Pillar To Post On Transgenderism

If you read Paul McHugh here and Fr. Robert Barron here ,you go from a medical to a theological perspective on the subject of transgenderism, and there's not much ground left on which to build any kind of rationale for what the Bruce Jenners of the world have done to themselves. Unless, of course, one persists with the kind of thinking described in this article.  Finally, enter a philosopher, here, to discuss gender identity.

McHugh, a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins University which led the way in sex change operations, lays it out pretty clearly.  Sex change operations haven't been performed at Johns Hopkins since the 70s; no benefits have been shown and in fact the suicide rate and psychological problems increased among those who had undergone the operation.  Gender dysphoria, explains Dr. McHugh, is a psychological problem akin to anorexia nervosa   Using the Emperor-Has-No-Clothes approach, McHugh deftly explains the dishonesty and deception that leads anyone in our society (but most tragically young people who become persuaded to undergo transgender "treatments") to believe that changing their body will cure their dysphoria.  Dr. McHugh writes:  "Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they “identify.” In that lies their problematic future."

Enter Fr. Barron who refers us to Gnosticism, that heresy which says that matter is evil, that our physical bodies are an encumbrance, that a secret knowledge, gnosis, will set our souls free from the material world which imprisons us.  Fr. Barron points out the similarities to the transgender cry--I'm really a man (or woman) "trapped" inside a physical body which, if I change it, will set the man (or woman) inside me free.  Fr. Barron writes, .". . . the gnostic heresy has proven remarkably durable, reasserting itself across the centuries. Its most distinctive mark is precisely the denigration of matter and the tendency to set the spirit and the body in an antagonistic relationship. This is why many thinkers have identified the anthropology of René Descartes, which has radically influenced modern and contemporary attitudes, as neo-gnostic. Descartes famously drove a wedge between spirit and matter, or in his language, between the res cogitans (thinking thing) and the res extensa (thing extended in space)."

He concludes, "Until we realize that the lionization of Caitlyn Jenner amounts to an embracing of Gnosticism, we haven’t grasped the nettle of the issue."

As for what the Church teaches, we are to believe in neither Cartesian dualism nor Gnostic heresies but in the body and soul as inseparable parts of our humanity.  Extrapolating from what Dr. McHugh says, science, that is, the natural world, and the Church bring us to the same spot.  We are created male and female and any unrest some individual may feel with his or her physical body doesn't mean that God made a mistake.  It means that individual needs some help.

It seemed to me this quartet of articles on gender and sexuality complemented one another and enlightened in a helpful way.  These thoughts are a mere skating on the surface of the topic.

How to Be A Nice Catholic When It Comes To Homosexuality

The Church's on-going Synod on the Family had a recent testimony about including homosexual couples in (Catholic) family celebrations.  The testimony was given by a husband and wife pair, the Pirolas, who offered up the view that friends of theirs were doing a noble thing by welcoming their (the friends')  homosexual son and his partner to the family Christmas celebration.  In the Pirolas' words,  “What a model of evangelization for parishes as they respond to similar situations in their neighbourhood! It is a practical example of what the Instrumentum laboris [essentially the working papers] says concerning the Church’s teaching role and its main mission to let the world know of God’s love.”

In other words, say the Pirolas, take the love that God has for each of us with all our various flaws and mirror that love to others who, just like us,  have their own flaws. We'll be living our faith and evangelizing to the world!  The gay son and his partner won't be offended!  Everyone can have Christmas together without a showdown!

Besides their rather bold assertion concerning the "main mission" of the Church, the Pirolas have also unwittingly, or conveniently, homogenized the matter of God's love to solve the thorny problem of how the Catholic faithful should engage with matters of homosexuality. Their comment suggests that God's love is a simple matter, easy to understand, easy to communicate to others and easy to attain. The presumption in the Pirolas testimony is that God loves us no matter what --yes--but that he doesn't really expect us to conform to his ways.  Not exactly. For starters, one might recall that when Christ defended the adulterous woman against her detractors, he did also tell her to go and sin no more.  The Ten Commandments come to mind as well.

In rebuttal to the Pirolas sanguine conclusion about their friends' behavior,  Voice of the Family  (VOF) countered: “It is because we desire the eternal happiness of those we love that we need to support them to overcome temptation and to live chastely. This path is not easy, but nor is any cross that is the way of true mercy, love and new life.”  Voice of the Family mentions the damage done to all members of a family including young children when actions "normalise the disorder of homosexuality."

Voice of the Family rightly points out that the son's homosexual actions are a wrong according to the Church, a wrong in need of correction if a depth of love and caring are to be shown for the son.  VOF is right to note that there are those in a Catholic family who will see the acceptance of a homosexual partner at a family event as approval of that partnership and, by extension, see homosexual behavior as compatible with Church teaching, which it isn't.

I had hoped that one of the outcomes of the Synod would be guidance from our bishops and priests as to how faithful Catholics might engage the modern, secular culture on the matter of homosexuality. More specifically, I had hoped that the bishops would begin to fashion a way that the Catholic laity might deal honestly and openly with the matter of homosexuality in the family.  Like abortion, co-habitation, pre-marital sex and divorce, homosexuality is an issue in many families, Catholics no exception.

Though they set the stage nicely for laying out the dilemma of witnessing to Church teaching on homosexuality, neither the Pirolas or VOF provide much of an answer. The Pirolas demonstrate a healthy longing to spread Christian love, but they seem woefully unconcerned about simultaneously spreading a fractured if not false picture of the Church's teaching on homosexuality. In their zeal to spread the love, they have also fudged over the matter of witnessing to the truth. We are enjoined (in Matthew 18:12-17) to correct error as part of the loving care shown to others so that not even "one of these little ones should perish."

On the other hand, VOF telling the culture about the "disorders" of homosexuality will not only fall on deaf ears, it will fall on hostile, combative ears.  The very intent and focus of the activist homosexual community is to gain society's emotional and legal stamp-of-approval for homosexuality as a normal  and very "ordered" sexual behavior.  While VOF may understandably talk to fellow Catholics about the disorder of homosexuality, it will only sound like the punitive, authoritarian Church wanting to bring down fire and brimstone on evil homosexuals if  we talk to the secular culture in those terms.

How then to be loving and truthful, to point out error without arrogance. If, when discussing homosexuality,  the Church has as its primary focus to not offend the gay person in the family, to not offend the  secular culture and its mainstream media mouthpieces, then the Pirolas and the rest of us---I think of our own Cardinal Dolan here--might don our rose-colored glasses, host homosexual partners for Christmas, march in all manner of parades and even publicly yuk it up with the President of the United States whose aggressive policies threaten the religious freedom of Catholics.

If, however, the point is to get at the truth of human sexuality, including the purpose of being created male and female, while still able to engage the modern culture, we as Catholics will have to use a bit more ingenuity than even VOF who, though they speak the truth of the matter, speak it in language foreign to the secular culture we're trying to reach.

Are you a homophobe?

You just might be called one if you have any doubts whatsoever that college football player Michael Sam who announced a while back that he's gay, is courageous or made history.  You just might be labeled a homophobe if you're not rushing to acclaim his action as "unprecedented" and "postmodern".  You certainly will be consigned to the ranks of what the enlightened elite calls homophobes if you aren't at least proud, respectful, and supportive of Michael Sam.  Watch out!   Being cast as a homophobe in today's politically correct culture puts you on the negative side of the balance sheet.

Sam's statement has created somewhat more hub-bub than NBA player Jason Collins's announcement of last year perhaps because, as eligible for the NFL draft, Sam could be the first openly homosexual NFL player. But back in April, even Collins's moment of truth elicited a response from Barack Obama who referred to Collins's announcement as an "extraordinary measure of progress."

There's something curious about the matter if you stop and think about it for a minute.  First,  I really don't know any homophobes.  I don't know anyone who has a fear of homosexuals, who is so afraid  that he won't speak to a homosexual or who is so terrorized by homosexuals that he would cross the street to avoid possibly grazing shoulders.  I know of no one who would first inquire as to a person's sexual preferences before patronizing their business, calling them a friend or helping them as a neighbor. A homophobe is a rare phenomenon.

Second, both Sam and Collins seem intent on emphasizing that their identity is not their sexuality but their profession. Sam himself testifies that he's a "football player", that's who he is, that his sexual preference shouldn't be a "big problem" that being gay is "nothing" compared to the hardships he's endured in his life.  Jason Collins has offered much the same.  He doesn't have time to think about making history.  He wants to focus on his job.  He says that this is about Sam "just being a football player and me just being a basketball player and trying to help our respective teams win."   Obama himself had this to say. "We judge people on the basis of their character and their performance, not on their sexuality. I'm very proud of him."  

So if we judge people on their character and not on their sexuality, why are we talking about their sexuality?

In the current public discussion of these sports figures, having a same-sex attraction, being 'gay,' is characterized for us as nothing special, just another choice, an alternative life style, not a big deal.  Anyone who doesn't buy into that characterization is a homophobe.  Period.  The label is tossed off freely, carelessly---and with not the kindest intentions.   

The powers that be, that nebulous "they" have dictated that there will no discussion, no dissent, no ifs, no whys or maybes. If you don't care to agree--for whatever reason--that homosexuality is no big deal, then you, my friend, are a narrow-minded, nasty, backwards fool.  You are a homophobe.  Is nobody allowed a little time for introspection,  questioning, wondering?  How did homosexuality all of a sudden become no big deal after millenia of being considered something different? When did homosexuality become the norm?  Or is it?  Sam and Collins are telling us it's nothing, they're just regular guys but they and the chorus behind them are also telling us that they're different and special and courageous. For being normal?  Which is it?

Michelle Obama On Living Out Your Faith

I know it's an old article, from 2012, a year and five months old to be slightly less than precise, but who can resist Michelle when she's "speaking truth to power" and talking about Jesus as an example for our lives.  I just read the article again after seeing Mrs. Obama's wise words quoted regarding Liberty Ridge Farms, a business that is doing just what First Lady Michelle is advocating--living out one's faith every day of the week.  Moved to speak about Christ, clearly Michelle is not an angry black woman.

“Our faith journey isn’t just about showing up on Sunday for a good sermon and good music and a good meal. It’s about what we do Monday through Saturday as well, especially in those quiet moments, when the spotlight’s not on us, and we’re making those daily choices about how to live our lives.

“We see that in the life of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn’t limit his ministry to the four walls of the church,” she said. “He was out there fighting injustice and speaking truth to power every single day. He was out there spreading a message of grace and redemption to the least, the last, and the lost. And our charge is to find Him everywhere, every day by how we live our lives.”

The owners at Liberty Ridge Farms remained  true to their beliefs not just on a Sunday when it's easiest to be faithful, but on a weekday when they explained to a probing caller that their business couldn't host a same sex wedding.  Now they're involved in a lawsuit and being asked to pay damages. 

Michelle talks about "our faith journey" though for all she and her husband are now affiliated with a faith journey, minus their perfunctory Easter family visit,  the Obamas are presumably among the 60% or so of Americans who seldom or never attend church.  (That's  except for the 20 years when the Obamas weren't really regular attendees at that Jeremiah Wright church in Chicago and didn't listen anyway when they were there.)  The President's administration is notably hostile to the practice of religion in the public square--exactly what the First Lady is advocating here--with its HHS mandate, its attempts to limit religious freedom in the military, its disinterest in America's commitment to religious liberty globally and the President's narrow interpretation of what religious freedom and the First Amendment mean.  From an article in First Things:

Barack Obama once asserted that “our deliberative, pluralistic democracy demands . . . that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.”   

As the article points out, this is precisely what our democracy doesn't call on us to do.  Our "religiously motivated. . concerns" are our particular religious beliefs, particular to us, to the dictates of our conscience.  They are, as James Madison writes, our property to which we have that God-given right as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Referring to President Obama's commitment to religious liberty internationally, which differs not at all from his commitment to religious liberty domestically,  the article goes on to say,

The current administration, while it has delivered some nice speeches on the subject, has invested its energy and resources in the promotion of “LGBT” interests, not religious liberty. Obama took two and one-half years to get his ambassador-at-large for religious freedom, Suzan Johnson Cook, in place, and even then she was buried deep in the bureaucracy, with little authority or resources. Clearly the Obama administration has subordinated religious liberty to the international pursuit of what it believes to be superior rights claims. 

Michelle reminds us that what's important are "those quiet moments" when we make choices about how to live our lives. Speaking truth to power.  Fighting injustice.  Finding Christ "everywhere" by "how we live our lives."  Saying one thing but meaning another.  Probably.  Deception comes in many guises and turns of phrase.

Marriage Bullies

Right.  All of us opposed to same-sex marriage are bigots and homophobes, just like Barack Obama was before he "evolved."  There's no commentary needed for this article which articulates a much-needed message for those on both sides of the same-sex marriage aisle. 

Parent, Child, Marriage

The same-sex marriage movement is presented innocently as nothing more than endorsing the 'right' of same-sex couples to marry just as heterosexual couples marry.  Supporters of same-sex marriage are quick to label any opposition to their view as bigoted, homophobic, hateful and just plain old stupid.  Those of us on the other side of the aisle look upon same-sex 'marriage' first as an oxymoron, but moreover as a move to re-define marriage, to toss out the traditional notion of marriage and to reduce the uniqueness of (heterosexual) marriage to naught, to profoundly change what is natural and normal. 

This slightly dry and tedious article illustrates how same-sex unions and same-sex 'marriage' include re-defining the relationship between parent and child.  Better to start at the end of this article with this quote,

As the sociological bonds between parent and child are perverted through a redefinition of marriage, it seems the resistance to breaking the biological bonds wanes as well. Replacing the marital act with various assisted reproductive technologies dehumanizes children and treats them as commodities to be manufactured and marketed for the pleasure of adults.

and read backwards.

Born This Way?

Michael Voris over at Church Militant.TV (also here) leaves few stones unturned.  Below he addresses homosexuality and whether it can validly be claimed that there is a sexuality other than heterosexuality.  This video is worth watching from the beginning, but if you're pressed for time, start watching at 2:14 as he develops the point that homosexuality is not another choice, but is disordered heterosexuality. (The presentation is original to him, but not the idea which is the position of the Catholic Church.)   His argument also attends to the claim that homosexuals are "born that way" and so can't help their behavior.  Were we to accept that view, then we would logically be led to accept, for example, that some people are just "born" wanting to have sex with children.  That is, we would be led to acknowledge pedophilia as a permissible and normal sexual preference, just as many are demanding that we believe homosexuality is a normal sexual preference.

 Voris borrows the analogy of colored vases to illustrate his point that homosexuality isn't just a vase of a different color but rather a broken vase. Vases, clay vases, clay pots, clay vessels.  Hmm.  Calls to mind that verse from 2 Corinthians 4:7 about the treasure we have in earthen vessels, the power of which comes from God and not us.

Surrogate Mothers

A report from Ireland's Iona Institue as covered by Zenit spells out very clearly why surrogate motherhood is wrong, as in immoral.  A few quotes from the article:

 “Surrogacy compromises the dignity of the child by making the child the object of a contract—a commodity,” the report argued. “It further compromises the dignity of the mother, even if her participation is voluntary, by merely treating her as a ’womb for hire’,” it added.  

 The commodification of children in surrogacy was highlighted by the report when it mentioned that due to the high costs involved couples tend to have the mentality that they deserve children who are more likely to be good-looking and successful in life.

Adoption is substantially different from surrogacy, the report argued. In adoption the birth mother makes a decision based on what is best for the child. By contrast, in surrogacy the decision is made by the adopting parents based on what is best for them. “It is therefore inherently adult-centred in a way adoption is not,” the report added.

“Women’s bodies become commodities through which others can purchase what they wish to have, and most or all care, concern, and medical attention is directed at the child while the surrogate mother is left to fend for herself,” the report commented. 

And finally,  

The increasing trend to the legalization of same-sex marriages will inevitably lead to higher demand for surrogate babies, with all the negative consequences identified by the Iona Institute.

Having Two Mothers

This account of growing up as the son of two lesbians takes an unexpected turn or two.  Usually one expects to read either that the son is excessively normal and had a home life just like everyone else or that the son is a basket case whose life was ruined by not having a father.

Mr. Lopez says neither, but does say that he is weird, different, an outsider who fits none of the gender stereotypes or categories. He would seem to be a heterosexual since he is now married to a woman and has a child, however, Mr. Lopez calls himself bisexual.

He thanks Mark Regnerus for Regnerus's controversial study and seems to be saying that the very reason for which the Regnerus study was criticized--he compared children in stable heterosexual marriages to children of parents who may have had both heterosexual and homosexual relationships after having children--is the reason it is accurate and valuable. Lopez asks:

Where do children of LGBT parents come from? If the parents are 100-percent gay or lesbian, then the chances are that the children were conceived through surrogacy or insemination, or else adopted. Those cases are such a tiny percentage of LGBT parents, however, that it would be virtually impossible to find more than a half-dozen in a random sampling of tens of thousands of adults.

Most LGBT parents are, like me, and technically like my mother, “bisexual”—the forgotten B. We conceived our children because we engaged in heterosexual intercourse. Social complications naturally arise if you conceive a child with the opposite sex but still have attractions to the same sex. Sherkat [a critic of the Regnerus study] calls these complications disqualifiable, as they are corrupting the purity of a homosexual model of parenting.

I would have thought the Mr. Lopezes would be the exception when it comes to children of same sex parents and that the former category--children of what he calls 100% same sex parents would be the more prevalent type.  Lopez seems to be saying otherwise and praises the Regnerus study, I guess because it looks at the more common (and more difficult?) case of children raised by bisexual parents.  Lopez says this about "100 %" homosexuals vs. bisexuals: 

Those who are 100-percent gay may view bisexuals with a mix of disgust and envy. Bisexual parents threaten the core of the LGBT parenting narrative—we do have a choice to live as gay or straight, and we do have to decide the gender configuration of the household in which our children will grow up. 

Yes, but so do the "100-percent gay" parents.  They could decide that the gender configuration in their household would be unnatural with two men or two women raising children and decide not to have children.   
Mr. Lopez also writes about the opposition to same sex marriage in France and the homosexual men who oppose it.

West Point "Wedding"'s Honor

Brenda Sue Fulton's nuptials at the United States Military Academy at West Point made the news in grand style.

At last reading in July of 2011, Brenda Fulton was appointed by President Obama to USMA's Board of Visitors and she describes herself as having many "informal allies" at West Point. She is also a self-described homosexual (and lesbian and trans-gender) activist and she has major roles in the organizations Knights Out and OutServe. The same-sex ceremony held a week or so earlier at West Point involved friends of Fulton. 

Consequently, these ceremonies look less like a case of West Point grads who just wanted to be married at their alma mater and more like a political ploy on the part of homosexual activists who used West Point's prestige and prominence as the backdrop for showing us how the military will behave in Obama's second term. 

Though the legal facts may be arguable if not downright abstruse, it appears that the United States Military Academy at West Point, which is on federal property, did not have to agree to host Brenda Fulton's lesbian ceremony had West Point chosen to honor DOMA which is still the law regarding marriage as approved by Congress.    Family Research Council (FRC) says,    According to Johnson, decisions about military facilities should be made on a "sexual-orientation neutral basis." And while the "wedding" may have been consistent with Johnson's memo, the DOD's general counsel is no substitute for the 427 elected members of Congress who voted to define marriage as the union of a man and woman for the government's purposes. That means it affects federal employees (which Fulton is) and federal property (where West Point resides). The President may vehemently disagree with the law--but until the Supreme Court overturns it or Congress rejects it, DOMA is still the law of the land.

Earlier in the article FRC characterizes West Point as moving away from the rule of law which seems accurate even though technically the so-called wedding may not have been illegal.  However, as pointed out here,  LGBT Think Progress reports that DOMA merely says that  as pertaining to any federal regulation,  the word 'marriage' refers to the union of one man and one woman.  The article says that it is an " incredible stretch to interpret this language such that a same-sex wedding is somehow illegal merely because the resulting union is not recognized by the federal government."

 

Not so it seems to me.  In fact, seems to me that's the crux of the matter for Fulton and those she represents--to have same sex "marriages" recognized to be on the exact same plane as traditional marriages defined as being between one man and one woman.  If the federal government doesn't recognize Fulton's union as a marriage, what did she actually accomplish at West Point's Cadet Chapel?

 

Duty, Honor, Country.  West Point graduates do not behave honorably when they opportunistically exploit their alma mater  as a way to force others to cave to their demands.

 

Same Sex Marriage, Compromise or Surrender

Going through a few back issues of Imprimis, I came across this one by Midge Decter on same-sex marriage, a talk she gave in 2004.   

After giving a brief history of how we've gotten to our present situation as regards same-sex marriage, she goes on to make still-timely observations.  She makes a distinction between 'gay' activists and those who share that lifestyle but are not activists, an important distinction to remember I think. 

It goes without saying that there are homosexuals who are not and have never been activists, who do not storm the streets, who do not frequent the bathhouses, and who keep their sex lives— as most of the rest of us do—to themselves. But in the current debate these homosexuals are, alas, irrelevant. They are neither the stuff of which movements and flamboyant public gestures are made, nor are they people whose ambition is to overturn the conditions of ordinary, everyday life. 

She makes the politically incorrect observation that, despite claims to the contrary, homosexual men tend to act much like heterosexual men with the same true of lesbian vs. heterosexual women. 

By the way, and not surprisingly, it seems that a number of the male couples admitted they had no intention of getting married—it was merely their having won the battle that they were there to celebrate—while every one of the female couples declared their intention to marry. I say not surprisingly because—some might think it impolite of me to point out—homosexual men are essentially no more like lesbians than heterosexual men are like the women whom they either merely pursue or marry. In short, men are men and women are women, whatever their sexual proclivities.  

That is why the right to marriage, fought for with every weapon at their command by homosexual men, would—or must I say will—be largely acted on by lesbians.Why, then, are these men fighting so hard for it?
 

But to the heart of the matter, Decter says that same sex marriage is about changing society, proclaiming radicalism as the norm and spitting in the eye of anyone who won't bow down to that.  In her words:

The answer is, the right to legal marriage that they are demanding is not about them—it is about the rest of us. It is, and is meant to be, a spit in the eye of the way we live. And whatever the variety of efforts to oppose it— another law or even a whole set of laws, let’s say, or a constitutional amendment—none of it will matter unless and until all the nice and decent people in America begin to understand that we are in a crisis, and it must be up to them to sustain, and with all good cheer defend, the way they lead their lives. 

 

That last refers to those of us who support traditional marriage.  It also refers to those who think that homosexual marriage, indeed the homosexual movement,  will have no effect on them---or their children.   Anyone who expects traditional marriage and the family to survive the same-sex marriage onslaught might be, with good cheer,  called gullible. 

Why Government Is Interested In Marriage

This is a good explanation of why government sanctions traditional marriage and why government would have little interest in sanctioning other kinds of unions, such as same sex marriage. 

This article comes at the same sex marriage controversy from the same perspective as the video below.  Rather than begin with why same-sex marriage is wrong or an impossibility, the argument more logically begins with why opposite sex unions and traditional marriage are necessary and beneficial to societies in ways that same-sex unions can't be either necessary or beneficial.    A few quotes: 

Governments assign legal responsibilities and benefits to marriage, rather than to other relationships, to help mitigate the potentially destructive and tragic consequences of irresponsible procreation. 

Since civil marriage wouldn’t originally arise in response to desires or demands of individuals in diverse relationships, the first move must have been made by governments. Why, then, would governments want to create something like civil marriage?
 

While many relationships don’t cause any consequences that we might see as potentially problematic for society if left unregulated, one sort of relationship clearly does: sexually intimate opposite-sex relationships.


Left unregulated by the government, most consequences of relationships—such as warm, fuzzy feelings, mutual goodwill, and trust—will not become socially destructive; procreation, on the other hand, is an entirely different story.

Same Sex Marriage - Another Look

Dress Code Equality For All

I wasn't sure whether to tag this Inside Higher Ed Quick Take 'For Fun,' 'Weasels' or 'Homosexuality.'  Perhaps a new category, 'Going to Hell in a Handbag' as some put it,  would be required here. 

I reproduce the article in its entirety:

The University of Oxford, responding to concerns about equity for transgender students, has dropped the dress code that has been in place for students at some formal academic events, BBC News reported. The current rules, which will end August 4, require male students to wear a dark suit, black shoes and a white bow tie and a plain white shirt and collar under their black gowns. Women must wear a dark skirt or trousers and a white blouse. The rules were criticized as forcing transgender students into traditional gender roles.

Children From Different Families

A study came out a while ago called Children From Different Families.  I haven't read it in its entirety, only summaries.  It was conducted by Dr. Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas, Austin.
For an idea of how the study was done, here's a short excerpt from the introduction to the study:

The NFSS [New Family Structures Study]drew from a large, nationally representative, random sample of the U.S. population of young adults, ages 18–39, who were raised in diverse family arrangements, screening 15,000 persons and interviewing 2,988 respondents, making it the second-largest probability sample of children of gay and lesbian parents. 

 As the debate on same-sex 'marriage' has unfolded, the advocates of such have chosen to talk about marriage equality.  By using this phrase, those advocates are leaping over a few considerations to the contrary and are claiming, without any discussion or evidence other than anecdotal, that marriage between a homosexual couple is the same as marriage between a heterosexual couple.  Since married people typically have children, what follows of course is that homosexual couples should have children because their union through marriage is no different from that of a heterosexual couple.  Thus, children of  homosexual couples, these advocates of 'equality' must claim, are no different from the children of heterosexual couples. And so on down the garden path. 

This study addresses that assumption and shows that that isn't the case.   Interestingly, the study is not being well-received by advocates of same-sex 'marriage,'  as you can read here.   As this article asks, where is the tolerance for a study that challenges the views of the marriage equality advocates?   Note that no one on the 'marriage equality' side of the issue chose to support this study.

 "To avoid political partisanship, donors who support same-sex marriage rights as well as those that don’t were invited to participate equally. Regrettably no donors who support same-sex marriage rights accepted the invitation; four were approached, all declined."  (NFSS)  

Critics of the NFSS are saying that Regnerus compared children in stable heterosexual families with children from unstable homosexual unions.  In this article, the author says of the Regnerus study:

The study compares how children fare [under] 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.  

Could be accurate, but, frankly, I think if that study were made, the result would still be that children of heterosexual broken families fared better than those from homosexual unions.  Anyway, I wonder how Graff feels about the effects of divorce and infidelity on children?  Usually, advocates for the do-what's-good-for-you style of living claim that divorce doesn't harm children. Divorce, blended families, affairs, menages-a-trois, lesbian couples, male-male couples, it's all just variations on a theme.  No big deal.   Furthermore, the homosexual life-style itself is marked by a fair degree of infidelity that we are apparently supposed to accept--and even condone--as healthy and just one more 'choice.'

The problem begins with being told that we all must accept what is utterly contrary to common sense--that homosexuality is no different from heterosexuality. 

Gallup's Values and Beliefs Poll, Catholics and Same Sex Marriage

Several Catholic friends have pointed out in recent days that our fellow Catholics continue to cave to the popular culture on the issue of same-sex 'marriage.'  They cite these statistics from the Pew Research group: 

Catholic respondents were slightly less likely than other Americans to oppose same-sex marriage. In 2004, 55% of Catholics were opposed, and 28% strongly. By 2012 those figures had dropped to 42% and 17%. 

As a rejoinder, however, there is the result of yesterday's marriage amendment vote in North Carolina as well as this recent Gallup Poll which says that more people are opposed to same-sex 'marriage' this year than last (48% vs. 46% respectively) or, conversely that there is slightly less support this year with 50% of Americans supporting same-sex 'marriage' as opposed to 53% supporting it last year.   And, read here.

I realize this doesn't address the Catholic problem per se, but at this late date why expect Catholics to behave any differently than the general voting public?  Catholics have succumbed to the sexual and social revolution of the 60s just as nicely as everyone else. Secularized and relativized, they voted handily for Obama in 2008, and, anecdotally, I know plenty of Catholics who will vote for him again. 

I read somewhere that Americans are great believers in fairness (just maybe something to do with our founding principles?), and I think that a good percentage of the so-called support for same-sex marriage comes from a desire we Americans have to be fair to our neighbors.  Notice that Gallup asked participants if same-sex couples should have the same "rights" as those in traditional marriages.  Rights?  Not only fairness, but political correctness dictates that we deny no one their "rights!"  And, actually, some of the things same-sex couples want could and should be handled with changes to the tax code.  By phrasing their question in terms of rights, Gallup is being just a little disingenuous with this poll.

If, as Gallup says, this poll is part of its annual Values and Beliefs poll, why didn't they poll people as to what they believe about traditional marriage and what they believe about same-sex 'marriage?' Why didn't they ask people if they are teaching their children that same-sex 'marriage' is the same as traditional marriage?  Why didn't they ask people if they believe sex education in the schools should teach that homosexuality is normal? Why didn't they ask people how they would feel about having a daughter-in-law who is a husband or a wife to their daughter? 

Gallup headlines the article, that half of Americans support 'gay' marriage.  That also means that half don't support it, a little detail that could just as easily have been the headline of the article.

Dump Starbucks

Starbucks has taken a public position supporting same-sex "marriage" as 'core' to who they are as a corporation.  You can read about it here and sign the petition should you choose.  It remains a mystery to me why a retail enterprise would take a stand on a controversial moral issue, but they have and perhaps they are right to do so if they feel strongly about it. 

Closer to home, my home that is, Mumbles Restaurant on 2nd Avenue and 17th Street, NYC,  did something similar last June when the same-sex "marriage" bill passed in New York state.  Their street-side chalk board which usually carries the menu or the specials of the day instead carried a message saying "Congratulations to all on marriage equality."  I guess one has to expect that sort of thing in New York City, but I take some small comfort in the fact that, after writing a letter to the owner of the restaurant (he did understand my point),  my family and I haven't been back to Mumbles since,  just as I feel some small satisfaction in 'dumping Starbucks' though I've never really liked their coffee anyway!

Father Guarnizo - Continuing Story

The details of the incident can be found here but, in brief, Fr. Guarnizo of St. John Neumann parish in Gaithersburg, MD refused communion during a funeral service to a woman who, just prior to the service, rather aggressively introduced herself and her lover to the priest proclaiming themselves to be lesbians.  After the communion incident, the lesbian, Ms. Johnson, in so many words informed Fr. Guarnizo that she was going to make an example of him.  His bishop responded by removing Fr. Guarnizo from pastoral duties while claiming it had nothing to do with the lesbian incident but rather to do with other complaints from staff about the priest.

There are technicalities to the incident as, for example, the relevance or not of Canon 915, and who did exactly what, when and why, but it is not a pretty tale no matter how you look at it.  Ms. Johnson would seem to have intentionally provoked the priest, most likely in order to 'expose' the Catholic Church as--gasp--homophobic!  The occurrence is another battle in the culture war being waged by all those open-minded and tolerant progressives against the Catholic Church.  Fr. Guarnizo puts it this way in his recent open letter: 

what happened I believe contains a warning to the church. Such circumstances can and will be repeated multiple times over if the local church does not make clear to all Catholics that openly confessing sin is something one does to a priest in the confessional, not minutes before the Mass in which the Holy Eucharist is given. 

 And shouldn't the Church also make clear what is at stake when an admittedly practicing lesbian presents herself for communion?

Read Fr. Guarnizo's statement on the incident here.   And, for continuing coverage and commentary on this and other Catholic issues go to this blog, Restore DC Catholicism  which I found interesting.

Gay Marriage Explained

More on How Gay "Marriage" Happened in New York state

Here is another article, [at 4/25/13 this article isn't available but the quotes below are accurate;  here is a link to a similar account] also from New Yorker's Family Research Foundation, that gives more explanation about how the same-sex "marriage" vote in New York was basically bought and sold and passed under questionable (illegal?) conditions.  Republicans were instrumental in passing this bill.  The author mentions the groundwork that was laid by Republican donors in collusion (shall we say) with Andrew Cuomo. 

The battle really began back some months ago when Steve Cohen and other top staff members from Governor Andrew Cuomo’s administration met with wealthy Republican financial contributors in New York City. The governor’s staff proposed that they should work with the governor to see that homosexual “marriage” legislation was passed into law. It didn’t take long for those liberal-leaning Republican Wall Street financiers to get on board with the governor. Billionaire Paul Singer (whose son is living in a gay-lifestyle), and hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb were influential in passing same-sex “marriage” legislation. They wrote six-figure checks, totaling over one million dollars, to fund the public relations campaign for gay “marriage”. This level of support did not go unnoticed by Republicans who normally sought campaign funding from these same sources. 

He mentions the "letter of necessity" that Cuomo used to circumvent consideration of the bill in the Assembly. 

To get a vote this quickly, the governor had to send a letter of necessity to the Assembly, declaring that this legislation was critical to the state, and necessary, such that there was no time for it to go through the normal legislative process. 

 Once the bill was in the Senate, the governor went to work again. 

The Senate leadership and the governor’s staff made an agreement not to permit the same-sex “marriage” legislation to be laid aside or discussed. This blocked any debate and expedited the process. The governor wanted to have the vote pass in a manner that would allow for maximum coverage in that evening’s 11:00 PM newscasts. His staff was in full force on the Senate floor, working with various leaders, expediting the process to make the 11:00 o’clock deadline. It is highly unethical for the executive branch of government to be involved in the operation of the legislative branch.

Senators were locked into the chamber and lobbyists were locked out.

Senators were locked in the chamber so they could not disappear for the vote and be marked absent – or in Albany lingo ‘take a walk’. This is the first time I have seen senators locked in the chamber, forcing them to vote. Again, this seemed to be part of a broader effort to lock down the needed votes, and not let any peel away from taking a difficult vote.

The author makes clear that Republicans could have stopped this bill.

The Republican Party controls the state senate, giving them the authority to determine what to do with the legislation. They did not have to bring the legislation to the floor. The Senate Republican Conference could have stopped same-sex “marriage” in New York State, but they failed to do so. Twenty-nine Republicans voted against the bill on the floor, but it is not clear that they did all they could to keep it from coming to the floor in conference. It only takes seventeen senators in conference to hold a bill.