Knights’ Party Crusaders launch Nationwide Protest Against Gay Day of Silence

On April 20, 2012, schools across America will allow participants in the Day of Silence to bombard the rest of the student body with an unsettling idea; stand up for homosexuality or share the guilt. And what is this guilt they want the entire student body to bear? They believe that every time a homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender student commits suicide or uses drugs or alcohol, that it is the fault of a gay hating population. Of course, they neglect to mention that these LGBT youths are mentally unstable in the first place.

Rather than setting these kids free from a burden of abominable sin, the adult perps in the LGBT movement are using children and teens as pawns to legitimize their own behavior and to win legal protections for themselves.

Shelby Pendergraft, host of Youth Focus which can be watched at, says it is deplorable that the whole national anti-bullying campaign was started as a ruse to get supporters for the gay community. “When I search out news for discussion on my show ,it never fails to pass my attention that all of the anti-bullying talk is linked with language that supports queer teens. I have seen videos that were used in health classes in the 1950’s that warn kids to be on the lookout for homosexuals and to stay far far away. Now it is more likely that a queer is teaching the health class and in many cases discussing ways to engage in sodomy!”

It is important that the Day of Silence is not ignored.  It is a passive aggressive  means of bullying Christian students.  The United States was founded as a Christian nation and should our nation collapse, the blame will, in part, be attributed to the rise of the sodomite culture, their agenda, and their exploitation of America’s innocent children. What a shame.

  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

UNC Freshman Accused of Filing False Hate Crime Report

A North Carolina college freshman who reported an anti-gay attack, claiming a man burned his hand and called him a slur, made the story up, authorities at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said Tuesday.

Quinn Matney - Liar

Quinn Matley

Quinn Matney told campus police he was standing on a foot bridge near his dorm last week when a college-aged man called him an anti-gay slur and pressed a hot piece of metal to his left wrist, reports.

“The Department of Public Safety has determined that the alleged aggravated assault … did not occur,” Chancellor Holden Thorp said in a message to the campus community. “That report, filed with campus police on April 5, was false.”

University officials will no longer proceed with plans to report the incident as a hate crime to the federal government, according to

“It is important to recognize that incidents of harassment do occur,” Thorp said in the statement. “When they do, we take them seriously. We strive to foster a welcoming, inclusive and safe environment at Carolina.”

Matney will likely face charges from UNC campus police, according to Karen Moon, interim news director at UNC News Services.

He gave himself third and fourth-degree burns through the muscle to the tendon. He may have nerve damage and also acquired an infection from the burn which got into his bloodstream.

Self inflicted wounds

Self inflicted wounds

  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

Alfred Kinsey – Father of the Modern Sexual Revolution

Why is this information put here?  GLBT Youth are victims of a pedophile loving mad man who used bogus scientific research to convince America that one in ten men were gay, that 95% of married men cheated on their wives, and that 24% of married men had homosexual affairs.  While there were some homosexuals at the time and some men did cheat, the reality is that America remained a wholesome nation of monogamous people who revered marriage and traditional values.  Sexual deviants have such self hatred that in order to make themselves feel more normal, they want others to feel the way they feel or do the things they do. This way they don’t feel isolated or alone in their behavior.  They are mentally ill, but often still able to live their day to day life as most others do.


GLBT youth feel that they are in charge of their destiny.  They feel they are the ones making the decisions about their life and their sexuality, but in fact they have been carefully crafted through a wide variety of venues.  If you don’t believe this, read the article, The Crafted bi/homosexual youth.  This article is not an opinion piece.  It repeats and quotes exactly the words of leading homosexual and lesbian activists who talk of their clever use of brainwashing. Find the article under the Science section of this site. Read it and it will absolutely shock you.  If you are a GLBT teen, then you have been used.  If you are just a teen who wants to stop the so-called bullying, perhaps you should consider that your gay friends have already been bullied by mentally ill activists into accepting a destructive lifestyle that on average lessens a gay person’s lifespan by twenty years due to disease, suicide, and drug abuse.  If you believe that the GLBT lifestyle is wrong, but you want to “witness” to gay teens at your school, don’t.  You can pray for them, but only a change of heart on their part of a profound nature and an earnest desire and love of truth will set them free.  By continuing in even light friendship or conversation with GLBT youth, you risk endangering the lives of other confused teens who may believe that there are no consequences to their choices.  While all sin, all sin is not the same.  A tough stance must be taken and contact avoided.  This goes for GLBT family members also.

The information below may be disturbing, but it is fact that there are sick people who have used fake scientific means to trick generations of people.  Alfred Kinsey was one such man and his sex studies should have put him in prison, followed by a guilty verdict of crimes against humanity, followed by lethal injection.

Read on….


Alfred Kinsey, Jewish father of the sexual revolution. Kinsey was a homosexual, a pedophile, and a madman. His staff consisted of like-minded non-professionals who were touted as ‘experts’, and his subjects polled consisted of the dregs of humanity: psychopaths, rapists, pedophiles, sexual deviants, the mentally retarded, inmates of mental institutions, and criminals of all walks of life.

Kinsey — possibly a victim from his infancy of the same evil acts he committed — was a sexual deviant and most of all a monstrous child molester as were those on his staff. Testimony to that fact is chapter 5 of the Report, which could only be described as torture and sexual violation of infants, toddlers and prepubescent children.

Table 34, itemizing the ages of each ‘subject’ — male babies aged five months to 14 years — used in the ‘scientific study’, also listed the number of infantile orgasms in a given time period, multiple orgasms, and proves beyond even a shadow of doubt that the innocent, helpless, babies were being criminally sexually abused.

To our knowledge, no charges were ever levied either against Kinsey himself or the institution. At this point, that is not surprising is it?… when we understand that the underlying motive is the destruction of an entire nation, socially, morally and spiritually. When morals and spirituality go, so goes the nation. The term ‘babies’ is used to define all children involved, because in the life span, prepubescent children are yet babes.

As painful as it is to type these following words, or for you – our reader – to read them, I find that unless we are hit smack in the head, in the gut, and in our heart with the gruesome details, the inhumanity of these creatures escapes our senses. It seems to be stored as just more information somewhere in a place where our emotions do not enter.

Here is an extract from chapter five of the Kinsey Report, describing what happened to those babies during the scientific investigation. As you read, consider this crime being committed on one of your children – or a child you love. Infants of 5 months, 11 months, toddlers, all the way up to 14 years. The excerpt is taken from a report by Judith Reisman.

“Extreme tension with violent convulsion: Often involving the sudden heaving and jerking of the whole body. Descriptions supplied by several subjects indicate that the legs often become rigid, with muscles knotted and toes pointed, muscles of abdomen contracted and hard, shoulders and neck stiff and often bent forward, breath held or gasping, eyes staring or tightly closed, hands grasping, mouth distorted, sometimes with tongue protruding; whole body or parts of it spasmodically twitching, sometimes synchronously with throbs or violent jerking of the penis. … A gradual, and sometimes prolonged build-up to orgasm, which involves still more violent convulsions of the whole body; heavy breathing, groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children)”

Not one of the monster ‘experts’ who brought those babies to multiple orgasms has been named a criminal or a terrorist. If the facts upset our reader, consider the life-long scars carried by those baby victims. Many are possibly today’s perverts. The Kinsey Report was touted as the book of facts on normal human sexuality.

Here are pages from his disgusting book.

Kinsey’s hagiographers, James Jones and Gathorne-Hardy never revealed these charts from Kinsey’s own book.  What ever happened to the “2 month” old who didn’t reach “climax” (etc.) despite “repeated attempts” by Kinsey’s Pedophile ring?  Will the charts be shown in the Kinsey “documentary” film? Hardly.  For how would they explain how Kinsey “got” these so-called scientific “data.”

Kinsey says it is “psychologic [sic] blockage” that causes many small boys not to reach, what Kinsey calls an “orgasm.”  He is quite sure the littlest tykes can do so when the right man “aids” them.  Kinsey’s colleague, Paul Tripp, announced on the Phil Donahue Show in December 1991 that the records of the sodomizing of these children were all carried out “scientifically” because these men used “stopwatches to record their thing.”  Using a “stopwatch,” accordingly, makes all rapists and murderers “scientists” according to this “trained” sexpert.  Read Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences (1998, 2000, 2003) to learn what constitutes the “training” of such men as Dr. Tripp and other “sexperts.”


Here Kinsey admits that “data from other subjects” means that of the 214 child sodomite attacks on these boys were “observed” during the assaults and the screams were coded as “orgasms” by Kinsey and the lackeys in his pedophile ring.


  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

Study Supports the “Weak Father” Theory of Homosexuality

Reviewed by Christopher H. Rosik, Ph.D. reprint

In a published study of Roman Catholic seminarians in Canada (Seutter & Rovers, 2004), the authors report that 24 respondents who were self-identified as homosexual had a significantly lower mean level of intimacy with their fathers than did 130 heterosexually identified respondents.

The study did not find significant differences between these groups for 1) intimacy with mother; 2) a sense of intimidation in relationship with father; or 3) a intimidation with mother, although the latter comparison approached significance, with homosexual seminarians reporting greater mother intimidation.

Seutter and Rovers make several observations about their results. While strongly supportive of a multi-factorial, interactionist perspective on the cause of same-sex attractions, the authors observe that “These findings can be seen to be compatible with the hypothesis of the father-son unit as the basis for analysis of homosexuality. These results are also consistent with family-of-origin theory, which emphasizes the centrality of the child-parent relationship, such as the male child’s [lack of] relationship with his father….

“The point is that the father-son relationship is an essential place for therapeutic investigation, and therapists might be leaving pieces of unfinished business if they shy away from it.” (pp. 46-47)

They caution that their results should not be taken as an unequivocal indication that addressing father-son issues with the homosexual male will influence the client’s experience of same-sex attraction.

The authors further note that their findings suggest the value of a male therapist when working with a male homosexual client who has unfinished emotional issues with his father.

Seutter, R. A., & Rovers, M. (2004). Emotionally absent fathers: Furthering the understanding of homosexuality. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32, 43-49

  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

Shocking Videos

Kevin Jennings and NAMBLA Activist Harry Hay

PAT BUCHANAN: Nancy Pelosi has marched with Nambla

  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

The Woman Crusader

Anita Bryant


Anita Bryant is heralded as the woman who started the modern crusade to end the war upon America’s children. “The battle of parents to protect their children from homosexuality has just begun, for at this moment in the Congress of the United States, 25 misguided congressmen are pushing a bill which would impose on the entire nation the same dangers found in metro Miami’s law.” Anita Bryant, regarding the move by Miami in 1977 to allow homosexuals to adopt children.

Anita Bryant, a strict Baptist, said a national campaign must be launched “or people across the country will soon have the same problems in their backyards as Miami has now.”

The gay adoption ban is her handiwork,” said Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. “Most people still regard her work as really some of the worst homophobia the country has ever seen, and that endures.”

Born in Oklahoma some 37 years ago, Bryant calls herself “a deeply religious person whose life revolves around her family and faith in the Lord.” She is the mother of four children.  “Homosexuality is immoral and against God’s wishes,” she says. “Miami’s law infringed upon my rights or rather discriminates against me as a citizen and a mother to teach my children and set examples of God’s moral code as stated in the Holy Scriptures.”

Religion had long been a part of Bryant’s life even before she began her campaign. “Ever since I first sang in the choir at my grandparents’ church in Tishomingo, Okla., I have wanted to sing and record sacred music,” she once said.

Bryant began her career on a talent show at the age of 8 and slowly worked her way into a recording career through her association with the Youth for Christ movement and singing appearances with evangelist Billy Graham. On the way she was crowned Miss Oklahoma and named a runner-up in the Miss America Pageant.

During the height of her career in the 1960s, Bryant became a pop recording star and had three million-sellers— “Paper Roses,” “ ‘Til There Was You,” and “My Little Corner of the World.” Two religious albums were also best-sellers.

By that time Bryant’s image was established. She was the all-American girl. She stood for motherhood, liked apple pie, taught Sunday school, claimed hamburgers and soft drinks were her favorite foods, didn’t smoke or drink, and was “proud to be an American—a country where there was freedom and peoples’ rights were respected.”

Soon she owned a religious recording and publishing company. She went on tour seven times with Bob Hope’s Christmas Show. She sang the national anthem at political conventions, held religious concerts, and sang at church conventions and rallies. There were also guest appearances on television shows. In time Bryant was bringing fame to her adopted state of Florida and city of Miami Beach. To show their love and appreciation, along came a $100,000-a-year contract as the spokeswoman for the orange-juice industry. She was voted “Most Admired Woman in America” by Good Housekeeping magazine three years running. She also appeared in ads for Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Holiday Inn and Tupperware. She was signed to co-host the Florida Orange Bowl Parade, a major bank hired her to star in its commercials, and other lucrative jobs and appearances followed.

A 1970 survey found that 75 percent of U.S. television viewers knew who she was and what she sold. Struck by her success, then-Gov. Reubin Askew remarked: “People connect orange juice, Florida and Anita Bryant so much that it becomes difficult to decide which to visit, which to listen to and which to squeeze.”

Asked once if she considered herself a success, Bryant replied, “I’m still working at it, but I think an abiding love of God has gotten me this far.”

“My lifetime dream has been to have my own television series to entertain and present wholesome subjects to my fellow Americans,” Bryant told reporters after learning that a proposed show starring her had been canceled because of the controversial nature of her involvement against gay rights.

“I am willing to sacrifice my career and do whatever is necessary to save our children from homosexuality, the recruitment of our children is absolutely necessary for the survival and growth of homosexuality. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce, they must recruit and freshen their ranks. Homosexual acts are not only illegal, they are immoral. Through the power of the ballot box, I believe the parents and the straight-thinking normal majority will soundly reject the attempt to legitimize homosexuals and their recruitment plans for our children. Miami’s blundering ‘gay’ ordinance is no more a civil rights issue than is the arrest of a drunk for disturbing the peace.”

In fact this woman did sacrifice everything to protect America’s children. She received death threats, but wouldn’t back down.  She was told to stop speaking out against “gay rights” or else her million dollar spokeswoman contracts for several companies would be cancelled. She didn’t stop speaking out and her contracts were cancelled. Today, she is a grandmother who lives a quiet life. She is still vilified in the press and homosexual groups and their magazines and websites continually make fun of her. Even church groups and organizations around the country turned their back to her when the heat got too hot. However, she has had the Lord to rely on and he has seen her through. And when she meets her maker he will say, “Well done my child”.


  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

The Myth Of The Gay Gene

By Father Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, Ph.D. – Reprint

In the past year, the clergy pedophilia scandal has reignited the debate over homosexuality. [1] The Catholic Church’s millennia-old teaching is clear: Homosexual activity is immoral because it is contrary to nature. [2] Not surprisingly, however, this counter-cultural position has come under much criticism in recent decades not only within the Church but also within other ecclesial communions. [3] One popular argument that is often put forward by revisionists is that the Church’s stance should be re-evaluated in light of new scientific evidence which suggest that homosexuality is a genetically inherited condition that is a permanent state. [4] Thus, it is claimed, homosexuality should be accepted as a natural variant within a wide spectrum of gender identities and sexual orientations, a manifestation of the richness of God’s creation. [5]

This essay will respond to this revisionist argument in three ways. First, it will critically examine the scientific evidence that has been used to argue for the genetic origins of homosexuality. In recent years, the scientific reports that originally proposed the existence of the so-called gay gene have been seriously questioned and discredited. Thus, today, the widely held belief that a single human gene exists that determines homosexual orientation remains a myth. Next, it will investigate the claim that homosexuality is both permanent and non-pathological by reviewing four recent studies that suggest that this may not the case.

First, a study authored by Robert Spitzer, a leading figure in the 1973 American Psychiatric Association (APA) decision that removed homosexuality from the official diagnostic manual of mental disorders, has now shown that with some form of reparative therapy, a few persons whose sexual orientation had been predominantly or exclusively homosexual became predominantly or exclusively heterosexual. Thus, it appears that at least in select cases, the homosexual orientation is not as permanent a state as it has been touted to be.

Second, three independent studies published in the past four years have also shown that homosexual and bisexual men and women are at greater risk of suicide and overall mental health problems than their heterosexual counterparts. These studies suggest that contrary to claims advanced by gay activists, homosexually active persons as a group appear to be less psychologically healthy than the general population. Finally, this essay will review the ethical argument that used the flawed scientific data to justify homosexual behavior. This argument is flawed, because it endorses too much. In fact, the same argument could be used to excuse many human behaviors that are immoral. Not insignificantly, one of these behaviors would include rape.

Is There a Human Gay Gene?

Revisionists often cite three scientific studies published in the early 1990s to prove that homosexuality is a genetically inherited condition. It is now clear that there were scientific problems with each of these reports that undermine the validity of their conclusions. [6]

First, in August of 1991, Simon LeVay, a scientist at the Salk Institute in San Diego, reported that a group of neurons in the hypothalamic region of the brain appeared to be twice as large in heterosexual men than in homosexual men. [7] Previous studies had suggested that the hypothalamus is a region of the brain involved in the regulation of sexual behavior in non-human primates. Furthermore, other studies had shown that these neurons are larger in men then in women. Thus, LeVay concluded that sexual orientation had a biological basis.

There are three problems with LeVay’s paper. First, LeVay compared the brain structures of 19 homosexual men with the brain structures of 16 men whom he presumed were heterosexual. However, he was unable to confirm the heterosexuality of the men in his control group. Significantly, six of these 16 presumed heterosexual men had died from AIDS, a disease whose transmission is often associated with homosexual behavior! Thus, it would not be surprising if some of LeVay’s presumed heterosexual men were in fact, homosexuals, a possibility which would seriously discredit the conclusions of his study. Second, LeVay obtained his brain samples from homosexual men who had all died from AIDS. In contrast, for his control group, he obtained brain samples from men who had died not only from AIDS (6 subjects) but also from a diversity of other causes (10 subjects).

As LeVay himself acknowledged, however, this raises a legitimate scientific question: Could the differences in the sizes of the neurons have been caused not by sexual orientation but by AIDS? This certainly is a possibility that was not definitively ruled out the study. Finally, LeVay concluded that the differences in neuronal size could explain homosexuality. In other words, they could be linked to a biological cause for a homosexual orientation. This, however, is an illegitimate conclusion arising from faulty logic. One alternative explanation for the differences in the sizes of the neurons in the hypothalamus is that homosexual behavior is the cause for rather than the effect of the difference in neuron size. To illustrate this, let us say that a scientist tells you that he has discovered that there is a difference in the size of the bicep muscles between weight lifters and pianists. Furthermore, he concludes that the large muscle mass is the cause for these men becoming muscle builders. What would you say? Would you not respond by pointing out that it is more likely to be the case that the large muscle mass was in fact not the cause for but the effect of muscle training? In the same way, LeVay’s study was unable to rule out the possibility that homosexual behavior was not caused by, but rather, caused the differences in neuronal cell size. In sum, in light of these significant problems, it is difficult to conclude with any certainty that homosexual orientation is caused in any way by the neurons of the hypothalamus.

Second, in December of 1991, John M. Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, reported that it was more likely for both identical twins to be homosexual than it is for both fraternal twins or for both adopted brothers. [8] They found that 52% (29 pairs out of 56) of the identical twins were both homosexual; 22% (12 pairs out of 54) of the fraternal twins were both homosexual; and 11% (6 of 57) of the adoptive brothers where both homosexual. Thus, Bailey and Pillard concluded that there is a genetic cause for homosexuality.

Again, there were significant problems with the study. First, if homosexuality is genetically determined, why did only 52% of the identical twins share the same sexual orientation? How about the other 48% of the twins who differed in their sexual orientation? How do we account for them? Second and more importantly, the study was based upon a sample of twins which was not random. As critics have pointed out, Bailey and Pillard did not rule out the possibility that they had preferentially recruited twins were both brothers were gay by advertising in homosexual newspapers and magazines rather than in periodicals intended for the general public. Indeed, it now appears that preferential recruitment did occur in the 1991 study – a more recent 2000 study by Bailey and his colleagues, using volunteers recruited, not from the gay community but from the Australian Twin Registry, revealed that only 20% and not 52% of identical twins share the same homosexual orientation. [9] This is not as significant a difference between identical and fraternal twins as earlier reported. Thus, as the authors of the 2000 paper conclude, it is very difficult to distinguish the genetic from the environmental influences on sexual orientation.

The third and most publicized study suggesting a genetic link for homosexual orientation was a paper published by Dean Hamer and his colleagues at the National Institutes of Health. The researchers studied 40 pairs of homosexual brothers and concluded that some cases of homosexuality could be linked to a specific region on the human X chromosome (Xq28) inherited from the mother to her homosexual son. [10] This study has come under much criticism – the Office of Research Integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services even investigated Hamer for alleged fraud in this study though it eventually cleared him [11] – and most significantly, has never been reproduced. In fact, two subsequent studies of other homosexual brothers have since concluded that there is no evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by an X-linked gene. [12]

In sum, all the scientific evidence to date has not conclusively proven that genes determine homosexual orientation in human beings. The existence of a human gay gene remains a scientific myth. Thus gay activists are incorrect when they insist that science has proven that an individual with homosexual inclinations is “born that way.”

Is Homosexuality a Permanent Orientation?

Another claim often associated with the revisionist position that challenges the Church’s teaching is that homosexuality is a permanent state. A recent study, however, has challenged the truth of this belief. In a paper to be published in the journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University and chairman of the 1973 APA committee which recommended that homosexuality be removed from the official diagnostic manual of mental disorders, interviewed men and women who had experienced a significant shift from homosexual to heterosexual attraction and had sustained this shift for at least five years. [13] To his surprise, he discovered that contrary to his own expectations, some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, were able to make a substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation and achieve good heterosexual functioning. [14]

In his study of 200 individuals, Spitzer reported that after their change efforts, 17% of the men and 55% of the women interviewed claimed that they were now exclusively heterosexual in their orientation. Furthermore, 66% of the men and 44% of the women also reported that they had achieved good heterosexual functioning defined in the study as being in a sustained heterosexual relationship within the past year, rating emotional satisfaction from the relationship a seven or higher on a 10-point scale, and having satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly. The study concluded that some change in sexual orientation is possible. It is the latest and the most sophisticated study that has shown that some change in sexual orientation is possible after therapy. [15]

Finally, two points should be made here to put the findings of the Spitzer study in a proper context. First, it is important to note that the subjects in the Spitzer study were not chosen at random from among homosexuals who had gone through therapy. Thus, the results should not be considered typical. As Spitzer himself remarked, a significant majority of his subjects were “highly motivated” to change. Second, given the difficulty he had in finding volunteers for his study, Spitzer has acknowledged that a complete change in sexual orientation is probably uncommon. Rather, according to Spitzer, a better way to conceptualize “sexual reorientation” is to see it as the diminishing of unwanted homosexual potential with a concomitant increase in the heterosexual potential of a particular individual.

Since the study was made public at the annual meeting of APA on May 9, 2001, the conclusions of Spitzer’s report have been heavily criticized both in the media and on the Internet. Typically, there are two main objections.

First, critics charge that the study did not include data on the subjects’ original sexual orientation. [16] Thus, they assert that the study could not rule out the possibility that all the individuals interviewed were not true homosexuals, who by definition are persons who are sexually attracted exclusively to members of the same sex. Hence, these critics assert that the study was probably limited to individuals who had had a bisexual orientation and had previously engaged in at least some homosexual activity. After therapy, these critics propose that the subjects remained bisexual though they now feel that they have successfully developed a relationship with a person of the opposite gender. Thus, they conclude that the sexual orientation of the subjects really did not change.

To respond to these critics, we should note that the study did report that 42% of the men and 46% of the women interviewed said that they were exclusively homosexual before they engaged in the reparative therapy. Furthermore, only 9% of the men and 26% of the women had opposite sex masturbatory fantasies before their treatment. Together, both these results do indicate that prior to therapy a significant number of the subjects were probably not bisexually orientated as the critics charge.

Second, critics charge that the study was limited to a very select group of individuals that is not representative of the gay community. The subjects were predominantly Evangelical Christians associated with groups who condemn homosexuality: Of those who participated in the study, 78 percent had spoken publicly in favor of efforts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality; 93 percent said religion was “extremely” or “very” important in their lives. Critics conclude that these subjects were atypical and thus cannot be compared to the majority of persons in the gay community. To support their claim, critics contrast Spitzer’s study with another study reported by psychologists, Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder, who found that the vast majority of the subjects in their group, individuals recruited through the Internet and direct mailings to groups advocating reparative therapy, reported failure in their efforts to change through reparative therapies. [17] As one commentator has noted, the members of this second study were probably not Christian since the study was supported by a pro-gay advocacy group. [18] Hence, these critics conclude that the Spitzer study is biased and thus, unreliable. Some even charge that the subjects of Spitzer’s study, given their anti-gay sentiments, probably lied about their behavior and exaggerated their success stories by constructing elaborate self-deceptive narratives.

To respond to these critics, Spitzer points out several things. First, if there was significant bias, one might expect that many subjects would report complete or near complete change in all sexual orientation criteria after therapy. Only 11% of the males and 37% of the females did so. One might also expect that many subjects would report a rapid onset of change in sexual feelings after starting therapy. In fact, subjects reported that it took, on average, a full two years before they noticed a change in sexual feelings. Next, if systematic bias was present, one would expect that the magnitude of the bias for females would be similar to that for males. However, marked gender differences were found. These gender differences are consistent with previously published literature suggesting greater female plasticity in sexual orientation. Thus, Spitzer concludes that it is reasonable to believe that the subjects’ self-reports in this study were by-and-large credible and that probably few, if any, elaborated self-deceptive narratives or lied. Finally, we should not neglect to point out that the importance of Christian faith in those subjects who were capable of reorientating their sexual behavior, rather than pointing to bias, may be proof that grace is a necessary element for any successful reparative therapy. As the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith correctly noted, “As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.” [19]

Is the Homosexual Lifestyle a Healthy One?

Finally, revisionists often claim that both homosexual behavior and the homosexual lifestyle are completely harmless to the homosexual and to society at large. Activists pushing this perspective often point to the 1973 decision of the APA that removed homosexuality from the official diagnostic manual of mental disorders as support for their position. Three recent papers published in the peer-reviewed and well-respected journal, Archives of General Psychiatry, have now challenged this decision. In the first study, Herrell et al. used a powerful technique, the co-twin control method to look at the psychological health of homosexual men. [20] They studied 103 middle-aged male-male twin pairs where one brother reported male sex partners after age 18 years while the other did not. The study concluded that on average, male homosexuals were 5 times more likely to show suicide-related behavior or thoughts than their heterosexual counterparts. Significantly, most of the findings were valid even after the researchers accounted for the influence of substance abuse and depressive symptoms other than suicidality. The second study followed a large New Zealand group from birth to their early twenties. [21] Corroborating the first study, this independent report showed a significant increase of depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse and thoughts about suicide among those who were homosexually active. As one scientist commentator has pointed out, these two studies “contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at a substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder.” [22] Finally, the third and most recent paper showed that there was an increase in mental health problems associated with homosexual persons in the Netherlands. [23] Remarkably, HIV status was not a factor.

The authors of this study suggested that pressure from society may be a significant cause for the higher incidence of mental health problems found in homosexual persons. As one commentator has pointed out, however, this is not a persuasive argument because the observed differences in mental health status between homosexuals and heterosexuals are just as great in the Netherlands and in New Zealand, two societies which are relatively more tolerant of homosexuality, as they are in the United States, a society which is relatively not as tolerant. [24] If social ostracism is indeed a significant factor in influencing the mental health status of homosexual persons, then one would expect to see differences among societies with varying tolerances to homosexuality.

Can Homosexuality Ever Be Considered Natural?

According to revisionist theologians and gay activists, homosexuality is natural because it is genetic, permanent and non-pathological. As we have seen, however, scientific evidence exists to challenge all three of these assertions. Nevertheless, we should also acknowledge that it is still possible that some future study could discover a genuine link between a person’s genetic makeup and his sexual orientation. For one, numerous reports have now shown that homosexual behavior is more common in animals than previously suspected. [25] More likely than not, this behavior is probably rooted in the genetic constitution of these creatures. Furthermore, fruit flies have also been described whose sexual behavior has been altered because of a single genetic mutation that induces homosexual courtship in males. [26] These mutant male flies attempt to mate with other males rather than with females. Therefore, given these observations, it would not be surprising if genetics did play some role in influencing human sexual behavior. Hence, the questions arise: Would a future discovery of an authentic human gay gene undermine the Church’s moral teaching that prohibits homosexual activity? Would such a discovery not prove the revisionist argument that homosexual activity is natural and therefore not immoral? The answer to both these questions is no. To see why, we need to understand the moral reasoning that grounds the Church’s teaching on human sexuality.

The Church’s teaching on human sexuality is rooted in human reason illumined by faith. It attempts to do justice to the rich reality of the human person, created by God in his spiritual and bodily dimensions and heir, by grace, to eternal life. The Church teaches that as embodied spiritual creatures, human beings were created male and female so that in the complementarity of the sexes, they can reflect the inner unity of the Creator. This was recognized and confirmed by the Lord Jesus who instituted the sacrament of marriage to celebrate the divine plan of the loving and life-giving union of men and women. Therefore, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and a woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.” [27] The Catechism goes on to say that in the conjugal act, “the spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves, and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family. The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.” [28] Thus, sexual activity is properly reserved to marriage, defined here as the permanent and lifelong union between one man and one woman.

Seen within the context of the Church’s vision of authentic human sexuality, homosexual activity is immoral because it is contrary to the creative wisdom of God and as such is unnatural. [29] To choose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Same-sex union is not complementary union. It is unable to transmit life and so thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. In other words, the union in same-sex union can never be the complete and total self-gift properly that is properly associated with the conjugal act because same-sex partners can never share their powers to procreate. The Church does note, however, that this does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves. However, when they engage in homosexual activity, they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination that is essentially self-indulgent. It is behavior that prevents the human person from attaining his own fulfillment and happiness because it is contrary to the creative wisdom of God.

Returning to the questions raised by a possible future discovery of an authentic human gay gene, it is critical to realize that the Church’s teaching is not based upon a purely biological understanding of human nature. The human being is a person and not simply another animal. Thus, any authentic vision of human sexuality has to be rooted in a personalist understanding of the human person that does not lose sight of the truth that the human person is an embodied creature. As Pope John Paul II has noted, the natural law is called the natural law not because it refers to a generic nature common to all animal species but because it refers specifically to man’s proper and primordial nature, the “nature of the human person,” which is the person himself in the unity of soul and body, in the unity of his spiritual and biological inclinations and of all the other specific characteristics necessary for the pursuit of his end. [30] A man is created to give himself to a woman and vice versa. This is a truth inscribed in the very structure of their bodies. Neither the discovery of a gene for homosexual orientation nor the existence of homosexual behavior in non-human animal species changes this. The revisionist argument that attempts to use evidence from biology to justify homosexual activity is flawed because it fails to acknowledge that we are embodied persons, with both spiritual and biological inclinations that need to be respected and realized.

The revisionist argument is also flawed because it would allow too much. Gay activists often assert that homosexuality is natural because homosexual behavior has been observed in non-human animals. Recent research has also shown, however, that rape – called forced copulation by socio-biologists is common in nature. [31] For instance in wild orangutans, most copulations by immature males and almost half of all copulations by adult males occur after fierce female resistance has been violently overcome by the male. [32] According to the revisionist argument, the common occurrence of rape in other animal species would suggest that rape even in human societies should be considered natural. But this is false. Human sexuality involves free acts of self-giving which are best manifested in the complementary union of bodily persons that occurs during marital love. Regardless of what happens elsewhere in the animal kingdom, both rape and homosexual behavior are incompatible with an authentic understanding human personhood. They are unnatural because both are violations of our natures as embodied spiritual creatures. Both fail to realize the total self-gift of persons that ought to accompany every sexual act. We are persons and this makes all the difference in the world.


Science is often used to argue that the Church needs to revise her teaching on homosexuality. Ironically, recent research has now suggested that many of the presuppositions accepted as dogma by gay activists in our society may themselves have to be revised. At the time of this writing, there is still no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined. Thus, it is still impossible to know whether someone who has homosexual inclinations was in fact “born that way.” Next, as Dr. Robert Epstein, the editor-in-chief of Psychology Today pointed out in a recent editorial, the newly published scientific data reviewed in this essay suggest that there is a need to reopen the question – can gays change? – and revisit the issue of sexual conversion and ex-gays. [33] Reparative therapy may be more successful than previously acknowledged especially when it is coupled with religious faith. Finally, the claim that homosexuals are as mentally healthy as heterosexuals is simply not true. Though the source of the psychopathology is not yet clear, homosexual activity is associated with higher rates of depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse and suicide.


I thank Christopher M. McCullough and the members of the Young Adult Group of the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, DC, for providing the motivation for the researching and writing of this article; Dr. Robert L. Spitzer of Columbia University, for an advance copy of his paper; and Professor William E. May and several of my Dominican brothers for helpful comments on the manuscript.


1. As the task force of the Catholic Medical Association on homosexuality has pointed out, the clergy pedophilia scandal is really a homosexuality scandal since 90% of the cases of priestly sexual abuse of males are with adolescents. See Task Force on Homosexuality of the Catholic Medical Association, “A Contribution to the Debate About the Ordination of Homosexuals,” Linacre Quarterly 69 (2002): 190-197, p. 191. A study of sex abuse cases carried out by The New York Times reports that for 80% of the cases where the information is available, it is clear that the abuse victims were male. This percentage is nearly opposite for laypeople accused of abuse. Their victims are mostly female. See Laurie Goodstein, “Trail of Pain in Church Crisis Leads to Nearly Every Diocese,” The New York Times, January 12, 2003, p. 20.

2. “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (cf. Gen. 19:1-29; Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10), tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2357. Also see the magisterial document, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons published by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Origins 16 (1986): 377-382.

3. For discussion, see Keith Hartman, Congregations in Conflict: The Battle Over Homosexuality (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1996). For a recent and extensive review of the debate among Catholic moral theologians, see James F. Keenan, SJ, “The Open Debate: Moral Theology and the Lives of Gay and Lesbian Persons,” Theological Studies 64 (2003): 127-150.

4. For example, Chandler Burr has written: “Five decades of psychiatric evidence demonstrates that homosexuality is immutable and nonpathological, and a growing body of more recent evidence implicates biology in the development of sexual orientation. Some would ask: How can one justify discriminating against people on the basis of such a characteristic? And many would answer: One cannot.” See his “Homosexuality and Biology,” in Homosexuality in the Church, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), p. 132.

5. As psychotherapist and former Jesuit priest, John J. McNeill has stated: “I proposed instead that God so created humans that they develop with a great variety of both gender identities and sexual-object choices. […] Always and everywhere, a certain percentage of men and women develop as homosexuals or lesbians. They should be considered as part of God’s creative plan.” See his “Homosexuality: Challenging the Church to Grow” in Homosexuality in the Church, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), p. 50. Also see his often cited book, The Church and the Homosexual 4 th edn. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1994).

6. For an insightful critique of these studies written before some of the newer scientific papers mentioned in this essay were published, see Jeffrey Satinover, “The Biology of Homosexuality: Science or Politics?” in Homosexuality and American Public Life, ed. Christopher Wolfe (Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 1999), pp. 3-61.

7. Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science 253 (1991): 1034-1037.

8. J. M. Bailey and R. C. Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (1991): 1089-1096.

9. J. Michael Bailey, Michael P. Dunne, and Nicholas G. Martin, “Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample,” J. Personal Social Psychology 78 (2000): 524-536.

10. D. H. Hamer et al., “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” Science 261 (1993): 321-327. Also see the follow-up paper, S. Hu et al., “Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females,” Nat Genet 11 (1995): 248-256; and Dean Hamer’s book, The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994).

11. “No Misconduct in ‘Gay Gene’ Study,” Science 275 (1997): 1251.

12. J. M. Bailey et al., “A Family History Study of Male Sexual Orientation Using Three Independent Samples,” Behavior Genetics 29 (1999): 79-86; and G. Rice et al., “Male homosexuality: absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28,” Science 284 (1999): 665-667.

13. Robert L. Spitzer, “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Subjects Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, forthcoming.

14. For a comprehensive and recent overview of reparative therapy for male homosexuality, see Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1997). For case stories of reparative therapy, see Joseph Nicolosi, Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1993).

15. For a review of the literature, see Warren Throckmorton, ” Initial empirical and clinical findings concerning the change process for ex-gays,” Professional Psychology: Research & Practice 33 (2002): 242-248.

16. For a typical critique of the Spitzer study, see B. A. Robinson, “Analysis of Dr. Spitzer’s Study of Reparative Therapy” at Last accessed on February 19, 2003.

17. Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder, “Changing sexual orientation: A consumer’s report,” Professional Psychology: Research & Practice 33 (2002): 249-259.

18. See B.A. Robinson, “Studies of Reparative and Similar Therapies: An Overview” at Last accessed on March 7, 2003.

19. CDF, On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, no. 11.

20. R. Herrell et al., “Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men,” Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.

21. D. M. Fergusson, L.J. Horwood and A. L. Beautrais, “Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people?” Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56 (1999): 876-880.

22. J. Michael Bailey, “Homosexuality and Mental Illness,” Arch Gen. Psychicatry 56 (1999): 883-884, p. 883.

23. T.G. M. Sandfort et al., “Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders,” Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 58 (2001): 85-91.

24. N.E. Whitehead, “Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems,” NARTH bulletin 11(2002):25-28. Available at Last accessed on March 7, 2003.

25. For an exhaustive survey of these animal studies, see Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000).

26. L. C. Ryner et al., “Control of male sexual behavior and sexual orientation in Drosophila by the fruitless gene,” Cell 87 (1996): 1079-1089.

27. CCC, no. 2361.

28. CCC, no. 2363.

29. This paragraph is indebted to the magisterial document, On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, no. 7. For a comprehensive explanation and defense of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, see Mark S. Latkovic, ” Homosexuality, Morality, and the Truth of Church Teaching,” The Catholic Truth 6 (2000): 29-33. Available at Last accessed on March 7, 2003. Also see the excellent book by John F. Harvey, OSFS, The Truth about Homosexuality: The Cry of the Faithful (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996). Veritatis splendor, no. 50.

30. Veritatis splendor, no. 50.

31. For a review of the literature, see T.H. Clutton-Brock and G.A. Parker, “Sexual Coercion in Animal Societies,” Anim. Beh. 49 (1995): 1345-1365.

32. J.C. Mitani, “Mating Behaviour of Male Orangutans in the Kutai Reserve, Indonesia” Anim. Beh. 33 (1985): 392-402.

33. Robert Epstein, “Editorial: Am I Anti-Gay?” Psychology Today 36 (2003): 7-8

Fr. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P., received his Ph.D. in Biology from M.I.T. in 1996 and his S.T.L. from the Dominican House of Studies in 2005. He currently serves as an assistant professor of biology and adjunct professor of theology at Providence College in Providence, Rhode Island. He can be contacted at




  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

Bisexual Feminist Describes Her Journey Back To Monogamy

October 24, 2006 – Self-described feminist bisexual L.M. Hake, writing in Off Our Backs (11/1/05) describes her journey from bisexuality through polyamory and back to monogamy in the essay, “The journey back … to monogamy.”

Hake describes how she first began attending a bisexual support group in the late 1980s and says she “… knew that I was home. It was like my shoes had been on the wrong feet, and they were now switched right. I did not have to be one, I did not have to be the other. I was what I was. …. I concluded that if I could desire both, then I must have both.”

Hake says this new awareness made her believe that “limits seemed arbitrary, and, well limiting. Rules were made by people who agreed on them, nothing more.” In her “newfound queer, alternative community, the core values were honesty, open communication, and respect. Monogamy seemed quaint and foreign.”

As a bisexual, Hake dated both men and women at the same time. She noticed, however, that even while dating in honest relationships, “I was jealous. I was resentful. I was hurt. … I spent a lot of time quietly upset.”

She also saw “evidence of and heard frank tales about relationships shattered by third or fourth partners. I saw triads dissolve faster than couples. I watched committed polyamorists abandon ‘the life’ for the one partner they ultimately wanted to commit themselves to. And, I watched people continue to explore and celebrate various designs. I watch polyamory work.”

Hake says two incidents “nudged” her back to monogamy. One was a comment made by a friend who told her that she could never get all of her needs met by multiple partners. The other was finding a man who demanded monogamy from her. “He was worth it, and although I wasn’t quite ready to shun polyamory, I was bruised and tired enough to shun the fight for it.”

According to Hake, “I began to realize that my life could not be designed by a good theory or even by what I witnessed in the world around me. Trite as it sounds, I had to follow my heart.”

She concludes: “I’m not a poster child for monogamy. In spite of my varied relationship history – and my best efforts to the contrary – I am if anything a serial monogamist. And I have probably spent more time single than partnered in any form. But I know what I want, and what I have wanted for many years: to cherish, and be cherished by, one other person.”

  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

‘Social Work’ Study Examines Psychosocial Factors And Drug Use In Barebacking

December 4, 2006 – “Condomless sex: gay men, barebacking, and harm reduction,” by psychotherapist Michael Shernoff, MSW, was published in Social Work, April 1, 2006.

Shernoff’s report surveys the current research on barebacking, including discussions of crystal meth use and various psychosocial factors that contribute to individuals engaging in risk taking behaviors.

Shernoff also notes that gays who practice safer sex for years are experiencing safe sex fatigue or burnout as a reason to return to unsafe practices such as barebacking.

High-risk behaviors have been linked to the advent of HIV antiretroviral therapy and provide gays with a misplaced sense of complacency. “Many believe that contracting HIV is not a big deal anymore – certainly not a risk to life,” said Shernoff.

In addition, party drugs have spawned an increase in barebacking. These include esctasy, GHB, ketamine, and crystal meth. Research has shown that the use of crystal is clearly related to barebacking among gay and bisexual men in sexually charged venues such as circuit parties, which can last several days.

The Internet has also contributed to an increase in barebacking, according to Shernoff, as gay males can easily find others who are willing to bareback.

Barebacking can be used as a way of meeting interpersonal and interpsychic needs. According to Shernoff, “It is all too easy to adopt a reductionistic approach and pathologize sexual risk takers as self-destructive, suicidal, damaged individuals or to believe that ‘for some gay men danger is a permanent fetish,” (Savage, 1999, p. 62). … It is the task of clinical social workers to help an individual articulate the particular meanings of his high-risk behaviors.”

Shernoff urges counselors to deal with this issue in a non-judgmental manner and to urge harm reduction behaviors for those who continue to bareback. One harm reduction method is to sign a mutual “negotiated safety agreement” on what each man expects during barebacking.

Writing for the Gay Health web site, Shernoff describes some of the other harm reduction practices, which include “serosorting,” which means having unprotected anal intercourse with a men who have the same HIV status; “strategic positioning”: where the infected male adopts the receptive bottom role during unprotected sex; “assessing the viral load”: using information that they or a partner have undetectable viral loads to make decisions about whether or not to bareback; “substitution”: using oral sex as a substitute for anal sex


  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

Jewish Groups Rally behind Homosexual Marriage

An umbrella group of 42 Jewish organizations, temples and citizens in the Boston area are speaking out in favor of same-sex marriage.

The overwhelming vote by the Jewish Community Relations Council comes as the state’s Roman Catholic bishops are stepping up the rhetoric against same-sex marriage.

The bishops announced they will mail a flier to more than one million Catholic households in Massachusetts, urging the faithful to support a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

In November the Massachusetts Supreme Court of Justice ruled that preventing gay and lesbian couples from marrying violates the Massachusetts constitution.

The issue has landed back in the lap of the high court as it examines a draft bill from the state Senate legalizing civil unions but not marriage. The Senate wants to know if it would suffice for the court’s November ruling.

Meanwhile, pressure from the Catholic Church and other conservative religious groups is mounting for an amendment to the state constitution barring same-sex marriages altogether.

The bishops’ flier calls on Catholics to lobby lawmakers to support a proposed amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It gives three options for how to do this: by visiting Legislators personally; by calling them on the phone; and by writing them a letter or e-mail.

The Jewish Community Relations Council represents mainly a liberal element within the Jewish community, but has a powerful voice and represents the largest segment of the Jewish community in the state.

Its support for same-sex unions sends a strong message to the legislature.

“The Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston urges our elected officials to enact legislation providing for same-sex marriage, in accordance with the recent ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court in the urges our elected officials to enact legislation providing for same-sex marriage, in accordance with the recent ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court in the Goodridge case,” the organization said in a statement.

The Council said it also “opposes any effort to amend the state Constitution to bar same-sex couples from marrying, or to deny legal benefits to same-sex couples and their families.”

Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism have supported LGBT rights for a number of years, and permits gay and lesbian rabbis and allows temples to perform blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples. Some temples even conduct weddings, although they are not recognized by the state.

Earlier the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish denomination in the country, and the Northeast region of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the association of Reform rabbis voted unanimously to support same-sex marriage. “This is hugely important, and it reflects the broad base of support for civil marriage within the Jewish community,” said Rabbi Devon A. Lerner.

  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS