Category: Opinion Opinion letters by Various Authors
A study of the questions of sexuality in a modern society bent on PC in ways that have driven churches and all social institutions to wonder "What is Sexuality?" What controls, if any, are to be considered to regulate by legal or moral law what, if any practices, are to be avoided one way or another?

Sexuality-A modern viewpoint...

It fits well with the social notions of Civil Rights and Inclusiveness, Diversity..Multi-culturalism
Or does it?

Perhaps many can agree that the Rosa Parks contribtuion to history in the back of the bus in Selma, Alabama is viewed as a seminal event in the history of modern notions of Civil Rights. We may also find many to agree that the concept of civil rights has lead us to many ways to write new laws to deal with many special interest groups and the political pressures brought to the point of action by them ever since. In the name of democracy, freedom and civil rights, we have made a lot of progress in the last forty years as a nation called the United States of America- or have we?

We have proven that trying to maintain a system of white only racial preferences, to the advantage of a majority of folks labeled as ‘white’, is wrong. If it gives the appearance, real or imagined, that it enjoys some type of race based advantage over all others, it is wrong! There can be few, if any, serious thinkers that would try to find or favor a return to practices of the American history prior to 1965. Sure, we still have non-thinkers, who sense a loss of social position that they can find a way to blame such, not on their own failings, but upon something else; but these people do not speak or write in a rational way. Their rhetoric is as biased as that from many of the extremists that clamor for more adjustments aimed at providing an artificial social advantage for any artificially defined so-called minority group.

While the first flurry of legal adjustments came in the form of laws to support freedom of access and equal opportunity, these helpful steps have lead to many more, many of which are not only counter productive to the goals of the first steps; but, worse, they have moved us into many new areas where the ability to determine a proper and rational position is filled with opportunity for even greater error.

Busing of students to achieve an artificial evidence of compliance has generally been shown to have failed to improve society; and worse, many of the leaders of the minority groups involved have now come full circle to demand not only the elimination of busing, but to replace it with special enclave schooling at all levels through college! Now we must have separate programs, eating areas with special ethnic menus, and opportunity for what was at one time called ‘Separate but equal” situations. These demands come from the minority groups that perceive such as the only way to preserve their ethnic purity! So, instead of an amalgamation, we strive for ethnic purity in the name of diversity. Somehow each separate group will then magically show off its character to all others?

As confusing as the above regarding our effort to try to better understand and try to learn to merge cultures being replaced by ones that aim to preserve the differences, we now find a new range of social and cultural issues that need to be brought under the umbrella of ‘civil liberties’.

As a logical outgrowth of the rise of ‘feminism’, we have come to engage in an enormous political debate over the right of a woman to choose abortion of a fetus for any reason of her choice. No issue has yet come to generate more heat and less light than that of abortion because it may tend to look like an attempt to limit the hard fought for right of women to be treated as equals. This subject deserves a separate article and one or more are found elsewhere on this site.

Along with this tide of thinking we have witnessed the evolution of the need to also give equal rights to the social outcasts of the past- the so-called “Gay and Lesbian” community. To deal with this subject in a rational manner, I find it necessary to look at it from several perspectives: biological and legal; and social and religious.

The biological facts that lead to sexual practices known as that of the life style of the Gay and Lesbian communities have been studied for a long time. In parallel, we have witnessed a legal evolution aimed at providing equal protection for people in these two special interest groups. Laws to ban so called ‘hate’ activity are apparently needed in a society that no longer pays attention to religious laws that are based upon moral upbringing that makes unbridled ‘hate’ a sin to be avoided. Now it is to be avoided because it is the law!

One recent news subject that comes close to focusing on this issue is the one involving the Boy Scouts of America. Read the following stories and you will be ready to study the main questions that relate to this issue. They are:

Is sexuality somehow related to a part of the human relationship between homosexuals any different than that between heterosexuals? Does it matter if it is part of a committed monogamous relationship or a polygamous one? Does exercise of sexual activity relate to any law of behavior directed from some higher being or power than humankind? Or is it only an innocuous recreational sport to be allowed in any form as long as no party is compelled to engage without free choice? Is rape only a crime when force is involved by one party or another?

Before tackling these questions, it is useful to track the recent history of the BSA case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. First, read:

LAW
MAY 1, 2000 VOL. 155 NO. 18
Can A Scout Be Gay?
The Boy Scouts' battle to stay straight goes to the Supreme Court
BY JOHN CLOUD/NEW YORK

Cozza likes the Scout uniform but not Scout values It's one thing to
say, as most Americans have for years now, that people shouldn't be
fired from their jobs just because they are gay. But what if that job is
to take care of your son on a Boy Scouts' camping trip? He may need
comforting after a nightmare, or a pat on the back when he skins his
knee. You may know rationally that gays are no more likely to molest
children than are heterosexuals. And you may know that virtually all
psychiatrists have agreed for years that kids can't be "turned" gay. But
your gut may say something else, something biased.

Although an uneasy consensus is forming in favor of gay equality, the
toughest test is what that equality will mean for our kids. This week
the U.S. Supreme Court will take that test when it hears oral arguments
in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale. The ruling, expected
by summer, should settle the question of whether the Boy Scouts have to
admit openly gay men and boys.

The Scouts have fought gays several times before, going back to the
'70s, and always won. But this is the first such case to reach the high
court, and it comes after a unanimous lower-court ruling against the
Scouts. If the gay activists pushing Dale's case win, they will have
cracked one of America's most traditional fraternities, a group that
receives strong support from conservatives. If the Scouts win, they will
help activists on the right reinforce a crumbling heteros-only wall
around key social institutions (marriage being the most fraught).

The case will also help decide how much legislators can advance gay
equality. Eleven states have laws barring employers from firing workers
for being gay, and at least eight more have considered such legislation
this year. The Boy Scouts contend that hiring openly gay leaders would
interfere with the Scouts' First Amendment right to express the view
that homosexuality is wrong and would violate their First Amendment
freedom to associate, or not, with whomever they please. They also warn
that if they lose, all organizations that serve a specific group--they
point to the N.A.A.C.P--would have to become all-inclusive.

Gay-activist attorneys say the presence of a few gays wouldn't keep
Scout officials from maintaining anti-gay views, since the vast majority
of scouting activities never involve discussions of sexuality or
politics. They say the issue isn't so much a group's right to
exclusivity--no one is arguing that the Ku Klux Klan must admit Jews--as
it is whether a group like the Boy Scouts, which generally welcomes
every boy, can claim that being anti-gay is part of its core values. (As
a practical matter, the N.A.A.C.P isn't worried: it has filed a brief
against the Scouts.)

But even if most scouts and their parents don't discuss homosexuality,
some care deeply about it. Opponents of gay equality--not just Scout
officials but also Fundamentalist Christian landlords who don't want
gays to move in, and conservative charitable groups that don't want to
serve gays--are increasingly using the First Amendment as a shield. At
the heart of these conflicts is this question: If all Americans must
eventually associate with gay people, even in a close-knit setting like
a Scout troop, how will some continue to express their contrary moral
views about gays?

James Dale, 29, walks into Florent, a hip French eatery near a
predominantly gay neighborhood in Manhattan. "Hi, Jaaaaames," coos
Bruce, the maitre d', as he leans over in his black leather pants to
kiss Dale, who has become something of a gay celebrity because of his
case. Later, as Dale slices into his medium-rare tuna steak and sips a
glass of Chardonnay, he seems a world away from S'mores over a campfire.

But Dale used to love all that stuff back in Middletown, N.J., where he
grew up and, at age 8, entered Pack 142 of the Cub Scouts. Then known as
James Dick--he understandably had the name changed--he became a model
scout, earning 30 merit badges as well as the coveted eagle scout rank.
He was on a first-name basis with the older men who ran scouting
locally, and he gladly gave speeches to civic groups extolling pinewood
derbies and asking for donations. According to the rules, scouts stop
being scouts at 18, but Dale quickly became an assistant scoutmaster.

Then he went to college at Rutgers, and it changed him. Dale, who had
attended a military high school and voted for George Bush three months
after his 18th birthday, got involved with left-wing campus groups,
according to acquaintances. He became a vegetarian and wore combat
boots. After he came out of the closet during his sophomore year, he was
elected co-president of the campus gay group.

The men from the Monmouth County Boy Scout Council might never have
known, since Dale didn't have much contact with them from college. But
on July 8, 1990, the Newark daily newspaper ran an earnest article about
the plight of "homosexual teenagers," of whom Dale was still one. He had
spoken at a conference on why gay teens commit suicide at high rates,
and his picture appeared, showing him gesticulating next to a lesbian
fellow student.

Yikes! thought the Scout councilmen, who revoked his Scout membership.
When Dale asked for an explanation, they said the Boy Scouts of America
"specifically forbid membership to homosexuals." Angry and sad--Dale had
hoped to be a scoutmaster after college--he brought his case to the main
gay legal organization, the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund,
which sued. Then in 1991 Dale gained solid legal footing when the New
Jersey legislature, in an unrelated move, added gays to the state's Law
Against Discrimination.

Today the crux of the Scouts' case against Dale is that he is a
"gay-rights activist" who won't be able to "communicate scouting's moral
values." In fact, it's difficult to imagine Dale sleeping in a tent at
all these days, much less inveighing against gays around a campfire.
Last summer, before his lawyers made him stop talking to reporters on
the record, Dale joked with one that he was happy not to have to wear
the uniform, "a cotton-poly blend." He lives in lower Manhattan and
works as ad director of POZ, a magazine about AIDS. He has dabbled in
modeling and appeared in January 1999 among the "OUT 100," a list of
influential people compiled by a gay magazine.

But if it is hard to imagine Dale's spreading the word that gay is bad,
his attorney, Evan Wolfson, says the Boy Scouts rarely convey that
message themselves. He says the Scouts have never taken a position on
homosexuality outside a court case. "The anti-gay view is never
communicated to any member," Wolfson says. "The freedom of association
turns on what brings members together. And scouting is not about
bigotry." (Interestingly, the Girl Scouts have an antidiscrimination
policy that is understood to forbid bias against lesbians--though Girl
Scout leaders aren't supposed to display their sexuality in any way.)

Boy Scouts attorney George Davidson protests that their anti-gay
position is "hardly under a rock," but he admits that if you check out
http://scouting.org, read the Boy Scout Handbook or go with your son to
a troop meeting, you'll hear nothing about gays. He also acknowledges
that, perversely, if they were more stridently anti-gay--if they were
the Boy Scouts of the K.K.K.--they would have a clearer First Amendment
claim that admitting gays would destroy everything they stand for.
"Look, if this were a business, the Boy Scouts would simply put a few
lines [of anti-gay rhetoric] in a corporate handbook and be done with
it," says Davidson, who usually defends major businesses.

So why not? Because the Boy Scouts are torn between competing sides in
the culture wars. One faction is composed of such sponsoring
institutions as schools and fire departments--more and more of which
have policies that prohibit discrimination against gays. Also part of
this faction are liberal religious groups that have filed a brief on
behalf of Dale, including committees from the United Methodist Church,
the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Religious Action Center
of Reform Judaism. Together members of this faction sponsor some 22,000
Scout units (roughly 20% of the total). If the Scouts became a fiercely
anti-gay group, many churches and schools would quickly drop them.
That's why the Scout oath is so mushy, requiring its takers to be
"morally straight," a term devised a century ago, before the word
"straight" had a sexual implication. Today, however, it is the term to
which scouting officials must point when asked for a statement of their
views on gays.

For some, the Scouts have already gone too far in being anti-gay. The
city of Chicago has battled the Scouts for more than four years. Its
Commission on Human Relations ruled in 1996 that the Scouts broke a city
ordinance when they barred former eagle scout Keith Richardson from
applying for a job because he is gay. The next year the American Civil
Liberties Union of Illinois sued Chicago itself for sponsoring 28 troops
of Explorers, a career-oriented Boy Scouts program for older youth. It
was the first time a chartering institution, rather than the Scouts, had
been sued. In 1998, the city relented and withdrew its sponsorship.

But the Boy Scouts of America headquarters in Irving, Texas, is
controlled by another faction in the debate, those for whom "morally
straight" definitely means sexually straight. In recent years, members
of the Mormon church have become a powerful force within scouting. Today
nearly 10% of the members of the Boy Scouts Advisory Council live in
Salt Lake City, Utah, home of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. The Latter-day Saints constitute less than 2% of the U.S.
population but 21% of the boys in the core Boy Scouts program, more than
any other group.

The Latter-day Saints have been instrumental in helping defeat pro-gay
initiatives in at least three states. In 1995 Jack Goaslind Jr., a
prominent church member who currently sits on the Scouts advisory
council, said the church "would withdraw our charter membership" if
scouting were required to admit gays. Moreover, in the Dale case, most
major conservative groups in the U.S., from the Family Research Council
to the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, have sided with the
Scouts.

But the most wrenching internal controversies for the Scouts have
involved gay boys, not gay leaders. Local scoutmasters routinely allow
boys who come out to remain in scouting, though if headquarters finds
out, locals risk losing their charter. In August a 16-year-old eagle
scout applied for a job at Camp Yawgoog, a Boy Scout retreat 30 minutes
west of Providence, R.I. Camp director Gary Savignano, reeling from a
recent pedophilia scandal, asked the boy if he was gay. When the boy
said yes, Savignano told him he couldn't have the job.

A sit-in ensued, and someone eventually pointed out that Rhode Island
has a law against anti-gay discrimination. The local Scout council
issued a statement offering the kid the job. But when the men at Scout
headquarters heard about the controversy, they had spokesman Gregg
Shields confirm that the boy can't be a scout if he is gay. The local
council quickly backtracked, reaching an uneasy compromise with
headquarters: the boy kept the job--and his scouting membership--but he
had to agree not to talk about being gay. Since then, the United Way and
other funders have been under pressure to stop donating to the Scouts.

Most such skirmishes are on hold as everyone waits for the Supreme
Court. In the meantime, the Boy Scouts try to remain an organization
where no one talks about homosexuality in an age when everyone talks
about it.

A STRAIGHT ALLY FOR GAYS
The Scouts' Worst P.R. Problem
In some ways Steven Cozza is a typical 15-year-old. He fidgets, likes to
wrestle and play soccer, and nearly dies when Mom brags that he was
voted freshman "King of Hearts." But Cozza is unusual in the way he left
the Boy Scouts. Often, guys his age--especially those who play four
sports and tip their hair blond--quit because they think scouting is for
dorks. Cozza left because, he says, "I was shocked that the Boy Scouts,
which are supposed to embrace the best in our country, are embracing the
worst: bigotry."

Cozza, who has been around his family's gay friends as long as he can
remember, was so upset that the Scouts exclude gays that he helped found
an organization meant to pressure the Scouts to change. The group,
Scouting for All, also tried to start its own troop, open to everyone
(even girls). National scouting headquarters said no. But because of
Cozza's credentials--he became an eagle scout at 14--and because
Scouting for All has become popular on the Web, he's one of the Scouts'
nastiest p.r. problems. He has appeared in newspapers around his
hometown of Petaluma, Calif., and has met with his Congresswoman,
Democrat Lynn Woolsey, to protest the Scouts. On April 30, Cozza is even
scheduled to speak at the gay march on Washington--a straight kid who
will be cheered by a sea of gay protesters.

Privately, some scouting officials allege that Cozza is the puppet of
his social-worker father and a family friend who was kicked out of the
Scouts. In fact, Scott Cozza, 46, endlessly publicizes Scouting for All.
(As his wife Jeanette notes, "Scott always did the boycott-grapes, Cesar
Chavez thing.") And the Scouts ejected friend Dave Rice, 70, a scout
leader for 50 years. Officials said he was preaching his pro-gay
politics to kids, which Rice denies.

But Steven Cozza speaks for himself just fine. When he's called a "fag"
because of his views, he says, he rolls his eyes. He adds, "Scouting is
a good organization. But this part has to change."


From this introduction to the case, we can now add the decision and the expected impact as noted by one author:

Court Says Boy Scouts Can Bar Gays

By LAURIE ASSEO
.c The Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Boy Scouts can bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, saying private groups have a right to associate with those who share their beliefs and ban those who don't.

The 5-4 decision said forcing the Scouts to accept gay troop leaders would violate the organization's rights of free expression and free association under the Constitution's First Amendment.

It wasn't immediately clear from the ruling whether it gave the Scouts permission to bar homosexual boys from membership.

``The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill,'' Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court. Requiring them to accept a gay scoutmaster ``would significantly burden the organization's right to oppose or disfavor homosexual conduct.''

The ruling reversed a New Jersey Supreme Court holding that the Scouts wrongly ousted assistant scoutmaster James Dale when the organization learned he is gay. The state court had said the scouts' action violated a New Jersey law banning discrimination in public accommodation.

Dale, who was an Eagle Scout, had sued the Scouts under the New Jersey law. But the Supreme Court said Wednesday that law must yield to the Scout organization's right of ``expressive association'' under the Constitution's First Amendment.

The American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative advocacy group that filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Boy Scouts, said the ruling ``will have a dramatic impact on all private organizations - including religious groups - to define their own mission and set their own criteria for leadership.''

The Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights organization, called the ruling a ``travesty of justice that may allow large, open membership groups to be above the law and evade state and local nondiscrimination laws.''

Rehnquist's opinion was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Dissenting were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Writing for the four, Stevens said the New Jersey law ``does not impose any serious burdens'' on the Boy Scouts' goals, ``nor does it force (the Boy Scouts) to communicate any message that it does not wish to endorse. New Jersey's law, therefore, abridges no constitutional right of the Boy Scouts.''

Dale was 19 and an assistant scoutmaster of a Matawan, N.J., troop when in 1990 he was identified in a newspaper article as co-president of a campus lesbian and gay student group at Rutgers University.

The Scouts' Monmouth Council revoked Dale's registration as an adult leader, telling him the organization does not allow openly gay members. Dale sued, contending the Scouts violated New Jersey's anti-discrimination law.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in his favor, saying the expulsion of Dale was based ``on little more than prejudice.''

During oral arguments in April, the Scouts' lawyer, George Davidson, said the group had a right ``to choose the moral leaders for the children in the program.''

The Scouts relied on a 1995 Supreme Court decision in which the justices let the private sponsor of the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade exclude a group of gays and lesbians, saying parades are a ``form of expression.''

Dale's lawyer, Evan Wolfson, said giving public accommodations the broad freedom to exclude people who do not match their message could swallow the civil rights laws.

Dale's attorneys cited Supreme Court decisions during the 1980s that let states force the Jaycees and Rotary International to admit women as full members. The court also let New York City bar large private clubs from discriminating against women and minorities.

Rehnquist's opinion said ``it appears that homosexuality has gained greater societal acceptance'' in recent times.

``But this is scarcely an argument for denying First Amendment protection to those who refuse to accept those views,'' the chief justice wrote. ``The First Amendment protects expression, be it of the popular variety or not.''

The Supreme Court has dealt with gay rights infrequently. In 1996, the justices struck down a Colorado measure that barred ordinances giving gays legal protection from discrimination, such as in housing or employment. But the court also has repeatedly turned away challenges to President Clinton's ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy on gays in the military.

Dale now lives in New York City and is advertising director for a magazine for people who are HIV-positive.

The case is Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 99-699.

On the Net: For current Supreme Court decisions: http://www.supremecourtus.gov or http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/

Right behind the decision came the first of many articles that tries to judge the impact of the decision:

JUNE 30, 17:39 EDT

Boy Scouts May Face Uncertain Future

By DAVID CRARY
AP National Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — The Boy Scouts of America
triumphed in their legal battle over gay scout leaders, but
the victory could prove costly.

Critics say the Scouts have squandered a reputation for
tolerance and face an erosion of public support.

``They're getting left behind where America is going,'' said
Matt Coles, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties
Union. ``People are going to turn to their local
governments and say, `This is a pack of bigots. Don't
give them special treatment.'''

He predicted that a nationwide movement — ``church by
church, business by business, town by town'' — will
gradually cut community ties with the Scouts and edge
them into the ranks of ideological, right-wing groups.

Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling — allowing the Scouts to retain membership and
leadership criteria that exclude avowed homosexuals — resulted from more than a decade of litigation. The Scouts never wavered during the dispute, insisting on the right to set their own standards in pursuit of character-building.

``Scouting's record of inclusion is impressive by any standard,'' the Scouts declared after the high court ruling. ``However, we do ask all our of members to do their best to live the Scout Oath and Law,'' which include pledges to revere God and be ``morally straight.''

The Scouts' policies have cost them financial support from several corporations, including jeans maker Levi Strauss & Co. Seven of the 1,400 United Way agencies nationwide have halted contributions, and several local governments have severed ties. The Scouts were removed from a list of charities that Connecticut state employees could support through payroll deductions.

However, Scouts spokesman Gregg Shields said the organization's funding has been stable, with new contributors offsetting the losses. He said Scout membership has risen 7 percent in the past three years to 6.2 million — ``the kind of growth we've not seen since the baby boom era.''

``For the past 20 years, we've made no secret of our policies,'' Shields said. ``We respect the right of all other Americans to hold different values than ours, and we ask to be granted the same respect.''

About 60 percent of Scout units are sponsored by churches. Among the three most active denominations in sponsoring Scout troops, the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches backed the Scouts in the gay-leaders dispute. The social policy board of the United Methodist Church, which sponsors more than 420,000 scouts, condemned the policy on gays as discriminatory.

Another religious organization, the Unitarian Universalist Association, has assailed the Scouts on two grounds: its stance toward homosexuals and its resistance to
accommodating atheists or agnostics.

``Many of us look to the Scouts to serve the function of civic education,'' said the Unitarian Universalists' president, the Rev. John Buehrens. ``That's the basis of their congressional charter and their access to public facilities. But if they are a now private organization with a homophobic standard, I believe those things ought to be called into question.''

Buehrens said he had fond memories of attending a Scout jamboree as a youth.

``It was one of my first experiences with the glorious diversity of humankind,'' he said. ``Now, for the Scouts to turn their back on an entire class of people, it's shameful.''

The Scouts' sympathizers believe the organization will emerge as strong as ever.
``Any money that has been lost has been more than made up by private supporters who are thrilled to see at least one major organization upholding what they see as traditional moral standards,'' said Patrick Reilly of the Capital Research Center in Washington. The center promotes charitable giving to conservative and pro-business causes. ``The Scouts get a lot of support from Christian churches, and clearly that will continue,'' Reilly said.

He predicted any attempt to demonize the Boy Scouts would backfire: ``To characterize the Scouts as far right is tantamount to categorizing apple pie as anathema to America. The Scouts are as American as you get.''

Yet critics note that other major national youth organizations, including the Girl Scouts, have opened their ranks to homosexuals.

The ACLU's Coles said the Scouts risk suffering a fate similar to that of the Daughters of the American Revolution, which lost stature and public support decades ago as it became identified with racial bias and conservative politics.

``The Scouts have allied themselves with an extreme minority view that is out of sync with America,'' Coles said. ``They can either abandon this policy in a couple of years or they can slowly dissolve into obscurity.''

Commentary by Richard Tryon:

Here is the crux of the problem:  The ACLU views sexuality and sexual activity as something that is amoral- that is it is not a moral issue! To their perspective it has nothing to do with morality as it is just a simple social or recreational pastime that should not be treated as an issue involving any behavioral constraint, as long as no participant claims any concern of loss of their individual freedom. To act otherwise is to engage in a form of bigotry! Indeed, from a simplistic one-dimensional perspective, to be opposed to any group makes you, by definition, guilty of bigotry!

From such a simplistic perspective now comes a raft of people that are taking the fight with such an attitude to the halls of those that make the Canon laws of the Church- or at least in the case of the Episcopal church.

Here is a letter I wrote to a priest on the subject:

“I would like to tackle the difficult issue of sexual preference- an issue that the Episcopal church seems now to be ready to use as part of its vital mission. That word ‘use’ is put in place advisedly! I am remembering our wonderful years of struggle with the prayer book, the hymnal and of course, ordination of women! Is it any wonder that we have driven away more than a few members that did not think that we needed to do all of those wonderful things? Did we add 10% new members by changing the language of the prayer book? Or the Hymnal? or by ordination of women? I doubt it, but then who cares, if we found new truth in the process?

I am not very certain that I could write much of a treatise to extol the above improvements regarding either language or music. I can applaud the advent of the arrival of a number of fine women into the group of ordained workers for Christ! Unfortunately, I am not sure that the total record of women is doing any better than that compiled by the males that have tried to give themselves to Christ! Maybe we need more simple fishermen and fewer who have degrees and confused morality?

That brings me to the morality of sexual preference in our church. Everything that I read and have experienced tells me that it is becoming more dangerous to encourage young boys or girls to try to serve as faithful helpers to members of the clergy, who have somehow either chosen or believe that they had no choice but to live a sexual life that requires attention to their genital parts by others of the same or opposite sex!
If we give clergy to think that they are to be tolerated in such matters because of their effort to achieve the taking of ‘Holy Orders’, are we doing so for the right reasons? Do we excuse so-called celibates for their inability to live up to this vow as being ok because it doesn’t matter much and that such crimes produce no victims? That is simply not possible. The victims do risk significant emotional danger, disease, and in some cases involving females and males- pregnancy!

All to often, it seems, that such persons have concluded that sexual activity, since it can not have a sacramental affect, or one that relates to the responsibility to procreate, that it must therefore be of no consequence. If it is only a pleasant recreational diversion, then it is no more important than to find a good bridge partner! But, I am not more impressed by men or women, who, while they seem to be limited to a more common heterosexual proclivity, nonetheless, seem to think nothing of sharing themselves with many different partners.This in spite of Biblical words that seem to auger against such.

Since my son has informed me that your congregation has offered itself and its facilities to a number of people in the same sex category as a place that accommodates them without any prejudice, I wonder if you have found any truths to share on the subject of my inquiry? Have you found in your pastoral care any insights to show that a large percentage of men and women who seem to prefer sexual partners of the same sex, work to create some kind of relationship that is closely akin to what we want to think of as the kind of marriage that we celebrate with the Holy Sacrament?

Or do even those who seem to be committed ‘till death do us part’, just want a legal way to share private property rights? Or do they see a change or trend that shows that Christianity is preparing a way to invent a church for them, where all such ‘birds of a feather’ can flock together? If so, do they want one church for both same sex partnerships? or separate ones for gays and lesbians?

Finally, if we can find in the rapid progress of decoding the genetic mystery of life, a way to change one or more genes to eliminate the same sex preferences, do these people, who are either afflicted or blessed with such an advantage, want to consider genetic alterations? Or are we approaching the time when separation of church and state has reached the point where sexual morality accepts anything between consenting parties and there are no stigmas or reasons to think about alternaties?

As a Boy Scout, I recall being sexually approached by both other scouts and even a Scout Master. I rebuffed them all without difficulty or personal damage of any type known to my psyche. I suppose we can learn to accept that those who seek such pleasure try harder to find new fresh partners and come to accommodate the idea that our grand children should learn to expect more of this from their church, school and scouting leaders. After all, they may discover that they like it better than they expected, based upon the biased opinions of those that capture them. Keep in mind, that especially among the males of the species, testosterone tends to generate a greater urge to find a sex partner than is typically found among most, but not all, females. I never had a female authority person approach me sexually- only males! I do not know if many predatory females go looking for either males or females; but I do know that young males respond to testosterone in a more predictable manner.

Last, but not least, how do you see the Episcopal Church dealing with the fact that I believe I have observed from personal experience, that shows that some priests prefer little boys or girls of the same sex (and perhaps in a greater measure in terms of overt effort than that displayed by the philandering heterosexual priest of either sex?

Well, you can see from the above that I have asked a lot of questions. I do not know if you have any answers, but I suspect that your chances to observe, listen, and report are greater than those enjoyed by most of us.

Perhaps you can point me to some more learned papers that are circulated within the official church family that are designed to prepare the way for our next major Episcopal Revelation?”

The letter was not answered in two months (as of Jan., 2000) and one doubts that it will be answered, for indeed it can not be answered with any more than a simplistic recital of civil rights. It may be coupled with a notion that biological needs are driven by genetic combinations that make any alternative life style acceptable!

Now comes the list of earlier noted questions and the biggest one of all to follow. First to repeat the list:

Is sexuality somehow related to a part of the human relationship between homosexuals any different than that between heterosexuals? Does it matter if it is part of a committed monogamous relationship or a polygamous one? Does exercise of sexual activity relate to any law of behavior directed from some higher being or power than humankind? Or is it only an innocuous recreational sport to be allowed in any form as long as no party is compelled to engage without free choice? Is rape only a crime when force is involved by one party or another?

The larger question of course, is to wonder if God exists, and if so, did this entity have any influence upon the creation of genetic codes that we have recently begun to decipher? In a Godless world, which is perhaps the ultimate goal of the ACLU and of Civil liberties in general, the evolution of genetic codes has no relationship to any higher authority than its own, as long as the Supreme Court supports it! If you are already accepting such, then your life can not be fulfilled until you know that such an understanding is both the law of the land and the conviction of all people on it.

On the other hand, if you tend to think in the ways of that old tradition that puts one power above all others invented by mankind, then you may need to start speculating on how genetic codes have come to be able to generate significant differences in sexual behavior? Are such differences all acceptable; or is there a reason to accept some and reject others?

Many authors since those of biblical times have examined this subject but few of the ancients found any way to write of any understanding of man and women regarding sexuality save in two ways: The ways of men and women that treated sexuality as a part of responsible marriage in accordance with the laws as stated in the Old Testament and updated by the New Testament for Christians, found all other sexual activity to be of no positive value and most other sexual ideas were seen as being aberrant and/or sinful. Specific restrictions are not hard to find about adultery, sodomy, rape and premarital sexual intercourse of any type. All other major world religions share similar views, although some have accepted such practices as female sex organ mutilation or looked upon prostitution as an honorable trade.

But, we have not considered a very large segment of mankind- that part that has no appreciation or recognition of religion; or at least of it having anything to do with sexual practices, no matter what the records or books of any church might seem to indicate. In a very real sense such persons are simply outside of the envelope of those who give any time at all to consider sex as having anything to do with morality, for they do not understand the word ‘morality’ and are simply ‘amoral’ animals. There is no evidence to suggest that all mankind is able to think about so-called moral issues.

How then do we excuse, control or educate to any other position except to simply know that this amoral group are only going to respond to laws of power that are acceptable to them. It may be consistent with the ACLU or not- this group does not care for it does not understand the meaning of the word morality.

A second group does exist that does understand the meaning of the word, but it refuses to accept any moral dictate about sexuality simply because it fails to recognize or know of any moral authority that gives it reason to pause and think about sex as having any moral dimension.

A third group moves a little further up the scale towards a thinking position. It allows that the issue is a proper one for a moral person to consider; but it finds no valid authority or line of reason sufficient to overcome the desire or conviction to live an amoral life, at least from the standpoint of dealing with sexuality.

The next group claims to be able to make moral judgments and wants to convince itself and others that its logic is more acceptable than that of any other group that takes a contrary position. Perhaps this group is the largest in America, who knows?

It is only clear that the last group is shrinking in size. This is the group that sees sexuality as being related to a God and Commandments that deal with moral behavior. Its basic understanding, however, is based upon articles of faith, supported by somewhat flimsy logic and notions of tradition that may seem somewhat suspect, even to people in this group.

How then can we construct a more meaningful understanding of the key questions and lay the ground work for a better civilization?

At one extreme we might study and come to the conclusion that all of the thinking and writings of the past failed to understand the new logic of modern genetics. It may lead us to social programs in schools to test for social preferences.

At the other extreme we must search for an understanding of the same genetic details and wonder if we should be tinkering with them to achieve a positive social end? Do we want to see a future world with a 200 year longevity of the individual where the food supply is adequate because we have engineered a sufficient level of homosexuals as to avoid over population? Leave just enough heterosexuals to maintain the population?

These questions will take some real research to find answers unless we can find a strong evidence to support the best parts of the ancient preferences.

In the meantime, how can a loving, heterosexual, and monogamous couple expect to raise children, if the state is driven by the ACLU thinking? Worse yet, what do they do when their church calls for sexual diversity as a hallmark of modern Christian thinking?

This group can try to create its own ethnic world within the family and hope to find others of like mind and just pray that somehow their children will not fall prey to those who openly claim to have a superior understanding of the subject of sexuality; or it can get involved in a search for ways to help educate themselves and others as to why fornication, adultery, and homosexual activity can be avoided. Perhaps it is equally necessary to find ways to adjust genetic codes, if any can be found that deal with the subject in ways that are found to be constructive. Of course, the militant members of any sexual minority group will contend that no adjustment is needed or desired! All we can do with such is to be tolerant of their determination to defend or proclaim their position to be a free choice thing as part of the age of entitlements!

So, we can not expect a state that tests for and orders genetic repairs, even if found to be possible. But, can we make such available to parents for their children? Or is it the purpose of the state to deny such? Wonder how the ACLU will handle this one? Will Congress permit genetic repairs of the fetus, child or adult to ward off life threatening disease or structural loss of vital organs in an embryo, but deny any tinkering with genes thought to be dealing with mental process or sexual preference? Should a male that is missing the gene to make testosterone be allowed to get it?

What contributions can individuals make to the study of this subject?