Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky

A group of ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders have secretly passed around a “Torah Declaration” on “The Torah Stance on Homosexuality.” It rebukes homosexuality as being “not an acceptable lifestyle or a genuine identity” and assumes that gays are by definition “unable to find happiness in a loving relationship.” To abide by the Torah, the Declaration stridently demands ex-gay therapy, including of teenagers, to repair “childhood emotional wounds”:

We emphatically reject the notion that a homosexually inclined person cannot overcome his or her inclination and desire. Behaviors are changeable. The Torah does not forbid something which is impossible to avoid. Abandoning people to lifelong loneliness and despair by denying all hope of overcoming and healing their same-sex attraction is heartlessly cruel. [...]

The therapy consists of reinforcing the natural gender-identity of the individual by helping him or her understand and repair the emotional wounds that led to its disorientation and weakening, thus enabling the resumption and completion of the individual’s emotional development…There is no other practical, Torah-sanctioned solution for this issue. [...]

It requires tremendous bravery and fortitude for a person to confront and deal with same-sex attraction. For example a sixteen-year-old who is struggling with this issue may be confused and afraid and not know whom to speak to or what steps to take. We must create an atmosphere where this teenager (or anyone) can speak freely to a parent, rabbi, or mentor and be treated with love and compassion. Authority figures can then guide same-sex strugglers towards a path of healing and overcoming their inclinations.

This declaration is incredibly more dismissive of the lives of gays and lesbians than the more affirming Statement of Principles many Modern Orthodox rabbis signed in July 2010. These theology-based therapies, along with the notion that gays are incapable of love and doomed to loneliness, present an incredible potential for harm to young people. Jayson Littman, who published the declaration publicly for the first time today, shared a quote from ultra-Orthodox Rabbi Chaim Rapoport: “I am not obligated to believe in a failed therapy because it fits my theology better.” Point in fact, these rabbis are using their theology to deny decades worth of scientific knowledge, oblivious to the incredible threat they pose to young people’s mental health in doing so.

If a college student wants to attend Focus on the Family’s (FOTF) Focus Leadership Institute, that student must agree by signature to the organization’s “Core Statement.” As Jeremy Hooper points out, the statement’s various student-targeted claims about the nature of homosexuality shine new light on what it really means to be indoctrinated. Here are a few excerpts:

• “Heterosexuality is fundamental to the vitality and even the existence of any society. Scripture is very clear in its condemnation of homosexual conduct, for such sin is a deviation from God’s creation and design.”
• “There is no evidence that homosexuals, as a class, are discriminated against in the present society. They are not like African-Americans, Hispanics or other historically disadvantaged groups, for they have a far higher average income than most Americans, a higher level of education than most Americans and significant political influence.”
• “Focus on the Family also opposes the efforts of radical homosexual ‘social reformers’ who wish to redefine the family, permit homosexual ‘marriages,’ be able to adopt children and recruit the young.
• “Focus on the Family has seen that, by God’s grace and through compassionate counseling, it is sometimes possible, although always difficult, for a person to move from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation.  When that change appears impossible in an individual case, such a person is in the same position as the heterosexual single who has no prospects of marriage. They are both called by Scripture to a life of sexual abstinence.”

In reality, the gay community is in no way going to contribute to the destruction of society, because marrying same-sex couples can do nothing to prevent opposite-sex couples from continuing to marry and have children at the same rates as before. Countless studies demonstrate the way gays are discriminated against throughout society, including in employment, housing, and hate crimes. More importantly, data betrays stereotype and shows that the gay community actually faces many socioeconomic inequities and are not as wealthy as FOTF would like to believe. And, need it be said again, efforts to change or repress an individual’s sexual orientation are ineffective and harmful.

If there is an effort to “recruit the young,” Focus on the Family is surely leading it as it promotes dangerous lies to college students about the gay community.

Today during a press conference in Newton, Massachusetts, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) attributed his decision not to seek re-election in 2012 to the redistricting underway in the state of Massachusetts and a long-standing decision to exit public life before his 75th birthday. Frank added that he was weary of campaigning in a new district and worried that the addition of new constituents would force him to abandon signature issues.

Frank also took a shot at current GOP front runner Newt Gingrich, quipping, “I will neither be a lobbyist or a historian” and “I didn’t think I lived a good enough life to see Newt Gingrich be the Republican nominee.” Frank said he would be interested to debate the repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act with the former House Speaker:

FRANK: I did not think I had lived a good enough life to be rewarded by Newt Gingrich being the Republican nominee. It still is unlikely, but I have hopes. Let me say, for example, I intend to continue to be an advocate of public policy. I look forward to debating, to take one important example, the Defense of Marriage Act with Mr. Gingrich. I think he is an ideal opponent for us, when we talk about just who it is, is threatening the sanctity of marriage.

Watch it:

Frank said he is interested in writing and teaching in his retirement, adding, “I might show up pro bono someday for a gay rights case.”

As LGBT equality activists in Russia protest St. Petersburg’s anti-gay propaganda bill, proponents of the measure are trying to frame the legislation as an effort to not only preserve the nation’s family values, but also protect young people from being converted into homosexuality and worsening the nation’s demographic crisis. ​​Elena Babich, a local lawmaker who voted in favor of the legislation on its first reading, explains in a column for Izvestia that the measure is designed to save Russia from the same fate now plaguing neighboring Germany:

In Germany, they have awakened to their ongoing extinction as a nation. But here [in Russia], during the day of the city, we have hanging all over St. Petersburg the face of Peter the First and a bright rainbow. Why the rainbow, when it’s the global symbol of the gays? But here, all around the city – from the kindergarten “Rainbow” to the pharmacy “Rainbow.” All rejoice. Soon we will be rejoicing to the point of extinction.

Meanwhile, with the second-reading expected later this week, equality proponents have launched a campaign to “persuade the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to instigate an early hearing of an appeal over a similar law passed in 2006 in the Ryazan region of Russia.” That case stems from a 2009 arrest of Irina Fedotova and Nikolai Baev for “holding a banner in front of a local school stating that ‘Homosexuality is normal.’”

LGBT groups feel the court’s condemnation of the law could help stop the St. Petersburg measure. In the complaint, Baev argues that penalties against the promotion of homosexuality violate his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Baev also charges Russian authorities with violating Article 14 of the Convention, which prohibits discrimination, including sexual orientation.

With just 36 days to go until the Iowa caucuses, Mitt Romney’s first campaign brochure in the state presents the former Massachusetts governor as “the strongest Republican to beat Barack Obama and protect our values.” Romney is “pro-life,” “pro-marriage,” and “pro-family,” the flyer boasts, highlighting his opposition to abortion and support for “a federal amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman”:

Of course, Romney hasn’t always held these beliefs: he supported a woman’s right to choose until 2005 and had said marriage should be left to the states and kept out of the hands of the federal government.

For instance, Romney staunchly defended a woman’s right to choose while running for governor of the left-leaning state of Massachusetts in 2002 and denied then “that he was even slightly less pro-choice” than his opponent, offering “one of the most passionate defenses of abortion rights” heard from Romney or any male politician in an interview with the late Tim Russert. While running for Senate in 1994, Romney argued that same-sex marriage is “a state issue as you know – the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction.” He told the Log Cabin Republicans, “We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern” and promised to co-sponsor a federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). In fact, during an interview with the Nashua Telegraph just last week, Romney said “I favor gay rights,” adding, “I don’t believe in discriminating in employment or opportunity for gay individuals.”