Home » Blogs »

June 2, 2011 Print

The President’s LGBT “Accomplishments” in Context

by CitizenLink Team

Yesterday, the White House released its first ever web page devoted entirely to LGBT issues, and also posted a list of ways that President Obama has advanced the homosexual and “transgender” agenda since he took office.

A quick glance at the list and one is tempted to feel overwhelmed by all the ways that this Administration has sought to affirm homosexuality in our culture. Overwhelmed because we know that the end-goal of this Administration, and the LGBT community, is to force the culture to accept and endorse homosexuality and “trangenderism” to the point that marriage between one man and one woman is no longer upheld as the gold standard in America.

CitizenLink is particularly concerned about the deconstruction of marriage because we care about the well-being of families and kids, and data show that children do best by nearly every measure when they are parented by a married mom and dad. In fact, one of the best ways to keep children out of poverty is for them to belong to a married mom and dad.

So even as the President rolls out this list of “accomplishments” on the LGBT front, we  must remember that there’s a bigger agenda in mind, and it will ultimately affect marriage and children in a profound way. That’s why CitizenLink continues to encourage Congress to promote what is best for children and families. One way Congress is doing that is by defending the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, a law that defines marriage between one man and one woman for all federal purposes.

But what can you, as a Christian, do?

1)  We can’t say enough how important it is to vote your family values. Vote for candidates that you believe most closely align with what you believe is GOD’s best for families and children. President Obama stands in office today, and affirms the LGBT agenda in many sectors of society, simply because people voted for him.

2)  Stay in constant communication with your federal lawmakers. CitizenLink makes that easy for you, and it won’t take much time out of your day.  And remember, “winning” each battle is not the only motivation for speaking the truth to your elected officials.


  • June 02, 2011 at 9:16 pm, Charlotte Miles said:

    I read, through CitizenLink, that HHS overruled part of Indiana’s bill removing funding from Planned Parenthood stating it was a “qualified health care provider”. Does Indiana have standards that health care provider must meet concerning sanitary conditions, qualified staff, emergency equipment, etc? If they do, does Planned Parenthood meet those standards? If not…… then……could Planned Parenthood be required to adhere to them?. Or if no stipulations exist could they be put in place for ‘qualified health care providers’ with these types of regulations including health inspections, it just might be enough a hinderance to keep Planned Parenthood from doing abortions? How does HHS have the authority to overrule a state law, anyway?

  • June 03, 2011 at 9:14 am, Reed Boyer said:

    I’m confused by this article.

    One of the links “In fact, one of the best ways to keep children out of poverty is for them to belong to a married mom and dad” is to an article about unintended pregnancies and unwed mothers. That article has, at best, peripheral relation to the topic of “transgenderism” or some kind of “homosexual agenda.”

    This seems a long stretch. In fact, since this article (above) is about the over-arching concept of “context,” it’s strange that the link seems to lack contextual coherence with the content of the article.

    • June 03, 2011 at 11:13 am, Ashley Horne said:

      Hi Reed,

      The statement and link were in reference to our position that pushing the homosexual/transgender agenda will lead to what the LGBT community ultimately wants — same-sex marriage. And with same-sex marriage comes real consequences for children, since kids do best with a married mom and dad.

      • June 04, 2011 at 7:06 am, Josh said:


        What I think Reed is saying is that, while you argue that children are less likely to live in poverty if they’re raised by a married mom and dad, the alternate situation that leads to more children living in poverty is _not_ children living with two married dads or two married moms. In order for your argument to work, you would need to provide a scientific, peer-reviewed study that shows that the children of married same-sex couples always fare worse than children raised in other situations. You could define that by household income, children’s educational attainment or even rate of incarceration, but I doubt very much that you’ll find a study that can make that conclusion. Even if it did, it’s not illegal for people to raise their children in ‘sub-optimal’ conditions. What about single parents or divorced parents who share custody or adoptive parents? Maybe you’d like to put their right to parent
        up for a vote, too.

        Why are you fighting against people getting married and raising children? I thought you worked for a pro-family organization.

        I hope this helps clarify things for you.

        • June 06, 2011 at 3:02 pm, Ashley Horne said:

          You bring up an interesting argument – basically that we can’t say children do best with a married mom and dad because we haven’t studied the effect of same-sex parenting on children.

          There has not been enough time –or good random population sampling of same-sex parenting structures (there are far fewer gay couples than lesbian couples raising children, and many of the children in lesbian households are from previous heterosexual relationships) — to do a scientific, peer-reviewed study of children being raised by a same-sex couple. So, until such a population exists and a study can be done, even sociological proponents of same-sex parenting do not have research to claim that children raised by same-sex couples are less likely to live in poverty than children raised by their own biological, married mother and father. However, studies show that children live in poverty at greater rates in every single family structure that is not married mother and father. This includes single-parent, cohabiting parents, stepparents, biological mother with boyfriend, etc.

          Because of the lack of sample population sizes that meet scientific standards, it is also difficult to use education and income as measures for same-sex parenting couples. Other studies have found, however, that family form is replacing parental employments as a driver of poverty. Consider these statements and studies:

          “Poverty as a primary determinant of child well-being has decreased overall over time, but has seen a slight increase recently. Family form has replaced parental employment as the primary driver in child poverty.” (“Children in Poverty,” ChildTrends DataBank http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/pdf/4_PDF.pdf). See also Rose M. Kredider and Jason Fields, Living Arrangements of Children: 2001. Current Popoulation Reports, P70-104. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. (July 2005), p. 2.

          Additional studies demonstrating the importance of marriage and biological mother and father can be found here.

  • June 03, 2011 at 9:52 pm, Anonymous said:

    You are all bigots who use the Bible to endorse hatred of people who are different then you. The Bible also states to have your children stoned if they rebel, not to wear clothes of mixed fabrics, not to play with the skin of a pig (football), and plethora of other stupid messages that I don’t see you Christians condemning. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Additionally, there are people who are BORN GAY. There are over a thousand of different animal species that are homosexual in nature, humans including. Of course though you conservative Christians rather blindly cling to and spread your ludicrous hateful beliefs than reexamine your ideologies, face factual evidence, and spread a TRUE message of love. By the way, the Bible is an outdated book written by MAN NOT GOD (if there even is one). It reflects cultural beliefs during the time period of the religious; not timeless sensible truths, which is how it would been written if it really were written by God or people who were truly solely under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Have a nice life living in ignorant, hateful bliss.

    • June 06, 2011 at 11:41 am, Ashley Horne said:

      I approved this comment mostly to highlight the “tolerance” of some who oppose our viewpoint. :)

      • June 17, 2011 at 5:34 pm, Brad W. said:

        Good call, Ashley. They curse love and us while claiming to have ‘real’ love. I don’t want any of their kind of love if it’s that hateful. I’ll take the love that my Jesus offers me…REAL LOVE!

  • June 06, 2011 at 6:26 am, Gemma Hentsch said:

    Well as a LGBTQIA rights activist (and a moderately lesbian woman) I’ve got to say, that the Obama administration has been pretty anemic as far as LGBTQIA rights goes.

    If he really had been a champion, he’d have put DADT at the top of his agenda, and Marriage equality, both have been done as an afterthought, rather than core values.

    Here’s my Scorecard for his actions and its pretty poor.


    NOTE: Referral to websites not produced by CitizenLink is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.