Politicization of homosexuality barrels on

GayBusIn the “gay rights” debate over the years, I have raised the point that the psychiatric and psychological professional associations normalized the condition of homosexuality because of politics, not science. Typically, my claim is greeted with jeers and laughter from skeptical and disdainful opponents.

But truth is truth. When I co-ghost-wrote a book for a former boss, Congressman William E. Dannemeyer, titled Shadow in the Land: Homosexuality in America, in 1989, I knew the truth about the politics of homosexuality within the psychiatric and psychological professions.

Nine years after the 1973 convention vote within the American Psychiatric Association (APA), Ronald Bayer, a professor at the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health, in the Mailman School of Public Health, at Columbia University, released a book titled Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. Dr. Bayer supports the change in APA policy to remove homosexuality from the official list of mental disorders. Let me repeat: Dr. Bayer supports homosexuality as a normal human condition and, from everything I can discern, supports “gay rights” generally. Read more

Same-sex marriage and our better selves

The following post is a transcript of a 4-minute weekly radio commentary aired on several Utah radio stations:

Last week the United States Supreme Court received arguments in two cases regarding same-sex marriage. The Proposition 8 case out of California concerns the constitutionality of a state constitutional amendment and the other case, the Defense of Marriage Act, concerns prohibitions on the federal government recognizing the same-sex relations of its federal employees.

There are many political and legal angles to these cases. The decisions basically rest in the hands of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who represents the court’s swing vote in such matters. In 2002, Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for a case out of Texas that overturned that state’s sodomy laws and seemingly set a precedent that the court is looking for a way to support homosexuality under the law, including same-sex marriage.

However these two cases are ultimately decided, I have to wonder aloud if the average American today even understands the requirements of a free society. I’ll remind you of what I have stated repeatedly: A free society requires us to become our better selves. Read more

2013 Legislature: Testimony opposing antidiscrimination amendments (SB 262)

Testimony given by Paul Mero Thursday, March 7, before the Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee regarding Employment and Housing Antidiscrimination Amendments (SB 262):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to add a voice to this hearing. In considering what I might share, I realized that this issue of nondiscrimination stopped being about policy at some point and is now simply a public relations issue. The legislative politics of nondiscrimination has more twists and turns than a daytime soap opera. But we’re policy people at Sutherland and it’s difficult for us to advise legislators on public relations.

After five or six consecutive years of hearing this bill – and every year the bill is rejected – I’m sure proponents of the bill might be a little frustrated with this process. But when you can’t win on its merits, all that’s left is an appeal to emotion. All that’s left is to ask legislators, “Pretty please? – just let it be heard, just give me a Republican sponsor, can we have a floor vote, pretty please?” Read more

3 reasons BSA shouldn’t cave in

The following post is a transcript of a weekly radio commentary aired on several Utah radio stations:

The Boy Scouts of America were scheduled this week to decide whether or not to lift its long-standing ban on accepting homosexual Scout leaders in local troops. [The decision has now been delayed.] The push to lift the ban comes from two members of its national board who both support homosexual Scout leaders but worry more about how progressive-minded corporations extort BSA over its no-gay policy. These corporations threaten to quit donating to BSA until the ban is lifted.

There are no serious political threats to BSA driving this renewed debate. Nobody beyond homosexual activists and those two BSA board members are pushing the issue. There’s no legal threat against BSA – in 2000, the United States Supreme Court settled the issue: BSA does not have to accept homosexual Scout leaders if it doesn’t want to.

There are at least three good reasons why BSA should not cave to the pressure of homosexual activists.

Read more

Spinning the news to create wedges in Mormondom?

Just a quick thought on how the pro-homosexual media spins even the clearest statements to favor its ideological … oops, I mean journalistic … opinions. The Salt Lake Tribune’s religion reporter, Peggy Fletcher Stack, relishes every opportunity to create wedges within Mormondom, point out Mormondom’s uniqueness (which she thinks is peculiar) and otherwise create policy relationships between Mormons and homosexuality where none exist.

Case in point: her recent article about the Boy Scouts of America.

In writing about the decades-old debate about allowing homosexuals to serve as Scoutmasters, she not-so-subtly slips this paragraph into the mix:

If the proposed change moves forward, however, it could bring the Scouts into alignment with the LDS Church’s policy of allowing chaste gays to serve in volunteer positions.

“Chaste gays”? Her implication is that human beings can be “born gay” and that when Mormons are “born gay” they are allowed to hold LDS Church callings as long as they don’t have homosexual sex. Read more

Activists launch their effort to overturn Utah’s marriage amendment

According to a recent news report, “gay rights” activists in Utah are filing legal briefs in the pending U.S. Supreme Court cases concerning the definition of marriage. Specifically, it is reported that these briefs are citing Utah’s marriage amendment (and a few other events) “as examples of discrimination against the LGBT community.”

In other words, Utah’s “gay rights” activists are attempting to get the U.S. Supreme Court to state that Utah’s constitutional definition of marriage is motivated by hatred and bigotry against homosexuals (i.e. discrimination … or in legal-speak, motivated by “animus”). Because if that happens, then under the precedent set by previous Supreme Court opinion[1], Utah’s constitutional marriage amendment would likely be subsequently struck down as unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, and the courts would impose “gay marriage” on Utah by fiat.

So there it is. Utah’s homosexual activists have laid out their strategy to relentlessly label their political opponents as discriminatory bigots who are motivated by irrational hatred of homosexuals, in order to use the courts to then bring “gay marriage” to Utah, without all of the fuss and bother of going through democratic processes.

Now that all the activists’ cards are on the table, the real question is: Will Utah policymakers aid this strategy?

[1] Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al. (94-1039), 517 U.S. 620 (1996)

Homosexuality, the LDS Church, and the Supreme Court

Last week The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced a new website targeted to people struggling with homosexuality and the relationships they have within their families and faith community. In announcing this unprecedented outreach, LDS Church Apostle Dallin H. Oaks said,

Same-gender attraction presents many issues and questions in society at large. These include what causes it, whether it is subject to change in kind or degree, and whether, or the extent of which, laws like marriage should accommodate it. Our discussion is limited to two related questions we sometimes hear in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…
We will not discuss any of the multitude of other issues and questions. There is so much we don’t understand about this subject, that we’d do well to stay close to what we know from the revealed word of God. What we do know is that the doctrine of the church, that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married, has not changed and is not changing. But what is changing and what needs to change is to help our own members and families understand how to deal with same-gender attraction.

Indeed the nation is abuzz with another announcement regarding “gay rights” – this time from the United States Supreme Court that announced it will consider two high-profile cases, the state Prop 8 case and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Read more

A consequential time for marriage

What if the U.S. Supreme Court imposed a policy of “gay marriage” on the entire country, in spite of the fact that nearly two-thirds of states maintain a traditional definition of marriage? On the other hand, what if the court ruled that states have the constitutional right and authority to protect and maintain traditional marriage? These questions could be decided by the Supreme Court in the coming year.

A recent story in the Deseret News notes how the Supreme Court will soon be determining answers to these questions, based on lawsuits driven by “gay rights” activists. For conservatives and defenders of the institution of the family, the whole article is worth a read.

Anti-discrimination laws and marriage

Many people wonder why conservatives who speak up for traditional marriage and the natural family also often oppose fundamentally flawed laws that would add “sexual orientation” to anti-discrimination laws. If you ask some “gay rights” advocates, the answer is simple: Conservatives are motivated by bigotry and simply hate homosexuals. But for reasonable, thinking individuals who like to consider an issue before attacking and condemning those who disagree with them, there are answers. What follows is one of those answers.

First, a quick thought exercise. Imagine a world where religious individuals are attacked as “bigots” because they maintain and express sincere religious beliefs on sexual behavior and relationships. Imagine a world where their livelihoods and their worship services are publicly targeted and disrupted because they take legitimate political action grounded in their religious values. Imagine a world where justifiable social/political/policy views on issues like marriage and the family are dismissed offhand as “hateful,” with little to no thoughtful consideration.

This is a world grounded in anti-discrimination policies based on “sexual orientation.” Read more

The mistakes of ‘the gay mind’

Recently I wrote about “the secular mind” in The Salt Lake Tribune. With this blog post I write about “the gay mind.”

By way of preface, four items:

First, I want to make clear that I’m speaking generally about the thinking within homosexual culture and not the thinking of any one person struggling with or sympathetic to someone who’s struggling with homosexuality. If I write “the gay mind is delusional,” I mean that the conventional wisdom – the mind-set – within homosexual culture is delusional, not that any one person is delusional. If I mean the latter, I’ll explicitly state the latter meaning.

Second, this state is suffering a deep cultural divide between Mormon and non-Mormon – as manifest today as at any other point in Utah history, and notwithstanding the many diverse parties, none more so than the LDS Church, trying to heal these rifts. Anyone who believes otherwise hasn’t looked around, hasn’t read a Salt Lake Tribune lately and compared it with the Deseret News, hasn’t visited both the University of Utah and Brigham Young University, hasn’t gone from a house party in Sugar House to a ward party in St. George, nor sat through a drum circle at Liberty Park and then a family home evening in Bluffdale. Read more