DEFENDING THE FAMILY

Family Research Council
October 14, 2004
Defending the Family: Why We Resist Gay Activism
Issue No.: 83
by: Peter Sprigg

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.