|
After individual human life itself, nothing
is more precious or more essential to the survival and
the success of human society than the family. The family
is more important than the United Nations; more important
than the United States; more important than our states,
counties, cities, or towns. The family is more important
than our schools, corporations, or our civic organizations.
The family is more important than all
of these things, because human civilization is built from
the bottom up, not the top down. The first brick of the
foundation is individual human life, and the second brick
is the family. This raises a crucial question-"What
is a family? What makes a family?" Some people answer
that question by saying, "Love makes a family."
That sounds nice, but while love is, as the saying goes,
"a many-splendored thing," love alone is not
enough to make a family. Sometimes we speak of groups
of people that we love as a "family." We may
say, "My church is a family," or "At my
office, we're family," and "This sports team
is one big family." But when we talk that way, we're
speaking metaphorically. We're using an analogy. In truth,
what makes a family is one man and one woman united in
marriage for a lifetime, and bearing children from that
union. Not every family lives up to that ideal. Some people
become single parents through no fault of their own, because
of death or abandonment. Some loving couples adopt children,
in order to create a new family structure that reproduces
as closely as possible the circumstances of a natural
family. But it is important for society to continue to
hold up the traditional family structure as the ideal
family. It is important to hold up that ideal because
it is the family structure most consistent with what the
Declaration of Independence refers to as "the laws
of nature and of nature's God."
However, even if someone doesn't believe
in natural law, or even in God, there is still a good
reason to uphold the ideal of the traditional family.
The reason the married, one-man, one-woman natural family
is the ideal family is that we know that both the spouses
and the children in such families have a better chance
in life. Such children, for instance, do better academically,
financially, emotionally, and behaviorally. They also
have better health, and they delay sexual activity longer.
The evidence for this in the social science literature
is overwhelming. It is because of this-because the family
is so crucial to society-that we call ourselves "pro-family."
We want to do everything we can to support, encourage,
assist, maintain, and promote traditional families and
do everything we can to maintain that ideal of the married,
one-man, one-woman natural family. However, in order to
defend what we are for-the family-we often must define
what we are against. We are against anything that threatens
the traditional family or undermines that ideal. That
means that we are against parents snuffing out the lives
of their own unborn children through abortion. It means
that we are against drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence,
and child abuse. It means that we are against illegitimacy,
abandonment, and divorce. And it means that we are against
any sexual behavior that would undermine the uniqueness
of the faithful, lifelong marriage bond between a husband
and wife. We are against premarital sex, pornography,
adultery, and prostitution. And yes, we are also against
the practice of homosexuality.
Now, you may ask, if we are for something
so simple and profound as family, and against so many
things that threaten it, why is it that one of these threats-homosexuality-gets
so much attention? It's not because homosexuality is a
greater sin than any other. It's not because we want to
deprive homosexuals of their fundamental human rights.
It's not because we are afraid to be near homosexuals,
and it's not because we hate homosexuals. On the contrary,
I desire the very best for them. And desiring the best
for someone, and acting to bring that about, is the essence
of love. However, I do not believe that engaging in behavior
that is unnatural, immoral, and dangerous both to public
health and to their own health is the best thing for people
with same-sex attractions.
And so, as one part of our broad-based
efforts to support the traditional family, we oppose what
is sometimes called "the gay agenda." Some people,
though, would deny that there is such a thing as a single
"gay agenda." "Gay people are diverse,"
they argue, "just like straight people and Americans
are diverse." But in spite of that diversity, there
is a "gay agenda." It is an agenda that demands
the full acceptance of the practice of homosexuality-morally,
socially, legally, religiously, politically, and financially.
Indeed, it calls for not only acceptance, but affirmation
and celebration of this behavior as normal, and even desirable
for those who desire it. This is "the gay agenda"-and
we are against it. This agenda has already made remarkable
progress. Homosexual activists knew that their behavior
would never be accepted as "normal" if doctors
considered it a form of mental illness. Therefore, in
1973 they forced a resolution through the American Psychiatric
Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is important
for everyone to realize that the 1973 decision was not
the result of new clinical research or scientific evidence.
It was, rather, a political decision made in response
to a vicious campaign of harassment and intimidation by
homosexual activists.
A second element in the agenda is to persuade
people that those who engage in homosexual behavior are
"born that way." If people are "born gay,"
it makes it more difficult to argue that a homosexual
"orientation" is abnormal, or that homosexual
behavior is immoral. Indeed, some argue that if people
are "born gay," it proves that "God made
them that way." It is astonishing how pervasive this
concept has become-especially in light of the fact that
there is no convincing scientific evidence that homosexuality
is determined by either genetics or biology. Only a tiny
handful of studies have ever been put forward to make
such a claim. Unfortunately, the scientific critiques
that discredited those studies have never quite caught
up to the media hype that originally accompanied them.
A third element of the homosexual agenda
is to get "sexual orientation" added to the
categories of protection under anti-discrimination codes
in private organizations and under civil rights laws in
the public sector. These efforts are based on the premise
that "sexual orientation" resembles other existing
categories of protection, such as race or gender. However,
such characteristics are inborn, involuntary, immutable,
innocuous, and in the Constitution-none of those criteria
apply to homosexual behavior. It's important to remember
that homosexuals already have the same rights that all
Americans are guaranteed under the Constitution, such
as the right to vote, the right of free speech, and the
right to trial by jury. However, adding "sexual orientation"
to our civil rights laws would give homosexuals the special
right to sue employers or landlords simply for acting
on their own moral convictions.
A fourth element of the agenda is to win
the enactment of "hate crime" laws that provide
severe punishment of crimes motivated by "bias"
against homosexuals. All of us in the pro-family movement
are opposed to violent crimes, against homosexuals or
anyone. Hate crime laws, though, set a dangerous precedent
of punishing people specifically for their opinions. In
addition, under some such laws a person can be punished
simply for intimidation-which could include just verbally
expressing disapproval of homosexuality. Opposition to
homosexuality does not constitute hate, as these laws
imply.
A fifth element of the homosexual agenda
is the effort to get homosexual propaganda included in
the curriculum of public schools. The intent of these
efforts is obvious-to ensure that the next generation
will grow up with an unquestioning acceptance of all the
myths that the homosexual activists want young people
to believe.
And a final element in this agenda is
to redefine marriage and family altogether. They hope
to achieve this by opening the doors for homosexuals to
adopt children, and by legalizing same-sex marriage. If
denied marriage in name, they hope to win virtually all
the benefits and privileges of marriage through so-called
civil unions or domestic partnerships. Lesbian activist
Paula Ettelbrick has said that homosexuality "means
pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family,
and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."
Writing in the homosexual magazine Out, Michelangelo Signorile
says the goal is to fight for same-sex marriage and its
benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution
of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not
as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather
to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.
. . . The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can
undertake . . . is to transform the notion of "family"
entirely.
Some have been swayed by the rhetoric
of tolerance and fairness that homosexual activists use,
yet remain uncomfortable with the practice of homosexuality
or the idea of "gay marriage." If anyone opposes
any part of the agenda then they should oppose it all,
because its elements are linked together like cars of
a freight train barreling down the track. Once one runs
you over, the others will not be far behind.
Supporting traditional marriage and the
traditional family is vital. At the same time, it is important
to treat every human being with love, respect, and dignity.
But it is urgent that we oppose this agenda for the acceptance,
affirmation, and celebration of homosexual behavior. Mr.
Sprigg, senior director of culture studies at the
Family Research Council, delivered this
address in front of the Wisconsin State Capitol on October
13, 2001, at a rally organized by Citizens Concerned for
Our Community, the Alliance for Life, and the Family Research
Institute of Wisconsin.
|
