LIBEL by New York Times

by J. Edward Pawlick

Reserve Yours Now!

January 2004 - Letters to the Editor

Get Your Facts Straight on Homosexuals

Story that inspired letter Dean Still Believes in "Gay Gene"

To the Editor:

   Before criticizing others for their inaccurate statements, as you did for Dr. Howard Dean in your news analysis, perhaps you should get your facts "straight" (all puns intended) first.

   You see, you stated that the idea of a gay gene "was totally discredited by 1999," which is entirely false. Although no one has been able to replicate Hamer's research on the specific genetic area that Hamer thought housed the gay gene, there is still plentiful evidence of a genetic/biological process behind the formation of all sexuality - homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality. More importantly, your attempt to discredit Dr. Hamer by stating he is a homosexual "activist," when he is simply a homosexual scientist (whose work came out in 1993, by the way, NOT 1973), is laughable. Apparently when gay people provide information or research into our own lives, we are not to be believed.

   From studies of twins (in which homosexuality shows the exact same pattern as left-handedness, but with a stronger genetic component) to physical characteristics that differ between gays and straights and birth order effects (the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay, the more gay male relatives on his mother's side, the more likely he is to be gay), there is copious evidence that homosexuality is a naturally occuring human variant, and absolutely NO evidence that it is a choice.

   But as the truth makes it too difficult to hate gay people, you simply slander us by calling the scientific evidence of our humanity and normacy as "propaganda" and "misinformation."

   Oh, and a lot of homosexuals have contributed to Dr. Dean's campaign - after all, he actually thinks we are human beings, as opposed to your staff. Your apparent bigotry and nastiness make me reluctant to call myself a Bay Stater (I was born and raised there).

William F. Tulloch
Washington, DC

Editor's Response:

   If you still lived here in Massachusetts, you would understand that I have no hatred at all for homosexuals. When I still owned Lawyers Weekly, I had homosexuals at important positions because they were good, capable people. However, that did not change my belief that theirs was a foolish lifestyle that never led anyone to fulfillment or happiness and was not good for our society. I do not believe we should change the basic structure of our society for 3% of the population. I still receive Christmas cards from those friends. Actually, my experience shows that most homosexuals would change if they felt they could. The high amount of drugs used also appears to verify that. This is a highly compulsory and addictive lifestyle that is difficult to break once begun.

   Please read the original article I wrote in 1998 after reading the Matthew Shepard legend started by Pinch Sulzberger, Chairman of the New York Times. (Search our archives for "An Intelligent Discussion About Homosexuality.") Upon researching the Matthew Shepard legend, I expected to find some hate out there. I found none. Every legitimate Christian organization was expressing concern and love, not hate.

   Despite what you say, there is no longer anyone who accepts a gene theory for sexuality. The most interesting work, nowadays, is being done by Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist who was responsible in 1973 for removing homosexuality from the "disordered" list. His research is now showing that many, not all, can and do change. Of course, they must have the desire in order to do so. The study of twins is interesting but not conclusive in any way. This frantic rush to change our culture indicates that there really is no belief in a gay gene and the militants want to do this quickly before there is a chance to learn the truth..

  It is interesting that you agree that Howard Dean is getting money from "a lot" of homosexuals. I would bet that most of his money has been coming from there. You did correct our typo of "1973" to "1993." Thank you.

When Americans reflect back on the year 2003, they should ask how much
more judicial fiat can our democracy endure. Last year, and starting
again this year, high courts and overzealous activist judges across the
land have overstepped constitutional boundaries into the purview of our
state and federal legislatures. In several sensational cases, our U.S.
Supreme Court, Federal Courts and some state Supreme Courts violated the
separation of the powers between the branches of government; a trend that
looks like it will continue well into 2004 and beyond -- final
destination unknown.

First, we have a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court out of Michigan,
which legalizes preferential treatment for one group over another in
determining admissions to graduate level programs. Then the Court ruled
on a case out of Texas to abolish all laws prohibiting sodomy between or
among consenting adults. And then came the same-sex marriage ruling in
November in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court became the
first in the country to rule that its state constitution guarantees
same-sex couple the right to marry, giving the Legislature six months to
enact news laws.

Other state Supreme and U.S. District Courts have fallen prey to the
arrogant use of public office too. Just last week in Concord New
Hampshire a federal judge struck down New Hampshire law requiring
parental notice before a minor could get an abortion, the state attorney
general said Tuesday. The state will appeal the decision to the 1st
U.S. Circuit Court in Boston. The state's Attorney General, Peter Heed
remarked, "... the 1st Circuit has not had a chance to weigh in on the
issue and we think they deserve that opportunity."

Similar cases striking down parental consent laws occurred in Florida and
Colorado last year. The Florida Supreme Judicial Court abolished its
law, stating it violated privacy rights guaranteed under their
constitution. In Denver, a Federal Appeals Court ruled the Colorado law
was unconstitutional because it provided no exceptions for health
emergencies. These landmark decisions now establish the legal standard
that a minor's right to privacy outweighs a parent's right to know, which
is not consistent with other medical procedures requiring parental
consent. The new laws obstruct parental responsibility in the sacred
realm of the family.

We should be concerned about the far-reaching influence on our society
that high courts unilaterally assume. Our judicial apparatus is
dismantling the role of our legislatures at the state and federal level,
depriving citizens of their due and a more optimal democratic
representation. By design, high courts should concern themselves only in
matters of "great public interest" when and if justice demands. Their
function is based under the laws presented to them by Congress and from
the constitutions of our government, and should not come as a result of a
handful of judges personal perceptions of current and future societal
norms.

Our high courts, in their practice of judicial activism, have indeed
weakened the American democracy. Some justices on these courts behave as
though they are the ultimate voice. We did not request, nor are they
legally empowered to be omnipotent social engineers. These courts must
exercise much more restraint and maturity. Yet, because of some judges'
insatiable appetite to expeditiously alter people's lives, traditions and
principles, they have usurped the role of elected representatives,
denying us our civil liberties and rights.

Their actions have also deprived us of open and candid discourse and
debate. Much of the decision making is being accomplished behind closed
doors without vigorous public dialogue and debate, which is essential to
our existence as a strong nation and democratic model for the rest of the
world. Let us not forget, history has forewarned us of the destructive
nature of being a nation of men rather than Laws.

Millions of Americans will struggle far into the future with the chaos
created by our high courts. We ought to be deeply troubled by what is
occurring. If we do not work to stop our high courts from propagating
social policies through judicial activism and social engineering, our
nation will become further divided, and our citizens more detached,
removed and ignorant.

We must unite to reclaim our rights and our will as a people. Please
join with other concerned citizens to help preserve and protect America's
form of Democratic Republic.

Marshall Moriarty, Chairperson
Baystate Republican Council
(A Massachusetts based organization)
www.gop-brc.com