Behavior, and Not a Person

United States Congress May 29, 30, 31 2007

Larry Houston — 2007-06-05T00:07:52Z

What is presented in this handout is information to help have a meaningful, open, and honest discussion. A discussion that allows for more then points of emotional rhetoric, deliberate deceit and deception, threats and intimidations.

The parameters of a discussion of homosexuality are best framed in the following way. Who one is, a homosexual or what one does, homosexuality. The support is strongest for the latter. Homosexuality is a relationship issue. Homosexuality is an illegitimate attempt to meet the legitimate need for intimacy in same-sex relationships. The following quotes are by authors who self-identify as gay and are university history professors. Martin Duberman graduated from Yale University, received a Ph.D. from Harvard University, and was a professor at Princeton. John D'Emilo received a Ph.D. from Columbia University and teaches at the University of Illinois at Chicago. These two university professors agree that it is homosexuality, what one does and write it this way in the following quotes.

“I have argued that lesbian and gay identity and communities are historically created, the result of a process of capitalist development that has spanned many generations. A corollary of this argument is that we are not a fixed social minority composed for all time of a certain percentage of the population. There are more of us than one hundred years ago, more of us than forty years ago. And there may very well be more gay men and lesbians in the future. Claims made by gays and nongays that sexual orientation is fixed at an early age, that large numbers of visible gay men and lesbians in society, the media, and schools will have no influence on the sexual identities of the young, are wrong. Capitalism has created the material conditions for homosexual desire to express itself as a central component of some individuals' lives; now, our political movements are changing consciousness, creating the ideological conditions that make it easier for people to make that choice.” (D'Emilio, “Capitalism and Gay Identity, p. 473-474 in The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader by Henry Abelove, Michele Aine Barale and David M. Halperin)

“There is another historical myth that enjoys nearly universal acceptance in the gay movement, the myth of the “eternal homosexual.” The argument runs something like this: Gay men and lesbians always were and always will be. We are everywhere; not just now, but throughout history, in all societies and all periods. This myth served a positive political function in the first years of gay liberation. In the early 1970s, when we battled an ideology that either denied our existence or defined us as psychopathic individuals or freaks of nature, it was empowering to assert that “we are everywhere.” But in recent years it has confined us as surely as the most homophobic medical theories, and locked our movement in place. Here I wish to challenge this myth. I want to argue that gay men and lesbians have not always existed. Instead they are a product of history, and have come into existence in a specific historical era. Their emergence is associated with the relations of capitalism; it has been the historical development of capitalism-more specifically, its free-labor system-that has allowed a large numbers of men and women in the late twentieth century to call themselves gay, to see themselves as part of a community of similar men and women, to organize politically on the basis of that identity.” (D'Emilio, Making Trouble Essays on Gay History, Politics, and the University, p.5)

“It isn't at all obvious why a gay rights movement should ever have arisen in the United States in the first place. And it's profoundly puzzling why that movement should have become far and away the most powerful such political formation in the world. Same gender sexual acts have been commonplace throughout history and across cultures. Today, to speak with surety about a matter for which there is absolutely no statistical evidence, more adolescent male butts are being penetrated in the Arab world, Latin American, North Africa and Southeast Asia then in the west.

But the notion of a gay “identity” rarely accompanies such sexual acts, nor do political movements arise to make demands in the name of that identity. It's still almost entirely in the Western world that the genders of one's partner is considered a prime marker of personality and among Western nations it is the United States - a country otherwise considered a bastion of conservatism - that the strongest political movement has arisen centered around that identity.

We've only begun to analyze why, and to date can say little more then that certain significant pre-requisites developed in this country, and to some degree everywhere in the western world, that weren't present, or hadn't achieved the necessary critical mass, elsewhere. Among such factors were the weakening of the traditional religious link between sexuality and procreation (one which had made non-procreative same gender desire an automatic candidate for denunciation as “unnatural”). Secondly the rapid urbanization and industrialization of the United States, and the West in general, in the nineteen century weakened the material (and moral) authority of the nuclear family, and allowed mavericks to escape into welcome anonymity of city life, where they could choose a previously unacceptable lifestyle of singleness and nonconformity without constantly worrying about parental or village busybodies pouncing on them.” (Duberman, Left Out, p. 414 - 415.)

Larry Houston who is delivering this handout, has written it, and self-identifies as a former homosexual. I ask for affirmation and validation as a former homosexual. My story may be read on the web page, www.banap.net. There you may not only read my story of overcoming homosexuality, but of facing discrimination as an ex-gay at Harvard University. I came under investigation by three departments of Harvard University after a Harvard student wrote an article for The Harvard Crimson newspaper. Attached are two articles from The Harvard Crimson that gives details of these investigations. During these investigations no Harvard University official contacted me. The article on www.banap.net, “Discrimination for being Ex-gay” gives additional information that provides a context prior to the initial investigation by the gay and lesbian ministers of the United Ministries Department of Harvard University.

Harvard University students continue to seek me out after the investigations. This year a gay Harvard senior asked for help with a class assignment.

To help bring about a meaningful, open, and honest discussion listed below is a series of questions followed by brief answers. A discussion that allows for more then points of emotional rhetoric, deliberate deceit and deception, threats and intimidations.

· Who is advocating for change? Homosexuals/gays/lesbians.

· Is the discussion one of legally sanctioning relationships or behavior? The case for the latter is much stronger.

· Who is a homosexual/gay/lesbian? An individual who self-identifies by behavior or the things one does. A gay male and lesbian female identity has political connotations. In late 1960s and early 70's during the beginning of what is now known as “gay liberation” homosexuals/gay/lesbians used the term “sexual preference” to describe how they viewed their same-sex erotic attraction. Later around the middle 1980s those advocating for homosexuality begin using the term “sexual orientation” instead of “sexual preference.” The later implied “choice” by those practicing homosexuality, homosexual behavior. It was a social/political change to a more “conservative period” that led to those advocating for homosexuality to begin using the term “sexual orientation” instead of “sexual preference.”

· How does one become a homosexual? There are multiple pathways that may lead one into pursuing homosexual behavior. Homosexuals in their numerous articles and books acknowledge one is not born a homosexual. For this reason it may be reasonably argued that it is not a “rights issue”. This is also why no court (state or federal) has granted homosexuals “suspect class status”. Likewise for this reason it will be unlikely for courts to rule on the basis of equal protection and due process. Homosexuality is not an innate trait.

· What is homosexuality? Homosexuality is a relationship issue. It is an illegitimate attempt to meet the legitimate need for same-sex intimacy. Physical sexual acts are often added to or substituted for those relational acts needed as a part of same-sex intimacy in relationships.

· What about former homosexuals/ex-gays? There are individuals who overcome homosexuality and they do so in multiple ways. But what is of great interest are those individuals who choose to continue to self-identify as gay or lesbian but have as their objects of sexual activity members of the opposite sex. The following are examples of such people who have made public declarations.

JoAnn Loulan was a prominent lesbian activist in the seventies and eighties who met and fell in love with a man in the late nineties, and even appeared on a 20/20 television episode in 1998. Jan Clausen also a lesbian activist writes in two of her books Beyond Gay or Straight, Apples and Oranges of a sexual relationship with a man. This latter book is autobiographical. She began a long-term monogamous relationship with a man in 1987.

In England Russell T. Davies wrote Queer as Folk and also wrote for British TV the show Bob and Rose airing in September 2001. This second show is about a gay man who falls in love with a woman and has a sexual relationship with her. This series was based on a friend of Davies', Thomas, who was well known in the Manchester, England gay scene. Bert Archer who identifies as a gay male in his book, The End of Gay (and the Death of Heterosexuality), writes of his sexual relationship with a woman. He also gives examples of other gay men who have similar experiences.

A 29-page bibliography, that is extensive, but not exhaustive from my research for the information presented on www.banp.net, may also be found there. The two main sections are “Inventing a Homosexual” and “Identifying the Homosexual”. The first section “Inventing a Homosexual” is from a historical perspective. “Identifying the Homosexual” contains information from those advocating for homosexuality attempting to “proof text” the concept of the “homosexual” as an innate individual sexual being. www.banap.net also has a section “Legal and Political” of my lobbying the Massachusetts state Legislature for maintaining the status quo that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman. The following two quotes from my research gives me great hope and encouragement in my self-identity as a former homosexual. There are pictures of my many visits to Ukraine at to help students and families www.as4us.org.

“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn't work: it doesn't serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people's natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it's impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.” (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay's in the 90s, p.363)

The authors of this book published in 1989 self-identify as gay. Kirk graduated from Harvard University in 1980. Madsen has taught on the faculty of Harvard University. He is a public-communications expert, designed commercial advertising for Madsen Avenue, and guided strategy for the Positive Images Campaign. This campaign was the first national gay advertising effort in American. The following quote from the introduction of their book along with the title of the book perhaps gives a very strong indication of the authors' belief in a homosexual agenda. Perhaps this may be their motivation for writing the book.

“The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.” (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay's in the 90s, p.xxvi)

Why, Who, What, and How June 4, 2007

Larry Houston — 2007-06-04T23:54:18Z

Why, Who, What, and How are questions that must be answered by those advocating for change. Answering these questions as a part of a meaningful, open, and honest discussion will be beneficial for everyone. A discussion that allows for more then points of emotional rhetoric, deliberate deceit and deception, threats and intimidations.

Those advocating for homosexuality, especially within the contexts of “gay rights” therefore should be able to support and defend their position in a meaningful, open, and honest discussion. Two words used by those advocating for “gay rights” are “discrimination” and “equality. Thus when referring to homosexuals/gays/lesbians, “Why is it discrimination and Why is about equality? Who are homosexuals/gays/ lesbians? Gay and lesban are best seen as political sexual identities. What does it mean to be a homosexual/gay/lesbian? It is to self-identify by same-sex erotic attractions and behaviors. How does one become a homosexual/gay/lesbian? There are multiple pathways that lead one to pursuing homosexuality, homosexual behavior, likewise there are multiple pathways to overcoming homosexuality, homosexual behavior. The parameters of the discussion are best framed as “Who one is a homosexual?” or “What one does, homosexuality.” The support is strongest for the latter. What is homosexuality? Homosexuality is a relationship issue. It is an illegitimate attempt to meet the legitimate need for same-sex intimacy. Physical sexual acts are often added to or substituted for those relational acts needed as a part of same-sex intimacy in relationships. A part of homosexuality is sexual immaturity and also involves “learning.” As a group, homosexuals are not a unitary, monolithic group and that is best indicated by names they use to self-identify themselves. Homosexual, Gay, Lesbian, Queer, but also they use names associated with particular sexual behaviors. Not all homosexuals/gays/lesbians/queers want marriage. What do those advocating for homosexuality really want?

Changing language by those advocating for homosexuality is not uncommon. One very interesting example is the terms “sexual preference” and sexual orientation” used in referenced to sexuality. In late 1960s and early 1970s during the beginning of what is now known as “gay liberation” homosexuals/gay/lesbians used the term “sexual preference” to describe how they viewed their same-sex erotic attractions. Later around the middle 1980s those advocating for homosexuality begin using the term “sexual orientation” instead of “sexual preference.” The later implied “choice” by those practicing homosexuality, homosexual behavior. It was a social/political change to a more “conservative period” that led to those advocating for homosexuality to begin using the term “sexual orientation” instead of “sexual preference.” Also significant in leading to this change in language was the consequences of male homosexual behavior, high rates of STDs and the HIV/AIDS epidemic which was tragic for gay males. Camille Paglia is an American social critic, intellectual, author and teacher. In 1971 she received a master's degree in philosophy from Yale and a PhD in English Literature in 1974. Paglia is described as a “libertarian,” self-identifies as a bisexual and is supportive of homosexuality, while less supportive of “gay rights.”

“From Stonewall to the first AIDS alert was only twelve short years. In the Eighties and early Nineties, displaced anxiety over the horrors of AIDS turned gay activists into rampaging nihilists and monomaniacs, who dishonestly blamed the disease on the government and trampled on the rights of the gay majority, and whose errors of judgment materially aided the rise and consolidation of the far right. AIDS did not appear out of nowhere. It was a direct result of the sexual revolution, which my generation unleashed with the best intentions, but whose worse effects were to be suffered primarily by gay men. In the West, despite much propaganda to the contrary, AIDS is a gay disease and will remain one for the foreseeable future.” (Paglia, Vamps and Tramps. p.68)

The changing language is made even more important placed within the context of the 2003 United States Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. All things are lawful, but all things are not profitable. Lawrence v. Texas legalized homosexuality sodomy. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The statically documented fact known at that time was that the highest risk behavior for acquiring HIV/AIDS is receptive anal intercourse. This decision favors the liberty of the individual over the majority. But a strong argument can be made that the liberty of the individual may be overruled for the benefit, health, and welfare of the majority. What Lawrence v. Texas did was to further the continuation of the legitimization and normalization of homosexuality, homosexual behavior. Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health may be seen as doing the same, the legitimization and normalization of homosexuality, homosexual behavior.

“The disease first became evident among male homosexuals and intravenous drug users, and in the United States it remains disportionately concentrated in these two populations.” (Rushing, The AIDS Epidemic: Social Dimensions of an Infectious Disease, p.1)

Before these two court decisions statically documented facts were available from local and state health departments and the United States Centers for Disease Control. These facts are the rising rates of STDs and HIV/AIDS among male homosexuals beginning in 2000. While the rates of STDs and HIV/AIDS have remained constant or have even fallen among heterosexuals in the same time period. This information may be found online by visiting health departments and the CDC's web pages.

What WillHappen? May 24, 2007

Larry Houston — 2007-05-27T14:55:54Z

What will happen should Goodridge be overturned or suspended? Goodridge the legal decision to allow same-sex (gay) marriage was ruled on the lowest level of legal scrutiny. The SJC rejected the plaintiffs' arguments for a decision based on “strict judicial scrutiny.” It did not address homosexuals being a member of a suspect class and it did not find a marriage to be a fundamental right. The Goodridge decision may be read at www.state.ma.us/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html

“Where a statute implicates a fundamental right or uses a suspect classification, we employ “strict judicial scrutiny.”

“Because the statute does not survive rational basis review, we do not consider the plaintiffs' arguments that this case merits strict judicial scrutiny.”

The Goodridge decision was conditional and limited in its ruling, which was that the Department of Public Health did not adequately justify the law, and the law itself did not set forth the grounds on which it is based. The defendants the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, represented by the Attorney General's office failed to present a strong case. Therefore the SJC left open the possibility that the present marriage status could have been adequately supported by clearer evidence. Thus allowing for the possibility in a future legal challenge the Goodridge decision may be overturned or suspended.

Consistent in Goodridge, the legal challenge for same-sex/gay marriage beginning in the written decision by Suffolk Superior Court Justice Connolly has been the acknowledgement by judges, both in Superior Court and the Supreme Judicial Court, that the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts delegates authority to the Legislation, not the judiciary to regulate marriage.

Justice Connolly (Emphasis added with bold type) writes: “While this court understands the reasons for the plaintiffs' request to reverse the Commonwealth's centuries-old legal tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, their request should be directed to the Legislature, not the courts.”

Justice Connolly (Emphasis added with bold type) writes: “This court acknowledges the inherent contradiction that the Commonwealth allows same-sex couples to establish legal relationships with their children but not with each other. Adoption of Tammy, 416 Mass. 205 (1993); Adoption of Susan, 416 Mass. 1003 (1993); E.N.O. v. L.M.N., 429 Mass. 824, cert. Denied, 528 U.S. 1005 (1999). Furthermore, the Legislature amended the adoption laws to allow adoption of children by same-sex couples. See Acts & Resolves 1999, 3 * 15. The Commonwealth's elected representatives, not courts, should resolve this paradox. See Connors, 430 Mass at 43 (excluding the word “spouse” to exclude domestic partners). While this court understands the plaintiffs efforts to be married, they should pursue their quest on Beacon Hill.”

Chief Justice Marshall of the Supreme Judicial Court in the majority opinion in Goodridge (Emphasis added with bold type) writes: “Civil marriage is created and regulated through exercise of the police power. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983) (regulation of marriage is properly within the scope of the police power). "Police power" (now more commonly termed the State's regulatory authority) is an old-fashioned term for the Commonwealth's lawmaking authority, as bounded by the liberty and equality guarantees of the Massachusetts Constitution and its express delegation of power from the people to their government. In broad terms, it is the Legislature's power to enact rules to regulate conduct, to the extent that such laws are "necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community” (citations omitted). Opinion of the Justices, 341 Mass. 760, 785 (1960). [FN12] See Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53, 85 (1851).”

“It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983)."

A member of the Massachusetts Legislature upon entering office takes an oath of office. In this oath they swear to support and uphold the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. “Under the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth and of the United States every person chosen or appointed to any office, civil or military, under the government of this Commonwealth, before he enters on the duties of his office, is required to take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:” (Commonwealth of Massachusetts the Manual for the General Court 1997-1998, pg. 239).

THE OATH OF OFFICE

I,_______________________, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and will support the Constitution thereof. So help me, God. I,_______________________, do solemnly swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as ___________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably, to the rules and regulations of the constitution, and the laws of this Commonwealth - So help me God.

The current proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to maintain the status quo that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman requires a second successful vote in a Constitutional Convention to allow the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to vote and participant in the governing of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Likewise this proposed amendment has past constitutional, judicial, and legal scrutiny in two legal challenges to it that have reached the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The first ruling was that the amendment is “going forward” and thereby is not an attempt overturn a previous SJC ruling in the 2003 Goodridge case. In a side note of possible interest, the lead plaintiff couple Hilary and Julie Goodridge, in the legal challenge to allow same-couple to marry married in May of 2004 and separated in July of 2006. The second ruling addressed the responsibility of the Massachusetts Legislature to vote on proposed Constitutional Amendments. The SJC ruled they had no authority to demand the Legislature to take a vote. But in strongly worded language encouraged the Massachusetts State Legislature to uphold their oath of office to support the Constitution of Massachusetts and exercise the authority delegated to them in the Massachusetts Constitution to regulate marriage by voting on the proposed marriage amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution. The Legislature followed the advice of the SJC by taking a vote on January 2, 2007, a vote of approval, thus requiring a second vote.

What Do they Realy Mean? May 21, 207

Larry Houston — 2007-05-27T14:49:30Z

What do they really mean? What they say or what they write? The following information was written by self-identified gays and lesbians, many who are university professors with PhDs. Why is it “discrimination” or a “rights issue” if is about one's behavior.

“We tend to think now that the word ‘homosexual' has an unvarying meaning, beyond time and history. In fact it is itself a product of history, a cultural artifact designed to express a particular concept.” (Weeks, Coming Out, p. 3)

“In sum, homosexuality is not one but many things, many psychosocial forms, which can be viewed as symbolic mediations between psychocultural and historical conditions and human potentials for sexual response across life course.” (Herdt, “Cross-Cultural Issues in the Development of Bisexuality and Homosexuality”, p.55)

“Against the certainties of this tradition, I intend in this essay to offer an alternative way of understanding sexually (indeed ‘sexualities'). This involves seeing sexuality not as a primordially ‘natural' instinct phenomenon but rather as a product of social and historical forces. ‘Sexuality', I shall argue, is a ‘fictional unity', that once did not exist, and some time in the future may not exist again. It is an invention of the human mind. As Carole S. Vance has suggested, ‘the most important organ in humans is located between the ears.' (Vance 1984).” (Weeks, Sexuality, p.6)

“But if identity, and sexual difference, are precarious at the level of the unconscious, they are also in large part a fiction at the level of social and cultural life. This is, I know, a controversial statement, and one that many lesbian and gay activists would bitterly challenge. The search for a gay gene, or special type of homosexual brain, or whatever, which is frequently welcomed by self-appointed gay spokespeople, attest to a constant wish to find an explanation rooted in nature for homosexual difference. As I have already indicated, Altman rejects such fantasies, and anticipating Foucault and other writers' arguments for the historical shaping of the homo-heter distinction. This is not to deny the value of constructing lesbian and gay identities as an essential way of combating discrimination, and negotiating the hazards of every day life. Such identities are, in words I have used elsewhere, a necessary fictions. But fictions, they are, nonetheless.” (Altman, Homosexual: Oppression or Liberation, p.13)

“It is the myth of gay identity, the belief that homosexuals are a different kind of people. Gay identity is one of the great working myths of our age. Even though it is based on the ideas of gender and sex that have more to do with folklore than science, it occupies a central position in the beliefs and principles that govern our behaviors. It is a significant element of our social organization of gender and sexuality. The myth holds us all in thrall, not just those who have adopted the gay role. . . . Being gay is always a matter of self-definition. No matter what your sexual proclivities or experience, you are not gay until you decide you are.”(DuBay, Gay Identity The Self Under Ban, p.1-2)

“Lesbian and gay historians have asked questions about the origins of gay liberation and lesbian feminism, and have come up with some surprising answers. Rather than finding a silent, oppressed, gay minority in all times and all places, historians have discovered that gay identity is a recent, Western, historical construction. Jeffrey Weeks, Jonathan Katz and Lillian Faderman, for example have traced the emergence of lesbian and gay identity in the late nineteenth century. Similarly John D'Emilio, Allan Berube and the Buffalo Oral History Project have described how this identity laid the basis for organized political activity in the years following World War II.

The work of lesbian and gay historians has also demonstrated that human sexuality is not a natural, timeless “given”, but is historically shaped and politically regulated.” (Duggan, “History's Gay Ghetto: The Contradictions of Growth in Lesbian and Gay History,” p.151-152 in Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Political Culture edited by Duggan & Hunter)

“Psychological theory, which should be employed to describe only individual mental, emotional, and behavioral aspects of homosexuality, has been employed for building models of personal development that purport to mark the steps in an individual's progression toward a mature and egosyntonic gay or lesbian identity. The embracing and disclosing of such an identity, however, is best understood as a political phenomenon occurring in a historical period during which identity politics has become a become a consuming occupation.” (De Cecco and Parker, “The Biology of Homosexuality: Sexual Orientation or Sexual Preference,” p. 20 in Sex, Cells, and Same-Sex Desire: The Biology of Sexual, Preference, editors De Cecco and Parker)

“I have argued that lesbian and gay identity and communities are historically created, the result of a process of capitalist development that has spanned many generations. A corollary of this argument is that we are not a fixed social minority composed for all time of a certain percentage of the population. There are more of us than one hundred years ago, more of us than forty years ago. And there may very well be more gay men and lesbians in the future. Claims made by gays and nongays that sexual orientation is fixed at an early age, that large numbers of visible gay men and lesbians in society, the media, and the schools will have no influence on the sexual identities of the young, are wrong. Capitalism has created the material conditions for homosexual desire to express itself as a central component of some individuals' lives; now, our political movements are changing consciousness, creating the ideological conditions that make it easier for people to make that choice.” (D'Emilio, Making Trouble Essays on Gay History, Politics, and the University, p.12)

“Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a far more complex protean identity. It is rare that people are confused about their race or gender, but anyone can be a homosexual or engage in homosexual behavior.” (Bronski, The pleasure Principle: Sex, Backlash, and the Struggle for Gay Freedom, p. 13)

“For well over a century homosexualists have dreamed that the invention of the homosexual as a person would ultimately detoxicate homosexual behavior and win a place of equality alongside heterosexual behavior.” (De Ceeo, “Confusing the Actor With the Act: Muddled Notions About Homosexuality”, p. 411)

After reading what self-identified gays and lesbians have written one can therefore understand it best in the following way. Who one is, a homosexual or What one does homosexuality. The support is strongest for the latter. Why is it “discrimination” or a “rights issue” if is about one's behavior.

Thank You for Voting April 23, 2007

Larry Houston — 2007-04-26T14:55:03Z

Thank you for voting on Jan 2, 2007 during the Constitutional Convention. On that day I was returning from Ukraine and unable to attend. This was a special trip; I became engaged to marry a wonderful Ukrainian woman, Angela. Pictures of my trips to Ukraine may be seen at www.as4us.org.

Attached to this handout are the first 4 pages of 9 pages of information I have prepared for all 540 offices of the United States Congress. I will be visiting Washington DC the last week of May to deliver them to the Senate and House offices. This will be my 3rd trip to lobby the U.S. Congress the two previous trips were with other ex-gays as part of “National Ex-Gay Lobby Days.”

An attempt is being made by some advocates of same-sex marriage to draw a comparison to action taken by the Legislature on another proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution during the Jan. 2, 2007 Constitutional Convention. The action was to send to committee for study a proposed Constitutional amendment to mandate universal health coverage in Massachusetts. Likewise those advocating for same-sex marriage call for similar action and thus not allow for a second vote on the proposed Constitutional amendment to maintain the status quo that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman. It must be remembered that universal health coverage is required in Massachusetts by state law. The legislature passed a bill that was signed into law by Governor Romney. So to perhaps make such a comparison and action with same-sex marriage, a bill may be passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor to allow same-sex marriage. The proposed marriage amendment requiring a second vote of the Massachusetts Legislature is the 3rd amendment taken up by the Legislature. Of the 3 it is the 2nd one that is a Citizen's Initiative Petition. This proposed Constitutional Amendment as a Citizen's Initiative Petition received more citizens' signatures, over 160,000, than any previous Citizen's Initiative Petition in Massachusetts.

The current proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to maintain the status quo that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman requires a second successful vote in a Constitutional Convention to allow the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to vote and participant in the governing of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Likewise this proposed amendment has past constitutional, judicial, and legal scrutiny in two legal challenges to it that have reached the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The first ruling was that the amendment is“going forward” and thereby is not an attempt overturn a previous SJC ruling in the 2003 Goodridge case. In a side note of possible interest, the lead plaintiff couple Hilary and Julie Goodridge, in the legal challenge to allow same-couple to marry married in May of 1974 and separated in July of 2006. The second ruling addressed the responsibility of the Massachusetts Legislature to vote on proposed Constitutional Amendments. The SJC ruled they had no authority to demand the Legislature to take a vote. But in strongly worded language encouraged the Massachusetts State Legislature to uphold their oath of office to support the Constitution of Massachusetts and exercise the authority delegated to them in the Massachusetts Constitution to regulate marriage by voting on the proposed marriage amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution. The Legislature followed the advice of the SJC by taking a vote on January 2, 2007, a vote of approval, thus requiring a second vote.

In early spring of 2006 Chief Justice Marshall received an award from Harvard University and gave a speech titled “Judiciary for All”. I attended the speech on the Harvard University campus and was able to take part in the Question and Answer session that followed. I was the second person to ask a question. I prefaced my remarks with an apology. The first one to ask a question was a lawyer, and Chief Justice Marshal in answering his question commented that she was uncomfortable when presented with new ideas that she previously had not thought about. So I apologized for being someone new, a type of person she may not have met before. I said, “my name is Larry Houston, I am a member of the Harvard University community, I cook in the freshman dining hall and I self-identify as a former homosexual. After an article written by a Harvard student about me appeared in the Harvard Crimson Newspaper I faced discrimination and the possible loss of my job at Harvard University. I came under investigation by three departments of Harvard University and during these investigations no Harvard University official contacted me.” I also talked of former homosexuals, ex-gays, and former lesbians being in a similar position to that of gays and lesbians almost 40 years ago. That is the identity as an ex-gay is gaining greater societal approval as a sexual identity.

The following quotes are from an article in Bay Windows, New England's largest newspaper serving the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities, “Could It Happen Here” by Ethan Jacobs.

“No amount of money can solve the problem: in at least 11 states that voted on marriage amendments since 2004 the pro-gay side outspent its opponents, but only one of those states, Arizona, voted down the amendment. In Wisconsin, a state that many observers thought could feasibly defeat its amendment in 2006, pro-gay forces outspent their opponents by a nearly 4-to-1 margin, but the amendment still passed 59 percent to 41 percent.”

“LGBT advocates in Colorado last year spent $5.4 million to try to defeat the DOMA amendment and pass the domestic partner bill, according to campaign finance records. By contrast their opponents spent only $1.4 million.”

“In 2006, Fair Wisconsin spent $4.3 million to try to defeat that state marriage amendment, far outpacing the $670,000 campaign waged by Focus on the Family and its allies on the other side.”

Kevun Naff managing editor of the gay newspaper, Washington Blade online wrote an editorial on Wednesday March 23, 2007, “Bloggers vs HRC.” It was written in this editorial that MassEquality has already received 1 million dollars from the HRC. HRC is the Human Rights Campaign, a large national gay and lesbian rights organization that owns their 26 million dollar Washington DC headquarters. So comments by advocates of same-sex marriage of an expensive campaign to amend the Massachusetts Constitution may certainly have some truth in them. But the history of previous similar campaigns shows who will most likely spend the largest amount of money.

If there is so much support for same-sex marriage in the Massachusetts Legislature why hasn't a same-sex marriage bill successfully passed through the legislative process and been enacted into state law. Doing so the legislature will uphold their oath of office and exercise the authority granted to the Legislature by the Massachusetts Constitution to regulate marriage.