Editor’s Note: Originally published on TownHall.com, used with permission. Frank Turek is a speaker and author, and a leading Christian apologist. Learn more at his website www.CrossExamined.org.
We’re in the middle of the Top Ten false “facts” reported by Judge Vaughn Walker in his decision to overturn Proposition 8 in California—a decision that could erode marriage and First Amendment rights in the entire country. See yesterday’s column here if you missed the first five false “facts.”
6. “No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.” (FF 46)
I guess thousands of ex-gays just don’t exist in Judge Walker’s special-pleading universe. Neither does renowned Columbia University psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who concluded that some highly motivated individuals can change their orientation from homosexual to heterosexual through reorientation therapy.
This is significant because Spitzer is no propagandist for the religious right. Quite the contrary—a self-described “Jewish atheist,” Spitzer has been a hero to homosexual activists since 1973 when he helped get homosexuality declassified as a mental disorder. Recently, however, they’ve turned on him because he reported the truth.
Dr. Spitzer said that his 2003 study “has been criticized severely by many people, particularly gay activists, who apparently, feel quite threatened by it. They have the feeling that in order to get their civil rights, it’s helpful to them if they can present the view that once you’re a homosexual you can never change.”
When asked whether the American Psychiatric Association should now change their position statements that say orientation cannot be changed, Dr. Spitzer said, “I think they should, [but] they will not be. . . . There’s a gay activist group that’s very strong and very vocal and is recognized officially by the American Psychiatric Association. There’s nobody to give the other viewpoint. There may be a few who believe it but they won’t talk.”
Dr. Spitzer then acknowledged explicitly that politics often trump the scientific facts at organizations like the APA (an organization cited to bolster Judge Walker’s conclusion). He also said that the APA should stop applying a double standard by discouraging reorientation therapy, while actively encouraging gay-affirmative therapy that’s intended to confirm and solidify a homosexual identity. Good point by Dr. Spitzer. After all, if people can be talked into it, then why can’t they be talked out of it?
Sexual orientation isn’t like race either. You’ll find many former homosexuals, but you’ll never find a former African American.
Of course Walker’s “fact” even if true is irrelevant anyway. Marriage does not need to be redefined just because people can’t change their sexual desires. Otherwise a legal “marriage” relationship must be created for every particular sexual desire.
7. “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.” (FF 70)
Incredibly, Judge Walker says that this conclusion “is accepted beyond serious debate.” Citing a study by the politicized APA, Walker never admits that not enough research has been done to evaluate the well being of children living with homosexual parents. And he ignored evidence presented by the defense that contradicted his “fact.”
But does one really need a study to know that Walker is wrong? Was your father different as a parent than your mother? To say no is laughable. In fact, even Rodney Dangerfield could expose this false fact. “No respect at all—when I was a baby, I was breast fed by my father!”
Later in the opinion, Walker makes the unbelievable assertion that, “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.” Who sez? The imperial Judge Walker.
Questions for the Judge: Why do you assert that men and women are interchangeable as parents but not as sex partners? After all, if gender really is irrelevant to marriage as you maintain—if men and women are interchangeable—then why argue for same-sex marriage at all? Why not just tell homosexuals, “Gender is irrelevant to marriage, so instead of making a fuss, why not just go ahead and marry someone from the opposite sex”?
Why not? Because when it comes to their own personal gratification, homosexual activists like Judge Walker clearly recognize the big difference between the sexes. But when it comes to the more important priority of raising children, they say there is no difference between the sexes. Children are just going to have to take a backseat to their sexual desires. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse sums up the attitude of homosexual activists well. She writes, “[Homosexual] adults are entitled to have what they want. Children have to take what we give them.”
8. “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.” (FF 77) Really? Do religious beliefs that drunkenness is sinful or inferior to sobriety harm alcoholics? No, those beliefs help such people by telling them the truth about destructive behavior instead of enabling them with liberal fantasyland talk about how all behaviors and lifestyles are equal.
9. “Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships.” (FF 68) This is not meant to be offensive, but what if certain relationships really are more valuable to society than others? Clearly, the procreative committed relationship of a man and a woman is more valuable than any other relationship in society because it is necessary for society’s very survival. To comprehend the impact of this, you just need to consider two questions.
1) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? Our country would thrive with a drastic reduction in numerous social problems including illegitimacy, crime, welfare, and abortion.
2) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? Society wouldn’t thrive because it wouldn’t even survive. It would end the human race!
This is not to say that such a law would cause this, but merely to point out that certain relationships are more valuable to a society than others. The truth is that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same, can never be the same, and will never yield the same benefits to individuals or society. No law can change that fact; only deceive people into thinking so.
If this point offends you, then you have a problem with reality not me. I didn’t make up the facts of nature. I’m just admitting them—something Judge Walker and many same-sex marriage supporters seem unwilling to do.
10. “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.” (Conclusion)
The real fact is that Judge Walker fails to provide any “rational basis” for overturning Proposition 8—no rational basis from the constitution or common sense. While lecturing the people of California that their “private moral views” cannot be used to make their laws, Judge Walker has simply imposed his own “private moral view” that same-sex marriage must be sanctioned. That is objectively immoral and unconstitutional itself.
He claims that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.” If that’s true, that’s not for him or any judge to decide. The people of California have said that time has not passed.
Disagree? Then you have the burden of persuading your fellow citizens to pass a constitutional amendment sanctioning same-sex marriage. That’s what the amendment process is for! When judges short-circuit that process, we are no longer a free people who govern ourselves.
(For more about this complicated and sensitive issue, get my compact book from which some of this article is adapted: Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone.)
Posted in Law & Politics Tagged with: APA, constitution, gender, heterosexual marriage, homosexuality, judge walker, law, prop 8, same-sex marriage, sexual orientation, social norm, society
In Sweden, babies can be aborted simply because they are a gender the mother doesn’t want. According to The Local:
Swedish health authorities have ruled that gender-based abortion is not illegal according to current law and can not therefore be stopped, according to a report by Sveriges Television.
The Local reported in February that a woman from Eskilstuna in southern Sweden had twice had abortions after finding out the gender of the child.
The woman, who already had two daughters, requested an amniocentesis in order to allay concerns about possible chromosome abnormalities. At the same time, she also asked to know the foetus’s gender.
Doctors at Mälaren Hospital expressed concern and asked Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) to draw up guidelines on how to handle requests in the future in which they “feel pressured to examine the foetus’s gender” without having a medically compelling reason to do so.
The board has now responded that such requests and thus abortions can not be refused and that it is not possible to deny a woman an abortion up to the 18th week of pregnancy, even if the foetus’s gender is the basis for the request.
Shocking? Yes. The inevitable result of “pro-choice” laws? Yes as well. But then, is killing a baby because it is unwanted or inconvenient (for any reason), as is the case in 98% of abortions in the U.S., really any better?
Posted in News, Revolution & Justice Tagged with: abortion, gender, law, sweden