Fox News ignored the brutal murder of a gay man in New York City, which has been labeled a hate crime by local police, while CNN underreported the story. Even though the attack is part of a disturbing spike in anti-gay violence in New York, the cable networks instead focused on covering the proceedings in the trial against Jodi Arias.

Gay Man Murdered In New York City Subjected To Anti-Gay Slurs

Mark Carson, A Gay Man, Was Shot And Killed By Man Screaming Anti-Gay Slurs. According to The New York Times:

Mark Carson did not hide that he was gay, and when he went out on the town he would often head to Greenwich Village, where years before he was born, much of the struggle for gay liberation unfolded. Yet late Friday night, just blocks from the Stonewall Inn, among the most important landmarks of that struggle, he was confronted with a man screaming antigay slurs, who then stalked him before pulling out a silver revolver and fatally shooting him, the police said. [The New York Times, 5/18/13]

The Murder Has Been Labeled An Anti-Gay Hate Crime By Police. According to Slate:

A 33-year-old man with a criminal past was charged on Sunday with gunning down a gay man on a busy stretch of New York City's West Village, only blocks from what is considered to be the birthplace of the American gay rights movement. The alleged killer, police say, was motivated by only one thing: that his victim was gay.

"It's clear that the victim here was killed only because and just because he was thought to be gay," New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said at a press conference. "There is no question about that. There were these derogatory remarks. The victim did nothing to antagonize or instigate the shooter in this case. It's only done because the shooter believed him to be gay."

Elliot Morales was charged Sunday with murder as a hate crime, along with weapons charges, in the death of Mark Carson. [Slate, 5/20/13]

Carson’s Murder Sparked A Rally Against Anti-Gay Violence In New York City. According to Mother Jones:

Blinding afternoon sun lit the biggest gay rights demonstration in years in New York's West Village Monday. The LGBT community and its supporters, including a couple of mayoral candidates, marched in the wake of a murder that has capped a month-long spate of homophobic violence.

Demonstrators—police say 1,500, organizers say many hundreds more—marched through the leafy streets that gave birth to the gay rights movement to the  corner where Mark Carson, 32, was shot in the face and killed Friday night as he walked with a friend. [Mother Jones, 5/21/13, emphasis added]

Analysis: Cable News Coverage Of Jodi Arias Trial Overshadowed Coverage Of Carson’s Murder

Fox News, CNN Prioritized Jodi Arias Trial Over Ben Carson’s Murder. According to an Equality Matters analysis, between May 19 and May 21, both Fox News and CNN underreported Mark Carson’s murder, spending significantly more time covering the sentencing of Jodi Arias – a woman convicted of murdering her boyfriend:

• Fox News Completely Ignored Carson’s Murder But Spent More Than 30 Minutes Covering The Arias Trial.
• CNN Devoted More Than 90 Minutes To The Arias Trial And Less Than One Minute Covering Carson’s Murder.

CNN Mentioned Carson’s Murder Only Once. According to an Equality Matters analysis, CNN mentioned Carson’s murder only once, during the May 19 edition of Weekend Early Start:

• MSNBC Was The Only Cable News Network To Devote A Full Segment To Covering Carson’s Murder.

Anti-Gay Violence, Hate Crimes Are On The Rise

Carson’s Murder Is The Latest In A Spree Of Anti-Gay Violence In New York. New York’s police commissioner reported that anti-gay crimes in the city have spiked 70 percent this year. According to Business Insider:

There's been a spate of other anti-gay attacks in New York City recently. A man said he was gay bashed in the East Village just Monday. There were three other apparent anti-gay hate crimes in New York in May, Gothamist has reported.

On Tuesday, New York's police commissioner Ray Kelly said anti-gay hate crime in New York has spiked 70% this year. The New York City Anti-Violence Project — which collects data on hate crimes against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people — saw a 13% increase in hate crime reports from 2010 to 2011. [Business Insider, 5/21/13]

FBI Statistics: Anti-Gay Violence Is On The Rise, Even As Other Hates Crimes Are Decreasing. According to the Los Angeles Times, hate crimes based on the victim’s sexual orientation are on the rise:

More than 6,000 hate crimes were reported to U.S. law enforcement agencies in 2011 — a 6% decrease from 2010, the FBI said Monday. But crimes based on the victim's sexual orientation increased slightly.

[…]

"The increase in the number of reported hate crimes directed against gays and lesbians, now the second most frequent category of crime, is especially disturbing," the [Anti-Defamation League] said in a statement.

There were 1,508 reported sexual orientation hate crimes in 2011, up from 1,470 in 2010, an increase of about 2.6%. Overall, nearly 21% of hate crimes were motivated by sexual orientation bias, the FBI said, with men victimized the majority of the time. [Los Angeles Times, 12/10/12]

Methodology

Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by TV Eyes for the words “Carson,” “gay,” “hate crime,” “Jodi,” and “Arias” between May 19 and May 21. Reruns and teases for upcoming segments were included. One mention of Carson’s murder during the May 19 edition of MSNBC’s Weekends with Alex Witt was excluded because it was brought up by a guest and not by the show’s host.

Fox News spent one minute covering the historic legalization of same-sex marriage in Rhode Island, Delaware, and Minnesota over the past several weeks. According to an Equality Matters analysis, the network completely ignored the passage of marriage equality legislation in Delaware and made only passing mentions of Rhode Island and Minnesota’s new marriage laws.

Analysis: Fox News Underreported The Passage Of Marriage Equality In Three States

Fox News Made Just Three Mentions Of The Passage Of Marriage Equality In Rhode Island, Delaware, And Minnesota. According to an Equality Matters analysis, Fox News mentioned the marriage equality victories in Rhode Island, Delaware, and Minnesota a total of three times. CNN and MSNBC made 13 and 35 mentions of the stories, respectively:

Fox News Mentioned Rhode Island’s Marriage Equality Law Only Once. Fox News dedicated just sixteen seconds to covering Rhode Island’s marriage equality legislation during the May 1 edition of Fox Report with Shepard Smith. CNN and MSNBC spent about one minute and 10 minutes covering the story, respectively:

Fox News Ignored The Passage Of Marriage Equality In Delaware. No Fox News program mentioned the passage of marriage equality legislation in Delaware. Both CNN and MSNBC covered the story:

Fox News Mentioned Minnesota’s Marriage Equality Law Twice. Fox News  devoted 44 [seconds to covering Minnesota’s marriage equality legislation during two mentions on the May 14 editions of Special Report with Bret Baier and Fox Report with Shepard Smith.CNN and MSNBC spent about two and 37 minutes covering the story, respectively:

• The Bulk Of MSNBC’s Minnesota Coverage Came From Multiple Segments During The May 12 Edition Of Up with Steve Kornacki, Which Devoted More Than 20 Minutes To The Story.

METHODOLOGY

Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by TV Eyes and internal TV databases for any mention of the passage of marriage equality legislation in Rhode Island, Delaware, and Minnesota.

For Rhode Island, which approved marriage equality on May 2, we searched for the terms “Rhode,” “island,” and “marriage” between May 1 and May 3.

For Delaware, which approved marriage equality on May 7, we searched for the terms “Delaware” and “marriage” between May 6 and May 8.

For Minnesota, which passed its marriage equality measure through the House on May 9 and signed the measure into law on May 14, we searched for the terms “Minnesota” and “marriage” between May 8 and 12:00 p.m. on May 15.

Reruns and teases for upcoming segments were excluded. 

Anti-Gay Spokespersons

Brian Brown

Brown Is President Of The National Organization For Marriage, Where He’s Made A Career Out Of Peddling Misinformation About Marriage Equality. [GLAAD, accessed 3/26/13]

• Parents Of Gay Kids Should Attend “Ex-Gay” Conferences To Prevent Their Children From “Embracing This Destructive Way Of Life.” [Good As You, 2/16/12]
• People Should “Feel Good” About Study Allegedly Showing That People Can Change Their Sexual Orientation Through “Ex-Gay” Therapy. [NOM Blog, 9/29/11]
• Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Pave The Way To “Normalize Pedophilia.” [NOM Blog, 8/18/11]
• Gays Are Engaged In “Jihad”To Achieve Marriage Equality, Want To “Take Away Your Rights.” [NOM Newsletter, 8/25/11]
• Promoted A Blog Post Claiming Gay Parents Are More Likely To Molest Their Children Than Heterosexual Parents. [Equality Matters, 12/8/11]

Jennifer Morse

Morse Is A NOM Spokesperson And President Of NOM’s Ruth Institute, Where She’s Developed A Track Record For Anti-LGBT Commentary. [GLAAD, accessed 3/26/13]

• The Push For LGBT Equality “Parallels” What Happened In Nazi Germany. [Right Wing Watch, 9/2/11]
• Gay Sex Is A “Completely Shameless Activity.” [Good As You, 12/28/11]
• “There Really Isn’t Any Future In Sodomy.” [Equality Matters, 11/8/12]
• Gay Men Want To “Feel Better” About Their “Deeply Wrong” Homosexuality. [Equality Matters, 2/26/13]
• Gay People Can Be “Release[d]” From The “Compulsive Aspects Of Their Behavior” Through “Ex-Gay” Therapy. [Equality Matters, 10/3/12]
• President Obama Is “More Gay Than He Is Black.” [Equality Matters, 10/6/11]

Tami Fitzgerald

Fitzgerald Is The Executive Director Of The North Carolina Values Coalition And Led The Effort To Pass NC’s Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage. [GLAAD, accessed 3/26/13]

• Sexual Orientation Includes “28 Other ‘Sexual Orientations’ Ranging From Pedophilia To Bestiality.” [Christian Action League, 6/5/09]
• “Deconstructing” Traditional Marriage Is A Plot To “’Mainstream’ Homosexual Lifestyles.” [Christian Action League, 12/19/09]
• Homosexuality Is An “Abomination,” “Not TheGreatest And Highest Good” For Gay People. [Reconciling Raleigh, 1/8/09]

Gary Bauer

Bauer, President Of American Values, Has A Long History Of Promoting Damaging Smears About LGBT People. [GLAAD, accessed 3/26/13]

• “Ex-Gay” Ministries Offers “Hope And Healing” To Gay People. [American Values, 10/14/98]
• Marriage Equality Will Have “Devastating Impacts On Our Society.” [Right Wing Watch, 5/21/12]

Serial Race Baiters

Harry Jackson

PFAW: Jackson Is A “Point Man For The Wedge Strategy.” In a 2009 report, People for the American Way (PFAW) documented Jackson’s history of acting as a spokesperson for the Religious Right’s efforts to drive a wedge between LGBT people and African-Americans. [PFAW, 2009]

• “The Black Community Is In An Adulterous Relationship With President Obama.” [Christian Post, 5/17/12]
• Obama May Have Been “Paid” To SupportMarriage Equality. [Daily Caller, 5/25/12]
• “There Is A Measure Of Racism In The Gay Movement.” [Larry King Live, 11/19/08]
• The LGBT Equality Movement Is Comparable To “The Times Of Hitler.”[AFA Radio, 5/16/12]
• Gay People Are Trying To “Recruit Your Kids.” [Right Wing Watch, 8/2/12]
• Marriage Equality Is “A Satanic Plot To Destroy Our Seed.” [Right Wing Watch, 4/18/11]

Bill Owens

Owens Heads A NOM “Astroturf” Group Geared Towards Pitting African-Americans Against Gay People. According to The Washington Post’s Lisa Miller:

Owens isn’t a story. He’s a figurehead in what political operatives call an “Astroturf” campaign. It looks like a grass-roots movement, but it’s really a political stunt.

[...]

Owens has been, for years, a religious liaison for the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative lobbying group whose aim is to block or roll back same-sex marriage legislation wherever it occurs. Though he told me in a phone call that he receives no compensation from NOM, his new campaign called Mandate for Marriage, aimed at urging African Americans to withdraw their support for the president, is made possible in part by individuals affiliated with NOM. “We have asked a few people for contributions – some of them from the National Organization for Marriage,” he told me.

To drive home the point: The day after Owens’s press conference, NOM’s president, Brian Brown, went on Fox and said that “key Democratic constituencies do not support same-sex marriage.” NOM created a truth and then went out and proclaimed it. [The Washington Post, 8/2/12, emphasis added]

Owens: Don’t Let Gay People “Steal” The Civil Rights Movement. In a sermon captured for a NOM-produced video in 2011, Owens urged his congregants not to let gay people “make a mockery” of the civil rights movement:

OWENS: It is our job as black people … let’s don’t let them take that from us and make it a sham and make a mockery of it.

[…]

OWENS: Don’t let them steal it. And they will steal it if we do nothing. They will steal it if we do nothing. [NOM, 6/14/11]

Owens: Homosexuality Is Akin To Bestiality And Is Caused By Molestation In Early Childhood. During a press conference in July of 2012, Owen stated:

OWENS: A few months ago, the Commercial Appeal carried an article with a young man’s picture in it. He was charged with having sex with a dog. Now I wonder was that his civil right? Will we go down that road where whatever we choose to do, we’ll call it our civil rights? Well if it’s a civil right for a man to marry man, and a woman to marry woman, what’s the difference of a man deciding he wants to have sex with a dog?

[…]

When people that you don’t know they’re homosexuals, and they get caught into something, they will tell you it was early childhood that they were molested. Sometimes by a family member, sometimes by their father, or sometimes by a friend. It starts in early childhood. [Right Wing Watch, 7/13/12]

Gays Against Equality

Doug Mainwaring

Mainwaring, Co-Founder Of The National Capital Tea Party Patriots, Identifies As Gay But Chose To Marry A Woman And Have Children. He Is A Vocal Opponent Of Marriage Equality. [Public Discourse, 3/8/13]

• Marriage Equality Reduces Children To “Chattel – Like Sources Of Fulfillment.” [American Thinker, 12/27/12]
• Same-Sex Marriages Are “A Joke,” “An Absurd Frolic,” “An Act Of Contempt Toward Marriage.” [The Washington Times, 7/11/12]
• Gay Men “Often Lead Diminished, And In Some Cases Nearly Bankrupt, Lives.” [Public Discourse, 3/8/13]

Robert Oscar Lopez

Lopez, Who Was Raised By Same-Sex Parents And Identifies As Bisexual, Has A History of Arguing Against LGBT Equality And Demonizing LGBT People. [Good As You, 8/9/12; Public Discourse, 8/6/12]

• Gay Men Have “Chosen To Go Into A Dating Scene That’s Small,Often Incestuous, Vulnerable To Disease.” [American Thinker, 12/24/12]
• Men Who Engage In Homosexuality “Live Like Rutting, Uncontrolled Animals.” [American Thinker, 12/24/12]
• Men Get Involved With Gay Sex Because Of Drugs, Problems With Women. [American Thinker, 12/24/12]
• Same-Sex Parenting Has Created A “Human-Rights Crisis” That Merits International Intervention. [English Manif, 1/20/13]

Boy Scouts Considering Reversing Ban On Openly Gay Members

NBC: Boy Scouts Considering Ending Its Ban On Openly Gay Members. On January 28, NBC reported that the Boy Scouts was “considering an end to its decades-long policy of banning gay scouts or scout leaders”:

The Boy Scouts of America, one of the nation’s largest private youth organizations, is actively considering an end to its decades-long policy of banning gay scouts or scout leaders, according to scouting officials and outsiders familiar with internal discussions.

If adopted by the organization’s board of directors, it would represent a profound change on an issue that has been highly controversial -- one that even went to the US Supreme Court. The new policy, now under discussion, would eliminate the ban from the national organization’s rules, leaving local sponsoring organizations free to decide for themselves whether to admit gay scouts. [NBC News, 1/28/13]

NPR: Boy Scouts Delay Decision On Openly Gay Members Until May. On February 6, the Boy Scouts announced that it would be postponing its decision on whether to end its national ban on openly gay members until May. [NPR, 2/6/13]

Analysis: Cable News Coverage Of Boy Scouts Ban Included Discussion Of Pedophilia Threat

Fox News, CNN Coverage Was Dominated By Pedophilia Narrative. According to an Equality Matters analysis, during the period between January 28 and February 6 – when the vote to repeal the Boy Scouts’ ban was delayed – the majority of Fox News’ and CNN’s segments covering the controversy included discussions of the potential threat gay men might pose to boys:

Fox News Included Pedophilia Talking Point In Its “Straight News” Coverage. Fox was the only network to repeatedly reference concerns about pedophilia in its “straight news” coverage of the Boy Scouts’ policy:

CNN Invited Members Of An Anti-Gay Hate Group To Peddle The Pedophilia Smear. CNN invited Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg, representatives of the Family Research Council (FRC), to argue against repealing the Boy Scouts’ ban. Both guests suggested that lifting the ban would expose young boys to the risk of sexual abuse:

• FRC Has Been Labeled An Anti-Gay Hate Group By The Southern Poverty Law Center. [SPLC, November 2010]

MSNBC Avoided Discussing Pedophilia Smear In Its Coverage. MSNBC mentioned the pedophilia smear only once during its coverage of the Boy Scouts’ decision. During the February 4 edition of The Ed Show, gay activist Mike Rogers noted that right-wing fears about pedophilia were based on “misinformation” and “outdated thoughts”:

Experts: There Is No Link Between Homosexuality And Pedophilia

Child Welfare Experts: “Gay People Are No More Likely To Abuse Children… Than The General Population.” Nearly one hundred experts from the fields of sex abuse prevention, psychology, social work, psychiatry, child advocacy, faith outreach, criminology, education and coaching co-signed an open letter debunking the “gays are pedophiles” myth:

Our nation’s leaders and experts have rightly decided over the last several decades that our children are not at greater risk when openly gay people are placed in positions of authority over youth. Openly gay people are our children’s trusted teachers, coaches, nurses, caregivers, chaperones, babysitters, clergy, and counselors.

It is important that parents and educators understand that sexual abuse is about power, not attraction.

Gay people are no more likely to abuse children, and pose no more of a threat to our young people, than the general population.

[…]

We, the undersigned, speak as some of America’s leading voices for child advocacy and welfare. We want to assure America’s concerned parents and educators that minors are as safe with gay people as they are with straight people. Claims to the contrary stem from a place of general opposition to homosexuality, rather than from actual expertise on the topic of sexual abuse of minors. [GLAAD, 2/6/13]

APA: “Homosexual Men Are Not More Likely To Sexually Abuse Children Than Heterosexual Men Are.” According to the American Psychological Association:

Studies on who commits child sexual abuse vary in their findings, but the most common finding is that the majority of sexual offenders are family members or are otherwise known to the child. Sexual abuse by strangers is not nearly as common as sexual abuse by family members. Research further shows that men perpetrate most instances of sexual abuse, but there are cases in which women are the offenders. Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are. [APA, accessed 2/12/13]

METHODOLOGY

Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by TV Eyes for the phrase “boy scouts” between January 28, 2013 and February 6, 2013. Reruns were excluded, as were non-segment mentions of the story. Back-to-back segments featuring separate interviews about the policy change were counted as one segment. Segments that occurred after the postponement of the Boy Scouts’ decision on February 6 were excluded.

Analysis: Cable News Networks Underreported Uganda’s “Kill The Gays” Bill

Cable News Networks Underreported Reemergence Of “Kill The Gays” Bill, Focused On Gangnam Style. According to an Equality Matters analysis, between October 31 and December 5, both CNN and Fox News devoted more time to covering Korean pop star Psy’s song “Gangnam Style” than reporting on the renewed support for the passage of Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” law. There is no indication that Fox News covered the measure: 

• MSNBC Mentioned The Bill In Only Two Segments Over The Course Of Equality Matters’Study.

Ugandan Parliament Speaker Has Promised To Bring “Kill The Gays” Bill To A Vote. In October, Uganda’s Speaker of Parliament Rebecca Kadaga vowed to bring the country’s controversial “Kill the Gays” bill up for a vote. Her statement came in response to the threat that Western countries, including the United States, might cut off foreign aid to Uganda over the country’s treatment of LGBT people.

KADAGA: I will not accept to be intimidated or to be directed by any government in the world because we are independent. We are Ugandans.

[...]

I will now instruct the chair of the Committee of Legal and Parliamentary Affairs to quickly bring the report of the anti-homosexuality bill so that we discuss it and so that Uganda can take a position.

[...]

If the price of aid is going to be promoting homosexuality in this country, I think we don’t want that aid. I don’t think we want it. [Think Progress, 10/31/12, emphasis added]

Kadaga Pledged To Pass “Kill The Gays” Bill As A “Christmas Gift” To The Law’s Supporters. According to BBC News:

Ms Kadaga said she hoped the bill, first tabled in 2009 and now before a parliamentary committee, would be passed by the end of the year, Reuters news agency reports.

"Ugandans want that law as a Christmas gift. They have asked for it and we'll give them that gift," Ms Kadaga is quoted as saying. [BBC News, 11/13/12]

“Kill The Gays” Bill Is Likely To Pass, Vote Could Be “Any Day.” According to the Huffington Post:

In the next few weeks the Ugandan parliament is poised to bring back a bill that would sentence lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people to imprisonment and in some cases death.

[…]

The bill has been scheduled for an "order of business to follow" and could be voted on this week. It is expected to easily pass, and then it will be up to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni to veto the bill. His veto could be overturned by the assembly. [Huffington Post, 11/26/12]

“Kill The Gays” Bill Maintains Death Penalty For Homosexuality, Even After Revisions. According to Box Turtle Bulletin’s Jim Burroway: 

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill was reintroduced into Parliament last February and referred to the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee for possible modifications. When the same committee considered the bill in May of 2011, the committee recommended a sly change to the bill, removing the explicit language of “suffer(ing) death,” and replacing it with a reference to the penalties provided in an unrelated already existing law. That law however specifies the death penalty. Which means that the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee actually recommended that the death penalty be retained through stealth while the bill’s supporters publicly stated that the penalty had been removed. [Box Turtle Bulletin, 10/31/12]

METHODOLOGY

Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by TV Eyes and Snapstream for the terms “Uganda” and “Gangnam” between October 31, 2012 (Kadaga’s announcement) and December 5. Reruns were excluded. For segments that discussed a variety of issues including Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill, only time spent discussing the bill was recorded.

Analysis: Cable News Networks Regularly Hosted Perkins To Discuss GOP Primary

Tony Perkins Made 56 Television Appearances Over The Course Of The GOP Primary. According to an Equality Matters analysis, during the period between the first Republican presidential debate on May 5, 2011 and the Republican nomination in August, Tony Perkins appeared on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC a total of 56 times to discuss the GOP primary:

Perkins Regularly Acted As A Representative Of Evangelical, Socially Conservative Voters. In the overwhelming majority of segments, Perkins is featured as a spokesman for socially conservative and evangelical voters:

METHODOLOGY

Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by Nexis, TV Eyes, and SnapStream for the name "Tony Perkins" between May 5, 2011 (the first debate of the GOP presidential primary) and August 28, 2012 (Romney's nomination). For programs that were not available in those search databases, we conducted a search through our internal archives. The results do not include segments that were not focused primarily on the Republican primary race.

Analysis: Fox News Underreported Marriage Equality Victories

Marriage Equality Was Adopted By Popular Vote In Three States. Maine, Maryland, and Washington became the first states in the country to embrace marriage equality through popular vote. Minnesota also defeated a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman. [ABC News, 11/9/12]

Election Day Was “The Most Important And Most Historic In The History Of The LGBT Movement.” According to the Washington Blade:

“Years from now we’ll remember this Election Day as the most important and the most historic in the history of the LGBT movement,” said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, in a video message… We’ve won a landslide victory at the ballot box. We’ve secured the first ever electoral victory for marriage equality in Maine, Maryland and Minnesota. And we’re optimistic about the results still to come in Washington state.”

[…]

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, categorized the election results to the Washington Blade as “irrefutable momentum in favor of the freedom to marry” that will give “enormous confidence” to lawmakers and others to support nuptials for gays and lesbians. Casey Pick of Log Cabin Republicans further described the election results as a “turning point.”

“It is something the nation will take notice of,” she told the Blade from Maine where she had been working with Mainers United for Marriage in support of Question 1 for the last two weeks. “Never again will opponents of marriage equality be able to say that every time the people vote on the issue they favor marriage as one man and one woman because that’s no longer true.” [Washington Blade, 11/7/12]

Fox News Underreported Marriage Equality Victories. In the days following the election, Fox News mentioned the victories in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington a total of nine times – significantly less than CNN and MSNBC:

• One Segment Devoted To Marriage Equality Victories. Fox News ran only one segment devoted to the marriage equality victories, on Fox Report with Shepard Smith.
• Marriage Equality Bundled With Other Ballot Initiatives. Aside from two mentions on Fox Report, Fox only referenced the marriage equality victories while reporting on the various other state ballot initiatives on Election Night.

Analysis: Fox News Ignored Election Of First Openly Gay Senator

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) Became The First Openly Gay U.S. Senator. Rep. Tammy Baldwin defeated former Gov. Tommy Thompson for a Senate seat in Wisconsin on Election Day, making her the country’s first openly gay U.S. senator. [NBC News, 11/7/12]

Fox News Ignored Baldwin’s Historic Victory. While CNN and MSNBC both repeatedly noted Baldwin’s historic election to the U.S. Senate, Fox News mentioned her victory only once – while announcing the results of the Wisconsin race Tuesday night. Fox News did not mention that Baldwin is gay.

METHODOLOGY

Equality Matters searched news transcripts provided by TV Eyes for the terms “marriage,” “gay,” “same-sex,” “Tammy,” and “Baldwin” between November 6 and November 9. Reruns were excluded, as were mentions of the events initiated by guests rather than hosts. Passing references to the decision, which didn’t include a description of what the decision entailed, were also excluded. Teases for upcoming segments were excluded. If a segment mentioned the marriage equality victories while discussing a host of different ballot initiatives, it was counted as a “mention” instead of a full segment.

The most widely circulated papers in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington covered the debate over same-sex marriagein their state extensively in the weeks leading up to Election Day. Though all four publications endorsed marriage equality, their news coverage largely ignored the extremism of anti-equality groups and often devolved into “he said-she said” journalism that failed to correct anti-gay misinformation.  

Maine: Portland Press Herald

Portland Press Herald Endorsed The Ballot Effort To Legalize Marriage Equality. In an October 21 editorial, the Portland Press Herald endorsed Question 1:

Breaking with tradition on this issue does not take anything away from families led by a man and a woman, but it would give more Maine children the same benefits of family life that Question 1 opponents say they value.

These children also need the love and support of parents, regardless of their gender, which will give them the foundation to succeed.

Voting yes may be a tough choice for some people, but it is the right one. Maine should honor our most cherished tradition and vote "yes" on Question 1. [Portland Press Herald, 10/21/12]

Portland Press Herald Failed To Report On The Hostility Of Anti-Equality Groups. The Press Herald failed to publish a single news item revealing the anti-gay animus of the groups at the forefront of the state’s anti-equality efforts.

• Protect Marriage Maine’s (PMM) Chair, Bob Emrich, Has A History Of Extreme Anti-Gay Rhetoric. [GLAAD, accessed 11/6/12]
• PMM Vice Chair, Carroll Conley, Has A Similarly Long History Of Anti-Gay Rhetoric. [GLAAD, accessed 11/6/12]
• PMM Allied With Tony Perkins, President Of The Anti-Gay Hate Group Family Research Council. [Good As You, 10/4/12]

Maryland: Baltimore Sun

Baltimore Sun Supported Maintaining Maryland’s Marriage Equality Law. In an October 30 editorial, the Baltimore Sun endorsed Question 6:

Civil unions and domestic partnerships in some states have sought to afford gay families the same packages of rights and benefits as married couples — a difficult and usually incomplete task, given the number of laws that reference marriage in one way or another. But that approach creates two kinds of marriage — one for straight people and one for gay people — and that inevitably relegates same-sex couples to second-class citizenship.

Maryland's marriage equality law protects the rights of religious institutions to set their own doctrine and practices, but it also affirms the principle that the state's civil laws should not foster discrimination. Everyone deserves to be treated equally under the law, and for that reason, we urge voters to support Question 6. [Baltimore Sun, 10/30/12]

Gallaudet University Incident Became Source Of “He Said-She Said” Journalism. In four separate news items, the Sun failed to correct the false assertion that legalizing same-sex marriage would result in incidents like the one at D.C.’s Gallaudet University, in which the school suspended its Chief Diversity Officer after discovering she had signed a petition to put Maryland’s marriage equality law up for a vote. [Baltimore Sun, via Nexis,10/10/12, 10/12/12, 10/18/12, 10/22/12]  

• In An Editorial, The Sun Acknowledged That The Gallaudet Incident Had Nothing To Do With Marriage Equality. [Baltimore Sun, “Gallaudet’s Mistake,” via Nexis, 10/12/12]

Baltimore Sun Failed To Report On The Animus Of Anti-Equality Groups. The Baltimore Sun published only one news item about the anti-gay animus motivating the state’s anti-equality groups (“Md. Pastor has harsh words for gays, their supporters,” 10/24/12).

• Maryland Marriage Alliance Executive Director Derek McCoy Has Called LGBT-Headed Families “Not [God’s] Best. [GLAAD, accessed 11/6/12]
• Anti-Gay Maryland Activists Have Histories Of Race-Baiting. [Equality Matters, 8/10/12, 3/28/12]

Minnesota: Star Tribune

Star Tribune Opposed Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment. In an October 22 editorial, the Star Tribune urged voters to vote against the anti-gay marriage amendment:

Keeping this form of discrimination out of the Constitution would not legalize the recognition of same-sex marriage in this state -- such recognition is denied under existing law. But defeating the amendment would demonstrate the will of the people and would become an important first step toward recognition.

We'd urge voters to think about the gay or lesbian friend and coworker in the next cubicle, the nice same-sex couple down the street, or the beloved gay family member. They have the same hopes and dreams as heterosexuals, and for many that includes the desire to marry and form a family with the person they love.

In our hearts and souls, we Minnesotans are basically fair people who believe in human rights. That fundamental sense of humanity should lead to a "no" vote on the marriage amendment. [Star Tribune, 10/22/12]

Star Tribune Offered Limited Reporting On Extremism Of Anti-Equality Groups. The Star Tribune published two news articles on an incident in which an anti-equality activist accused pro-equality groups of using tactics similar to Adolf Hitler. The paper failed to report on Minnesota for Marriage’s history of making similarly extreme comments.

• Minnesota For Marriage (MFM) And The Minnesota Family Council Have Linked Homosexuality To Pedophilia, Bestiality, And The Ingestion Of “Urine And Feces.” [Equality Matters, 10/8/12]
• MFM Communications Director Chuck Darrell Has Compared Homosexuality To Pornography And Prostitution. [GLAAD, accessed 11/6/12]
• Minnesota Family Council President Tom Prichard Has Compared Homosexuality To Pedophilia, Infidelity, And Pornography. [GLAAD, accessed 11/6/12]

No Fact Checking. The Star Tribune failed to independently fact check any of the pro-amendment ads being run in the state, including the over forty segments of MFM’s “Minnesota Marriage Minute.”

Washington: Seattle Times

Seattle Times Endorsed Effort To Keep Washington’s Marriage Equality Law. In a September 15 editorial, the Seattle Times endorsed Referendum 74:

The public recognizes the right of same-sex couples to marry has no impact on the lives and choices of heterosexual couples.

These very personal decisions are driven by the powerful desire to create and nurture loving, supportive relationships and build families. Society benefits.

[…]

The law behind R-74 moves same-sex marriage from a legal contract to a covenant. Two people in love are empowered with the rights, duties and responsibilities to build a life together as a married couple.

Once again the state must act together. Mark the ballot to Approve R-74. Love does not fail. [Seattle Times, 9/15/12]

Seattle Times Company Donated Ad Space To Marriage Equality Effort. In October, the Seattle Times Company announced that it would be donating ad space to two causes, Rob McKenna for Governor and Yes on Marriage Equality:

The decision to run the ads was made by the corporate side of The Times, and was "completely separate from the journalism functions of the newspaper," Alan Fisco, Seattle Times executive vice president, revenue and new products, said in a news release.

Fisco described the effort as a pilot project to show the power of newspaper political advertising and to attract new revenue. He said the company will analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns and present the results to political consultants and campaigns to try to persuade them to advertise more in the newspaper. [Seattle Times, 10/17/12]

Seattle Times Editorial Board Launched Pro-Equality Social Media Campaign. In September, the Times’ editorial board launched a social media campaign to support marriage equality:

Do you support same-sex marriage? Join The Seattle Times editorial board's social media campaign to approve Referendum 74 on the Nov. 6 ballot.

[…]

Take a photo of you, your partner or your family holding this sign and share it on Twitter or Instagram with the hashtag #IDo74. You can also email the photo to ido@seattletimes.com. Please include names of the people in the photo. By sharing your photo, you give The Seattle Times permission to publish the photo in print and online. [Seattle Times, 9/17/12]

• Editorial Board Published Series Of Pro-Equality Videos. In the weeks before Election Day, the Times’ editorial board published a series of videos spotlighting same-sex couples supporting Referendum 74. [Seattle Times, 10/30/12]

Methodology

Equality Matters conducted its analysis based on searches of news coverage through the LexisNexis database between October 1, 2012 and November 5, 2012. Equality Matters also searched the websites of all four publications over the same time period.

Articles republished from other sources, including the Associated Press, were excluded.

Letters to the editor were also excluded. If commentary was listed as neither an op-ed nor a letter to the editor, it was included as an op-ed only if the author had credentials other than “reader” or “resident.”

News articles were considered to contain “he said-she said” journalism if they presented both sides of a disagreement while failing to resolve which position was factually correct. Articles in which only one side was presented or in which disagreements could not be factually resolved were not considered examples of “he said-she said” journalism.

Equality Matters used a broad search string to ensure that all articles focused on same-sex marriage were included in the results:

marriage OR gay OR same-sex OR homosexual! OR [state pro-equality group] OR [state anti-equality group] OR [title of marriage initiative]

Research intern Alessandra DiMonda contributed to this post.

CLAIM: Children In Massachusetts Were Forced To Learn About Same-Sex Marriage

REALITY: Same-Sex Marriage Won’t Affect School Curricula

CLAIM: Religious Adoption Agencies In DC, Boston Were "Forced" To Shut Down For Refusing Service To Same-Sex Couples

REALITY: Catholic Adoption Agencies Voluntarily Ended Their Services

CLAIM: Business Owners Have Been Sued For Refusing Service To Same-Sex Weddings

REALITY: Lawsuits Were Filed Over Violations Of  Non-Discrimination Laws

CLAIM: Churches Will Lose Tax Exempt Status For Denying Services To Same-Sex Couples 

REALITY: New Jersey Church Was Able To Keep Its Tax Exemption

CLAIM: Children In Massachusetts Were Forced To Learn About Same-Sex Marriage

Protect Marriage Maine: Children Will “Immediately” Learn About Same-Sex Marriage In School. From Protect Marriage Maine’s “The Threat to Marriage” page:

Unfortunately, children will not have to wait years to see the negative consequences of redefining marriage. They will start to see it immediately in school, just as kids in Massachusetts did when marriage was redefined there. Imagine the confusion a child will experience - told at home and in church that marriage is between a man and a woman, but taught at school that such views amount to bigotry and discrimination. [Protect Marriage Maine, accessed 10/9/12]

Maryland Marriage Alliance: Schools “Will Have No Choice But To Teach This New Genderless Institution.” From the Maryland Marriage Alliance’s “Consequences of Redefining Marriage” page:

Whenever schools educate children about marriage, which happens throughout the curriculum, they will have no choice but to teach this new genderless institution. In Massachusetts, kids as young as second grade were taught about gay marriage in class. The courts ruled that parents had no right to prior notice, or to opt their children out of such instruction. [Maryland Marriage Alliance, accessed 10/9/12]

Minnesota For Marriage’s Chuck Darrell: Schools “Will Have No Choice” But To Teach Students About Gay Marriage. In a June 4 letter to the editor, Minnesota for Marriage Communications Director Chuck Darrell wrote:

[W]henever schools educate children about marriage, they will have no choice but to teach this new definition.

In Massachusetts, second graders were taught about gay marriage in class. The courts ruled that parents had no right to prior notice, or to opt their children out of the class. [Fergus Falls Journal, 6/4/12]

Preserve Marriage Washington: Children “At A Very Young Age” Will Be Taught About Gay Marriage. From the Preserve Marriage Washington “Why Marriage Matters” page:

Perhaps most profoundly, children at a very young age will be taught in school that marriage is between any two adults, no matter what they have been taught at home, in church or in their ethnic traditions. Under the law, those who believe otherwise will be treated as the legal and moral equivalent of bigots. [Preserve Marriage Washington, accessed 10/8/12]

Seattle Times’ Danny Westneat: Child Indoctrination Myth Is Going To Be A “Main Focus” Of Washington Anti-Equality Campaign. In an October 6 Seattle Times column, staff columnist Danny Westneat wrote:

"Consider this," said the appeal from the National Organization for Marriage, describing what life could be like if "ordinary, faith-filled Americans," like me, don't rally now.

"Young children will be taught in public schools that it's perfectly normal for men to marry other men."

How I got on the in-list of this group whose campaign tactics I once called "despicable" I have no idea. I guess God has a strange sense of humor. But I'm glad I did because the letter made clear this save-the-children argument is going to be a main focus of the anti-gay-marriage effort in the coming weeks.

It goes like this: Even if you're ambivalent about gays marrying, you should vote no on Referendum 74 anyway. Because once gay marriage is legal, the schools are going to start forcing homosexual values on your kids. [The Seattle Times, 10/6/12, emphasis added]

REALITY: Same-Sex Marriage Won’t Affect School Curricula

PolitFact: ‘School Indoctrination’ Myth is “False.” After investigating claims that Massachusetts’ public schools teach young children about gay marriage, PolitiFact concluded that the ‘school indoctrination’ myth was “false”:

Bottom line: The National Organization for Marriage mailing says that Massachusetts public schools teach kindergartners about gay marriage. The wording, including the present tense verb, gives the impression this is happening now, in many schools.

But the group’s only evidence is two incidents five years ago. It’s possible that somewhere, in one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, other kindergartners have been taught about same-sex marriage. But NOM couldn’t cite any other examples. We find its statement False. [PolitiFact, 2/10/11] 

Maine Equality Opponent: ‘Indoctrination’ Myth Is “Not A Completely Accurate Statement And We All Know It Isn’t.” In a documentary about Maine’s 2009 vote on same-sex marriage, Marc Mutty, who was chair of the state’s anti-equality group, confessed:

"We use a lot of hyperbole and I think that's always dangerous," says Mutty during a Yes on 1 strategy session, at the time on leave from his job as public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine.

"You know, we say things like 'Teachers will be forced to (teach same-sex marriage in schools)!' " he continues. "Well, that's not a completely accurate statement and we all know it isn't, you know?"

"No," interjects a woman off-camera. "We don't say that."

"Let's look back at our ads and see what we say," Mutty persists. "And I think we use hyperbole to the point where, you know, it's like 'Geez!' " [Portland Press Herald, 4/17/11, emphasis added]

CLAIM: Religious Adoption Agencies In DC, Boston Were "Forced" To Shut Down For Refusing Service To Same-Sex Couples

Protect Marriage Maine: Catholic Charities Have Been “Forced” To Close Their Adoption Agencies. From Protect Marriage Maine’s “The Threat to Marriage” page:

Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington DC have had to choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or acquiescing to this new definition of marriage. They have, for example, been forced to close their charitable adoption agencies. [Protect Marriage Maine, accessed 10/9/12]

Maryland Marriage Alliance: Catholic Charities Have Been "Forced" To End Adoption Services. From the Maryland Marriage Alliance’s “Consequences of Redefining Marriage” page:

Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington DC have had to choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or acquiescing to this new definition of marriage. They have, for example, been forced to close their charitable adoption agencies. [Maryland Marriage Alliance, accessed 10/9/12]

Minnesota For Marriage’s Darrell: Adoption Agencies Were “Forced To Close” For Discriminating Against Same-Sex Couples. In a June 4 letter to the editor, Minnesota for Marriage’s Darrell wrote:

Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston, Washington, D.C. and Illinois have been forced to close their charitable adoption agencies because they believe children deserve a mother and a father and their religious beliefs prohibit adopting children to same-sex couples. [Fergus Fall Journal, 6/4/12]

Preserve Marriage Washington: Religious Adoption Agencies Will Be “Forced” To Close Down. From Preserve Marriage Washington’s “The Threat To Marriage” page:

Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington DC have had to choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or acquiescing to this new definition of marriage. They have, for example, been forced to close their charitable adoption agencies. [Preserve Marriage Washington, accessed 10/8/12] 

REALITY: Catholic Adoption Agencies Voluntarily Ended Their Services

Massachusetts’ Catholic Charities Chose To Stop Providing Adoption Services Instead Of Serving Same-Sex Couples. According to the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) blog:

So here’s a little reality check. Catholic Charities of Boston was not forced out of the adoption business because of marriage equality in Massachusetts. The organization voluntarily ceased doing adoptions after the state’s four Catholic Bishops got wind that gay parents had been adopting kids through Catholic Charities from an October 2005 Boston Globe story. Not surprisingly, all of this happened as the Massachusetts Legislature was wrestling with whether to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the statewide ballot, which the local Catholic hierarchy supported wholeheartedly.

[…]

 Catholic Charities was accepting state funds to provide adoption services and was thus bound by the state’s gay-inclusive anti-discrimination law not to reject qualified adoptive parents based on sexual orientation. Oh, and by the way, the non-discrimination law has been on the books since 1989—long before marriage equality was but a doodle on [civil rights advocate] Mary Bonauto’s legal pad. [GLAD.org, 3/10/11, emphasis original]

Catholic Charities Of Boston Was Never Denied An Adoption License. According to a GLAD fact sheet on Catholic Charities and adoption services in Massachusetts:

Did the state “deny” Catholic Charities of Boston “its adoption agency license”?

No. For 17 years Catholic Charities of Boston complied with non-discrimination laws and put the best interests of children first, in some cases placing a child with gay or lesbian parents. Catholic Charities chose to close down its adoption services. At no point was it denied an adoption license. [GLAD.org, 12/22/11]

Family Equality Council: The Choice To Stop Public Adoption Services “Was Made By Catholic Charities Alone.” Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, wrote in an email to Equality Matters:

The decision to end public adoption services in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia was made by Catholic Charities alone. They wanted to continue to receive public funding without adhering to the law and when the state refused to make an exception for them they balked at providing critical social services to youth.

This has nothing to do with the government trying to impose values on religion. On the contrary, this had to do with the Catholic Charities trying to impose its values on children and families who needed social services. [Jennifer Chrisler email, 1/10/12, emphasis added]

Catholic Adoption Agencies Can Discriminate Against Same-Sex Couples In Private Adoption Services. Steve Majors, director of communications for the Family Equality Council, wrote in an email to Equality Matters:

Catholic Charities facilitates relatively few public adoptions nationwide. In areas where they’ve declined to comply with existing non-discrimination rules and stopped doing public placements (Massachusetts, D.C., parts of California – and will be the likely result in IL where the issue is still working its way through the state courts) there has been little to no impact on the state’s ability to place children. Other adoption agencies have agreed to step in and continue the work of finding children their forever families.

Catholic Charities and other religiously affiliated organizations who receive public funding should be obligated to follow the same non-discrimination laws that other agencies adhere to.  If they place their own religious objections ahead of the law and the best interests of kids, they should withdraw from conducting public adoptions. They are free to continue facilitating private adoptions. [Steve Majors email, 9/9/11, emphasis added]

CLAIM: Business Owners Have Been Sued For Refusing Service To Same-Sex Weddings

Protect Marriage Maine: Innkeepers Are Being Sued For Refusing To Host Same-Sex Weddings. From Protect Marriage Maine’s “The Threat to Marriage” page:

Christian innkeepers in Vermont and Illinois are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings despite offers to refer the couples to other providers and in spite of the deeply-held religious views of the inn-keepers. [Protect Marriage Maine, accessed 10/9/12]

Maryland Marriage Alliance: Wedding Professionals Will Be Punished For Discriminating Against Gays And Lesbians. From the Maryland Marriage Alliance’s “The Threat to Marriage” page:

Wedding professionals have been fined for refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony. Christian innkeepers in Vermont and Illinois are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings despite offers to refer the couples to other providers and in spite of the deeply-held religious views of the inn-keepers. The outcome in Vermont? The innkeepers will no longer accept any wedding-related events. Surely a big blow to their income – and to their religious freedom. [Maryland Marriage Alliance, accessed 10/9/12]

Minnesota For Marriage’s Darrell: Marriage Equality Will Trigger “Litigation Against Individuals, Small Business And Religious Organizations.” In a June 4 letter to the editor, Minnesota for Marriage’s Darrell wrote:

Legal experts on both sides of the issue warn of a “sea of change” of litigation against individuals, small business and religious organizations. And it’s already begun in other states where genderless marriage has been forced on the people either through the courts or the legislatures.

For example, Christian innkeepers have been sued for refusing to allow same-sex reception in their bed and breakfast. Wedding photographers who do not wish to be involved in a same-sex wedding have been fined and sued. [Fergus Fall Journal, 6/4/12]

Preserve Marriage Washington: Business Owners Have Been Fined For Refusing To Participate In Same-Sex Weddings. From Preserve Marriage Washington’s “The Threat To Marriage” page:

Wedding professionals have been fined for refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony. Christian innkeepers in Vermont and Illinois are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings despite offers to refer the couples to other providers and in spite of the deeply-held religious views of the inn-keepers. [Preserve Marriage Washington, accessed 10/8/12]

REALITY: Lawsuits Were Filed Over Violations Of Non-Discrimination Laws

Vermont Inn Owners Violated The State’s Non-Discrimination Law. The inn owners in Vermont were sued for violating the state’s Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation:

The issue here is not same-sex marriage but rather existing state laws that prohibit discrimination. For example, the manager of the Vermont inn cited the owners’ “personal feelings” as the reason why it refused to host the lesbian couple’s wedding. But the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act prohibits public accommodations – such as inns, restaurants and schools that serve the public – “from denying goods and services based on customers’ sexual orientation.” [Marriage Fact Check, accessed 10/10/12]

Illinois Bed & Breakfast Owners Were Sued For Violating The State’s Human Rights Act. According to the Civil Rights Complaint filed against the owners:

The Illinois Human Rights Act (“ACT”) is intended to prevail and eliminate discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation because of an individual’s sexual orientation.

Under the Act, a “place of public accommodation” is “an inn, hotel, motel or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than 5 units for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor.”

It is a civil rights violation under the Act “for any person on the basis of unlawful discrimination to… [d]eny or refuse to another the full and equal enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of any public place of accommodation.” [Civil Rights Complaint, 11/1/11, internal citations removed for clarity]

• Same-Sex Marriage Is Not Legal In Illinois. [Human Rights Campaign, accessed 10/10/12] 

New Mexico Photographer Was Sued For Violating The State’s Human Rights Act. Judges have thrice ruled that a New Mexico photographer violated the state’s Human Rights Act by refusing to photograph the same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony:

The New Mexico Human Rights Commission and District Judge Alan Malott have concluded in rulings in 2008 and 2009 that the studio violated the Human Rights Act.

Malott found the studio is a “public accommodation” — an establishment that provides services to the public — and as such may not refuse its services on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical or mental handicap. [Albuquerque Journal, 6/5/12]

• Same-Sex Marriage Is Not Legal In New Mexico. [Human Rights Campaign, accessed 10/10/12]

CLAIM: Churches Will Lose Tax Exempt Status For Denying Services To Same-Sex Couples

Protect Marriage Maine: New Jersey Methodist Church Lost Its Tax-Exempt Status For Refusing To Host A Same-Sex Commitment Ceremony. From Protect Marriage Maine’s “The Threat to Marriage” page:

Churches and pastors will also face direct consequences if marriage is redefined. The word of God will be considered outright bigotry-which is what a federal judge in California ruled when he declared that marriage was unconstitutional. Churches that provide facilities for weddings will be told to provide them for same-sex weddings as well. That is exactly what happened in New Jersey, where a Methodist church group lost part of its tax exemption for refusing to make its facilities available for a same-sex commitment ceremony. [Protect Marriage Maine, accessed 10/9/12]

Maryland Marriage Alliance: Religious Groups Will Lose Their State Tax Exemption. From the Maryland Marriage Alliance’s “Consequences of Redefining Marriage” page:

Religious groups who have refused to make their facilities available for same-sex couples have lost their state tax exemption. [Maryland Marriage Alliance, accessed 10/9/12]

REALITY: New Jersey Church Was Able To Keep Its Tax Exemption

New Jersey Church Lost Its “Green Acres” Tax Exemption For Violating Non-Discrimination Law. The Ocean Grove Methodist church lost its “Green Acres” real estate tax exemption for violating the state’s non-discrimination law:

In July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area.  The application describes the area as public in nature.  The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes.  One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis.”

[…]

The [Law Against Discrimination (LAD)] makes it unlawful for the owner of “any place of public accommodation” to refuse its use on the basis of sexual orientation or civil-union status.  Our courts have evolved tests for assessing whether a location is one of public accommodation. We look first to the statute.  The LAD broadly defines public accommodation to include any “boardwalk, or seashore accommodation; any auditorium, meeting place, or hall.” The Boardwalk Pavilion as a structure falls within or near these examples and thus has the look of a place of public accommodation.  Searching further we inquire as to ties with government.  Respondent’s Green Acres tax exemption is particularly relevant here.  One condition of that exemption was that the entire lot, which includes the Pavilion, remains open to the public on an equal basis.  That was the promise respondent made to the State of New Jersey. The State understood that promise to encompass activities within the Pavilion, including wedding ceremonies. [Ocean Grove Ruling, 1/12/12, emphasis added, internal citations removed for clarity]

• Same-Sex Marriage Is Not Legal In New Jersey. [Human Rights Campaign, accessed 10/10/12]

The Church Replaced Its “Green Acres” Tax Exemption With An Appropriate Religious Exemption. According to the ruling issued by Judge Solomon A. Metzger concerning the Ocean Grove tax exemption:

Respondent argues that it didn’t need  a Green Acres tax exemption for the Pavilion; it could at any time have obtained the same benefit by applying for a tax exemption as a religious organization.  Indeed, after these events that is exactly what it did.  We are, however, bound by the facts that were, not those that might have been, or that came to pass in the aftermath of petitioners’ application.  Respondent accepted a particular form of tax exemption that required it to keep the Pavilion open to the publicon an equal basis. [Ocean Grove Ruling, 1/12/12, emphasis added, internal citations removed for clarity]

Judge’s Decision Reaffirmed Religious Liberty. According to Judge Metzger’s ruling:

As to “free exercise,” the LAD is a neutral law of general application designed to uncover and eradicate discrimination; it is not focused on or hostile to religion. To the contrary, it carves away exceptions on behalf of religious organizations. I do not believe that the facts pose a true question of religious freedom... Respondent can rearrange Pavilion operations, as it has done, to avoid this clash with the LAD.  It was not, however, free to promise equal access, to rent wedding space to heterosexual couples irrespective of their tradition, and then except these petitioners.  [Ocean Grove Ruling, 1/12/12, emphasis added, internal citations removed for clarity]

Research intern Alessandra DiMonda contributed to this post.

Palm Center Report: DADT Repeal Has Had No Negative Impact On Military

Palm Center Report: “Based On All Of The Evidence Available To Us... DADT Repeal Has Had No Overall Negative Impact.” A September 2012 report published by the Palm Center – a branch of the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law – found:

Our conclusion, based on all of the evidence available to us, is that DADT repeal has had no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale. Although we identified a few downsides that followed from the policy change, we identified upsides as well, and in no case did negative consequences outweigh benefits. If anything, DADT repeal appears to have enhanced the military's ability to pursue its mission. [Palm Center, “One Year Out,” September 2012]

Palm Center Report Included Interviews With Opponents Of DADT Repeal, Experts, Watchdog Organizations. According to the Palm Center’s report:

Our research strategies included outreach to 553 generals and admirals who predicted that repeal would undermine the military, to all major activists and expert opponents of DADT repeal and to 18 watchdog organizations, including opponents and advocates of repeal, who are known for their ability to monitor Pentagon operations. In addition, we conducted in-depth interviews with 18 scholars and practitioners and 62 active-duty heterosexual, lesbian, gay and bisexual troops from every service branch, as well as on-site field observations of four military units. We analyzed relevant media articles published during the research period, administered two surveys and conducted secondary source analysis of surveys independently administered by outside organizations. Our vigorous effort to collect data from opponents of DADT repeal, including anti-repeal generals and admirals, activists, academic experts, service members and watchdog organizations, should sustain confidence in the validity and impartiality of our findings. [Palm Center, “One Year Out,” September 2012, emphasis added]

FRC: Repeal Will Increase The Rate of Sexual Assault

FRC’s Peter Sprigg: “The Problem Of Same-Sex Sexual Assault... Is Sure To Increase.” Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at FRC, authored an issue brief titled “Homosexual Assault in the Military,” in which he argues:

The military already has a serious problem with sexual assault by homosexuals. If the current law against homosexuality in the military is overturned, the problem of same-sex sexual assault in the military is sure to increase. [FRC, “Homosexual Assault In The Military,” May 2010, emphasis original]

Palm Center Report: Experts “All Concur That Repeal Has Not Led To Any Increase In Assaults.” According to the Palm Center’s report:

[A] comparison of pre- and post-repeal Military Times surveys suggests that the rate of male-male sexual assault did not increase after DADT repeal went into effect. In response to a July/August 2011 pre-repeal Military Times survey, 1.4% of male respondents said that they had been a victim of sexual assault while in the military, compared to 1.1% of male service members who indicated on a January 2012 post-repeal survey that they had been victimized. The pre-repeal percent of men who reported having been sexually assaulted during their military service, in other words, was roughly equivalent to the post-repeal rate. These data call into question any assertion that repeal has led to an increase in assaults.

No other watchdog organization or individual opponent of DADT repeal has reported any case of violence attributable to the new policy of open service. Professor Mackubin Owens, who teaches at the Naval War College and opposes repeal, acknowledged to us that he is unaware of any violent or disciplinary incidents that can be attributed to repeal. A retired general who  also opposes repeal told us that he has “friends in the military who are disappointed” that DADT is gone but who “have not reported any specific incidences of problems.” With the exception of the spurious [Center for Military Readiness] statement as well as the unconfirmed incident conveyed by OutServe’s Co-Director, military leaders, opponents of DADT repeal,  active-duty personnel, scholars and gayrights organizations all concur that repeal has not led to any increase in assaults. And, they agree that there has been no violence to date specifically associated with the new policy. [Palm Center, “One Year Out,” September 2012, emphasis added]

FRC: Repeal Will Undermine Servicemember Morale

FRC’s Tony Perkins: DADT Repeal “Could Devastate Morale.” In a Politico column co-written with retired Marine Corps. General John Sheehan, FRC President Tony Perkins argued:

[H]omosexuality carries with it profound behavioral implications. Sexual attraction among members of the same sex — living, exercising, fighting and training alongside one another in the closest of quarters — could devastate morale, foster heightened interpersonal tension and lead to division among those who, more than virtually any other group in society, need to act as one. [Politico, 6/15/10]

Palm Center Report: No Apparent “Measurable Consequences” As A Result Of Morale Change. According to the Palm Center’s report:

The new policy of open service produced a decrease in morale for a small minority of service members, and enhanced the morale of an even smaller minority. Yet few of those troops who experienced a decline in morale appear to have suffered any measurable consequences. This should come as no surprise, as the extensive scholarly literature on the determinants of military morale does not mention the presence or absence of LGB colleagues. [Palm Center, “One Year Out,” September 2012]

FRC: Repeal Will Undermine Recruitment And Retention

FRC’s Perkins: “Thousands Of Servicemembers” Will Choose Not To Reenlist After DADT Repeal. In Washington Update written on the day DADT was repealed, Perkins predicted:

Expect to see celebrations from homosexual groups and fawning stories in the media about how "the sky has not fallen." That's only because there will be no press releases from the new victims of sexual harassment or assault, the soldiers exposed to HIV-tainted blood, the thousands of servicemembers who choose not to reenlist rather than forfeit their freedom of speech and religion, and the untold number of citizens who choose never to join the military. It's clear this President is more interested in appeasing sexual revolutionaries than in fighting America's enemies. [FRC Washington Update, via Box Turtle Bulletin, 9/20/11, emphasis added]  

FRC’s Robert Maginnis: Repeal Will Cause Potential Recruits To Opt Out Of Joining The Military. In a 2010 report titled “Mission Compromised,” FRC Senior Fellow for National Security Robert Maginnis argues:

Repeal the homosexual ban, and there will be some candidates, with the encouragement of significant others like parents, who will remove themselves from the military’s pool of eligible candidates.  Conversely, there is no evidence qualified homosexuals – who make up barely two percent of the American public – will flood into the military to make up any shortfall. [FRC, “Mission Compromised,” 2010]

Palm Center Report: “DADT Repeal Has Not Had Any Measurable Impact On Recruitment Or Retention.” According to the Palm Center’s report:

As discussed, a minority of service members reports that DADT repeal has influenced their likelihood of remaining in the military, with some indicating that repeal has made them less likely to re-enlist and others suggesting that they are more likely to remain. What the preponderance of evidence shows, however, is that DADT repeal has not had any measurable impact on recruitment or retention, even among chaplains.  It is certainly true that the weak domestic economy and disengagement from two wars have made recruitment and retention easier. But in an era when enlistment standards have tightened, service members were just as likely to say that they plan to re-enlist  after DADT repeal  as  was the case pre-repeal. [Palm Center, “One Year Out,” September 2012, emphasis added]

FRC: Repeal Will Undermine Unit Cohesion

FRC’s Sprigg: Open Service “Is Incompatible With Good Order, Morale, Discipline, And Unit Cohesion.” In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Sprigg stated: 

SPRIGG: The presence of homosexuals in the military is incompatible with good order, morale, discipline, and unit cohesion. That's exactly what Congress found in 1993. And that's what the law states. [MSNBC, Hardball with Chris Matthews, 2/2/10]

Palm Center Report: “Cohesion Did Not Decline” After DADT Repeal. According to the Palm Center’s report:

Even in those units that included openly LGB service members, and that consequently should have been the most likely to experience a drop in cohesion as a result of repeal, cohesion did not decline after the new policy of open service was put into place. In fact, greater openness and honesty resulting from repeal seem to have promoted increased understanding, respect and acceptance. [Palm Center, “One Year Out,” September 2012]

FRC: Repeal Will Undermine Religious Freedom For Military Chaplains

FRC’s Perkins: Chaplains May Be “Forced Out Of The Military” By DADT Repeal. In a statement to CNN, FRC’s Perkins warned that DADT repeal could undermine religious liberties of those in the military, particularly chaplains. He explained:

“You have over 200 sponsoring organizations that may be prevented from sponsoring chaplains because they hold orthodox Christian views that will be in conflict with what the military says is stated policy,” said Perkins.

“Most people don’t understand the military environment," said Perkins, a retired Marine. "It’s not like going to work at 8 o’clock in the morning, it’s 24-7. The strains - especially right now where you have people in one enlistment doing multiple tours of duty overseas - the strain on the family, the strain on the marriages... those chaplains don’t just preach, they counsel as well and we may see them forced out of the military, then who is going to be there to help those men and women who are sacrificing so much.” [CNN, 5/27/10]

Palm Center Report: DADT Repeal Has Had “No Measurable Impact” On Chaplain Retention. According to the Palm Center’s report:

Even among chaplains, the evidence suggests that DADT repeal has had no measurable impact on retention. Chaplains were thought to be among those most likely to leave the military after DADT repeal, in part because  contracts allow them to resign more quickly than other military members, and many threatened to resign if LGB troops were allowed to serve openly. Such concerns, however, have proven to be unwarranted. Lieutenant Colonel Lisa H. Tice, a chaplain who serves in the personnel, budget and readiness division of the Air Force Office of the Chief of Chaplains, told us that no Air Force chaplains left the military as a result of DADT repeal. Navy Chaplain Capt. John H. Lea III reported that one Navy chaplain separated because of repeal. Lieutenant Colonel Carleton Birch, a spokesman for the Army Chief of Chaplains, said that in March 2011, one Army chaplain left the military over the pending repeal of DADT. But when we called the Army Chief of Chaplains office in June 2012, a spokesperson told us that, “We’ve had nobody else leave for that stated reason in the Army out of the 3,000 or so full-time and part-time chaplains” and that no endorsing denominations had withdrawn their endorsements as a result of DADT repeal. [Palm Center, “One Year Out,” September 2012]

AP: Military Chaplains “Knew Of Virtually No Serious Problems” Involving Religious Freedom After DADT Repeal. According to the Associated Press:

Prior to repeal, various conservative groups and individuals — including many conservative retired chaplains — warned that repeal would trigger an exodus of chaplains whose faiths consider homosexual activity to be sinful. In fact, there's been no significant exodus — perhaps two or three departures of active-duty chaplains linked to the repeal. Moreover, chaplains or their civilian coordinators from a range of conservative faiths told The Associated Press they knew of virtually no serious problems thus far involving infringement of chaplains' religious freedom or rights of conscience.

 "To say the dust has settled would be premature," said Air Force Col. Gary Linsky, a Roman Catholic priest who oversees 50 fellow chaplains in the Air Mobility Command. "But I've received no complaints from chaplains raising concerns that their ministries were in any way conflicted or constrained."

[Air Force chaplain Col. Timothy] Wagoner, who commands five other chaplains at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in central New Jersey, said the chaplaincy corps was responding professionally and collegially to what he called a "balancing act" precipitated by the repeal.

"We're good at this stuff — we want to take care of our folks," he said. "We have to respect the faith requirements of the chaplain and we have to take care of the needs of the airman."

That attitude meshes with the official Pentagon guidelines on the repeal: "The Chaplain Corps' First Amendment freedoms and their duty to care for all have not changed. All service members will continue to serve with others who may hold different views and beliefs, and they will be expected to treat everyone with respect." [Associated Press, 7/6/12, emphasis added]

Chick-Fil-A's Charitable Arm Gave Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2010

WinShape Is Chick-Fil-A's Charitable Arm. The WinShape Foundation is Chick-fil-A's charitable arm, created by Chick-fil-A founder and chairman S. Truett Cathy in 1984. WinShape has received a substantial amount of funding from Chick-fil-A: in 2010 alone, WinShape received $8,067,161 from Chick-fil-A Inc. [WinShape 2010, Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 6/27/12] 

WinShape Gave Over $1.9 Million To Anti-Gay Groups. In 2010, WinShape donated $1,974,380 to a number of anti-gay groups:

• Marriage & Family Foundation: $1,188,380
• Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
• National Christian Foundation: $247,500
• New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000 
• Exodus International: $1,000
• Family Research Council: $1,000
• Georgia Family Council: $2,500

[Winshape 2010 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 6/27/12]

Click here to learn more about WinShape’s history of anti-gay donations

MARRIAGE & FAMILY FOUNDATION (MFF)

Chick-Fil-A Vice President Launched Marriage And Family Legacy Fund. Donald "Bubba" Cathy, Chick-fil-A’s senior vice president, helped launched the Marriage and Family Legacy Fund (MFLF), which “pool[s] funds for a national marriage media campaign and provide start-up grants for local initiatives to promote stable, lasting marriages.” [Philanthropy Roundtable, October 2007]

MFLF Is A Project Of The Anti-Gay Marriage CoMission. The MFLF was created to be the “implementation and funding arm” for the Marriage CoMission, a coalition of groups formed in response to the “downward spiral of marriage and the traditional family in America.” [MFLF Executive Summary, accessed 6/27/12, Marriage CoMission, accessed 6/27/12]

• Marriage CoMission Is Supported By Prominent Anti-Gay Activists. Since its inception, the CoMission has been supported by anti-gay activists such as Exodus International's Alan Chambers and Citizens for Community Values' Barry Sheets. [Marriage CoMission, accessed 10/28/11]

Click here to learn more about the Marriage CoMission and its ties to anti-gay groups

MFLF Officially Changed Its Name To The Marriage & Family Foundation. [Office of the Secretary of State of West Virginia, 6/17/08]

WinShape Donated $1,188,380 To Marriage & Family Foundation. WinShape donated $1,188,380 to the Marriage & Family Foundation (MFF) in 2010. [Winshape 2010 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 6/27/12]

FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES (FCA)

Fellowship Of Christian Athletes Conference Has "Freed" People From Homosexuality. Every year, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) holds a National College Conference that Danny Burns, the conference Program Director, described as one in which "God freed some people from homosexuality, sexual sins, addictions and even ushered newcomers into His Kingdom." Burns’ comment has since been removed from FCA’s website. [Equality Matters, 3/22/11, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, accessed 10/28/11]

FCA Website Highlights Coach Who Was “Delivered From Homosexuality. [Fellowship of Christian Athletes, accessed 10/28/11]

FCA Ministry Leader Application Condemns "Impure Lifestyle" of Gays. The application to become an FCA Ministry Leader requires applicants to agree with the FCA's Sexual Purity Statement, which condemns gays for engaging in an "impure lifestyle":

God desires His children to lead pure lives of holiness. The Bible is clear in teaching on sexual sin including sex outside of marriage and homosexual acts. Neither heterosexual sex outside of marriage nor any homosexual act constitute an alternate lifestyle acceptable to God.

While upholding God’s standard of holiness, FCA strongly affirms God’s love and redemptive power in the individual who chooses to follow Him. FCA’s desire is to encourage individuals to trust in Jesus and turn away from any impure lifestyle. [FCA Application, accessed 10/28/11]

WinShape Donated $480,000 To FCA. WinShape donated $480,000 to FCA in 2010. [Winshape 2010 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 6/27/12]

NATIONAL CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION (NCF)

National Christian Foundation Donates To Anti-Gay Groups. The National Christian Foundation (NCF) is a grant-making foundation that has made "hundreds of grants" to anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family, Family Life, and the Family Research Council, according to the Philanthropy Roundtable's publication "Reviving Marriage In America: Strategies for Donors." NCF allows donors to direct their donations and has experienced a surge in interest among donors in funding marriage-related giving. [Philanthropy Roundtable, accessed 2/8/11]

WinShape Donated $247,500 To NCF.  WinShape donated $247,500 to the National Christian Foundation in 2010. [Winshape 2010 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 6/27/12]

Winshape Donated $54,000 To New Mexico Christian Foundation. WinShape also donated $54,000 to the New Mexico branch of the NCF in 2010. [Winshape 2010 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 6/27/12] 

EXODUS INTERNATIONAL

Exodus International Promotes “Ex-Gay” Therapy. Exodus International is a major promoter of “ex-gay” therapy, the practice of trying to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight. The organization refers to being LGBT as “perverse” and a form of “sexual brokenness.” [Truth Wins Out, accessed 6/27/12]

WinShape Donated $1,000 To Exodus International. WinShape donated $1,000 to Exodus International in 2010. [Winshape 2010 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 6/27/12]

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL

Family Research Council Is Designated As An Anti-Gay Hate Group By the SPLC. The Family Research Council has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for its propagation of known falsehoods about the LGBT community. For example, president Tony Perkins has a long history of false and inflammatory attacks, such as claiming that pedophilia is a "homosexual problem." [Washington Times, 11/24/10; SPLC, accessed 6/27/12]

WinShape Donated $1,000 To Family Research Council. WinShape donated $1,000 to the Family Research Council in 2010. [Winshape 2010 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 6/27/12]

GEORGIA FAMILY COUNCIL

Georgia Family Council Argued For Prop 8. The Georgia Family Council’s website contains posts arguing in favor of California's Proposition 8 and criticizing Apple for removing from its "App Store" an application that promotes the argument that marriage equality is a threat to children and traditional marriage. [Georgia Family Council, 1/21/11; Georgia Family Council, accessed 6/27/12]

President Is Vocal Critic Of Marriage Equality. Randy Hicks, president of the Georgia Family Council (GFC), is a vocal critic of marriage equality; he has argued gay marriage would harm children and undermine traditional marriages. [By Faith, October 2006]

WinShape Donated $2,500 To Georgia Family Council. WinShape donated $2,500 to the Georgia Family Policy Council in 2010. [Winshape 2010 Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 6/27/12]

Click here for more on Chick-fil-A's ties to anti-gay causes and organizations

Chick-Fil-A President Has Denied Company Has An Anti-Gay Agenda

Chick-Fil-A's President Released A Statement Denying The Company Is "Anti-Gay." In response to the controversy, Chick-fil-A president and COO Dan Cathy released a statement denying that Chick-fil-A's history of donations to anti-gay groups proved the company was "anti-gay." Cathy argued that Chick-fil-A has "no agenda against anyone," and that the company would not "champion any political agendas" relating to marriages or families but would nonetheless "continue to offer resources to strengthen marriages and families." [PR Newswire, 1/29/11]

New Study Claims To Find Negative Outcomes For Children Raised By Gay Parents

ABC News: Study Finds That Children Raised By Gay Parents “Fare Worse Socially, Psychologically, And Physically” Than Children Raised By Married Heterosexual Parents. According a June 11 ABC News article:

A new study finds that adult children of parents in same-sex relationships fare worse socially, psychologically and physically than people raised in other family arrangements.

Critics call the study deeply flawed, saying the results don't accurately describe -- or even measure -- any children raised in stable households with two same-sex parents.

[...]

The study was published Sunday in the journal Social Science Research. It was funded by the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, groups that are "commonly known for their support of conservative causes," though the organizations played no role in the design and analysis of the report, the study said.

Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the Universityof Texasat Austinand the author of the report, said the study was not intended as a political statement, but simply tried to answer the question of whether children of parents with same-sex relationships are different. He said the study also isn't designed to prove that family structure causes poor health. [ABC News, 6/11/12]

Conservatives Praise Study’s Findings, Methodology

NOM’s Maggie Gallagher: “Scientifically This Is Huge.” In a June 10 column for National Review Online, Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), wrote:

Professor Mark Regnerus, the author of the New Family Structures Survey project, has published a study that is not only the largest and most comprehensive, it is only the second study based on a probability sample. Scientifically this is huge. [National Review Online, 6/10/12]

Peter Sprigg: Regnerus Study Should Be Considered The “Gold Standard” When Examining Same-Sex Parenting. In an issue brief about the study, Family Research Council (FRC) Fellow Peter Sprigg wrote:

Unlike the many large studies previously undertaken on family structure, Regnerus has included specific comparisons with children raised by homosexual parents. Unlike the previous studies on children of homosexual parents, he has put together a representative, population-based sample that is large enough to draw scientifically and statistically valid conclusions. For these reasons, his "New Family Structures Study" (NFSS) deserves to be considered the "gold standard" in this field.

[...]

The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever. [Family Research Council, accessed 6/21/12]

Glenn Stanton: Unlike Previous Research, New Study Not “Plagued By Devastating Methodological Short-Comings.” According to Glenn Stanton, director for Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family:

Conducted by Professor Mark Regnerus (reg-nair-us), a leading sociologist from UT Austin, this study makes use of the largest, nationally representative sample, asking the broadest array of survey questions of children raised at some time of their childhood in gay- or lesbian-parented homes. Nearly all of the existing studies on same-sex homes are conducted, not by mainstream scholars, but those who have long records of lesbian/gay activism. Mark has no such record on either side of the issue. The existing studies are largely plagued by devastating methodological short-comings, rendering them incapable of reaching any reliable conclusions.

This is not true of Professor Regnerus’ study. His research methodology was reviewed pre-start by sociological and demographic peers from five different leading American universities. [RandyThomas.co, 6/13/12]

Experts, Commentators Condemn Regnerus Study For Flawed Methodology

Experts

APA: “There Is No Scientific Evidence That Parenting Effectiveness Is Related To Parental Sexual Orientation.” In a June 11 press release, the American Psychological Association (APA) affirmed that it opposes discrimination against same-sex parents:

On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association (APA) and other health professional and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. That is, lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. This body of research has shown that the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children are unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.

[...]

APA has continued to monitor the research since 2004 and report that research in our amicus briefs, such as in the Gill vs. OPM case. On the basis of the research, APA continues to oppose any discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services. [American Psychological Association, 6/11/12]

Nathaniel Frank: Study “Fails The Most Basic Requirement Of Social Science Research.” In an op-ed for the LA Times, Nathaniel Frank, visiting scholar atColumbiaLawSchool’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, wrote:

While Regnerus critiques "same-sex couples" raising kids, his study does not actually compare children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by different-sex couples. The criterion it uses is whether a parent "ever ha[d] a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex." In fact, only a small proportion of its sample spent more than a few years living in a household headed by a same-sex couple. Indeed, the study acknowledges that what it's really comparing with heterosexual families is not families headed by a same-sex couple but households in which parents broke up. "A failed heterosexual union," Regnerus writes in the study, "is clearly the modal method" — the most common characteristic for the group that he lumps in with same-sex-headed households. For example, most of the respondents who said their mothers had a lesbian relationship also endured the searing experience of having their mothers leave the household as the family collapsed.

In other words, Regnerus is concluding that when families endure a shattering separation, it is likely to shatter the lives of those in them. And this is news?

[...]

Regnerus seeks to enhance the credibility and relevance of this body of research by including in his sample respondents who actually had a gay parent instead of just people from broken or single-parent homes. But because his sample is mostly made up of fractured families, he fails the most basic requirement of social science research — assessing causation by holding all other variables constant. What he has produced is no better than its predecessors at yielding insight into the effect of same-sex parenting. [LA Times, 6/13/12]

John Corvino: “This Study Is Bound To Be Misused” In The Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage. According to John Corvino, chair of the Philosophy Department atWayneStateUniversity:

Unfortunately, this study is bound to be misused in the ongoing debate over same-sex marriage, as evidence for the oft-repeated claim that “children do best with their own biological mother and father.” That claim, as I argue in my new book Debating Same-Sex Marriage (with Maggie Gallagher), “conflates a number of distinct variables, including parental number, parental gender(s), marital status, and biological relatedness….But to the extent that researchers have isolated parental gender, comparing same-sex to different-sex parents, they have found that the children fare just as well in each case.” That finding is in no way undermined by the Regnerus study. And that’s the correct interpretation of the “no differences” paradigm that Regnerus aims, and fails, to counter. [The New Republic, 6/11/12]

Gary J. Gates: Study’s Methodology “Is Designed To Find Bad Outcomes.” BuzzFeed reported:

Gary J. Gates, author of The Gay and Lesbian Atlas and Williams Distinguished Scholar at UCLA Law School, criticized Regnerus's comparison between children of intact heterosexual families and children whose parents had at some point had a same-sex relationship — the latter group, he noted, had experienced divorce, step-parent arrangements, and foster care, all of which are known to affect children's lives no matter what the sexual orientation of their parents.

"The methodology," he said, "is designed to find bad outcomes" for children with same-sex parents.

Regnerus argues that he simply couldn't find enough intact same-sex-parented families to do a comparison, but Gates counters that "if you have limited sample size then you can't do the analysis."

Gates called the findings obvious: "All he's shown us is that family instability isn't good for kids. [BuzzFeed, 6/12/12]

E.J. Graff: Despite Study’s “Propaganda Spin ... It Says Absolutely Nothing About How Children Fare Growing Up From Infancy In Lesbian Or Gay Households.” Writing for The American Prospect, E.J. Graff, resident scholar at the Brandeis Women’sStudiesResearchCenter, argued:

The study compares how children fare stable parents to how children fare under divorce or infidelity. We call that “comparing apples to oranges.” Of course the oranges don’t have black seeds. They’re oranges. If he had compared how children did in heterosexual stepfamilies or heterosexual single-parent families with the lesbian or gay stepfamilies or single-parent homes, we might learn something. But as it is, his research—despite his propaganda spin, which argues that these findings should militate against same-sex marriage—tells you nothing about the effects of having parents who happen to be lesbian or gay. It says absolutely nothing about how children fare growing up from infancy in lesbian or gay households that affirmatively chose to be parents (as opposed to having them accidentally, which is, to understate the case, quite rare if you’re lesbian or gay). That affirmative choice is in itself a good thing for the children, real studies have shown. [The American Prospect, 6/13/12]

Judith Stacey: “Hodgepodge” Population Sample Undermines Regnerus Study. Live Science reported:

The study defined same-sex parenting by asking participants if their parents had ever had same-sex relationships, and whether they had lived with the parent at that time. That led to a "hodgepodge" group of people who Regnerus then compared with kids in stable, married homes, said Judith Stacey, a sociologist atNew YorkUniversitywho was not involved in the research.

"He doesn't have an actual category of gay parents in the project that you can isolate and say the most important thing in this kid's childhood is that they were raised by gay parents," Stacey told LiveScience. "These are kids whose parents, maybe they divorced, maybe they separated, maybe they had a scandalous affair, we just don't know." [Live Science, 6/11/12]

Laurie Essig: Regnerus Study Is Outdated, Compares “Oranges To Apple Slices.” According to Laruie Essig, Associate Professor of Sociology and Women’s & Gender Studies atMiddleburyCollege:

Okay those of you who have had Survey Design 101, what is wrong with that comparison? That’s right–he’s comparing oranges to apple slices. One is “still married biological parents” and one is “had a relationship.” One is an ongoing family structure; the other might have been a two-week fling.

[...]

Not only that, but the study is based on surveys filled out between 1971 and 1994. Although the survey sample was large and therefore considered reliable in the world of statistics, there is another obvious problem with such data. Can you think of what it is? Oh yeah, the gay marriage movement and long-term familial arrangements rooted in homosexual partnerships hadn’t really begun. Instead, Regnerus is lumping people who were born within heterosexual relationships and whose parents later went on to have homosexual ones with children raised in gay families. [The Chronicle Of Higher Education, 6/14/12]

Columnists

Slate’s William Saletan: Children In The Study “Aren’t The Products Of Same-Sex Households. They’re The Products Of Broken Homes.” Slate national correspondent William Saletan responded to the study, writing:

[T]hese people aren’t the products of same-sex households. They’re the products of broken homes. And the closer you look, the weirder the sample gets. Of the 73 respondents Regnerus classified as GF, 12—one of every six—“reported both a mother and a father having a same-sex relationship.” Were these mom-and-dad couples bisexual swingers? Were they closet cases who covered for each other? If their kids, 20 to 40 years later, are struggling, does that reflect poorly on gay parents? Or does it reflect poorly on the era of fake heterosexual marriages?

What the study shows, then, is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people. But that finding isn’t meaningless. It tells us something important: We need fewer broken homes among gays, just as we do among straights. We need to study Regnerus’ sample and fix the mistakes we made 20 or 40 years ago. No more sham heterosexual marriages. No more post-parenthood self-discoveries. No more deceptions. No more affairs. And no more polarization between homosexuality and marriage. Gay parents owe their kids the same stability as straight parents. That means less talk about marriage as a right, and more about marriage as an expectation. [Slate, 6/11/12]

The New Yorker’s Amy Davidson: “If This Study Shows Anything, It’s Not The Effect Of Gay Parenting.” According to Amy Davidson, senior editor at The New Yorker:

If this study shows anything, it’s not the effect of gay parenting, but of non-, or absentee parenting. The numbers are so clumsy that it’s hard to generalize, but one can reasonably guess that there are, buried in them, stories of parents who left or were separated from their children, or households that fell apart, because, eighteen to thirty-nine years ago, someone’s first try at an adult life involved a heterosexual relationship, even if that wasn’t sustainable. As Saletan puts it, the study “doesn’t document the failure of same-sex marriage. It documents the failure of the closeted, broken, and unstable households that preceded same-sex marriage.” We already know that there are benefits to stability—which is what same-sex marriage advocates have been saying all along. If your only question is how to help children, then same-sex marriage remains a solid answer. Look anywhere, even with tools as ill-designed as in this study, and you can find lonely children, and lonely parents, too. You can also find families held together by respect and love—and deserving of both. [The New Yorker, 6/12/12]

The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates: Regnerus Study “Finds Ellen Degeneres And Eddie Long Are Both Potentially Raising Kids In A Same-Sex Relationship.” Noting problems with Regnerus’s “absurdly broad standard” for defining his study samples, Atlantic senior editor Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote:

What annoys me about scholarship like this is that it's typical of a kind of contrarianism which purports to upend our PC-understanding of some protected class. Regnerus is big on undermining our "simplistic notions" and "lockstep unanimity," implicitly questioning the intellectual integrity of previous scholarship. Too often, people wave the flag of "difficult truths" and "un-PC" as though merely saying something unpopular is somehow a kind of thinking. And yet when you start digging you find that the insurgents haven't really read what they're critiquing--even as they tell you to do so. Or they're conducting a study which finds Ellen Degeneres and Eddie Long are both potentially raising kids in a same-sex relationship. [The Atlantic, 6/12/12]

The New Republic’s Molly Redden: Regnerus Study Is A “Disaster," And An "Embarrassing Piece Of Statistical Acrobatics.” New Republic assistant editor Molly Redden wrote:

Now the bigger question: Will this embarrassing piece of statistical acrobatics mark the beginning of the end of Mark Regnerus’s credibility with respectable news outlets?

Fingers crossed. Regnerus is a regular on the op-ed circuit and tends to get the first call when a sex-and-youth piece in one of the big dailies needs an expert voice. But for all his statistical abilities (a disaster though this latest study was, he’s still got research chops), Regnerus’s preeminent contribution to mainstream conversation has been his personal retrograde ideas about sex and marriage. [The New Republic, 6/12/12]

Newsweek’s David Sessions: “Study’s Most Obvious Flaw” Is That It Doesn’t Compare Similar Gay And Straight Families. According to David Session, homepage editor at Newsweek/The Daily Beast:

That’s the study’s most obvious flaw: it doesn’t compare intact, two-parent gay families with similar two-parent straight families. On the contrary, the way Regnerus categorized the children of gay families ensures that they will be wildly incongruous with the straight families. Social scientists and science writers have picked apart other aspects of the study’s methodology, including its basing the categorizations of same-sex parents solely on respondents’ reports that their parent had a gay relationship of some kind and duration during their childhood. Some of the respondents fell into several categories, and to make his data workable, Regnerus had to put some respondents into the “gay father” or “lesbian mother” category when they could have fit into several of his other categories. In his words, he had to “force [categories’] mutual exclusivity for analytic purposes.” As Jim Burroway of the website Box Turtle Bulletin argues, that decision is understandable, but it suggests a weakness of data and ultimately undermines the stated goal of the study. [Newsweek/The Daily Beast, 6/12/12]

LGBT Organizations

LGBT Organizations: Regnerus Study Is “Fundamentally Flawed And Intentionally Misleading.” In a June 11 press release, the Family Equality Council, Human Rights Campaign, Freedom To Marry, and GLAAD condemned the Regnerus study:

Key problems with the “New Family Structures Study” include: 

• The paper is fundamentally flawed and intentionally misleading. It doesn’t even measure what it claims to be measuring. Most of the children examined in the paper were not being raised by parents in a committed same-sex relationship—whereas the other children in the study were being raised in two-parent homes with straight parents.
• Given its fundamental flaws and ideological agenda, it’s not surprising that the paper doesn’t match the 30 years of solid scientific research on gay and lesbian parents and families. That research has been reviewed by child welfare organizations like the Child Welfare League of America, theNationalAdoptionCenter, the National Association of Social Workers and others whose only priority is the health and welfare of children and that research has led them to strongly support adoption by lesbian and gay parents.
• In addition, the paper’s flaws highlight the disconnect between its claims about gay parents and the lived experiences of 2 million children in this country being raised by LGBT parents.  Americans know that their LGBT friends, family members and neighbors are wonderful parents and are providing loving and happy homes to children.
• The paper fails to consider the impact of family arrangement or family transitions on children, invalidating any attempt on its part to assess the impact of sexual orientation on parenting.  The paper inappropriately compares children raised by two heterosexual parents for 18 years with children who experience family transitions – like foster care – or who live with single or divorced parents, or in blended families. Moreover, the limited number of respondents arbitrarily classified as having a gay or lesbian parent are combined regardless of their experiences of family instability. [GLAAD, 6/11/12]

Equality Texas: Study “Cannot Be Extrapolated To Try And Apply To Couples In 2012.” During a June 12 interview with Fox 7 Austin, Chuck Smith, Deputy Executive Director Chuck Smith said:

SMITH: The study is looking back at a generation ago. It is not reflective and the results cannot be extrapolated to try and apply to couples in 2012 where same-sex couples have the ability to get married in numerous states in our country. So it isn’t reflective of same-sex parenting because it is in fact talking about the children of parents who were not able to get married and in fact they’re the children of broken homes and it’s not surprising that they would have experience some difficulty because of that. [Fox 7 Austin, 6/12/12]

General Anti-Gay Commentary

Homosexuality Is Harmful, Unhealthy

Homosexuality Is Linked To Pedophilia

Homosexuality Is Changeable, Treatable

LGBT Equality Threatens Religious Freedom

Gagnon Will Speak At ITAF Conference

Gagnon Will Give Two Speeches To Students During The Conference. According to a brochure for the 2012 conference, Gagnon will give speeches on the topics of “Jesus and Marriage” and “Paul and Homosexuality” during the conference:

[Ruth Institute ITAF Brochure, accessed 6/20/12]

Gagnon Has Presented At Every Previous ITAF Conference. Gagnon has spoken at every ITAF conference since its inception in 2009. [Ruth Institute ITAF Wrap-Up, 2009, 2010, 2011]

Gagnon Has Written Extensively About The Biblical View Of Homosexuality. According to the Ruth Institute’s biography for Gagnon:

Robert A. J. Gagnon is Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He has a B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. He is the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001; 520 pgs.); co-author (with Dan O. Via) of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003; 125 pgs.); and author of a number of articles in scholarly journals and of major entries in encyclopedias having to do with various subjects relating to the Bible and early Christianity. As a service to the church Dr. Gagnon provides on his website at www.robgagnon.net many articles on the subject of Scripture and homosexuality. [Ruth Institute, accessed 6/20/12]

Gagnon’s Anti-Gay Activism

General Anti-Gay Commentary

Gagnon: Homosexual Relationships Are “Repulsively Contrary To Nature,” Worse Than Polyamory, Adultery, And Incest. In a 2009 email exchange about possibly extending domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples, Gagnon wrote:

[T]he supposition of extending some benefits to homosexual relationships underestimates the degree to which such relationships are offensive to God and are repulsively contrary to nature. Homosexual relationships are far worse than polyamory, worse even than adultery (isn’t it unfair not to allow health benefits and inheritance laws to extend to one’s mistress?), and comparable to, or more likely worse than, the worst forms of adult-incest (e.g., a man and his mother). The state should not in any way want to be accommodating to homosexual unions. It should do everything it can in terms of persuasion (short of violence and incarceration, of course) to discourage such unions. [Email exchange,11/6/09, emphasis added]

Gagnon: Same-Sex Relationships Are “A Long-Lasting Enterprise Of Sin And Mutual Dishonor.” In an email exchange with a gay man who was in a long-term relationship with his late partner, Gagnong wrote:

You are a man and yet you are sexually aroused by what you are in your essence: a man for maleness. You probably had a developed sense of gender nonconformity growing up, a sense of difference in relation to other males, which made you feel a longing for gender identity completion through union with another male. But attempting union with what you already are as a gendered being simply regularizes the misperception on your part that you are not fully male. That's a dishonoring of the stamp on masculinity placed on you by God. You may be in need of structural affirmation as a male but you are not in need of structural supplementation. You are not sexually completed by another male.

I'm saying this out of love for you. You do yourself a disservice by relating to other males as though you were their sexual complement. The fact that you had a long-lasting relationship is like congratulating an incestuous union between consenting adults for lasting 30 years. It's not a triumph but a long-lasting enterprise of sin and mutual dishonor. This is not to say that same-sex friendships are not a good thing. They are something wonderful. But when you introduce sex into the equation then you dishonor yourself by acting as if you are a half male. [Email exchange, 11/4/11, emphasis added]

Gagnon: Child Sexual Abuse Can Cause Homosexuality. In a 2006 article, Gagnon wrote:

I cite above two studies by the noted research on child sexual abuse Kurt Freund that purport to show that homosexual “teleiophiles” (homosexual males attracted to other adult males) differ from homosexual pedophiles in that the former reported “significantly poorer father-son relations.” Some youth might have a higher risk factor for homosexual development if they perceive themselves as a different and distant from same-sex peers (i.e., a peer-factor and not, or not just, a parental-factor). Even Myers and Scanzoni appear not to rule this possibility out entirely when they refer, without negative comment, to Daryl Bem’s “Exotic Becomes Erotic” theory. A number of studies in the last 15 years also suggest that childhood same-sex experience may be a risk factor for some homosexual development. For example, Laumann et al. Found that among the category of respondents who as children had been sexually touched by an adult, 7.4% of the men and 3.1% of the women identified as homosexual or bisexual. Yet self-identified homosexuals/bisexuals accounted for only 2.8% of the man and 1.4% of the women in the survey. [RobGagnon.net, 2/16/06, emphasis added]

Gagnon: Homosexuality Is “By Definition, Sexually Narcissistic Or At Least Sexually Self-Deceptive.” In a 2005 article, Gagnon wrote:

From a theological perspective, the core problem with any attempted homosexual bond is not merely that it is structurally incongruous. It is also, by definition, sexually narcissistic or at least sexually self-deceptive. As one ancient text put it, in a critique of male homosexual practice: “One nature [rather than two] came together in one bed. But seeing themselves in one another, they were ashamed neither of what they were doing, nor of what they were having done to them.” Or, as St. Paul put it: “males... were inflamed with their yearning for one another, males with males...” If one is conscious of being strongly aroused by the distinctive features of one’s own sex, it is a case of sexual narcissism. If one is not conscious of this sameness but thinks instead of a same-sex partner as completing what is lacking in one’s own sex (probably the more common scenario), then it is a case of sexual self-deception. A self-perception of gender deficit, expressed in a desire to merge with someone of the same sex, is consistent with scientific research regarding (1) high rates of gender nonconformity among homosexual males and (2) preferences on the part of most adult homosexual males for very “masculine” men. [RobGagnon.net, 2005, emphasis added, citations removed for clarity]

Gagnon: Proponents Of Homosexuality Are “Consigning The Individual To Hell.” During a 2008 interview for Pure Passion, Gagnon said:

GAGNON: Love is about recovering people for the kingdom of God, not consigning them to hell. The irony is here it’s actually those who are tolerating the serial unrepentant sexual immorality that are consigning the individual to hell. And no matter what they feel affectively in themselves, functionally it turns out to be hate. If a person has two young children and those children want to touch a hot stove, and the parent says “there there, knock yourself out, go ahead and explore,” those parents are not considered loving. In fact, state social services takes the children out of the home and the parents go to prison. So clearly tolerance is not always loving. The issue that has to be faced here with regard to homosexual practice is first a truth question. Are people genuinely at risk in their relationship to God through serial unrepentant behavior? [Pure Passion, via Vimeo, 11/1/08, starting at 11:30] 

Gagnon: Society “Should Work To End The Cycle Of Homosexual Behavior.” In a 2005 article title “Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture,” Gagnon wrote:

Any sin can be forgiven but all sin must be repented of. That is the point of contact between divorce/remarriage and homosexual practice. The issue is whether the behavior is repetitive and unrepentant. Divorced persons should commit anew to stop the cycle of divorce and remarriage. Homosexually active persons, like persons engaged in incest or polyamorous behavior, should commit anew to stop the structurally discordant behavior, here specifically sex with persons of the same sex. Just as society and certainly church work to end the cycle of divorce and remarriage, so too they should work to end the cycle of homosexual behavior. It is inadequate to say: But we do want to end the cycle of promiscuous homosexual activity. For neither do we say merely: We should end the cycle of promiscuous incestuous or polyamorous activity. The structural incongruity of same-sex intercourse remains even when the promiscuity stops. [RobGagnon.net, 2005, emphasis added]

Homosexuality Is Harmful, Unhealthy

Gagnon: Homosexuality Should Still Be Classified As A Mental Disorder. From Gagnon’s 2005 article “Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture”:

“Pedophilia, unlike homosexuality, is a pathological mental disorder.” One can get at the inaccuracy of this statement from two different angles. One is to make the case, as I have done above, that there is a significant pathological side to homosexuality as regards mental health issues and relational problems (short-term relationships, nonmonogamy) that cannot be attributed simply to societal opposition to homosexual practice. That the two APAs (Psychiatric and Psychological) no longer classify homosexuality as such in their official literature is not surprising in view of the grip that homosexual advocacy groups have on each organization. [RobGagnon.net, 2005, emphasis added]

Gagnon: “Homosexual Activity” Causes “Disproportionately High Levels Of Negative Measurable Harm.” In a September 29 email exchange with a supporter, Gagnon wrote:

A biological basis for homosexuality cannot be a moral basis for validating homosexual practice inasmuch as all human behavior (good and bad) is attributable at some level to differences in brain structure and process. What we do see in homosexual activity is disproportionately high levels of negative measurable harm that correspond to gender types: numbers of sex partners over life and sexually transmitted infections (esp. for homosexual males) and shorter term unions on average and mental health complications (esp. for homosexual females). The differences between homosexual males and homosexual females in the rates of these harms is obviously due to basic male-female differences, ratcheted up in homosexual unions because they lack a true sexual complement (someone of the other sex). In homosexual unions the extremes of a given sex are not moderated and the gaps in the sexual self are not filled because there is no "other sex" in the union to be that moderating, complementary influence. [Email exchange, 9/29/11, emphasis added]

Gagnon: There Is “An Inherent Deficiency In Homosexual Unions” Which Causes “Scientifically Measurable Negative Harm.” In a 2006 article on differing biblical views of homosexuality, Gagnon wrote:

There is thus an inherent deficiency in homosexual unions: the absence of a sexual counterpart to moderate the extremes of, and fill the gaps in, the distinctive features of one’s own sex. This deficiency is largely responsible for the disproportionately high rate of scientifically measurable, negative harm that attends homosexual activity, at different rates for homosexual males and homosexual females respectively. This includes higher rates of sexually transmitted disease (especially among homosexual males), higher rates of mental health problems (especially among homosexual females), higher numbers of sex partners lifetime (especially among homosexual males), shorter-term relationships (especially among homosexual females), and a higher correlation with adult-adolescent or adult-child sexual activity (among male homosexuals). Although proponents of homosexual unions attribute these higher rates exclusively, or nearly so, to societal homophobia, a significant causation factor is likely the distinctive excesses of each sex that are not moderated in same-sex unions. [RobGagnon.net, 2/16/06, emphasis added]

Gagnon: Approval Of Homosexuality Leads To More Homosexuality, Health Problems. In a 2006 article, Gagnon wrote:

As noted above, there is good evidence that societal approval of homosexual practice may increase the incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality, not just homosexual practice. Since the homosexual life is characterized by a comparatively high rate of problems in terms of sexually transmitted disease, mental health issues, nonmonogamous behavior, and short-term unions – even in homosex-affirming areas of the world – an increase in homosexuality and bisexuality will mean more persons affected by such problems. [RobGagnon.net, 2/16/06, emphasis added]

Homosexuality Is Linked To Pedophilia

Gagnon: “The Affirmation Of A Same-Sex Lifestyle Will Increase The Incidence Of Pedophilic Activity.” In his 2002 book, “The Bible and Homosexual Practice,” Gagnon wrote:

A second negative effect of societal endorsement of homosexuality has to do with the problem of pedophilia and its role in “recruiting” homosexuals into the fold.  There can be little doubt that affirmation of a same-sex lifestyle will increase the incidence of pedophilic activity, regardless of society's attempt to distinguish the two.  The greater the latitude given to sexual expression, the more likelihood there will be of people crossing the line into illicit conduct.  Indeed, a substantial body of literature emanating from the homosexual community entertains the morality of adult-adolescent sex.  The gay community as a whole has not vigorously and swiftly rejected this development.  Indeed, homosexual groups in other countries have been at the forefront of efforts to lower the age for sexual consent.

Although the majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles and do not publicly promote pedophilia, the incidence of same-sex pedophilic behavior is disproportionately high. [“The Bible and Homosexual Practice,” via RobGagnon.net, September 2002, emphasis added]

Gagnon: Homosexuals Are “Significantly” More Likely To Engage In Pedophilia Than Heterosexuals. According to a 2005 Gagnon article:

As we have argued above, the proportion of persons with a homosexual erotic development who become pedophiles or engage in pedophilic activity is far higher than the proportion of persons with a heterosexual development. Otherwise stated: Homosexual development results in homosexual pedophilia substantially more often as a percentage of the total number than heterosexual development results in heterosexual pedophilia. Otherwise stated: The rate of homosexual attraction among pedophiles is significantly higher than the rate of heterosexual attraction. Still otherwise stated: The percentage of homosexual men who are “teleiophilic” (oriented exclusively or primarily to adults), while significantly greater than the percentage of homosexual men who are pedophilic, is nonetheless substantially less than the percentage of heterosexual men who are teleiophilic and not pedophilic. [RobGagnon.net, 2005, emphasis added]

Gagnon: Attempts To Differentiate Between Homosexuals And Pedophiles “Is Just ‘Smoke And Mirrors.’” According to a 2005 article written by Gagnon:

This idea that “homosexuals” and “pedophiles” are mutually exclusive groups is just ‘smoke and mirrors’ by psychiatric and psychological associations concerned to protect the image of homosexual persons. A person attracted only or primarily to children of the same sex is by definition homosexual (a term that means ‘same-sexual,’ with the prefix homo- derived from the Greek homoios, “like, same”). An age-restrictive or pedophilic homosexual is a homosexual nonetheless. Both age and sex constitute the structural criteria for such attraction. The very terminology “homosexual pedophile” makes the point, even though an attempt may be wrongly made to distinguish such a person from a pedophilic homosexual. By the same token, a man attracted exclusively, or nearly so, to girls rather than women is an age-defined (i.e., pedophilic) heterosexual or heterosexual pedophile. And a man attracted to both girls and boys may be labeled either a bisexual pedophile or a pedophilic bisexual. [RobGagnon.net, 2005, emphasis added]

Gagnon: Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Leads To “Adult-Child Relationships And Bestiality.” In a 2006 article, Gagnon wrote:

[T]his cheapening effect on the institution of marriage would be reinforced by the effective elimination of formal or structural prerequisites for marriage that transcend both mutual commitment and an inability to prove inherent, measurable harm. This would leave society with little justification for holding the line against other forms of committed sexual relationship for which at most only a disproportionately high level of harm, but not universal harm, could be surmised: various kinds of polyamorous relationships, incest,adult-adolescent relationships, and perhaps even adult-child relationships and bestiality. Proponents of homosexual marriage may protest that they are not advocating such inions. Yet the logic of their position moves to the ultimate outcome. [RobGagnon.net, 2/16/06, emphasis added]

Gagnon: Pedophilia And Homosexuality Are Both Harmful “Impulse-Oriented Traits.” In a 2005 article in the Journal of Psychology and Christianity, Gagnon wrote:

“Sexual orientation” should be seen as just one part of a larger matrix of human orientations that must be evaluated in light of the cross. Simply because a Christian experiences intense sexual urges for more than one person is no license for identifying himself (or herself) as a “polyamorist” or “polysexual.” Likewise, a Christian who experiences pedophilic impulses need not, and indeed should not, view his sexual identity as that of a “pedosexual” or pedophile. This is so in spite of the fact that nobody would ever choose to have pedophilic impulses; such impulses are deeply ingrained and highly resistant to change. Yet identity is something altogether different. We may not have a choice in experiencing certain impulses but we do have a choice in whether we will define ourselves by compliance with such impulses. It may not be a person’s that he or she experiences sexual impulses and desires for things that God forbids. Yet such a person is responsible for what he or she does with such impulses. Moreover, impulse-oriented traits are not comparable to traits like race or ethnicity. A person’s ethnic ancestry is immutable, benign, and non-behavioral. Impulse-oriented traits, however, are not absolutely immutable (at least intensity fluctuates through the course of life). Nor are they inherently benign (many impulses exist for immoral behavior). Nor are they non-behavioral (impulses are desires to engage in specific behaviors). We must not make the elementary mistake of assuming that, as regards such traits, either “God made people that way” and so wants them to satisfy such impulses or God “goofed.” A biology-equals-morality rationale has no place in a worldview that talks of denying oneself, losing one’s life, taking up one’s cross, dying with Christ, new creation, and living for God. [RobGagnon.net, 2005, emphasis added]

Gagnon: Accepting Same-Sex Relationships Leads To The Acceptance Of “Adult-Child” And “Adult-Adolescent Sex.” In a 2004 article about same-sex marriage, Gagnon wrote:

The whole “gay marriage” debate is predicated on the assumption that affective bonds trump the structural argument from Scripture and nature for an other-sex prerequisite. What logical basis will remain for denying marriage to committed sexual unions comprised of three or more persons? In fact, the limitation of two persons in a sexual union at any one time is itself predicated on the idea that two sexes are necessary and sufficient for establishing a sexual whole. Once church and society reject a two-sexes prerequisite, there will be no logical ground for maintaining the sacredness of the number two in sexual relations. It is not surprising that litigants in polygamy cases in Utah and Arizona are now applying the moral reasoning of the Supreme Court decision in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case. Similarly, a committed sexual relationship between a man and his mother, or between two adult siblings, has as much right to marriage as homosexual unions. Incest prohibitions are predicated on the idea that it is inappropriate to validate a sexual merger between two persons who share too much structural sameness (here, of a familial sort through close blood relations). But an approval of same-sex intercourse cancels out arguments based on excessive structural similarity. Not even adult-child sex can be ruled out of bounds completely, and much less adult-adolescent sex, since some adults who have had sex as children are asymptomatic in terms of scientifically measurable negative effect. [RobGagnon.net, July 2004, emphasis added]

Gagnon: Homosexuality And Pedophilia Are Similar Sexual Orientations. In a 2005 article about homosexuality, Gagnon wrote:

Neither homosexuality nor pedosexuality causes intrinsic measurable harm, though both are associated with increased risk of measurable harm. A secondary point is to show similarities in the advocacy for each. Both homosexuality and pedosexuality are sexual orientations. Therapeutic success in completely eliminating all desires in question is far from the norm. Both associated behaviors can be documented in the animal kingdom and have existed in societies historically and cross-culturally, with some degree of approval. Modern “phobias” about the behavior may contribute to the poor mental health of those who engage in the behavior. [RobGagnon.net, 2005, emphasis added]

Homosexuality Is Changeable, Treatable

Gagnon: Affirming A Gay Person’s “Maleness” And “Femaleness” Can Help “Reduce Or Make Manageable” Homosexual Impulses. In a 2005 article, Gagnon wrote:

One of the goals of counseling a person with homoerotic desires is to affirm the structural integrity of that person’s sex, an integrity that may need affirmation by members of the same sex but not supplementation by such. God declared the creation of “male and female” and their sexual compatibility to be “good.”

[...]

What is needed, then, is affirmation of one’s God-given maleness, if male, or of one’s God-given femaleness, if female, in order to reduce the felt need for structural supplementation with a member of the same sex. The intimate bond of Christian “fellowship” or “partnership” of which the New Testament often speaks (e.g., Act 2:42-47) but which the church often falls short of providing, ought to be the primary conduit for such affirmation – particularly, intimate, nonsexual relationships with persons of the same sex.

I do not say that such affirmation will have a magical effect in eliminating same-sex attraction. The brain does not have unlimited plasticity. But such affirmation, reinforced long-term, may help in dealing with genuine needs and reduce or make manageable the intensity of such impulses. [RobGagnon.net, 2005, emphasis added]

Gagnon: Christian Psychologists Should Encourage Gay People To Resist Their Same-Sex Attractions Even If It Causes Them “Distress.” While discussing “ex-gay” counseling in a 2005 article, Gagnon wrote:

Consistent with his Jewish Scriptures, Jesus considered sexual ethics to be a life-and-death matter. The incentive behind Jesus’ outreach was a loving sense of urgency about the possible exclusion of such sinners -- persons who egregiously transgressed the will of God -- from God’s coming kingdom. It was better to enter heaven maimed, through cutting off offending limbs (metaphorically speaking) than to be thrown into hell full-bodied.

[...]

The aim of a truly Christian psychology is not, in the first instance, elimination of all distress but rather conformity of the person’s life to the will of God. Sometimes the doing of God’s will is stressful -- the cross is a key example of this. However, the outcome of such a life is well worth the momentary sensation of deprivation. [RobGagnon.net, 2005, emphasis added, citations removed for clarity]

Gagnon: Homosexuality Isn’t Heritable, Can Be Changed, And “Is Not Inherently Benign.” In a 2009 article about biblical teachings on homosexuality, Gagnon wrote:

[W]hereas race or ethnicity is a 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, and primarily non-behavioral condition, and so inherently benign, homosexual desire is an impulse and, like many impulses, it is not 100% heritable (there may be congenital influences but these are not absolutely deterministic), is open to some change (even if only, in some cases, a limited reduction in the intensity of impulses), is primarily behavioral (here for unnatural, i.e. structurally incompatible, sexual activity), and therefore is not inherently benign. [RobGagnon.net,3/14/09]

Gagnon: “Societal Approval Of Homosexual Practice May Increase The Incidence Of Homosexuality And Bisexuality.” In a 2004 article, Gagnon wrote:

[T]here is good evidence that societal approval of homosexual practice may increase the incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality, not just homosexual practice. We know that: (1) Adolescents experience a much higher rate of sexual orientation uncertainty than adults. (2) Most self-professed gays and lesbians and some heterosexuals experience one or more shifts on the 0-6 Kinsey spectrum in the course of life. (3) Geographical (rural vs. urban) and educational variables have a profound effect on the incidence of homosexual self-identification. (4) Those who self-identify as gay or lesbian are several times more likely to have experienced sex at an early age than those who self-identify as heterosexual. (5) A 2001 study by University of California professors Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz reported that children of homosexual couples were “more likely to be open to homoerotic relationships”. (6) There are instances of significant cross-cultural differences, ancient and modern, regarding the incidence and shape of homosexual practice. (7) The best identical twin studies indicate that the large majority of identical twin pairs where at least one twin identifies as non-heterosexual do not show a concordance match in the co-twin (i.e., the co-twin identifies as heterosexual). Given these considerations, it would not be surprising if the significant increase in homosexual activity reported for both the United States and Britain over the past decade or two were attributable, in part, to an increase in homosexuality and bisexuality. Since the homosexual life is characterized by a comparatively high rate of problems in terms of sexually transmitted disease, mental health issues, nonmonogamous behavior, and short-term unions—even in homosex-affirming areas of the world—an increase in homosexuality and bisexuality will mean more persons affected by such problems. [RobGagnon.net, July 2004, emphasis added, citations removed for clarity]

LGBT Equality Threatens Religious Freedom

Gagnon: Hate Crime Laws Encourage Hatred Against Anti-LGBT Individuals, Promote The “Homosexualist Agenda.” In a 2009 article about the effort to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected categories under federal hate crime legislation, Gagnon wrote:

[W]hy pass “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” so-called “hate crime” legislation? The reason has more to do with foisting an expansive homosexualist agenda on the nation than with concerns about crime. The bill serves the following vital aims of that agenda:  

• It gets the federal government to enshrine in federal law “sexual orientation” (i.e. homosexuality and bisexuality) and “gender identity”(i.e. transsexualism and cross-dressing) as identity markers worthy of special protection and promotion alongside racial and gender diversity.
• This in turn gives federal backing to hatred of all persons who express opposition to homosexual practice and transgenderism as the moral equivalent of racists and misogynists (sexists), no matter how loving that expression of opposition may be.
• It also lays the foundation for a litany of future “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” bills that will markedly abridge the civil liberties of all who express moral disapproval of homosexual practice and transgenderism.

[...]

This bill thus goes beyond protection of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered persons (who are already protected) to promotion of hatred—hatred toward those opposed to homosexual and transgendered behavior. If you have any doubt about that, consider whether adding pedophilia (‘pedosexuality’) to the list would imply promotion of pedophilic behavior by the state and antagonism by the state toward perceived opponents of pedophiles. Surely it would. [RobGagnon.net, 5/28/09]

Gagnon: Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Result In School Indoctrination And Potential Incarceration For Anti-Gay People. From a 2004 article:

“[G]ay marriage,” as the ultimate legal sanctioning of homosexual behavior, will bring with it a wave of intolerance toward, and attack on the civil liberties of, those who publicly express disapproval of homosexual practice (see Alan Sears and Craig Osten, The Homosexual Agenda). The latter will be regarded, legally and morally, as the equivalent of virulent racists. In the civil sphere, they will see their, and their children’s, educational opportunities, gainful employment, and even freedom from incarceration put at increasing risk. Christian colleges and seminaries will risk losing their tax-exempt status, access to federal grants and student loans, and ultimately accreditation itself. Public schools will intensify their indoctrination of children into the acceptability of homosexual unions and single out for ridicule any who question this agenda—from kindergarten on. Parents’ rights in instilling moral values in their children will be abridged. Indeed, the state could remove self-professed gay and lesbian children from parents who express moral disapproval of homosexual practice on the pretense of “child abuse.” Mainline denominations will comply with societal trends by refusing to ordain “heterosexists” and disciplining heterosexist clergy and ostracizing heterosexist members. Since approval of homosexual practice can only occur at the cost of marginalizing Scripture, the trend will be toward a hard-left radicalization of mainline denominations. [RobGagnon.net, July 2004, emphasis added]

Gagnon: Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Would Put Anti-Gay Individuals In Danger Of “Being Fired Or Imprisoned.” In an article titled “The Threat Of The Homosexual Agenda to Your Freedoms,” Gagnon wrote:

Most people have not been closely following the implications of the promotion of the homosexual agenda in other Western countries, especially Canada and Sweden, or even in selected areas of the United States. Here are some results that would follow from granting homosexual marriage or its legal equivalent and making "sexual orientation" a specially protected civil rights category for "hate speech" and "non-discrimination" laws.  

(1) Go to jail for "hate speech." [...]

(2) Lose your job for not supporting "coming out" celebrations at work or for "discriminatory" speech outside of the workplace. [...]

(3) Be fined and pay heavy legal fees for daring to criticize, or not supporting with your business, homosexual practice. [...]

(4) Have your children taken away from you if you teach them "homophobic" ideas. [...]

(5) Have the school systems teach your children that you are a hateful bigot. [...]

The one political concern where the greatest sea change in the federal government's policies is likely to come is not in social programs for the disadvantaged, the environment, taxes, or even the Iraq War. No, the greatest change is likely to come on the issue of homosexual advocacy and the oppressive hand of the federal government against those who resist the false conclusion that homosexual practice is a normal, natural, and acceptable form of behavior that society should promote. It is on this issue that there is a serious prospect of radical abridgement of your religious and civil freedoms, to the point of being fired or imprisoned. What could be more alarming? [RobGagnon.net, 2004, emphasis added]

Diamond Will Speak At ITAF Conference

Ruth Institute: “Barrister Extraordinaire” Paul Diamond Will Speak At ITAF Conference. In a May 23 blog post, the Ruth Institute announced that Paul Diamond would be speaking at its summer ITAF conference:

Guess Who’s Coming to ITAF!

[...]

Paul Diamond, barrister extraordinaire from the U.K., (barrister is British for lawyer) is coming to CA and participating in our summer conference! We are truly blessed. Diamond’s sense of humor and blunt eloquence make him an exceptionally dynamic speaker. His counsel and strategic insight is sought out by both policy makers and religious leaders. And now you can hear him speak in the United States practically for free! Don’t miss out. [Ruth Institute blog, 5/23/12]

Diamond’s Anti-Gay Activism

Diamond: Gay Agenda Is Promoted By “People Who Haven’t Had Any Moral Background.” From the December 12 edition of the Ruth Institute’s podcast:

JENNIFER MORSE (Ruth Institute President): When you say the same-sex agenda, I think it’s important to just kind of stop and say what that is. What do you think that is? What is it they’re promoting?

DIAMOND: I don’t think it’s got the sophistication of any cogent thing. I know people like to believe there’s some sort of massive conspiracy.

MORSE: Well there doesn’t need to be a conspiracy, right?

DIAMOND: I think it’s a lot of very selfish [inaudible] people who haven’t had any moral background wanting to have a pleasurable lifestyle and not only don’t want anyone to object to it, but somehow the thought that there’s some morality engaged, that they’re doing something unethical, it sends them into a rage and they assume – I mean this is one of the things I’ve been staggered about when these people attack an elderly citizen – they’re the moral people. They’re the moral people. They’re doing something, silencing something terribly wicked and they prop themselves up in some self-congratulatory moral lie. And that’s the extraordinary thing. I mean we can all – can I be blunt – we can all understand the attractions of sex and a wild life... There’s an attraction to all of that. But there’s an unnatural desire to not to tolerate any opposition to it and to manufacture a self-morality. [Ruth Institute Podcast, via Equality Matters, 12/12/11, emphasis added]

Diamond: “People Do Change” After “Ex-Gay” Therapy, “It Has A High Success Rate.” During a 2011 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), Diamond said:

DIAMOND: They call it human rights and it’s -- they use these grand terms like tolerance and diversity. It’s a hard nosed political agenda in which an objective appears to be to remove Judeo-Christian morality from the public realm.

[...]

DIAMOND: People do change after treatment. And it is has a high success rate and there’s no evidence of any harm. That is actually the evidence. [Christian Broadcasting Network, via YouTube, 3/9/11]

Diamond: “Abandon Respectability” In The Fight Against The Homosexual Agenda. During a September 2011 banquet held by the group MassResistance, Diamond gave a speech warning about the dangers of pro-LGBT regulations. According to MassResistance:

He gave a riveting talk and answered questions about what's happening in Britain right now, and how America is on that same horrible path unless we take action now. He came to the US exclusively to speak to MassResistance, and during his stay was also interviewed on several radio stations in Massachusetts and across the country.

His message was blunt: "You've got to stop this now in America while you still can."

[...]

[S]pread the truth. We must move out of our own sphere of influence and create debate among average Americans about the harmful truths of the homosexual agenda, he said.

"Children are pawns in an unprecedented social experiment with the most disastrous outcomes." he said. "We need explain this; liberals will lose the debate because their arguments are illogical and weak," Diamond said.

"They cannot survive rational arguments. You need to create debate."

However, be prepared to abandon false PC "respectability." "You're going to have to abandon respectability. You're not going to be liked by Harvard University or the mainstream media," he said, "but you might be heard because you'll be speaking intelligently."

[...]

They are imposing a new morality. And though much of it is being built through obscure things such as housing regulations, anti-discrimination codes, etc., it all adds up to a totalitarian atmosphere. [MassResistance, 9/27/11, emphasis original]

• MassResistance Has Been Labeled An Anti-Gay Hate Group By The Southern Poverty Law Center. [SPLC, Winter 2010]

Diamond: UK’s Non-Discrimination Laws Are “Being Used To Eradicate Judeo-Christian Morality And Usher In Secular Values.” In a March 2011 column for Christian Concern, Diamond wrote:

The ideals of the Equality Acts and the Sexual Orientation Regulations have much to commend them in so far as all civilised people would not accept overt discrimination against any person based on irrelevant considerations as to their sexual orientation or faith. However, the laws are bad. They are poorly drafted leaving too much discretion to the Courts; they are contradictory in so far as one cannot have a society without substantive values. Finally and most importantly these laws are political laws seeking a political objective.

The laws are currently being used to eradicate Judeo Christian morality and usher in secular values. The secular movement is but a variant of the Utopian ambitions that have inspired man from the beginning of time.  However, the end game of such programmes is always the same. To repeatedly promote a failed ideology is base ignorance or at its worst criminal. Coerced morality or coerced immorality (depending on one’s perspective) is not the hallmark of a free society.

[..]

This liberal tyranny must be rejected by the British people. The law is now prejudiced, irrational and partial; it punishes individuals for ‘thought crime’ and the State endorses an inverse morality. Many British people despair of the law enforcement agencies and have (rightly) little confidence that they will achieve justice in the courts. There is no reason in law or otherwise why sexual orientation rights should prevail over religious rights. There is something deeply wrong with the ethical and legal compass of Britain. [Christian Concern, 3/10/11, emphasis added]

Diamond Spoke Out Against Extending Hate Crime Protections To LGBT Americans. According to Christian Newswire:

From 1 to 3 pm today, a coalition of concerned Christians held a press conference outside of the Justice Department in Washington. D.C., decrying the recent expansion of federal hate-crimes legislation to include homosexuals, and contending that this will result in the persecution of Bible-believing Christians.

[...]

Paul Diamond, a barrister, traveled from London to describe how the British equivalent of hate-crimes laws have been used to persecute Christians who have dared to speak out for God's word regarding an aberrant lifestyle. Diamond works with the Christian Legal Centre, which protects the civil rights of faithful Christians. [Christian Newswire, 11/16/09]

Diamond Spoke At An Anti-Gay Conference Titled “The Lepers Among Us: Homosexuality And The Life Of The Church.” According to Keith Sharpe, Chair of Changing Attitude Sussex:

A few weeks before Christmas 2011 Anglican Mainstream announced its intention to stage a conference in London on 27^th January to be called: ‘The Lepers Among Us: Homosexuality and the Life of the Church’. 

A number of us involved in Changing Attitude and the LGBT Anglican coalition were outraged by the implication that gay people can be likened to lepers, i.e. diseased, deformed and deserving of social exclusion and death unless ‘cured’.

[...]

Clearly the police took these complaints seriously and Anglican Mainstream, presumably deciding that discretion was the better part of valour, changed the name of the conference to ‘The Pastoral and the Prophetic in conflict?  Homosexuality and the Church’. Oddly, however, their co-sponsors, the ‘CORE’  issues Trust, did not, and consequently there was utter confusion as to what conference exactly it was that those of us who had signed up for it were actually going to be attending.

[...]

After the desultory Perkin-Reynolds interview in the afternoon there was a presentation by barrister Paul Diamond who spoke articulately but appeared to get carried away with his own rhetoric, making absurd generalisations about the police being ‘anti-Christian’. [Changing Attitudes, 1/30/12]

Parents Supported Transgender Son’s Decision To Explore Gender Identity

WaPo: Parents Begin Acknowledging Transgender Son As A Boy After He Is Diagnosed With Gender Dysphoria.  In a May 19 article, the Washington Post reported:

Kathryn wanted pants. And short hair. Then trucks and swords.

Her parents, Jean and Stephen, were fine with their toddler’s embrace of all things boy. They’ve both been school teachers and coaches in Maryland and are pretty immune to the quirky stuff that kids do.

But it kept getting more intense, all this boyishness from their younger daughter. She began to argue vehemently — as only a tantrum-prone toddler can — that she was not a girl.

“I am a boy,” the child insisted, at just 2 years old.

And that made Jean uneasy. It was weird.

“I am a boy” became a constant theme in struggles over clothing, bathing, swimming, eating, playing, breathing.

[...]

They took Kathryn to a psychologist outside of Philadelphia who specializes in treating the transgendered. Michele Angello confirmed what Jean had long suspected: Kathryn had gender dysphoria. She recommended that Kathryn be allowed to live as a boy, a prospect that filled Stephen with dread but his 4-year-old with elation.

Kathryn wanted to be called “he” right away. And Kathryn wanted to be called Talon, then Isaac, but finally settled on a permanent boy’s name in the fall. (The Post is using Tyler, the name his parents say they would have given him if he’d been born a boy.)

“When we finally let Tyler shop in the boys’ clothing department, it was like the skies opened up,” Jean said.

They switched to saying he/him/his and stopped using the name “Kathryn” at home.

[...]

[I]n about five years, they will have to decide whether to put Tyler on puberty blockers to keep his body from maturing and menstruating. Using those drugs represents a leap of faith, psychiatrists said, though the effects are reversible if the puberty blockers are halted. [Washington Post, 5/19/12]

Tyler’s Mother: Allowing Son To Explore Gender Identity “Gives Us That Much More Time To Really Know That This Is The Right Thing.” In a video recorded for the Washington Post, Tyler’s mother, Jean, stated:

JEAN: He’s already asked about surgery. I know he’s really young and doesn’t fully understand it but we’ve told him, you know, he has to wait until he’s at least eighteen before he has any surgery.

[...]

JEAN: The therapist just really confirmed what I already knew which was that he is most likely transgender and that it’s not likely to change and with the consistency over time that that’s generally how they know it’s not going to change. And we talked a bit about that, you know, if it does change, that’s okay too. That, you know, it may just be gender variance and he may live as a boy for a little while and then go back to being a girl. And it, you know, she said that’s not likely, but it is possible and we should just leave the door open for that.

[...]

JEAN: I think that allowing him to explore this at such a young age gives us just that much more time to really know that this is the right thing before we have to deal with puberty, before we have to deal with legally changing the name, or, you know, going through all those kinds of things. We have time to just allow him to live as a boy and make sure that that’s the right thing. [Washington Post, 5/19/12]

O’Reilly, Ingraham Ignore Expert Opinion While Fear Mongering About Hormone Blockers 

Ingraham: Children Can’t Give “Informed Consent,” Might Regret Taking Hormone Blockers. On Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Ingraham said:

INGRAHAM: The concern, though, about this, Bill, is that, look, these are children, right? They can’t give informed consent for hormone blocking drugs that are now being given to children as young as, in California, this famous case from last Fall, an eleven year old child of, I guess it was lesbian parents who decided to give this little boy hormone blocking drugs that prevents him from going into puberty. These are children who, most of whom, you know, we wouldn’t trust to pick what they want to eat for the day. Right? You know, they don’t naturally want to eat broccoli, or they naturally might want to eat candy all day but we as parents guide them according to our own moral convictions about what’s right and what’s wrong. And my concern here is, look, a lot of these kids, according to the very thin research that’s been done on this, a lot of these kids, the majority of them, grow out of this gender variance or gender dysphoria it’s called, by the time they’re adolescent. Most of them grow out of it. So if you intervene, especially medically, which may or may not be done in this case, those kids might grow up to regret that and, heaven forbid, be really unhappy about it, and we don’t know the long term effects of this. [Fox News, O’Reilly Factor, 5/24/12, emphasis added]

WPATH Guidelines Require Informed Consent, Psychological Screening Before Providing Hormone Blocking Treatment. According to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s (WPATH) 2011 Standards of Care for transgender children:

In order for adolescents to receive puberty suppressing hormones, the following minimum criteria must be met:

1. The adolescent has demonstrated a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria (whether suppressed or expressed);

2. Gender dysphoria emerged or worsened with the onset of puberty;

3. Any co-existing psychological, medical, or social problems that could interfere with treatment (e.g., that may compromise treatment adherence) have been addressed, such that the adolescent’s situation and functioning are stable enough to start treatment;

4. The adolescent has given informed consent and, particularly when the adolescent has not reached the age of medical consent, the parents or other caretakers or guardians have consented to the treatment and are involved in supporting the adolescent throughout the treatment process. [WPATH Standards of Care, 2011]

Endocrine Society Recommends Transgender Youth Hormone Blockers For Most Children As They Change Their Minds As Teenagers. From the Endocrine Society’s guidelines:

Transsexual persons seeking to develop the physical characteristics of the desired gender require a safe, effective hormone regimen that will 1) suppress endogenous hormone secretion determined by the person’s genetic/biologic sex and 2) maintain sex hormone levels within the normal range for the person’s desired gender. A mental health professional (MHP) must recommend endocrine treatment and participate in ongoing care throughout the endocrine transition and decision for surgical sex reassignment.

The endocrinologist must confirm the diagnostic criteria the MHP used to make these recommendations. Because a diagnosis of transsexualism in a prepubertal child cannot be made with certainty, we do not recommend endocrine treatment of prepubertal children. We recommend treating transsexual adolescents (Tanner stage 2) by suppressing puberty with GnRH analogues until age 16 years old, after which cross-sex hormones may be given. [The Endocrine Society, September 2009, via Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, citations removed for clarity]

Center Of Excellence For Transgender Health Supports The Use Of Hormone Blockers For Transgender Youth. The Center of Excellence for Transgender Health, whose mission “is to increase access to comprehensive, effective, and affirming health care services for trans and gender-variant communities,” states:

Pubertal suppression would be appropriate (with parental/guardian informed consent) for those patients who have had a persistent and consistent cross sex identity from childhood who are entering puberty and have reached Tanner Stage 2. Occasionally, there may be patients who desire halting their pubertal trajectory who are further along in their development. For these patients, GnRH analogues may be useful, but it is important to note that side effects are more common when a person already has circulating adult levels of sex hormones. [Center of Excellence for Transgender Health, accessed 10/18/11]

WPATH: Hormone Blockers Are Fully Reversible And Give Children Time To Explore Their Gender Nonconformity. According to WPATH’s 2011 Standards of Care for transgender children:

Fully Reversible Interventions

[...]

Two goals justify intervention with puberty suppressing hormones: (i) their use gives adolescents more time to explore their gender nonconformity and other developmental issues; and (ii) their use may facilitate transition by preventing the development of sex characteristics that are difficult or impossible to reverse if adolescents continue on to pursue sex reassignment.

Puberty suppression may continue for a few years, at which time a decision is made to either discontinue all hormone therapy or transition to a feminizing/masculinizing hormone regimen. Pubertal suppression does not inevitably lead to social transition or to sex reassignment. [WPATH Standards of Care, 2011]

Gender Identity Experts: Hormone Blockers Are “Lifesavers” For Transgender Children. According to Stephani Brill and Dr. Jennifer Hastings, two experts on gender dysphoria in children and adolescents:

One of such a suspension’s great advantages is that a child, family, and gender team can effectively press a “pause” button on puberty and gain the time necessary to determine if the individual would benefit from administration of cross-sex hormones. Suspending puberty is especially helpful for a pubertal or pre-pubertal teen who has recently revealed to their family that he or she is transgender. The suspension allows the family time to come to terms with what the child is saying and establish whether he or she is truly transgender before committing the child to unwanted physical changes. It also decreases the likelihood that the child will resort to street hormones or suicide to cope with the agony caused by living in the wrong physical body. These fully reversible medicines are lifesavers, and all medical providers working with older children and adolescents should become familiar with their purpose and function. [Women’s Health Activist Newsletter, May/June 2009]

O’Reilly Ignores Experts, Mocks “Dopey” Parents For Supporting Transgender Son

O’Reilly:  I Would Force Transgender Son To “Have Girl Things And Dress Like A Girl.” O’Reilly stated:

O’REILLY: If I’m the father of Kathryn, who’s born a female, it’s on her birth certificate, that’s what her physical makeup is, Kathryn’s a girl, alright? Okay. So Kathryn at two, when she starts to be able to talk, or three, says “oh I want to be a boy, daddy.” Okay Kathryn, you can be a boy, but we’re still going to call you Kathryn and you’re still going to have girl things and dress like a girl, but if you want to climb the tree or get a bazooka, you can do it, you can be a tomboy.

[...]

O’REILLY: I don’t understand all this. Just let Kathryn be Kathryn. If it evolves when she’s eighteen, that she wants to be Jake, then she’s going to make that decision like Chaz Bono.

INGRAHAM: Yeah, she can decide, right. Right, and I think, look, these are children, and we as parents guide our children, so– 

O’REILLY: Yes! I don’t understand that. And why do you have to, at five years old, define what psychologically, you don’t know. As you said, she might grow out of it.

[...]

O’REILLY: This is just unnecessary drama, you know, with two dopey parents with, who I don’t think can control their environment. That’s what it looks like to me. [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 5/24/12]

Study: Family Acceptance Protects LGBT Youth Against Depression, Substance Abuse, And Suicide. From a 2010 article in ScienceDaily:

For the first time, researchers have established a clear link between accepting family attitudes and behaviors towards their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) children and significantly decreased risk and better overall health in adulthood. The study shows that specific parental and caregiver behaviors -- such as advocating for their children when they are mistreated because of their LGBT identity or supporting their gender expression -- protect against depression, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts in early adulthood. In addition, LGBT youth with highly accepting families have significantly higher levels of self-esteem and social support in young adulthood.

The study is published in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing.

[...]

"At a time when the media and families are becoming acutely aware of the risk that many LGBT youth experience, our findings that family acceptance protects against suicidal thoughts and behaviors, depression and substance abuse offer a gateway to hope for LGBT youth and families that struggle with how to balance deeply held religious and personal values with love for their LGBT children," said Dr. Caitlin Ryan, PhD, Director of the Family Acceptance Project at San Francisco State University. "I have worked on LGBT health and mental health for 35 years and putting our research into practice by developing a new model to help diverse families support their LGBT children is the most hopeful work I've ever done." [ScienceDaily, 12/6/10]

Professor Stuart Chen-Hayes: Rigid Gender Norms Put Gender Variant Youth At Risk Of Self-Hatred, Self-Mutilation, Suicide. According to Stuart Chen-Hayes, Associate Professor of Counselor Education at Lehman College:

In schools and families where rigid gender expectations are the norm, gender-variant children and youth are the targets of multiple victimizations or oppression. Internalized oppressions can include hypervigilance, poor self-esteem, self-hatred, alcohol and other drug abuse or dependence, overachieving, self-mutilation, or suicide attempts. Suicide attempts of transgendered youth are estimated as high as or higher than they are for lesbian, bisexual, and gay youth. [Whole Person Counsel, 8/2/10]

WPATH: Families Should Provide An “Accepting And Nurturing Response,” Not Try To Change Their Child’s Gender Identity.  According to WPATH’s 2011 Standards of Care for transgender children:

When supporting and treating children and adolescents with gender dysphoria, health professionals should broadly conform to the following guidelines:

1. Mental health professionals should help families to have an accepting and nurturing response to the concerns of their gender dysphoric child or adolescent. Families play an important role in the psychological health and well-being of youth. This also applies to peers and mentors from the community, who can be another source of social support.

[...]

Treatment aimed at trying to change a person’s gender identity and expression to become more congruent with sex assigned at birth has been attempted in the past without success, particularly in the long. Such treatment is no longer considered ethical. [WPATH Standards of Care, 2011, citations removed for clarity]

WPATH: Withholding Medical Interventions For Adolescents Could Provoke Abuse, Stigmatization. According to WPATH’s 2011 Standards of Care for transgender children:

Refusing timely medical interventions for adolescents might prolong gender dysphoria and contribute to an appearance that could provoke abuse and stigmatization. As the level of gender-related abuse is strongly associated with the degree of psychiatric distress during adolescence, withholding puberty suppression and subsequent feminizing or masculinizing hormone therapy is not a neutral option for adolescents. [WPATH Standards of Care, 2011, citations removed for clarity]