Paul calls them ‘unnatural.’”

In point of fact, the Bible gives numerous explicit or implicit reasons why same-sex relations are wrong, including: 1) God created humankind in His image as male and female, and it is only when the two become one that His image is fully revealed; 2) there is a unique complementarity between a man and a woman, which is why men and women marry; 3) only heterosexuals unions can fulfill the divine command to “be fruitful and multiply”; 4) it is therefore detestable for a man to sexually penetrate another man.

What about saying these actions are “unnatural”? Dudley points out that in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul writes that nature teaches that long hair is degrading for a man but a glory to a woman. Do we uphold this teaching as well?

Actually, Paul never said that a man with long hair would not enter God’s kingdom, whereas he taught that practicing homosexuals would not enter, so one can hardly compare the two issues. Moreover, Paul used very strong language in his condemnation of same-sex practice in Romans 1, speaking of “shameful lusts” and “shameful acts,” among other terms.

With regard to long hair, Paul was most likely addressing the question of women wearing veils in Christian home gatherings, since it was the normal custom for married women to be veiled in public but not at home. Paul taught that they should be veiled when praying or speaking in the home gatherings, reinforcing his point with the analogy of nature, reminding the Corinthians that it is the common, cross-cultural pattern for women to have long hair and men to have short hair, the reverse being viewed as degrading. That’s it. (Although not mentioned by Paul, his argument is underscored by the fact that for men, baldness is common and not particularly devastating, whereas baldness for a woman is highly uncommon and quite devastating.)

Dudley next tackles the issue of celibacy, claiming that “the community opposed to gay marriage has itself revised the Christian tradition in a host of ways. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, for example, marriage was deemed morally inferior to celibacy.”

Again, this is a gross overstatement, if not downright false. 1) The first followers of Jesus were all Jews, among whom marriage was highly prized and celibacy was the rare exception to the rule. 2) The New Testament actually presumed that a congregational leader would be married, stating that he must be the husband of only one wife. 3) Marriage is said to be an earthly picture of a sublime heavenly reality, namely the mystical union of Christ and the Church. 4) It was only over a period of centuries that celibacy became exalted, and at that, primarily for “clergy” (another later concept), while some parts of the Church protested the requirement that priests be celibate. But why quibble over facts?

Dudley’s case is weakened even further when he argues that “the vast majority of Christian theologians and saints throughout history have not believed life begins at conception.” But debates about when life begins (which were largely philosophical, having to do with the nature of the soul) were hardly the issue (not to mention that many prominent, early Church leaders did claim that life began at conception). The real issue is that, for many centuries, the Church was known for its opposition to abortion (and infanticide, which it helped eradicate), beginning with early second-century documents like the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas, which either condemned abortion or equated it with murder. This pattern was continued by the second-third century apologists, numerous church councils, and prominent fourth-fifth century leaders like Basil, Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom – just to focus on the first five centuries of Church history. So Dudley has misled his readers yet again.

The only time he is somewhat on target is when he claims that evangelicals have compromised the New Testament’s teaching on divorce. Sadly, there is some truth to this claim, but the solution is not to compromise biblical standards even further by sanctioning homosexual practice but rather to reclaim the high ethical ground of the New Testament when it comes to marriage and divorce.

Perhaps some further study would do Mr. Dudley well, this time in an evangelical seminary?

Michael Brown is host of the daily, syndicated talk radio show, The Line of Fire, and author of A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.

Posted in Featured Articles, News, Sexuality & Gender Tagged with: , , , ,

August 19th, 2011 by Michael L. Brown

Editor’s Note: Also published on Part 1 and Part 2

The recent cover of the French edition of Vogue magazine caused considerable controversy, and it was not because of the all too typical, female model featured in a sensual pose. Instead, it was the fact that the model this time was a 10 year-old girl.

The headline of an article appearing on announced that, “Vogue Blurs the Line between Fashion & Pedophilia with 10 Year Old Model,” and the article’s author, Ilana Angel, rightly noted that, “A 10 year old is not able to distinguish between playing dress up in mommy’s make-up and high heels, and proving a sexual aid to pedophiles.” How true!

But this is only one, extreme example of the way our kids are being sexualized. How many children watch MTV and VH1, mimicking the moves and memorizing the lyrics of the latest song by Britney Spears or Lady Gaga, having no clue that the moves they are making and the words they are mouthing are sexually charged. These kids are too young to have any understanding of sexuality, and yet it is no secret to the TV execs that these same children are a major part of the viewing audience.

And was anyone really surprised when Miley Cyrus outgrew Hannah Montana and discovered pole dancing instead? What are her youthful followers to make of her now? Perhaps they’ll follow her lead? Perhaps they’ll ask mom and dad for a pole of their own at home?

But there’s more. There is the sexualizing of our children in the public schools, and I’m not talking about sex-ed classes. I’m talking about teaching gay history to elementary school children, as now mandated by law in California with the recent passing of SB 48, thereby introducing sexual categories to little ones who haven’t the slightest clue what sexual orientation is, let alone have the ability to wrap their minds around “bisexual” or “transgender.”

To add insult to injury, parents will have no right to opt their kids out of these classes, a hard lesson parents in other states have already learned, where the courts have sided with the schools rather than the parents. Already in Massachusetts, a couple was so upset with this state-sponsored sexualizing of their first grader that they took their battle to court, where Judge Mark Wolff of the US Court of Appeals ruled that the schools have a greater responsibility to teach “diversity” than to honor the requests of the parents. In other words, “Sorry, moms and dads. We know what is best for your children, and when we decide it’s time to introduce them to ‘diversity’ – our codeword for gay activist curricula – we will do so. You, on your part, have no right to interfere, so don’t even think about it.” (For more details, see Chapter Three of my book A Queer Thing Happened to America.)

What is unique in California is not that gay-themed lessons will be taught to little children. Rather, it is that these lessons will be mandated across the entire state for all schools and all classes, which, of course, will be reflected in the textbooks that will be used. And, as is well known, what happens in California doesn’t stay in California, meaning that the textbooks printed for our most populous state will be used throughout the nation.

In the specific language of SB 48, the bill amended “the Education Code to include social sciences instruction on the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.” And note that previous bills relating to LGBT issues – including AB 537, AB 1785, AB 394, SB 777, SB 572 – were not enough. SB 48 had to go one step further.

What exactly will this mean? For starters, it will demand that the categories of “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender” be introduced to six year-olds. I have watched videos of classes taught in different parts of the countries where elementary school children are shown pictures of artists or musicians or politicians or other famous figures and are told, “He (or she) was gay,” as if they had the slightest real concept of what “gay” actually meant. (As I recall, in the early years of elementary school, boys like boys and girls like girls. Does that make all of them “gay”?)

Of course, we are told that introducing this curriculum will reduce bullying of LGBT kids in schools, but the best way to reduce bullying is to teach that bullying is bad rather than gay is good. And does anyone really think that, say, showing kids images of a fat Buddha will stop the bullying of fat kids? More to the point, who gave the public schools the right to sexualize our children?

But this is just the beginning. It gets worse. Stay tuned for more.

There are some important things that can be lost and then recovered. Health. Finances. Friends. Even reputation. Innocence, however, is not one of them, especially the prepubescent, sexual innocence of a child.

My wife, Nancy, and I are blessed to have four amazing grandchildren, aged four to 10. They can be silly. They can be mischievous. They can be sarcastic (having been trained well by their grandfather). At times they can even be disobedient (although hardly ever to their doting grandparents). Yet they are profoundly innocent when it comes to sexuality. Why is it that some people are determined to shatter that innocence?

Every few years, there is a push to “out” the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie, claiming that they must be gay (I kid you not). Even now, there is a petition on the website, stating, “For over 40 years, our beloved Sesame St. characters, Bert and Ernie, have been living as ‘roommates’ and we would like PBS and Sesame St. to allow them to live as a gay couple and maybe eventually, marry. It would show children and their parents that not only is it acceptable but also teach children that homophobia is wrong, bullying is wrong and that Sesame Street should recognize that there are LGBT relationships, families, and include them in their show.”

Putting aside the obligatory references to “homophobia” and “bullying” (does anyone really believe that turning Bert and Ernie into gay characters will combat homophobia and bullying?), it appears that the folks at have failed to realize that the kids watching Sesame Street are, on average, between two and five years old, and they no more understand the concepts of gay or lesbian or bisexual than they understand the concepts of quantum physics. And Bert and Ernie are Muppets, for heaven’s sake.

Sadly, as absurd as this latest petition drive is, the queering of elementary education (to borrow the title of a well-known book) is no laughing matter. What, then, are some of the implications of the recently passed Senate Bill (SB 48) in California, which mandates “social sciences instruction on the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people,” with no way for parents to pull their kids from the classes?

On the one hand, LGBT pioneers will be celebrated, including people like Leslie Feinberg, the “transgender warrior,” author of Stone Butch Blues, among other books, a woman who dresses like a man, is partnered to another woman, and prefers to be called “ze,” as opposed to he or she. (She is already celebrated in some gay educational curricula.) What will our little ones make of “hir” (again, the preferred pronoun, in contrast with him or her)?

Should we also assume that every figure highlighted in history classes who is not LGBT will be identified as heterosexual? “Today, children, we’re learning about Thomas Jefferson, who was straight.” Is this what we can expect? And why must our kids be told the sexual or romantic inclinations of historical figures?

But there’s more. There will be people like George Washington Carver, a man often claimed as gay by LGBT historians and already featured in gay class lessons. Would his alleged sexual orientation now become a topic of instruction? If so, consider first that there is no clear evidence that he was homosexual, simply speculation among some of his biographers. Second, even if he was same-sex attracted, and even if he acted on those attractions, that was certainly not something he wanted to be known. Will he now be posthumously outed? Third, the real story about this important historical figure is what we do know, namely, that he overcame racism, that he was a committed Christian, and that he made many important discoveries. Why in the world should we bring allegations about his sexuality into the classroom?

Yet there’s more still. On a recent radio interview, GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia stated that if he was learning about men like Walt Whitman and Oscar Wilde in school, he would want to know that they were gay. The problem, however, is that they were not simply gay. As noted by Jim Kepner, formerly curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles, “If we reject the boylovers in our midst today we’d better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Horatio Alger, and Shakespeare. We’d better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay today.”

We won’t get into a discussion of Shakespeare’s sexuality here (or most of the others on this list), but Kepner’s point is well taken. Shall we tell the young teenage boys the whole story, namely that Oscar Wilde had a preference for boys their age?

In my opinion, it is just as outrageous to introduce the categories of adult homosexuality and bisexuality to elementary school children, and now is the time to draw the line. Otherwise, your 8 year-old daughter might come home from school to tell you that she just learned that Joan of Arc was transgender. (After all, wasn’t she a cross-dresser?) Or perhaps your little boy will tell you how exciting it was to learn about the drag queens who started a riot at the Stonewall Inn in 1969.

The fact is that our educational system is having a hard enough time teaching our kids the three R’s. Must they now learn LGBTQ’s? Now is the time to stop sexualizing our children. They should not be casualties of the culture wars. Do you agree?

Michael Brown is host of the daily, syndicated talk radio show, The Line of Fire, and author of A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.

Posted in Culture, Lead Article, News Tagged with: , , , , , ,

August 9th, 2011 by Michael L. Brown

It was political strategist James Carville who coined the now-famous phrase that helped catapult Bill Clinton to the presidency, incessantly reminding him that, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Any candidate seeking to unseat President Obama in the 2012 elections will surely follow this same strategy.

After all, the economy is in shambles and Americans are fed up with the latest congressional efforts to reduce the deficit. Unemployment is nearing epidemic proportions, gasoline prices are outrageous, spending is out of control, and for the first time, our national credit rating has been downgraded. Worse still, if foreign money was pulled out of our economy, we would have a massive, coast to coast collapse.

Political pundits commonly warn candidates, especially Republican candidates, that voters today are not as concerned with social and moral issues as much as they are concerned with the economy. In that respect, Carville’s sage advice to Clinton is nothing new. After all, Hebert Hoover’s 1928 campaign slogan was, “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” Has anything really changed since 1928 in terms of what Americans care about the most?

Surely, it still is “the economy, stupid.” Or is it? Could it be that there’s more to the story? Could it be that we make a serious and fundamental mistake when we separate economic issues from moral issues? Could it be that we are often treating the symptoms rather than the cause? There was bipartisan disgust as the nation watched the president and both political parties wrangling over a solution to the current financial crisis, and in the end, all we got was a very small, largely ineffective band aid. As one political cartoonist depicted it, the congressional “solution” was like slowing down the speed with which the Titanic was sinking.

Across party lines, there was a feeling that we were not really getting to the root of the problem, but few, if any were suggesting that it is impossible to separate economics from morality. Eventually, our moral choices will have a definite and direct impact on the money (or lack thereof) in our pockets.

A successful businessman recently suggested to me that some of the roots of our economic problems include:

1) Instant gratification. It was Jim Morrison of the Doors who once proclaimed, “We want the world and we want it now!” That was 1967. Today, we really want it now (as in “instant”; think “messaging” and “downloading” and more). If I want it, I will find a way to get it, and I will get it now. Yes, it’s true that I’m out of work, but I will get that iPad, I will be at the movie theatre this weekend, and I will find a way to buy the latest, trendy threads. Thank God for credit cards!

2) We have become consumers rather than producers. One website claims that, “Americans constitute 5% of the world’s population but consume 24% of the world’s energy. On average, one American consumes as much energy as 2 Japanese, 6 Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 31 Indians, 128 Bangladeshis, 307 Tanzanians, 370 Ethiopians.” And, “Americans throw out 200,000 tons of edible food daily, enough to feed 3 third world countries.” Of course, some of this has to do with the fact that we have a lot more at our disposal than, say, the average Ethiopian. But a lot of this also has to do with our selfishness, greed, and lack of discipline. Do our political leaders dare address those issues?

3) The breakdown of the family. Two generations into the sexual revolution (which has brought us to the point of sexual anarchy), and two generations into no-fault divorce, the “traditional family unit” is an increasingly threatened species, and at a high economic cost to our society. Author Frank Turek points out that kids raised by their mom and dad are: “a. Seven times less likely to live in poverty; b. Six times less likely to commit suicide; c. Less than half as likely to commit crime; d. Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock; e. Develop better academically and socially; f. [Are] healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood.” You had better believe the breakdown of the family has massive economic implications.

4) Abortion. With all the concerns about Social Security defaulting, very few leaders are talking about the 800 pound gorilla missing from the room, namely, multiplied millions of working Americans who are not here to pay into the system and contribute to the economy because their lives were cut short in the womb. Yes, there is an economic consequence to abortion as well.

Perhaps, then, it would be wise for political candidates who really care about what’s best for America to change their slogan to, “It’s the morality, stupid.” Or is this slogan too true to be good?

Michael Brown is host of the daily, syndicated talk radio show, The Line of Fire, and author of A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.

Posted in Culture, Lead Article, News Tagged with: , , , , , ,

June 20th, 2011 by Michael L. Brown

Editor’s Note: Also published on Crosswalk.

It’s time for a gut check for conservative Christians in America. If we are on the right side of one of the greatest social, moral, and spiritual issues of our time, then we need to dig deep, hold our ground, strengthen our commitment, and redouble our efforts, regardless of cost or consequence. But if we are on the wrong side of this issue, then we had best throw in the towel before we lose all credibility and further damage the reputation of the Lord.

The issue of which I speak is that of “gay rights” (or, more broadly, “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender rights”), and on an almost daily basis, the mainstream media assures us of two things: 1) Just as many conservative Christians were on the wrong side of slavery, segregation, and women’s rights, we are on the wrong side of the gay rights issue today. 2) It is futile to oppose gay activism any longer, since the battle has already been won and Americans have embraced “equality and tolerance.”

Put another way, those who continue to argue that homosexual practice is sinful or that same-sex couples should not have the right to marry will soon be consigned to the dung heap of public opinion, there to join past generations of slave traders, misogynists, and members of the KKK. Is this true?

To be sure, we are living in times of stunning social transition:

  • For the third straight year, President Barack Obama has declared June to be Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, also commemorating the Stonewall Riots of June 1969.
  • In New York, both Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg are making an aggressive attempt to legalize same-sex marriage now.
  • One of the country’s most prestigious law firms, King & Spalding, dropped the United States Government as its client under pressure from gay activists after agreeing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.
  • Media outlets have praised the students of a Florida high school for selecting a cross-dressing teenage boy as their prom queen.
  • Major league baseball teams have now joined the “It Gets Better” campaign, designed to encourage gay and lesbian youth and teenagers in their sexual orientation, and “It Gets Better” commercials, sponsored by Google and even featuring a word of encouragement from Pixar’s “Woody” of Toy Story fame, have been broadcast during NBA playoff games.
  • The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated some of America’s most respected family ministries as “hate groups” because of their alleged spreading of misinformation regarding homosexuality.
  • When a Chik-Fil-A store in Pennsylvania donated brownies and sandwiches to a pro-family organization that opposed same-sex marriage, college students began to call for boycotts of Chik-Fil-A on their campuses. At the same time, major corporations pour millions of dollars into gay activist organizations and are widely praised for their philanthropy.

And the list goes on… and on. Is it time for us to capitulate?  Are we on the wrong side of history once again? Certainly not.

It is true that there are many kind, friendly, hard-working, conscientious LGBT people and they deserve to be treated with civility and respect, but when it comes to biblical truth, there is not a single argument that has been presented or a single discovery that has been made – historically or linguistically or archeologically or exegetically – that would cause us to alter our understanding that God’s Word opposes homosexual practice. And it is true that there are many devoted, loving, same-sex couples, but there is still not the slightest reason to redefine marriage – society’s most fundamental social institution – nor, for that matter, has any  proponent of same-sex marriage provided an adequate answer to the most basic of questions, namely, What’s so special about the number “two” if marriage is not the union of a man and a woman?

When it comes to recent polls that indicate that a majority of Americans – especially among younger Americans – now believe same-sex marriage should be legal, we must remember that polls do not tell us what is right, they simply report public opinion. Why in the world should Christian leaders bow down to polls when it comes to determining morality?

We must also bear in mind that other recent polls indicate that most Americans, quite remarkably, believe that more than 25% of the population is gay (as opposed to the correct figure, which is closer to 3%), with Americans under 30 years of age putting the figure at close to 33%. This is an almost unbelievably inaccurate picture (thanks to TV and the media, no doubt), and one that certainly influences public perception towards LGBT people.

The fact is that followers of Jesus are called to swim against the tide of popular opinion and go against the grain of popular morality rather than do what is convenient or expedient. And so, the real question is not whether we are on the right side of history. The question is: Will we do what is right or will we cave in to culture?

Dr. Michael Brown is the author of A Queer Thing Happened to America and the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network.

Posted in Culture, Featured Articles, News Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 24th, 2011 by M. French

A Queer Thing Happened to America has been out for 2 months now, and feedback continues to come in (see here for previous coverage of the book).  A review of the book was posted by Christian commentator Bill Muehlenberg on his site on May 16th.  Below is a section from it:

All in all, this book is a devastating rebuttal of the homosexualist agenda. It is filled with many hundreds of quotations from the homosexual press, from homosexual activists, and from reputable medical and scientific journals. It is one long volume allowing the other side to speak for itself, condemning itself in the process.

There are very few people who are still qualified to write a book like this today. One needs to be a careful scholar, a person of courage and conviction, aware of social trends and movements, filled with God’s love and compassion, and dedicated to telling truth in the public arena, even when it is very costly to do so.

Fortunately Michael Brown fully meets these qualifications. Thus his new book can be recommended without reservation. It deserves the very widest hearing. Well done Dr Brown.

The Gay Christian Movement Watch blog discussed the book as well:

In April, just a month after Dr. Brown interviewed with Sid Roth, the California Senate passed Senate Bill 58. This legislation would require California public schools to add gay history to its already overcrowded curriculm. This bill is now waiting to be approved by the California State Assembly. A Queer Thing is Always Happening in California that is for sure… This is further confirmation of what Dr. Michael Brown has spoken in his interview and written about in his book.

With regard to negative feedback, gay activist sympathizer Kathy Baldock did a lengthy review of each chapter on her blog, Canyonwalker Connections.  A response from Dr. Brown was posted here a few days ago. Below is a section from his response:

Kathy continues,

I think AQTHTA manipulates the facts, presents the worst of situations, travels to the fringes to find the extremes and  interjects damaging oddball situations and thinking to  horribly skew and demonize an entire class of people, the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.  And, the cover is wildly offensive.

To the contrary, I did not go to the fringes or cherry pick but rather gave a fair representation of the whole, as much as possible, with constant qualifying remarks so as to avoid any stereotyping. And there is not a single fact cited that has been manipulated. As for the cover, I understand that Kathy finds it wildly offensive, but we surveyed many people from all walks of life – including gays and lesbians – and the cover was quite popular with almost all of them. Had we consistently heard from people that it was wildly offensive – as opposed to eye-catching and inviting – we would have used a different cover.

Gay activist website Ex-Gay Watch posted an article concerning the book in which the author is assured that they know what the quality and veractiy of the contents will be without reading it, saying:

Brown and his supporters will probably protest that I haven’t yet read the book. I know enough of Brown, the movement he represents, and what I’ve read about the book so far to confidently predict what kind of thing it contains and how accurate it is. I’ve based my comments only on what I know so far, and I’m not building up my hopes of finding anything different in the book itself.

The feedback is, to this point, to be expected. Conservative Christian commentators are sympathetic to the book and its claims, while pro-gay commentators are dismissive of its contents and the points it and Brown are making.  What will be of greater interest to me personally will be to see if a few key people will get hold of a copy of the book, lay hold of its contents, and seek to change the course of our nation through the means given to them, with regard to sexuality, gender distinctions, and covenantal marriage in law and culture.

Marcus French is Editor of Voice of Revolution, and also helps produce the daily radio show, The Line of Fire. Contact him at

Posted in Culture, News Tagged with: , , , , , ,

May 23rd, 2011 by Michael L. Brown

On her CanyonWalker blog, Kathy Baldock has written the first lengthy review of A Queer Thing Happened to America, and immediately after it was posted, others began to read and refer to it rather than interact with the book itself. Unfortunately, her review is riddled with serious omissions and misrepresentations, because of which I have taken the time to respond in detail

While Kathy and I have never met, both of us profess to be committed followers of Jesus and to love the GLBT community, yet we have markedly different perspectives on what the Bible says about homosexual practice and on what our response to homosexuality should be. That being said, I don’t doubt her sincerity any more than she doubts mine, and I appreciate her kind words in her introductory comments. As stated, however, despite her professed efforts to write a fair review, readers of her review will get a misleading and at times glaringly inaccurate picture of A Queer Thing Happened to America.

Kathy begins her review by stating, “‘There’s your truth, my truth and the truth.’ Christians should make it standard operating procedure to stick closer to the truth. Too often we tilt on over to the ‘my truth’ side if it bolsters our fears. The tilt, however, has more damaging effects when the ‘truth’, yours or mine, is manipulated.”

Ironically, that is the very thing she has done, although I honestly believe her misrepresentation of my book was unintentional. It was simply a matter of “her truth” getting in the way of “the truth,” in this case, a truthful assessment of the contents of the book. While it is tempting to point out every inaccurate statement in her review, I will simply illustrate where the reader of her review would get a totally false impression of A Queer Thing Happened to America.

She takes issue with the thesis of Chapter One, “A Stealth Agenda,” writing:

The statement by Dr. Brown that stunned me was : “Ironically, when it comes to denying the existence of a gay agenda, there is immense unity in the gay community. Why? It is because the denial of that agenda is part of the agenda (although for some, it might be a sincere, heartfelt denial.” (pg 43) What? I asked my gay friend Jeff if keeping the agenda a secret is indeed part of the agenda and he said, “I can let you borrow my copy. I keep it behind my ear on microfilm for secret meetings.” (Gotta love Jeff.)

You can ask one hundred gay people what the “gay agenda” is and you get an almost unanimous answer: “equality”.

Readers of Kathy’s review might be surprised to know that I begin this chapter by asking, “Is there really a homosexual agenda? Is there truly an insidious gay plot to undermine traditional values and subvert the American family? The very idea of it appears to be laughable – especially to the gay and lesbian community.”

In fact, the first seven pages of Chapter One explain why most GLBT’s deny there is such a thing as a gay agenda, with statements like this, “A gay agenda? What a joke! Simply stated, a ‘gay agenda’ does not exist anymore than a ‘Head Homosexual’ exists – at least, that’s what many gays and lesbians would surely (and sincerely) say.” And this: “Of course, most gays and lesbians do have an ‘agenda.’ They want to live productive, happy, fulfilling lives, just like everyone else. Beyond that, they probably want others to accept them as they are. That would be the ‘agenda’ of the majority of homosexual men and women worldwide.”

Yes, that is written in my book, and that is what I believe. What I also note (with detailed documentation) is that there are a plethora of gay activist organizations with clearly identified missions and goals – in other words, an agenda – yet it is common for these organizations,  such as GLAAD, to urge that terms like “gay agenda” be avoided and to use terms like “gay rights” instead. Thus the “agenda” is a stealth agenda. It’s quite simple, and the facts are what they are: Facts.

On a more specific note (but once more, giving a good example of misleading information), Kathy writes:

“After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fears and Hatred of Gays in the 1990′s” is referred to dozens of times in AQTHTA. It has a six-fold plan for the “gay revolution”. Sounds terrifying. Again, a Google search has all the conservatives referring to the plan and not one GLBT organization. If it is part of the “gay agenda”, shouldn’t some gay group be using it or alluding to it?

Apparently she failed to read the lengthy discussion of this very question in endnote 29 – and Kathy has reiterated that she read every endnote – which ends by saying, “If Kirk and Madsen didn’t invent the strategies, they helped articulate already extant strategies for advancing a gay agenda.”

In summarizing Chapter Two, “Jewish Hitlers, Christian Jihadists, and the Magical Effects of Pushing the Hate Button,” Kathy fairly states:

So yes, we see in this chapter that people call each other nasty names in heated dialogues that disintegrate to yell-matches. That is going to happen on both sides when you keep telling someone that they are unacceptable. Dr. Brown suggests we “bring [ing] the real issues into the light [so ] that we can render the hate button obsolete. Isn’t it time?” I fully agree. But we widely disagree on the “real issues”.

What she fails to grasp, however, is the main point of the chapter: Those of us who graciously say that marriage should not be redefined or who hold to biblically based sexual morality or who do not celebrate homosexuality are branded bigoted, intolerant, haters – and much more – yet the hate speech and invective constantly flies our way from the so-called tolerant crowd. What a double standard! (And yes, I fully agree with Kathy’s assessment that lots of people claiming to be Christian express all kinds of hatred and venom.) My appeal, then, remains the same: Let’s quit pushing the “hate” button and let’s talk civilly about the issues. What is wrong with that?

Kathy’s review of Chapter Three, “Boys Will Be Girls Will Be Boys,” is extremely short, although she does try to justify gay-slanted children’s curricula. At the same time, she recognizes that some parents may choose to homeschool their kids and to keep them from unwanted influences. What about those parents who simply are not able to homeschool their kids or send them to private schools? She provides no answer. Readers of her review would do well to look carefully at the actual contents of this chapter and ask: Is this what schools should be doing? Do we really need lessons for elementary school students like, “Discovering Your Inner Trannie?” or, “What’s With the Dress Jack?” Is the policy of the Los Angeles United School district something commendable, when it states, “‘Gender identity’ refers to one’s understanding, interests, outlook, and feelings about whether one is female or male, or both, or neither, regardless of one’s biological sex”?

The review of Chapter Four, “Something Queer on Our Campuses,” is also very short, ending with, “College students have and always will push the edges of what parents would like them to. This is not exclusive to queer kids.” True, but the chapter is not only about what the kids are doing on campus but rather on what the professors are teaching and modeling. Not only so, but it is one thing for  college kids to party and sleep around; it is another to boast about being a “21-year-old genderqueer lesbian” with multiple identities.

Turning to Chapter Five, “Hollywood’s Celebration of Queer,” Kathy once more misses the point of the chapter, first noting that, “All of media is not like it was in the Hollywood Moral Code days. The same chapter could be written on stupid sexual stuff straight people do. All the filth cannot be laid on the backs of gay people.” But that is not what the chapter is about, and there is not a single sentence that attempts to lay “all the filth . . . on the backs of gay people.” Once again, the “review” is not a review but rather a response.

Kathy asks, “Why are there so many gay people on TV? Maybe because they really are the most talented people musical note for musical note or performance per scene?” That’s possible, but again, it has nothing to do with the point of the chapter, nor does Kathy’s comment that, “Television and movies are more sexual than when I was younger; making gay people go away will not make media PG again.” Rather, the point of the chapter, which was once again missed or ignored, was simply that Hollywood has served as a convenient and very effective tool through which gay activists have helped shape American thinking, as proudly owned by gay leaders themselves. How could that point have been missed?

The review of Chapter Six, “Is Gay the New Black,” is also quite brief, and Kathy rightly recognizes that no “gay gene” has yet been found. She also understands my argument that scientists have claimed to have found a violent gene and an obesity gene and an adultery gene – among others. Thus, just as the argument that, “‘I was born that way’,” cannot be used as a justification for, say violence or adultery, so also it can be used as a justification for homosexuality. Her response, however, is a non-sequitir: “Well, until someone finds the gene that made me straight, I am just not willing to insist that GLBT people find the gay gene so that they can be validated as acceptable.” That is actually the opposite conclusion to draw, since it is GLBT people who are constantly seeking to validate their orientation by claiming “I was born that way,” whereas the whole point of the chapter is that even if they were born that way (which I see no scientific reason to accept), that would not validate their orientation.

It is as we turn to Kathy’s treatment of Chapter Seven, “Speaking the Unspeakable,” that we find the most egregious part of Kathy’s “review,” the part that is producing especially hostile reactions from gay activists and professing gay Christians. After noting that I begin the chapter with the emphatic statements, “MICHAEL BROWN IS NOT EQUATING HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE WITH PEDOPHILIA. MICHAEL BROWN IS NOT CALLING ALL HOMOSEXUALS PEDOPHILES,” she writes, “However, the next FORTY pages are about pedophilia. So repulsive, it amazed me that Dr. Brown would include it. Why does he say he included it then? Pedophiles say they are born that way and the slippery slope to including homosexuals with equal status will open the doors to pedophiles wanting equality and acceptance too.”

She continues:

This section made me angry. Just because you say “I am not saying this . . . ” and then publish FORTY pages of trash in the midst of a book on the dangers/damage of/by homosexuals does not negate the impact of the natural association that people will make to homosexuality. This is one of the most disgusting ploys, intentional or not, of the entire book. Dr. Brown could have stated his concerns in one paragraph, yet, I was subjected to reading the NAMBLA boy-love trash???

. . . How many potential GLBT readers will you thoroughly offend by this most egregious, don’t-think-about-the-pink-elephant tactic? So offensive and incredibly subtly manipulative. Completely gratuitous porn. No wonder no publisher would touch this manuscript. This may have been one of the two major disqualifiers from options other than self publish.

It would appear then, that in her anger, she failed to understand the purpose of the chapter, a chapter that was carefully vetted by philosophers and lawyers and theologians, and a chapter that compares arguments and not acts. (This, of course, is explicitly and repeatedly stated.) In the chapter, I present eight principle arguments used by pedophiles (or pederasts), namely: 1) Pedophilia is innate and immutable. 2) Pederasty is richly attested in many different cultures throughout history.  3)  The claim that adult-child sexual relationships cause harm is greatly overstated and often completely inaccurate. 4) Consensual adult-child sex can actually be beneficial to the child. 5) Pederasty should not be classified as a mental disorder, since it does not cause distress to the pederast to have these desires and since the pederast can function as a normal, contributing member of society. 6) Many of the illustrious homosexuals of the past were actually pedophiles. 7) People are against intergenerational intimacy because of antiquated social standards and puritanical sexual phobias. 8) This is all about love and equality and liberation. (Note that some of the same psychiatrists and psychologists who argued for the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in the 1970’s are today arguing for the declassification of pedophilia, based especially on argument #5.)

What was the purpose of this chapter? It was to expose the weakness of these arguments, the very arguments used by gay activists to prove the rightness and acceptability of homosexual practice. My appeal was straightforward: “Whatever you do, just don’t use [these] same shelf-worn, ineffective arguments anymore [to prove the morality or acceptability of homosexual practice], since they just as easily make the case for pederasty (how dreadful), and, in reality, they do not prove the morality or rightness of homosexual practice, nor do they give us a single good reason to queer our educational system, redefine marriage, create special categories of protected peoples, or undermine gender.”

Not only was that missed in the midst of Kathy’s acknowledged anger, but those reading her “review” will surmise – totally falsely! – that the chapter contains “completely gratuitous porn.” God forbid! The wrong and misleading associations, which are sure to outrage GLBT readers, come from her pen, not mine, and rather than me being guilty of some kind of “disgusting ploy” (intentional or otherwise) I was actually raising points that do need to be addressed. But why address a point of substance when you can simply accuse someone of equating homosexuality with pedophilia? Why deal with a difficult message when you can shoot the messenger? As for the length of the chapter, it was important to document every argument, since GLBT’s I have interacted with have claimed that such arguments do not exist.

Kathy’s response to Chapter Eight, “Diversity of Perversity,” is to state that: 1) plenty of heterosexual events are marked by immoral and vulgar displays and, 2) if corporate America wants to make money, they need to get the gay dollar. She does not write one syllable interacting with the main point of the chapter, namely, that the word “diversity” has become a codeword for gay activism (often quite intolerant gay activism at that), and that it can include some of the most perverse imaginable displays. She also fails to interact with the widely acknowledged fact (in “conservative” gay literature as well) that gay pride events have historically been (in)famous for their sexual displays.

As for Chapter Nine, “Lavender Language,” Kathy offers only one line, encouraging readers to learn the new jargon. (This, once again, underscores why her “review” is not really a review.) Well, she can have Androgeny, Androgenous, Bigendered, Bi-Dyke, Boi, Boidyke (or, Boydyke), Bro-sis, Butch, ButchDyke, Camp, Cross Dresser (CD), Cross-Living, Drag (In Drag), Drag King, Drag Queen, Dyke, FTM or F->M or F2M (Female to Male), Femme, Femme Dyke, Female Bodied, Female Impersonator (FI), Fetishistic Transvestite, Gender Illusionist, Gender Neutral, Gender-Bender, Gender-Blender, Genderqueer, Genetic Boy, Genetic Male/Man (GM), Genetic Female/Woman (GF/GW), Genetic Girl (GG), Grrl, Half-dyke, Heteroflexible, Hir, Intersex, MTF or M->F or M2F (Male to Female), Male Impersonator, Metamorph, Monogendered, Multigendered, Neuter, No-gendered, Non-op, Omnisexual, Pansexual, Pre-operative Transsexual (Pre-op TS), Polygendered, Post-operative Transsexual, Queer, Queerboi, Shape Shifter, Stem (a feminine-identified lesbian), Stud (a masculine-identified lesbian), Trannyboi, Trannydyke, Trannyfag, Transboi, Transgendered, Transgenderist, Transitioning, Transmale, Transsexual (TS), Transvestite, Transidentified, Trisexual, Two-Spirit, Ze. I’ll stick with “male and female.”

Turning to Chapter Ten, “Queer Theology,” Kathy expresses outrage and shock at my alleged misrepresentation of what gay and lesbian “Christians” believe. She writes,

Almost everything Dr. Brown presented as “normal” belief/behavior for gay Christians, I have never heard. Who did he speak to? What kind of fringe spiritual people did Dr. Brown drag up?  Prayers for cruising? Fantasizing about taking off the loincloth of a crucified Christ? Come on! This is presented as what gay Christians think about/do?

Where then did I get the material for this chapter? Straight from the major gay commentators, theologians, and leaders, both Jewish and “Christian.” The fact is, I didn’t go looking for this. Instead, when I bought the major books written by the major, respected leaders – some of the top names in the MCC churches – I was shocked and disgusted to read the material.

She writes,

Dr. Brown did not call Todd Ferrell, President of  The Evangelical Network, a group of  gay affirming churches. Or Yvette Flunders of City of Refuge Churches. Or personally speak with Rev. Troy Perry, who, by the way, aside from being the founder of MCC is an amazing man of God. Yes. Or Ralph Blair of Evangelicals Concerned.  Or Ross Murray of Lutherans Concerned. Or even attend  an affirming body of believers and get to personally know the pastors over a meal. Or go to any one of many GLBT Christian conferences . Ahhhhh!  Or even talk to me personally or Andrew Marin, personally. This is unbelievably negligent.

Once again, her charges are totally misguided. First, she ignores the fact that I acknowledge that, “Of course, there are conservative ‘gay Christians’ who would be appalled by such sexual depictions,” while also pointing out that “‘gay Christians’ are not lining up to denounce the writings of [“gay Christian” leader Robert] Goss and to express their revulsion at his words. Instead, many are lining up to praise his moral courage and spiritual sensitivity.” It would appear, then, that Kathy associates with those “gay Christians” who would be appalled by these deplorable interpretations, but that only begs the question: Why aren’t they denouncing the writings of men like Robert Goss rather than celebrating him as a key “gay Christian” leader? It can also be asked whether the standard gay reading of the close friendship of David and Jonathan as a homosexual affair is any less ugly, or if her “gay Christian” friends follow the common “gay Christian” interpretation (which is really quite blasphemous) that the servant of the centurion healed by Jesus was his gay teen-lover, healed by Jesus so they could continue their illicit relationship. (How repulsive!)

As to her specific charges, I read Troy Perry’s story and watched a recent documentary on his life; I read the Ralph Blair material and watched some Justin Lee videos; and I went out of my way to make an appointment to have lunch with Kathy and a gay friend of hers while in California, but they cancelled at the last minute. As for Andrew Marin, I have tried to contact him at least four times, twice through associates of his and twice directly, inviting him to join me on my radio show and asking if I could meet with him personally while in Chicago, and I never received a single response. What is “unbelievably negligent” is that Kathy would make these charges without first checking on the facts.

I should also mention that Kathy completely ignores over sections of the chapter where I state:

To be sure, many gays and lesbians have not been treated with grace by the Church, as if, in Christian eyes, homosexual acts were worse than all other acts and as if homosexuals were lepers not to be touched. The common attitude of all too many Christians seems to be: “Don’t go near them or you’ll get the cooties, and don’t dare confess that you’re struggling with same-sex desires. If you do, you’ll be disqualified for life from any meaningful position or place of service in the Church. Stay away from those gays!”

Certainly, in many ways, the Church has failed to reach out to the homosexual community, and, speaking personally as a leader in the Church, I am ashamed at the way we have often treated LGBT men and women. Many times, when reading their stories, especially those who experienced rejection and shunning by the Church, my heart has broken for them. Their pain is palpable, and their hurt anything but silent.

Why leave this out unless the intent is to paint a certain picture that is far from accurate?

She closes her section on this chapter by writing:

This chapter and the pedophile chapter alone should completely disqualify anyone from publishing this book. Careless, deceptive. Sure, the shock value is wonderful, but, is it the truth? Is it a good view of the reality of the norm in the gay Christian arena? Simple answer, no.

Again, she indicts herself, not the book, with the charges of, “Careless, deceptive.” As for the material presented here being “the reality of the norm in the gay Christian arena,” it is certainly the reality of the norm in major works like The Queer Bible Commentary or Queer Commentary on the Hebrew Bible or Queering Christ or Torah Queeries and many other works, all of which are praised as seminal works by leading “gay Christians” (or, gay Jews). Let the “gay Christians” Kathy knows rise up with one voice and renounce such blasphemous trash.

Regarding Chapter Eleven, “So It’s Not About Sex,” Kathy once more misses the intent of the chapter, also ignoring the many qualifying statements that I make. She writes, “Dr. Brown tells us it is not really about equality, it is really about sexual behavior and gay people want to be affirmed in their sexual behavior.” Not so. As I wrote early in the chapter:

Now, to be quite clear, for the gay and lesbian community, this is perceived as a matter of civil rights and as a struggle for equality and justice. In other words, this is not merely a matter of rhetoric or good PR strategy. Gays would emphasize that they are regular people who live their lives like everyone else, going to school, working jobs, paying their taxes, falling in love, having families. Why stigmatize them because of their sexual orientation or sexual behavior?

I also stated clearly that,

. . . it’s also possible that the gay man or lesbian woman who lives next door to you is the best neighbor you’ve ever had, very kind, helpful, and courteous. It’s also possible that you have a lesbian coworker or boss or employee, or a gay teammate or colleague or fellow-student, and it’s possible that each of these people is hardworking, honest, and ethical. I have no doubt that in countless thousands of cases, this is true.

The argument of the chapter is simply that: 1) behavior cannot be separated totally from identity, and, 2) there are good reasons to draw attention to the problems of gay sexual behavior, especially male. But in a glaring example of quoting me only to misquote me, Kathy states,

This one sentence “Why should people be put into a special class of citizens equivalent, say, to race or ethnicity–based upon the way they have romantic and sexual relationships?” tells me volumes.  Being gay or lesbian of bisexual is not about the way someone has sex.  That one sentence tells me the shallowness of the knowledge and understanding of the gay community.

Compare her critique of what I wrote with what I actually wrote – defining sexual orientation as the way a person has romantic and sexual relationships – and you get a snapshot of the flawed nature of this review. And how else should sexual orientation be defined if not referring to one’s romantic and sexual attractions?

Kathy has an obvious ax to grind in her treatment of Chapter Twelve, “The Ex-Gay Movement,” stating,

It is a fact that the ex-gay movement does exist. It is a fact that some people find reconciliation of faith and sexuality in these groups. It is a fact that some people do get heterosexually married or remain celibate for the rest of  their lives.

It is fiction however, that people change their orientation.  When I see the footnotes  and quotes citing Nicolosi, NARTH and Gagnon, I know Dr. Brown has  gone to the extremes for his research.

First, it is not fiction that people change their orientation (or, in faith terms, God changes their orientation). My own late brother-in-law is a close to home example. Countless other former gays and lesbians whom I have known attest to this. I have also met many who are celibate and still same-sex attracted, along with those who have experienced a degree of change in their orientation. The fact is, there are decades of scientific and clinical reports documenting change in orientation, and, more importantly, the Bible specifically addresses this:

But you yourselves wrong and defraud- even your own brothers!  Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,  nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:8-11, ESV).

When we come to the Lord, He changes us to the very core of our beings – we are, in many ways, rotten to the core and in need of redemption – and that change can include (and for many, does include) change in one’s sexual orientation. Unfortunately, Kathy has listened to those who say change is impossible – where, by the way, does the power of God factor into that hopeless equation? – and ignored those who have experienced change.

As for those cited in the chapter, as in every chapter, I cite a wide range of evidence, and the sources I use from NARTH, for example, are sound and scholarly, while as a biblical scholar myself I can attest to the fact that Robert Gagnon is the foremost academic authority on the subject of the Bible and homosexual practice. But why deal with facts when it’s easier to fling mud?

As for the famous failures among former “ex-gay” leaders, they are just that: famous. Why do I need to repeat every story that is endlessly repeated on anti-ex-gay websites, when my purpose here is to give the other side of the story? (For the record, in the endnotes to this chapter I do make mention of some of the very people whom Kathy mentioned, but this was somehow glossed over as well.) And why does Kathy choose to ignore the many places where I talk about the terrible struggles many gays and lesbians have had – to the point of suicide – trying, without success, to change their orientation? Again, why leave this out?

As for her claim that, “Dr. Brown . . . focuses on Wayne Besen, Truth Wins Out, gay activist extraordinaire and recounts the  tiffs he and Wayne have had” (my emphasis), that is completely misleading. I do quote Wayne a lot in the chapter since he is the most outspoken (and perhaps well-known) anti-ex-gay activist, but the quotes have nothing whatsoever to do with me or any “tiffs” we have had, the only mention of my interaction with Wayne coming in two lines in endnote 51. In other words, Kathy’s statement, yet again, presents a completely untrue picture, which is all the more unfortunate when it becomes quoted as if true by Evan Hurst, Wayne’s colleague on the Truth Wins Out website.

The comments on Chapter Thirteen, “The Stifling of Scientific Evidence,” again give the impression of a slanted use of sources to buttress a point, whereas the main lines of the story rely on accounts accepted, for the most part, by parties on both sides of the debate. Kathy does take issue with one specific account in the chapter, but her argument is true only if gay activist Episcopalian Bishop Eugene Robinson is not a gay activist. Enough said.

Kathy’s treatment of Chapter Fourteen, “Big Brother Is Watching,” is remarkable, since I cite scores of cases – sometimes from legal summaries themselves – from America and around the world, yet she claims, “I researched all the stories in this chapter. I could make a case for the opposite side of each story. When you read something completely ridiculous and say to yourself  ‘no way’, be sure to check it out and not just believe it .” She researched all the stories? Really? It would take years of backbreaking work to research all the stories – I took many months to research many of the stories and then had to ask a senior attorney and his colleagues to vet the content of the chapter carefully – yet in a few days, Kathy researched all the stories and found another side to each of them?

What is more scary, however, is that Kathy would want to argue the other side of these cases, which include police investigations at the homes of elderly couples in Britain for alleged homophobia (in one case, when they took exception to the vulgar public displays at a gay pride event in their city) and the case of a Christian college student being discriminated against and barred from graduation because of the actions of one department in the school – actions which were so egregious that, upon the school’s own investigation, the whole department was shut down and the president of the school paid for the graduate school education of the aggrieved student. Kathy could argue the other side of these cases?

Regarding the last chapter, “GLBT and Beyond,” the comments are brief, but some are worth repeating: “Legalizing gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage and polyamorous marriage.  We are going to have to accept all kinds of people. Is this really so so scary?” Read that again and ask yourself, “Is this a professed evangelical Christian stating that incestuous ‘marriage’ and polyamorous ‘marriage’ are not ‘scary’ propositions for the future?” Candidly, I find it “scary” that such a position could come from the pen of an “evangelical Christian.”

In her concluding comments, Kathy is gracious enough to say, “I can say this to Dr. Brown’s credit; he did not say directly  hateful things about GLBT people.” She adds, however, “I think it is a grievous flaw to write about a group of people from a distance. I know Dr. Brown’s  brother in law ‘struggled’ and he has had meals with Matt Comer, but nothing will ever substitute comfortable, regular everyday relationships. The rules all change when you like someone.” In reality, there are plenty of gay people with whom I’ve interacted at length that I find friendly and kind and enjoyable human beings, quite likable in many, many respects. And I did not just have a meal with local gay activist Matt Comer. I have met with and had meals with a number of “gay Christians” and gay activists, not to mention the many conversations I’ve had with gays and lesbians on long flights, not to mention that my first organ teacher (when I was just five) was gay, or the fact that he and his partner had meals with my family on a good number of occasions. Again, a misleading picture must be presented so as to delegitimize my conclusions.  More seriously, Kathy has the temerity to change the facts regarding my own, late brother-in-law – whom she obviously never knew – stating that he “struggled,” rather than accepting his own testimony and the testimony of his wife and family. Perhaps Kathy has to rewrite the facts in order to support her own views? And what of the fact that some of the readers of the manuscript before publication included same-sex attracted but celibate men who between them have countless thousands of gay friends and associates – and who confirmed every detail of what I wrote? Are they ignorant as well?

Kathy continues,

I think AQTHTA manipulates the facts, presents the worst of situations, travels to the fringes to find the extremes and  interjects damaging oddball situations and thinking to  horribly skew and demonize an entire class of people, the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.  And, the cover is wildly offensive.

To the contrary, I did not go to the fringes or cherry pick but rather gave a fair representation of the whole, as much as possible, with constant qualifying remarks so as to avoid any stereotyping. And there is not a single fact cited that has been manipulated. As for the cover, I understand that Kathy finds it wildly offensive, but we surveyed many people from all walks of life – including gays and lesbians – and the cover was quite popular with almost all of them. Had we consistently heard from people that it was wildly offensive – as opposed to eye-catching and inviting – we would have used a different cover.

Re: transgenders, Kathy wrote, “I was appalled by the many comments about transgender  people. I have an unusual burden for this community and only God knows why. I never even knew a transperson a few years ago. Now I weep over the abuse of them and ignorance towards them.” This too surprises me, since I frequently talk about the struggles of those who identify as transgender, and I have an older male cousin who now legally identifies as a female. I also know former trans-identified people, and I firmly believe that the best case scenario remains for them to be changed from the inside out rather than endure sex-change surgery and hormones for life, among many other indignities. What is unloving about that position?

Kathy states in bold, “I do know that with every ounce of me, I am convicted that God is orientation and gender  blind.” That, of course, is her conviction, but what is indisputable from an unbiased reading of the Bible is that God is not blind to sexual activity, and the only sexual activity sanctioned by God is that between a man and woman in the context of marriage (needless to say, the only marriage recognized by the Scriptures is that between a man and woman).

Kathy does take additional time to argue for the rightness of her position, and there is no need for me to interact with that here in the context of this response to her response to my book. I do concur with her closing words, though, namely, “We really need to move beyond fear to understanding and love. God help us.” That is one main reason I wrote the book.


Dr. Michael Brown is the author of A Queer Thing Happened to America and the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network.

Posted in Culture, Featured Articles, News Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

May 19th, 2011 by Michael L. Brown

Editor’s Note: Also published on Townhall.

On May 6th, Dr. Keith Ablow, a TV psychiatrist and university professor, penned a controversial article entitled, “Cameron Diaz Is Right — 4 Reasons Why Marriage IS a Dying Institution.” The article, which was posted on, received a considerable amount of criticism, as Dr. Ablow claimed that marriage is “one of the leading causes of major depression in the nation.” He even wrote that, “marriage is a dying institution . . . because it inherently deprives men and women of the joy of being ‘chosen’ on a daily basis.” Come again?

Did Fox News pull the article in the face of criticism? Certainly not. After all, the doctor is entitled to his opinion (even if his opinion is deemed inane) and, for a website and news agency, the more controversy the better – at least to a point. There are certain lines that one dare not cross these days, and one of those now appears to be the line of “transphobia.” (In case you’re not up on LGBT vocabulary, transphobia is to transgender what homophobia is homosexual.)

This, then, is what happened in the space of just two days. On May 17th, Dr. Ablow posted an article on entitled, “Inside the Mind of Chaz Bono,” writing, “Chastity Bono, the daughter of Cher and Sonny Bono, has undergone gender reassignment surgery and now asserts she [that’s right, she] is a man. . . . I know my thoughts on this matter will be politically incorrect, but they are entirely biologically and psychiatrically accurate.”

Dr. Ablow continued, “First, Chaz Bono is not a man. She is a woman who has undergone radical surgeries and is taking male hormones in order to look like a man. That isn’t a political position, it’s a biological reality. Chaz Bono wants to be thought of as male, but she is not male.”

He explained, “Delusional disorders are notoriously difficult to treat. Paranoia . . . can require extensive psychotherapy and anti-psychotic medication. Sometimes, that isn’t even enough. So you can imagine that believing you are a man when you are a woman could require even more vigorous and dedicated attempts to alleviate the psychotic person’s symptoms. . . . “I think Chaz Bono, who is, in fact, a woman, will not escape, through surgery or manipulation of hormones, suffering that is far more than skin deep.”

On May 18th, just one day after Dr. Ablow’s article was posted, it was pulled from the Fox News website without explanation, apparently because of an uproar from the gay and transgender community, including threats of boycotts. When it comes to homosexuality and transgenderism, the message is plain and clear: “Thou shalt not criticize!”

Was this article any more controversial than his article attacking marriage? Hardly. After all, there is no genetic or biological indication that Chastity Bono is a man other than what she/he perceives in her/his head. (I say that with all respect to the struggles that Bono has passed through and without minimizing the very real needs of those who identify as transgender.) Perhaps Chastity could have been helped from the inside out? Perhaps some of Chastity’s inner turmoil had to do with the very unusual family environment in which she was raised?

When Chastity released her coming out story as a lesbian in 1999, we were expected to embrace her new identity with affirmation and approval, recognizing that this was who she truly was. Now we are being told that she was really not a lesbian at all but rather a heterosexual male trapped in a woman’s body. Is it so outrageous for a psychiatrist to question whether Chastity/Chaz is suffering from some kind of disorder? Apparently so.

In today’s upside-down world, a psychiatrist can make the claim that marriage is a dying institution, one of the major causes of depression, and that is perfectly fine. But let that same psychiatrist suggest that Chastity/Chaz Bono is suffering from a mental or emotional disorder (for the record, it is called Gender Identity Disorder), and his voice must be silenced post haste.

Consider the political climate in which we now live: Olympic gold medalist Peter Vidmar, the chief of the US Olympic team mission for 2012, resigned from his position under pressure from gay activists. Why? He supported Prop 8 in California, defining marriage as the union of a man and woman, and this was deemed too controversial. One week later, Rick Welts, the owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, openly declared his homosexuality and received nothing but praise and commendation for his candor. And “transitioning” from a woman into a man gets you a spot on Oprah and David Letterman, while questioning the rightness of sex-change surgery gets you silenced.

A queer thing, indeed, has happened to America. One can only wonder what is coming next.


Dr. Michael Brown is the author of A Queer Thing Happened to America and the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network.

Posted in Culture, Featured Articles, News Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,

May 13th, 2011 by M. French


Today on the Dividing Line: Dr. Michael Brown and A Queer Thing Happened to America

05/12/2011 – James White
My sincere thanks to my good friend and brother, Michael Brown, for giving us over an hour of his time today to discuss his new book, A Queer Thing Happened to America, which is available in our Amazon bookstore, here. Please take the time to listen to this interview and consider the issues it raises. This is one of the most important cultural issues of our day, and we dare not ignore it. Here’s the program.

The audio is below:

[Link to Audio]

Posted in Culture, News Tagged with: , ,

May 9th, 2011 by M. French

Peter LaBarbera, something of a lightning rod in the fight over gay activism, interviewed Dr. Brown on his radio broadcast. Click the links below to listen:

Part One:

Part Two:

Posted in News, Sexuality & Gender Tagged with: , , , ,