American Universities Promoting Pedophilia, Oh My!

Penn State was rocked by the revelation thatGerald A. “Jerry” Sandusky, a pedophile, was never exposed over a period of 20 years while engaged in blatant gay acts with boys on campus and while head of The Second Mile, a foster home where according to the Grand Jury report, “he found his victims”. Americans were shocked at the firing of Joe Paterno when it was revealed that he and the Pennsylvania State University took no action against Sandusky.

This most recent case of an American university’s involvement in sheltering a pedophile demands answers to three key questions:

1. Has pedophilia been promoted on other college campuses, and if so by whom?
2. Is research done at American universities used to promote deviant sexual behaviors including pedophilia?
3. Is the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Transgender (GLBT) community promoting pedophilia?

Has pedophilia been promoted on other college campuses, and if so by whom?

Pedophilia and other deviant sexual behaviors have been studied and then promoted by Indiana University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Texas and Harvard University.

The prominent members of the faculty at each of these premier American universities who have promoted deviant sexual behaviors including pedophilia are: Indiana University Zoology Professor Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey, Fred Berlin, M.D., Ph.D., founder, National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma and founder, Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic, Renee Sorentino of Harvard Medical School, John Sadler of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. I add to this list John Breslow of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

It all began when Indiana University Zoologist Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey shocked the nation in 1948 with the publication ofSexual Behavior in the Human Male, followed in 1953 by Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. The GLBT community and its supporters even today draw heavily from Kinsey.

Is research done at American universities used to promote deviant sexual behaviors including pedophilia?

In her March 30, 1998 Insight magazine article titled, “Q: Should state funding of the Kinsey Institute’s sexual research end?” Beverly R. Newman states, “Kinsey’s pernicious and fallacious dogma, pervasive in our [American] schools, courts and professions, is poison to children.” How prophetic these words are given the Sandusky Scandal. Newman addresses the “controversial claims” of Kinsey. According to Newman, “What are those controversial claims? The most far-reaching is that children naturally are given to initiating sexual acts and virtually all forms of sexual behavior should be acknowledged as normal and tolerated.”

Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., in her book, “Sexual Sabotage: How one Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion of America” analyzed the impact of Kinsey’s “research”. Reisman notes, “Kinsey states it very clearly’, said [American psychiatrist] Charles Socarides, MD, ‘That all types of sexual activity -  sex with the opposite sex, sex with the same sex, sex with both sexes, sex with children, sex with whips and chains, fisting sex, sex with animals – any kind of sex was normal and common.”

This view of sexuality is totally embraced by the GLBT community and their supporters.

“Kinsey’s ‘work’ regarding the sexuality of teenagers, pre-adolescent children, and infants is horrifying. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female provide abundant evidence of child sexual torture by Kinsey’s ‘researchers’, who engaged in brutal, sexual experiments on children. This ‘work’ is critically important to the effects of the Kinsey reports on our society, our laws, and the Kinsey lobby today,” states Reisman.

Is the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Transgender (GLBT) community promoting pedophilia?

According to Fred Berlin, M.D., Johns Hopkins University, “Individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward children manifest the same range of personality, temperamental, and character traits as individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward adults. A recent Journal article documented that the vast majority of individuals with pedophilia showed no evidence of either antisocial or narcissistic personality disorder. It may be no easier for a person with pedophilia to change his or her sexual orientation than it is for a homosexual or heterosexual individual to do so.” [My emphasis]

The organization B4U-ACT sponsored its summer 2011 Symposium in Baltimore on August 17, 2011, which was attended by pro-pedophile activists and mental health professionals including Dr. Berlin. The conference examined the ways in which “minor-attracted persons” could be involved in a revision of the American Psychological Association (APA) classification of pedophilia.

B4U-ACT classifies pedophilia as simply another sexual orientation and decries the “stigma” attached to pedophilia. B4U-ACT science director Howard Kline has criticized the definition of pedophilia by the American Psychological Association, describing its treatment of “minor-attracted persons” as “inaccurate” and “misleading.”

B4U-ACT according to its website was established in 2003 as a 501(c)(3) organization with the following purposes:

To publicly promote services and resources for self-identified individuals (adults and adolescents) who are sexually attracted to children and seek such assistance,

To educate mental health providers regarding the approaches helpful for such individuals,

To develop a pool of providers in Maryland who agree to serve these individuals and abide by B4U-ACT's Principles and Perspectives of Practice, and

To educate the citizens of Maryland regarding issues faced by these individuals.

According to LifeSiteNews.com, "Speakers addressed the around 50 individuals in attendance on themes ranging from the notion that pedophiles are ‘unfairly stigmatized and demonized’ by society to the idea that ‘children are not inherently unable to consent’ to sex with an adult. Also discussed were arguments that an adult’s desire to have sex with children is ‘normative’ and that the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) ignores the fact that pedophiles ‘have feelings of love and romance for children’ in the same way adult heterosexuals and homosexuals have romantic feelings for one another."

B4U-ACT is a pro-GLBT organization.

It is clear that Penn State is not an anomaly. Rather it represents the logical outcome of the false research, which began with Kinsey, and continues today under Berlin, Sorentino, Sadler and others. The mainstreaming of the GLBT lifestyles has naturally been extended to pedophiles and pederasts. While all gays are not pedophiles, it can be logically concluded that all pederasts fit neatly into a gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender category.

Voltaire warned, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

---

NOTE

I just received an e-mail from Dr. Judith Reisman, who is quoted in this column. She gave me permission to post it. Here are Dr. Reisman's remarks:

Pederasty is male to boy abuse versus pedophilia which is commonly heterosexual abuse of a child. So, in that sense, the problem isn’t pedophilia but indeed pederasty. In either case the term is medicalized and incorrect since there is no love of the boy or the child, just selfish exploitation. Moreover, it’s not “intercourse” but sodomy. One must destigmatize language before we can destigmatize the actions.

So, yes, it’s a “gay” problem of pederasty, boy abuse, commonly including exploitive and disease oriented oral and anal sodomy of the boy victim.

Indeed, the issue here is Kinsey’s norming promiscuity, adultery, etc., and sex with children, period.

That abusers are bi, homo, tri, quad, bestial, as well as “straight,” etc., is expected when a society has come to believe, and to teach in almost every schoolroom for decades, that children are unharmed by, even benefit from, sex with oneself, each other, as well as older persons of same or opposite sex.

Respectfully,

Judith

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pederast
Origin: 1720–30; < Greek paiderastḗs lover of boys, equivalent to paid- (stem of paîs ) boy, child + erastḗs lover, equivalent to eras-, stem of erân to love + -tēs agent noun suffix.

Bullying hysteria may cause suicides, not prevent them

America's public schools, colleges and universities have fully embraced the anti-bullying campaign as the key to protect gay students on their campuses. The Family Research Council has discovered that this anti-bullying campaign may be the proximate cause of suicides in our youth. The unexpected outcome of this program, instituted by Kevin Jennings the founder of GLSEN, has caused our youth to commit suicide.

 

Please read this column courtesy of the Family Research Council and appearing in LifeSiteNews.com:

 

Ever since the highly-publicized suicide of a New Jersey college student in September of 2010, pro-homosexual activists have been using the issues of bullying and teen suicide as tools in pursuit of their political agenda, and as rhetorical weapons against those who oppose it. Every time another report surfaced about a suicide by a teenager who identified as or was perceived to be “gay,” and who had reportedly been bullied, the finger would be pointed directly at conservatives. Bullying causes suicides, we were told, and public expression of conservative political, social, or religious viewpoints concerning homosexuality causes bullying. Affirm homosexual conduct as morally neutral, or more kids will die.

 

As early as October of 2010, however, experts on suicide prevention were warning that this simplistic approach linking suicides (which are always tragic) to bullying (which is always wrong) could do more harm than good. An article based on an interview with Ann Haas, research director for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, asked, “[W]hat if the way we’re talking about these suicides could actually be encouraging vulnerable young people to copycat the tragic behavior?”

 

A year later, a commentary last month on the website of The Advocate, the nation’s leading “gay” magazine, finally admitted that this is a serious problem. David McFarland is “interim executive director and CEO” of The Trevor Project, which runs a suicide prevention hotline for “LGBT” youth. McFarland cited the political and cultural “benefit from showcasing the health crisis of disproportionate rates of suicide and incidences of bullying that affect LBGT young people.” However—in an astonishing admission—he also acknowledged that “this tactic has also increased suicide risk.”

 

Got that? Here is a pro-homosexual activist admitting that “this tactic” (“showcasing . . . suicide and . . . bullying”) “has also increased suicide risk” (emphasis added).

 

There are three key problems with the “bullying causes suicide” theme. The first is that it ignores most of what we know about the causes of suicide. McFarland acknowledges gently that “the reasons a person attempts suicide are . . . complicated,” and notes that “suicide is closely tied to psychological well-being.” Haas was more blunt, indicating to the reporter that “underlying mental-health issues . . . are present in 90 percent of people who die by suicide.” In other words, most people who are bullied do not commit suicide. It is mental illness—not bullying—that causes most suicides.

 

However, the second problem with emphasizing the link between bullying and suicide is that, as McFarland states, “it can influence someone who is at-risk to assume that taking your own life is what you’re supposed to do next if you are LGBT or bullied.” Haas made the same point a year ago, warning that publicly identifying bullying as a motive for suicide can “mak[e] suicide seem like an understandable, if not unavoidable, culmination of a person’s experience.” She added, “Suicide is not a rational act.” McFarland makes the same point, declaring that “we can help avoid making suicide appear like a logical choice.”

 

The third problem, which flows out of the second, is what McFarland refers to as “suicide contagion.” He warns that “the more a story of a particular victim is out there, the more likely one or more people who are at-risk will also attempt suicide.” Haas warned, “Stories depicting the person who’s died by suicide as very sympathetic can inadvertently encourage vulnerable young people to identify with him or her.” In other words, being revered as a martyr in death can appear more attractive than experiencing continuing pain in life.

 

We should do all we can to help young people with mental illness—whether homosexual or heterosexual—and to prevent teen suicides. And we should do all we can to prevent bullying of any child—for their sexual orientation, appearance, religion, or any other reason. But it is time for homosexual activists to stop exploiting personal tragedies to advance their political agenda—especially in a way that may cause more such tragedies.

 

Reprinted with permission from the Family Research Council.

Ripping Our Society to Shreds

There was a time when civil rights were understood to mean those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Now, at least in the State of Massachusetts, they mean the right of homosexuals and transgender people to flaunt their lifestyle anywhere, any time. If you don’t like it and say so, the police can arrest you.

I have always been a live-and-let-live kind of person. I consider a person’s sexual preferences to be their own business. No longer. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender crowd is determined to impose their sexual “orientations” on everyone, starting in, but not limited to schools.

On November 16, the Massachusetts legislature pushed through a controversial “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes” bill. The whole process was so unethical as to be breathtaking. In two hours, the bill went from committee release to re-write, to a late-night House vote and early-morning Senate final passage. The Senate, unlike the House, passed it by voice vote to avoid a roll call to identify who supported it. 

Wham, bam, thank you Maam. 

Apparently, in Massachusetts the proper review, discussion, and passage of legislation only applies to those laws not favored by its homosexual lobby.

As MassResistance, a pro-family group, noted, “Its passage appears to be timed to coincide with ‘Transgender Awareness Week’ in Massachusetts.” Since when did that State or any other get to the point of having such absurd events? Since when have we reached a point where any spoken objection to Gay Pride parades or similar events can be deemed a crime? It’s not a crime. It’s free speech. 

MassResistance noted that Governor Deval Patrick “a strong supporter of homosexual and transgender movements will sign the bill within days. The only Republican in the state legislature to vote for the bill was Rep. Dan Winslow who just happens to have been former Gov. Romney’s chief legal counsel and is credited with facilitating gay marriages in Massachusetts. 

Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is the union of a man with a woman. To redefine this institution, central to all societies, is to shred the bonds and standards on which society is based. What we have learned, however, is that homosexuals are not content with being granted civil unions with rights comparable to marriage. 

The arrogance this represents is appalling, but the implications of the homosexual and transgender lobby’s efforts have far greater implications for everyone, but especially for families who do not want their children exposed to “choices” they are too young to understand and which their parent’s faith or beliefs disapprove. These matters do not belong in a school curriculum.

Making homosexuality “mainstream” and doing so by force of law runs counter to common community values that Americans have held since the nation’s founding. Exercising tolerance is one thing, but facing jail for any act of disapproval is quite another. 

Who defines a “hate crime” and when did America begin to criminalize thought, as opposed to action? The answer is that hate crime legislation is the invention of the gay lobby.

Now, for your edification, here is the actual text of Section 7 of chapter 4 as amended by the following clause:

“Fifty-ninth, "Gender identity" shall mean a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth. Gender-related identity may be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held, as part of a person's core identity; provided however, gender-related identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose.”

So, are we to assume that anyone can claim “gender identify” any time someone objects to the way they dress or behave in school, at work, or in any public place? This opens the door to a lot of cross-dressing and other folks who want to pursue their lifestyle no matter what affect it has on others. 

These are not women. They are cross-dressing men

who got together at Capone's Restaurant, Peabody, MA

Source: Massresistance.org

A case in point. In 2010, Capone’s Restaurant in Peabody, Massachusetts tossed out a group of men dressed as women who were upsetting its customers and even using the woman’s restrooms. When the new law goes into effect, the restaurant will be subject to fines, as would be its customers if found guilty of trying to “intimidate” them with their reaction to their presence.

This isn’t about gender. It isn’t about intolerance. It isn’t about civil rights. It is about the all-out assault on the rights of the majority heterosexual society to assert commonly held values regarding sexually-related behavior as it affects society as a whole..

© Alan Caruba, 2011

Poster of the Week

Need we say more? This is from an Occupy Wall Street protester.

Gay Marriage is an equality to far!

Courtesy of LifeSiteNews.com:

MANCHESTER, October 24, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Christian property manager in England has been demoted, taken a £14,000/year pay cut and narrowly avoided the sack for commenting on Facebook that Christian churches should not be forced to participate in same-sex union ceremonies.

54-year-old Adrian Smith was declared by a tax-funded housing trust to be guilty of “gross misconduct” after he called allowing same-sex ceremonies in churches “an equality too far” in a Facebook comment thread.

54-year-old Adrian Smith was found guilty of "gross misconduct" by The Trafford Housing Trust.

Writing on his own Facebook page, which was not accessible to anyone other than his Facebook friends, Smith had responded to a BBC news item about a controversial new law that would allow churches to conduct same-sex union ceremonies. Asked if his comment meant that he did not approve of the proposed law, Smith wrote, “No, not really. I don’t understand why people who have no faith and don’t believe in Christ would want to get hitched in church.

“The Bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women. If the State wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.”

The trust summoned Smith from home to a disciplinary meeting after another staff member complained. The Trafford Housing Trust, (THT) which manages homes in Sale, Greater Manchester, removed Smith from his managerial position that paid £35,000 per year, reemploying him as a £21,000/ year “adviser.”

With legal help from the Christian Institute, Smith is suing, saying the trust breached its contract by violating his rights to free speech and religious liberty.

The trust made a statement to the BBC, saying that its updated code of conduct “clearly set out what use employees can make of social networking sites such as Facebook.”

“Some three months after this new code was issued, Mr. Smith, without our authority or knowledge and on a Facebook page that identified him as a manager at Trafford Housing Trust, made comments that were found, by a full disciplinary investigation in which he had trade union representation, to be in breach of the company’s code of conduct and other policies.

“Mr. Smith was disciplined for his breach of company policy. The trust made no comment about any personal beliefs that he holds.”

Smith’s lawyer, Tom Ellis of Manchester-based law firm Aughton Ainsworth, said that Smith was “shocked and distressed” over the incident.

“As a Christian, Adrian believes in the values of fairness, courtesy and respect for the opinions of others. These are the values of a mature and healthy society.

“Surely that leaves room for colleagues to discuss and even disagree about the topics of the day. Conversations like that happen in offices and factories up and down the country every day.”

The incident has aroused outrage among some of the UK’s popular newspaper columnists, even on the left. Ally Fogg, a columnist for the Guardian newspaper, noted that Smith had “politely expressed some relatively mild views” on the issue. “If the trust was concerned about its reputation for inclusiveness and tolerance, it couldn’t have got things more badly wrong,” Fogg wrote.

Move from Homosexuality to Heterosexuality possible and Harmless

Courtesy of David Prudent from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH):

Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible, Harm Unlikely, according to New Evidence of Long-Term Outcomes

Reviewed by Christopher H. Rosik, Ph.D.

(October, 2011) The best-designed study of sexual-orientation change efforts (SOCE) to date, has just concluded in a follow-up report that some people can indeed move from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that harm is unlikely to result from such efforts.

The original study was published in 2007 by Stanton Jones, Ph.D., of Wheaton College, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., of Regent University, in their book, “Ex-Gays?”. The follow-up study has just appeared in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy.

In the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, the authors conclude:

Evidence from the study suggested that change of homosexual orientation appears possible for some and that psychological distress did not increase on average as a result of the involvement in the change process” (Jones & Yarhouse, 2011, p. 404).

Study methods

The authors followed 98 individuals (72 men and 26 women) who undertook SOCE through the assistance of a variety of  Christian ministries over a period of 6-7 years. The authors’ motivation for conducting this study was, in part, that the American Psychological Association had gone on the record indicating that change in sexual orientation was not possible, and that risks to those who engage in such efforts could be significant.

The authors note that the APA has moderated its viewpoint somewhat since then, fluctuating between statements that sexual-orientation change is “uncommon,” to the view that science “cannot yet” make conclusive statements about such change from the available literature.

The rigor of their own research standards, Jones and Yarhouse indicate, in fact meets many of the requirements that the APA itself has asserted are necessary in order to make reasonably definitive conclusions about the actuality of such change.

Participants in the Jones-Yarhouse study were first assessed at the beginning of their involvement in SOCE (from 1-3 years); again at 3 years, and again at the 6-7 year mark. Findings from the first two assessments were published earlier in the book, Ex-Gays? (2007).

Standardized and widely accepted measures of sexual orientation and psychological distress were administered at each assessment period. At the final time of assessment, attrition had reduced the available sample to 64%, which is not unusual for longitudinal studies.

Study findings

The results after 6-7 years of SOCE involvement, presented below, indicate that change does indeed occur, although not for
everyone.

• Success: Conversion:  23% (n = 14) of the sample reported substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and subsequent conversion to heterosexual attractions and functioning.
• Success: Chastity: 30% (n = 18) reported that homosexual attraction was still present, but only incidentally or in a way that did not seem to bring distress, allowing them to live contentedly without overt sexual activity.
• Continuing: 16% (n = 10) reported modest decreases in homosexual attraction, but were not satisfied with their degree of change and remained committed to the change process.
• Nonresponse: 7% (n = 4) reported no significant sexual orientation change; they had not given up on the change process, but some were confused or conflicted about which direction to turn next.
• Failure: Confused: 5% (n = 3) reported no significant sexual orientation change, and had given up on the change process, but without yet embracing a gay identity.
• Failure: Gay identity: 20% (n = 12) had given up on the change process and embraced a gay identity.

Jones and Yarhouse observed that from the point-of-view of the ministries involved in their study, 53% of the sample therefore had self-categorized as achieving “some version of success,” and 25% had self-categorized as failure.

As regards harm, the study participants on average did not report experiencing harm due to SOCE during the course of their pursuit of change.  In fact, two of the indicators of psychological distress actually improved significantly over the time of the study.

Discussion

Jones and Yarhouse conclude that “the findings of this study appear to contradict the commonly expressed view that sexual orientation is not changeable” (p. 425).  and that attempts to change are not likely to be harmful.

While the authors believe their research clearly contradict the pessimism regarding SOCE that has been promulgated by the APA, they do acknowledge that their study has limitations.

First, the average change in sexual orientation was modest, although they noted that this is likely to be an artifact of average change scores including some participants who made dramatic shifts away from homosexual orientation and fewer participants who reported dramatic shifts to a gay identity.  In other words, the dramatic changes toward heterosexual response clearly made by some participants may have been offset by changes toward homosexual response in others, so that the overall average change in sexual orientation for the sample appeared to be modest.

Second, participants who had begun the change process prior to the start of the study appeared to have disproportionately positive outcomes compared to participants inducted into the study early in their pursuit of change.  This may indicate that some weeding-out of individuals who were not successful in changing sexual orientation occurred in the time between the onset of pursuit of change and the initial collection of data.  Although there is no way to know this for sure, Jones and Yarhouse imply that it is probably wise to view their study’s success rate for the change process undertaken in Christian ministries as a somewhat optimistic figure.

A third limitation is the relatively small sample size, which makes any generalization of these findings to the population of individuals pursuing SOCE tentative.  That said, the size of the sample is not uncommon in the longitudinal research that has been widely accepted as representative of samples in other subject domains.  Finally, the authors note that, given the study design, it was not possible to determine which components of the participants’ change process were responsible for the outcomes reported.

Comment

No doubt this study will be dismissed by skeptics who for ideological reasons remain dogmatically unwilling to acknowledge the reality of sexual orientation change in some people. However, Jones and Yarhouse’s study of SOCE should go a long way toward putting to rest two extreme positions:  i.e., that change always occurs and is simply a choice, or that change never occurs and is generally harmful.

It is also worth remembering that this study did not examine SOCE’s  that occur in the context of psychotherapy.  The subjects in this study received their counseling in Christian ministries. It is certainly within the realm of plausibility that the inclusion of professional psychological care, over and above participants’ involvement in Christian ministries, would increase positive outcomes.

The hallmark of a scientific organization that is not beholden to socio-political interests is a heightened curiosity at unexpected findings, and a subsequent dedication to understanding how such findings came to be.  In the case of change in sexual orientation, which had been purported to be impossible, this implies a dedication to study those individuals who report change in order to identify the active ingredients of change and thereby maximize its potential among SOCE consumers.

Unfortunately, however, the major mental-health associations appear to be moving further away from a purely scientific approach and toward one apparently directed by activists, whereby the purpose of their science does not seem to be understanding those who report change, but rather debunking, dismissing, and ignoring them.  Thus while Jones and Yarhouse will win no accolades or awards from the APA, they will have the satisfaction of knowing that their research exemplifies the best in scientific curiosity and courage.

Reference

Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse, M.A. (2007). Ex-gays? A longitudinal study of religiously mediated change in sexual orientation. Downers  Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse, M. A. (2011). A longitudinal study of attempted religiously mediated sexual orientation change.  Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 37, 404-427. DOI: 10.1080/009263X.2011.607052

Where were the churches’ in fight against Don’t Ask repeal?

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 12, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - One of America’s most seasoned war generals expressed frustration at the silence of Christian churches as the U.S. military’s ban on open homosexuality fell to a repeal effort earlier this year.

Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin described at the Values Voter Summit on Saturday the exasperation of pro-family leaders in Washington who found themselves abandoned by church leaders unwilling to make a stand for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Boykin, who spent the majority of his career in the Special Forces, was mission commander of the battle portrayed in the Hollywood movie “Black Hawk Down,” and accepted the surrender of Panama military dictator Manuel Noriega in 1989.

Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin at the Values Voter Summit on Saturday.

According to Boykin, “nobody in this country fought a greater fight” against normalizing homosexuality in the military than Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, himself a former Marine who joined forces with senator and fellow veteran John McCain.

“John McCain kept turning to Tony Perkins saying, ‘Where’s the church? Where are the spiritual leaders?” said Boykin.

“The answer was, they were silent. The church was silent.”

Join a Facebook page to defend marriage here. 

Besides a large number of military chaplains, few church leaders in America spoke up publicly against the Obama administration’s campaign last year to pass the repeal in Congress.

Notably, while the Vatican had released a statement in 1992 supporting a ban on open homosexuality in the military, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops remained silent on the repeal effort, leaving military Archbishop Timothy Broglio to defend the ban alone. When questioned on the controversy in December 2010, Washington’s Cardinal Donald Wuerl demurred, saying “there isn’t a specific Catholic Church position” on the issue.

Boykin, a former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, told his conservative audience, “Christians have to rise up like a mighty army to be the salt and light.”

“Today, the church has lost its moral authority. The church has ceded its authority to the ACLU, and CODEPINK and MoveOn.org. They’re the ones with the real influence today,” he said. The veteran pointed to Europe as a good example of what will happen if America continues to lose sight of its identity as “founded on Judaeo-Christian principles.”

“Europe is hopelessly lost,” he said. “Folks, this could happen in America if we continue to be asleep, if the church does not rise up. The church has to get back to the fundamentals ... of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

“We have to stop compromising on the gospel of Christ because ... we’re afraid somebody’s gonna be offended. Let me tell you something: when the Gospel of Jesus Christ offends people, that’s exactly when they need to hear it.”