SayGuam.com

July 28, 2009

Senators of the 30^th Guam Legislature

Dear Senators,

My name is Roy Burk; I am the Pastor of Life in the Son Christian Fellowship Church located in Maite, Guam and I am the current President of the Guam Ministerial Association.   I am writing to oppose Bill 185.  It would be wrong to assume that my opposition of this measure is based solely upon a theological argument, but Scripture does categorize homosexuality as sin.  Although this measure avoids a direct assertion for the allowance of same-sex civil unions it does.  It is a measure unnecessary for persons of opposite gender since they are already afforded legal marriage.

It is also important to rightfully understand that measures of this type are demands for lifestyle preferences and should be separated from any notion of a civil right.  As a Guam resident of African-American descent I am sickened by such comparisons.  The science which claims that homosexuality is inborn and unchangeable has been completely rejected by the broader scientific community.  “There is no evidence whatsoever demonstrating that homosexual behavior is simply genetic or that people are born gay, and what few laypeople know is that none of the actual research claims that there is.”[1] People are equal in value and worth, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not.  Laws which recognize, favor, and promote traditional marriage do not violate the rights of people whose lifestyle preferences are denied legal approval (consider laws which forbid polygamy).  Measures of this type have more to do with conflicting worldviews than they do with issues of civil rights.

I oppose this legislation believing that any legitimization of homosexual behavior is a threat to family, and society, and disregards the transformational capabilities of the Gospel message.  The truth is:

• The longest-lasting societies in history have all been highly moralistic.[2] These societies have not always been Christian, but they all trusted in a transcendent source for their moral authority.  Those societies that have attempted morality without religion have been the most repressive and religion itself became a target for persecution.  This pattern is pertinent to this legislation.  Canada and Sweden both passed hate-speech legislation making it a crime for churches to teach what the Bible says about homosexuality soon after approving measures legitimizing same-sex unions.   Historically where the church is silenced, oppression is normative.  Our nations’ Judeo-Christian heritage led to pluralism in worship; the elevated status of women; and affords freedoms to all members of the culture.  Consider the lack of freedom to worship or the plight of women in other nations and you will understand my rationale for introducing our nation’s religious heritage into this letter.

Harvard Professor of law Mary Ann Glendon wrote,

Religious freedom, too is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. [Consider the attack on Miss California who answered honestly and respectfully on her opinion of gay-marriage]  Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax must fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don’t go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise to their principles.”[3]

• There is empirical evidence demonstrating that the allowance of same-sex marriage within a culture harms the institution of marriage.[4]

• Contradicting the sanitized image of committed lifelong same-sex relationships being presented by the sponsors of this legislation, researchers in one study found that only seven couples out of one-hundred-fifty-six had a totally exclusive sexual relationship and of the seven none had been together for more than five years.  In other words all of the couples studied with a relationship lasting longer than five years had incorporated some provision for sex outside of their relationships.[5]

• 38% of homosexuals surveyed said the longest relationship they have had did not last longer than a year.[6]

• I believe that the biggest hazard of this proposed measure is that it will dissuade persons with same-sex attraction from seeking and experiencing the liberty available through the ministries of the church.  The words used by The Apostle Paul indicate that homosexuality could be changed (Ref; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) and there is ample evidence which demonstrates that change is both possible and permanent.  Dr. Jeffrey Satinover reported a 52% success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attractions and researchers Masters and Johnson reported a 65% success rate;[7] others have achieved success rates as high as 70%.[8]

Bill 185 would serve to legitimize lifestyle preferences which are a threat to family and society, and might deter people from seeking and receiving the transformational potential available through Christian ministries.  I have and will continue to lovingly minister to people who struggle with sin of all types; but I do not support Bill 185.

Sincerely,

Roy A. Burk

[2] Peter Kreeft, How to Win the Culture War: A Christian Battle Plan for a Society in Crisis (Downers Grove, Il: Intervarsity, 2002), 51

[3] Mary Ann Glendon, “For Better or for Worse? The Federal marriage amendment would strike a blow for freedom,” opinion post to online editorial page, The Wall Street Journal (February 25, 2004), http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004735

[4] S. Michael Craven, Uncompromised Faith: Overcoming Our Culturalized Christianity, (Colorado Springs, Co: NAVPRESS, 2009), 137

[5] David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984), 252-253

[6] Karla Jay and Alan Young, The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles, (New York: Summit Books, 1979), 340

[7] Joe Dallas, “Responding to Pro-Gay Theology,” LeadershipU.com, http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html

[8] Quoted in a A. Dean Byrd, Shirley E. Cox, Jeffrey W. Robinson, “The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science” (Updated February 8, 2008), National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html