Ruth Speaks Out

This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.


Thanksgiving Message from Dr. Morse

Thanksgiving, more than any other American holiday, is a family holiday. No matter their religious heritage, on this day, Americans unite in giving thanks for their many blessings. Families long scattered gather together to share food and make memories. In years past, the day before Thanksgiving was always the busiest travel day of the year.

Not so much this year. This Thanksgiving, some governors are going wild with COVID restrictions. Some state governments are telling us how many people we can have at the Thanksgiving table. Some states won’t let anyone enter without a negative COVID test, or a two-week self-quarantine. Pennsylvania announced new restrictions ten days before Thanksgiving, disrupting thousands of people’s plans.

Some of the virus-containment rules are blatantly biased. The Mayor of San Francisco tried to limit church attendance in the massive cathedral there to one person at a time. Also in California, a judge lifted restrictions on strip clubs, considering them protected free speech. But churches in the same jurisdiction are closed for indoor services.


 

In the meantime, some of these self-appointed dictators transgress their own rules. California Governor Gavin Newsome was recently caught dining at one of the most exclusive and expensive restaurants in the state in direct violation of rules he himself had established. And let’s not forget Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her infamous unmasked trip to a beauty salon.

But sanity will eventually prevail. Thanksgiving is a family holiday and the family is bigger than government. Yes, there are risks involved in travel and gatherings. Yes, some people become very sick from COVID. Some even die. But many people who contract the virus have modest symptoms or no symptoms at all. The vast majority of people recover fully. We now know that contracting COVID is not a death sentence.

The experts who are advising the governments are single-minded in their focus on reducing numbers of cases. They cannot see the collateral damage to other legitimate aspects of human thriving.

  • The elderly people who waste away from loneliness.
  • The addicts who can’t go to their 12-Step meetings and relapse and lose their sobriety.
  • The unemployed who become depressed and even suicidal.
  • The small business owners who have a lifetime of effort wiped out.

Most of all, the so-called experts don’t take account of the divisions their sometimes-arbitrary rules have created. Families and friends are quarreling over who cares the most about other people.

  • “If you really cared about grandma’s health, you’d wear a mask and stay home.”
  • “If you really cared about the future we are leaving our children, you’d fight the governmental takeover of all of social life.”

And so on. Not only are we physically isolated. We are also psychologically isolated from people we love, work with and do business with.

One thing is for sure: these divisions are not natural. These conflicts are driven by the propaganda-artists in the media. Are they trying to pit us against each other? I don’t know that. But, let me stand this rhetoric on its head and speak directly to the media and others responsible for creating this current climate of fear and division.

  • If you really cared about our health, you would have encouraged people to take vitamin supplements that boost our immune systems at modest cost.
  • If you really cared about our health, you would have encouraged people to lose weight. We’ve known for some time that obesity is a risk factor for complications from COVID, as it is for respiratory diseases in general. If you had applied yourself to persuading people to lose weight instead of scaring them to death, a lot of people would have lost a lot of weight by now and been much healthier overall.
  • Speaking of scaring people to death, if you really cared about our health, you wouldn’t be. You would be leading a media campaign to “stay calm and carry on,” as the British did during WWII.
  • If you really cared about our health, you would be leading by example, suffering in the trenches alongside everyone else, instead of standing on your privileged positions and flouting your own edicts.

As I say, the family is bigger than government. In fact, the family existed long before there were governments. The Bible tells us that humanity started with the family. The Ruth Institute is an international interfaith coalition to defend the family and build a civilization of love. Our coalition includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Evangelicals and Pentecostals, Mormons and observant Jews. I can tell you that we are united in this one point at least: God created the family in the Garden of Eden. He created the Cosmos, the plants and animals, men and women. And finally, He created the first social institution: the married couple.

Every totalitarian movement of the past 100 years has despised and feared the family. That’s because the family can stand on its own and is a potential threat to any totalitarian plan. Every little household created by a man and a woman can sustain itself, provide for itself and protect itself. Fathers are natural authority figures. Mothers are natural objects of loyalty and affection. Totalitarian governments hate both.

In my book, The Sexual State, I pointed out that as members of a free society, we don’t want a “ruling class.” We want and need, a leadership class. It has become sadly clear that too many of the Elites are rulers, not leaders. In my decades of studying the Sexual Revolution, I have concluded that virtually every profession has been corrupted by that toxic ideology. Doctors who can’t figure when life begins or whether a boy can become a girl. Lawyers who happily use the law, not for justice, but as an ideological battering ram. Librarians and schoolteachers with agendas that undermine the wishes and authority of parents. It would not surprise me to learn that corruption I know about in these professions is not the only arena in which ideology trumps truth and science and justice.

I speak now to educated people, professional people, anyone with skills or authority or influence: I call upon you to use these gifts for the common good. The Elites, including the billionaires, the Tech Moguls, the politicians and the media, rely on you to implement their policies. They need you to supply technical knowledge and to keep systems running. They need you to actually see patients and go to court and choose library books and decide what the school play will be.

I call on you: Become servant leaders, not tools of the Ruling Class. When you see untruth or deception or corruption in your sphere of influence, don’t let it slide. Do something about it.

And everyone: do keep this one thought in mind: The family was created by God. Governments were created by man. God is infinite and everlasting. Governments are finite and fleeting. Only the family endures. We will outlast any government.

On that note, I’m off to start making pies for my family’s Thanksgiving feast. I’m Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, for the Ruth Institute, wishing you all a very blessed Thanksgiving Day.

 


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: The Sexual State in a Black Robe

by Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first posted at National Catholic Register on October 6, 2020.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was doubtless a fine person and dedicated to her ideas. I pray for God’s mercy on her soul, and solace to her family. But sadly, her ideas and her legacy on the U.S. Supreme Court have aided Sexual Revolutionaries in the deconstruction of sexual morality and the family. And the contentiousness that has already emerged around the process of replacing Ginsburg proves one thing beyond doubt: The Sexual Revolution depends on the power of the state to enforce its tenets.

Take the most immediate and obvious example of abortion law. The U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned democratically-enacted measures that sought to protect preborn life and abortion-minded women. States such as Louisiana and Texas attempted to enact modest health and safety restrictions on abortion. Ginsburg was part of the majority that overturned those laws, which had been enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people.


Ginsburg was similarly accommodating to revolutionary views of the biological sex of the body, as applied to LGBT issues and “transgenderism.” In 2015, she was part of the majority that redefined marriage in the Obergefell case. This past June, she voted to apply workplace anti-discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the gender-confused. The legal category of “women” corresponding to biology, is in the process of being replaced by a newly created legal construct of “people who say they are women, including biological males.” In other words, this ruling erases women. Thus, I find it ironic that Ginsburg is being hailed as a champion of women’s rights.

Overall, Justice Ginsburg was part of the Sexual Revolution’s coalition that seeks to redefine the meaning of human sexuality in law and society. Some of us recognize that the sexual act has the potential to create new life. The revolutionaries want to create a society in which sexual activity is normally sterile. Some of us embrace the responsibilities that flow from the life-giving potential of the sexual act, including the responsibilities to care for our children and to love our child’s other parent. The revolutionaries resent these responsibilities and want to downgrade them from obligations to options. Some of us believe that the sexual act is sacred and should be confined to marriage. The revolutionaries believe the sexual act is a recreational activity with no moral significance. They wish to reconstruct law and society around this belief.

Or perhaps I should say, they want to reconstruct society around this fantasy. The babies do keep appearing, after all. That is why the revolutionaries are so desperate to keep abortion unrestricted. The abortion license is an attempt to conceal the evidence that the revolutionary belief system is morally and intellectually bankrupt. The revolutionaries could count on Ginsburg to prop up their ideas. All the while, this coalition of people claim to be acting for the benefit of women.

But many women, all up and down the socio-economic ladder, long ago gave up on contraception and abortion as the keys to happiness and freedom. For these women, family is their highest priority and source of meaning. For many such women, “career” is a job to put food on the table.

By contrast, many women in powerful and prestigious positions cannot imagine what their lives would be like without contraception and abortion. They have made serious educational and financial commitments to become part of the managerial class. Motherhood is generally an impediment to professional success. Not always of course: The current leading candidate to replace Justice Ginsburg, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, has successfully combined a successful career with mothering a large family. But she is an unusual case, as she herself no doubt knows very well. In general, the deck is stacked against women who have children, too early or too many. De facto, delayed childbearing has become the price of entering the professional classes. Typically, female newscasters and college professors and jurists and doctors act as cheerleaders for the Sexual Revolution. These elite women of the managerial class know nothing of the “everywoman,” those who have endured the Sexual Revolution and don’t have high status, well-paid jobs as compensation.

At the time of Ginsburg’s death Sept. 18, three women sat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Ginsburg was the only one of the three who had any children. She came of age in the short window of time when women could still get married, have kids, go to law school and have a career after childbearing. She had her two children when she was 22 and 32. She also had the lifelong support of her husband in her maternal and career aspirations.

Such support today is a blessing too few women experience thanks to no-fault divorce. Women today can’t count on permanence in marriage. Women can, of course, go to law school and have a career all right. But getting married and having children sometime before menopause? Not so much. Justice Ginsburg and her radical colleagues do not seem to recognize the downsides to their revolutionary aspirations.

For Ginsburg, the Sexual State trumps the First Amendment’s freedom of religion, along with common sense and basic science. She consistently solidified the most radical tenets of the Sexual Revolution using the power of the state. This is why I say that Ginsberg was the personification of the Sexual State in a black robe.

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., is founder and president of The Ruth Institute.

Her latest book is The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives (and How the Church Was Right All Along).

The discussion of elite women vs “everywoman” is based on the chapter entitled, “On Class Warfare.”

 


What is Surrogacy and Why You Should Oppose It

What is surrogacy and why you should oppose it

Gestational Surrogate, gay couple

While most people have a cursory understanding of surrogacy, most haven’t thought through its implications. What is surrogacy? Broadly speaking, it is a situation where a woman agrees to carry a child to term for another person, or couple. Gestational surrogacy is when the mother that carries the baby is not biologically related to the baby. It usually starts with in-vitro fertilization, a donor's eggs are harvested, fertilized outside the body, and a tiny human being comes into existence.


For the pro-life individual it doesn’t seem bad thing, it means more babies going to more homes. For the progressive, it seems ok because people to fulfill their reproductive goals. The larger implications, however, should cause everyone to pause. Surrogacy is a market for humans, exploits women and children, and gives the surrogate mother fewer protections than adoption.

Buying and selling humans generally has the connotation of slavery, and isn’t often associated with smiling birth-mothers, and crying recipients. On the other hand, the surrogacy industry is estimated to be worth $30 billion worldwide. Local surrogacy centers pay up to $55,000 to qualifying surrogate mothers. The cost of surrogacy for the “commissioning parents” ranges from $90,000 to over $130,000. Any time we buy and sell some good or service, that's a market.

Embryo fertilization, invitro fertilization, surrogacy

The difference in economic situations between the surrogates and the commissioning parents unfortunately leads to economic exploitation, even within the United States. There isn’t a lot of law or regulation governing the surrogacy industry. 31 states have no regulations regarding surrogacy, and a lot of surrogacy interactions are governed by contracts, many of which provide for custom-made babies. These contracts also place the surrogate mothers in an exploitable position. To remedy this, Sweden has banned all surrogacy.

Surrogate mothers have fewer rights than adoptive parents. There are too many horror stories to share here, regarding the commissioning parents mistreatment or abuse the surrogate mothers before the baby is born. And no matter what behavior the commissioning parent engages in, from the moment the baby is born, the surrogate mother generally has to relinquish the child. Even mothers who place their baby for adoption can choose to keep her after she is born.

Anderson Cooper and partner, surrogacy, co-parenting

We justify poorer treatment of surrogate mothers, ostensibly, because they are paid. Surrogacy contracts place the reproductive capacity, choices, and body of a poor woman, outside of her control, and into the hands of wealthier, more powerful people. This arrangement seems to stand at odds with the concept, beloved of the Sexual State, that a woman has a moral right to decide what to do with her own body. If a woman has a right to decide what to do with her body, can a few slips of paper place someone else in control of her reproductive choices and health?

Surrogacy created humans, also known as embryos, usually are treated as less than second-class citizens. Doctors often implant multiple eggs, hoping for some to survive. In the event that multiple do survive, the surrogate can be contractually required to abort some of the babies via “selective reduction.” In the case that additional embryos are created and not implanted, they face an indefinite freeze, are donated to science, or are destroyed immediately. When the children are born, sometimes the “commissioning parents” will refuse to take disabled children.

This isn’t an abstract issue either. Senator Tammy Duckworth recently criticized Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s stance on aborting fertilized eggs. Senator Duckworth said, “She supports groups like the St. Joseph County Right to Life, which says they support the criminalization of IVF procedures that would result in the destruction of fertilized eggs… In my case, with both of my girls, they looked at two or three fertilized eggs, not even embryos at this point, and said, you know, this one isn’t very viable.” The third egg was “discarded.” It is inhumanly callous to treat a human, no matter how small, as an inconvenience to be discarded.

distressed girl, children with no link to parents

Additionally, the legal status of the child is thrown into limbo. Surrogacy may involve as many as five separate individuals: the egg donor, the sperm donor, the gestational carrier, and the two commissioning parents. With all these participants involved with the creation of a baby, sorting out who has parental rights becomes a terrible tangle.

Owning, controlling, and selling humans debased the “owners” and dehumanized the men and women who were enslaved. Even though slavery and the slave trade were banned over 150 years ago, we are still dealing with the repercussions. We ought to ask ourselves if we should engage in another market for human beings. This surrogacy market that not only allows for the selling of humans, but economically exploits the mothers, and cuts the baby’s biological ties to the woman who carried her.


The Sexual Revolution, Not Racism or Capitalism, Ruins the Lives of the Poor

By John Zmirak

This interview was published on September 15, 2020, at The Stream.

Jennifer Roback Morse is a scholar, wife, mom, and author. She founded perhaps the best comprehensive pro-life, pro-family think tank, the Ruth Institute. Her work documents the devastating impact of the Sexual Revolution on society’s weakest, most vulnerable people, especially children. The Stream’s John Zmirak interviewed her about her sobering book, The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives and Why the Church Was Right All Along.

John Zmirak: You founded the Ruth Institute. Can you please explain its mission?


 

Jennifer Morse: The Ruth Institute is an international interfaith coalition defending the family and building a civilization of love.

In your book The Sexual State you make a bold claim: the Sexual Revolution is a totalitarian movement. Why do you say that?

The key insight is that the goals of the Sexual Revolution are Utopian fantasies. The Revolutionaries promote the belief that a good and decent society should do everything possible to separate sex from babies, separate both sex and babies from marriage, and eliminate all distinctions between men and women.

But all these goals are impossible. Sex actually does make babies. Children do need their parents. Life-long marriage between their parents does protect the needs of children. Men and women are really different.

The Revolutionaries can demand unlimited power, once they have convinced people that these high-minded but impossible goals are non-negotiable and unambiguously good. After all, doing the impossible takes a lot of power to achieve as well as a lot of propaganda to sustain. These fantasies also require a scapegoat, someone to blame when the impossible fails to materialize.

Sex Bolsheviks Have Taken Over

You compare the Sexual Revolution with literal political revolutions, like the Russian Revolution and the French Revolution. What inspired you to make this comparison?

As I studied the Sexual Revolution, several similarities with the Bolshevik Revolution began to emerged in my mind. First, the ideological formula for these revolutions is exactly the same. An impossible ideal requires massive amounts of power and propaganda, plus a preferred scapegoat. That equals social chaos and increased concentrations of wealth and privilege.

Second, the body count of the Sexual Revolution is enormous, just considering the aborted babies alone. Add in the suicides, depression, unhappiness, loneliness and all the other consequences of family breakdown and sexual license. It is a staggering toll.

Finally, the concentrations of power into the hands of the Sexual Revolutionary ruling class, the intolerance of dissent, the use of “reeducation” programs. All these features are strikingly similar to communist regimes and movements around the world.

Malthusian Billionaires of the World, Unite!

Are you saying the Sexual Revolution was a Marxist movement?

Close but not exactly. It is quite true that Marx and Engels despised the nuclear family. However, there are plenty of non-Marxists who are big supporters of the Sexual Revolution. John D. Rockefeller III and Henry Kissinger were not Marxists in any meaningful sense. They were, however, big advocates of population control policies. And without the rest of the Sexual Revolution never would have gotten off the ground. They were dreadful elitists too, of course. I think it is better to see the Sexual Revolution as a free-standing ideology, all on its own, not a special case or offshoot of something else.

Defending Children’s “Right” to Get Molested

Talk about some of the “idealists” who helped launch the Sexual Revolution. What were their most outrageous claims?

My favorite wack-job would be Wilhelm Reich, who actually wrote a book entitled The Sexual Revolution. His basic belief was that children are “entitled” to have sex. He went downhill from there. He also claimed to have discovered a biological energy called “orgone.” In 1940 he started building “orgone accumulators,” devices that his patients sat inside to harness the reputed health benefits. The FDA took a dim view of his claims. He died in prison for consumer fraud.

Hating Creation, Hating the Creator

In your work, you point up the yawning gap between these sexual ideologies and the truths of human nature — social, biological, and moral. What are some of the most significant?

I recently interviewed Paul Kengor about his book The Devil and Karl Marx. He said something so true and profound that it took my breath away. He said, “All totalitarian ideologies try to change human nature.” The Marxists believed they could change human nature so that we could abolish private property and still have economic prosperity.

The Sexual Revolutionaries take a direct aim at the most basic facts of human nature. The Sexual Revolutionaries despise the fact that men and women are different and that sex makes babies, which in turn creates legitimate demands on parents to behave responsibly.

As a woman with a doctorate, I was expected to place my children in daycare and have absolutely no negative feelings about that. God spared me from going too far down that path, by sending me an incredibly needy first child who could not possibly have survived daycare. I took the professional “hits” involved in stepping off the career path laid out for me. When you see women dropping off their infants at day care, with tears streaming down her cheeks, and she thinks she must toughen up and do it anyway, that is the power of the Revolutionary war against human nature.

The Sexual Revolutionaries hate the human body and its limitations. They hate the world as it actually is and are out to recreate the world. In this respect, they really are a Gnostic death cult.

Survivors of the Sexual Revolution

In the Russian Revolution, there were winners and losers. Who are the winners in the Sexual Revolution? Who are the losers?

At the Ruth Institute, we describe those who are harmed as “victims” and hopefully “survivors” of the Sexual Revolution. The Survivors include:

  • Children of divorce.
  • Abandoned spouses.
  • Reluctantly single parents.
  • Post-abortive women. And
  • People with all sorts of health problems from contraception, abortion and casual sex.

The Survivors also include all the people I would describe as “refugees” from the hook-up culture or the LGBT subculture. That is, people who participated in it, and walked away from it because it made them miserable. We can also include those whom I call the “Heartbroken Career Women.” I mean women who made their educations and careers their top priority and were not able to have as many children as they wanted. This is a widespread phenomenon in virtually every developed country. Figure 1 in this study is devastating. Behind this sterile chart are millions of heartbroken women.

Dissidents and Scapegoats Whom the Revolutionaries Target

Who are the kulaks and the Gulag prisoners of the Sexual Revolution?

The kulaks were the scapegoats for the Soviet system. The current scapegoats are Christians who are holding out for traditional sexual morality. “If only you Christians would stop making everyone feel guilty, we could all have a lifetime of guilt-free, problem-free sex.”

The Gulag prisoners are the people who are silenced: Children of divorce are not allowed to complain. Their parents are happy, so they must be happy. Likewise, people whose spouses abandoned them without cause. These people are not allowed to complain, their spouses have “moved on;” why can’t they? The people whose health has been ruined or whose contraception hurt them. They are supposed to be satisfied with a payout from Big Pharma and a gag order. All these people are socially invisible. They are blamed for the suffering inflicted on them by the Revolution.

How We Survived

Your group holds an annual conference for the “Survivors of the Sexual Revolution.” Can you share with us some of the past speakers, and their video testimonies?

Yes, we conceived the idea of a Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution as a way of bringing people together. We gather experts on the various subject matters, survivors of the sexual revolution, and activists who are trying to accomplish some positive change. Last year, we featured “Survivors of Divorce” and “Survivors of the LGBT Subculture.” The witnesses were unbelievably powerful. We had an adult woman whose parents divorced when she was five. Also a man whose wife abandoned him for another man, and a woman who is both a child of divorce and an abandoned spouse.

This year, we discussed survivng childhood sexual abuse, pornography and the LGBT subculture. And if I do say so myself, my talk on how “The Global Ruling Class Likes Pedophilia” was a real eye-opener.

I have also interviewed a number of Survivors on my video podcast, The Dr. J Show.

I wrote at The Stream that the real suffering of poor people, especially black people, thanks to the Sexual Revolution is being hijacked by radical groups like Black Lives Matter. Instead of acknowledging the real damage done by elite ideologies like Sexual Liberation, these groups seek a scapegoat, a conspiracy theory.

Finish the article here.

Experts and Witnesses to Speak at Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution, July 17-18

“They may not be household names, but they have crucial information and first-hand experience about what the Sexual Revolution has done to individuals and society,” said Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., President of The Ruth Institute, in describing the speakers for the upcoming Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution, July 17-18 in Lake Charles, LA.

“Our speakers include professionals who have worked with these issues for years, and survivors who can bear witness to the trauma of a movement sold as liberation that’s resulted in the physical and spiritual enslavement of millions,” Morse said.

The speakers include:

Dr. Paul Church – a practicing urologist for over 35 years and Asst. Professor of Surgery at the Harvard Medical School who was fired for challenging his colleagues to tell the truth about the health consequences of LGBTQ behavior.

Sue Ellen Browder – a former Cosmopolitan journalist who’s appeared on hundreds of radio and television shows (including Oprah, The Today Show and EWTN) and is the author of the recently published Subverted: How I Helped the Sexual Revolution Hijack the Women’s Movement.


Tracy Shannon -- When her husband of 15 years left her to live as a woman, she decided to combat the new sexual morality. As Director of MassResistance Texas, she’s fought Drag Queen Story Hours in libraries across the state.

Fr Paul Sullins, Ph.D. – Senior Research Associate of the Ruth Institute and a retired sociology professor who’s done pioneering work on the impact of same-sex parenting on children and the relationship between clergy sex abuse and homosexual ordination within the Catholic priesthood.

Dr. Michelle Cretella MD. – a pediatrician and full-time Executive Director of the American College of Pediatricians. Dr. Cretella is one of the world’s most outspoken critics of the gender ideology in pediatrics and the author of “Gender Dysphoria in Children and Suppression of Debate” in the Summer 2016 issue of Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Luis Ruiz – wounded in the 2016 Pulse Night Club shooting in Orlando, in which 50 died and 58 were injured. While hospitalized, he learned he was HIV-positive, causing him to reevaluate his life, leave the homosexual lifestyle, and return to the church in which he grew up. He now shares his message with audiences across the country.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. -- founder of the Ruth Institute, a global non-profit organization that defends the family at home and in the public square and equips others to do the same. She was a campaign spokeswoman for California’s winning Proposition 8 campaign, defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. She has authored or co-authored five books and spoken around the globe on marriage, family and human sexuality. Her latest book is The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives and Why the Church was Right All Along. She earned her Ph.D. at the University of Rochester, taught economics at Yale and George Mason Universities and was named one of the “Catholic Stars of 2013” on a list that included Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI.

Click here for the complete program for the 2020 Summit.

Click here to register to attend in person or by live streaming.

 

 



Ruth Inst: Blatant Judge Bias in “Trans” Athletes Case

Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., called Judge Chatigny’s order requiring plaintiffs’ attorneys to refer to male athletes as “trans-female” outrageous.

Alliance Defending Freedom is challenging a Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference decision allowing male athletes who “identify” as female to compete in the girls’ division.

ADF is representing three girls who maintain it’s unfair to force them to compete against boys.

Morse observed, “You don’t need a degree in physiology to see that boys have an advantage in athletic contests due to their superior strength and speed. No amount of politically correct thinking can change that.” She notes that two “transgender male” sprinters together have won a total of 15 girls indoor and outdoor championships in Connecticut since 2017.


Morse added, "These young men say they are females trapped in a male body. Be that as it may, their male bodies are competing against girl bodies. No legal dictate can change this obvious fact."

The Ruth Institute agrees with the ADF motion asking the federal judge hearing the case to recuse himself.

“In his ruling on language, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Chatigny is demanding that lawyers for the plaintiffs adopt the language of their opponents, such as ‘trans-female,’” Morse said. “Judge Chatigny has clearly signaled that his mind is made up on the case, and that, regardless of the evidence ADF presents, he intends to allow the CIAC’s rule to stand.”

Connecticut is one of 17 states that allows students to compete in their division of choice without any restrictions. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a statement of interest in the case, stating: “Allowing biological males to compete in all-female sports deprives women of the opportunity to participate fully and fairly in sports, and is fundamentally unfair to female athletes.”

Morse added: “The idea that individuals can change their sex is a basic tenet of the Sexual Revolution. In reality, the athletes the judge refers to as ‘trans-female’ were born male, are male, and will remain male until the day they die, no matter how they describe themselves and whatever an activist judge orders.”

~~~

The Ruth Institute is a global non-profit organization leading an international interfaith coalition to defend the family and build a civilization of love.

Jennifer Roback Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.

To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse, contact media@ruthinstitute.org.

 


NYC Health Dept. Caters to Sex Addicts

“At first I thought it was as joke,” said Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., “but New York City’s Health Department really did issue guidelines on containing the Wuhan virus which recommend masturbation and warn against group sex, at least while the crisis lasts.”

The Health Department memo says, “Masturbation will not spread COVID-19, especially if you wash your hands (and any sex toys) with soap and water for at least 20 seconds before and after.”

“The next safest partner is someone you live with,” the city advises. “If you do have sex, have as few partners as possible.”


Morse commented, “Normal people know they should not participate in life-threatening activities. Do the residents of New York need to be told to abstain from casual sex, sex with strangers and orgies during this major public health crisis?”

The New York Post seemed to play the story for laughs, saying “it makes sense to give yourself a hand.” But Morse takes this seriously, “Memo to NYC Health Department: no one has ever died from abstaining from sex. If you think you’ll die without sex, you are probably a sex addict. It appears that the Department is run by and for sex addicts. It assumes that group sex, casual sex and orgies are normal.”

Morse continued: “This is all depressingly typical of the Sexual Revolution, which treats sex as a mere bodily function. It maintains that people have a right to sex, as much and any way they want, free of consequences. This is the perspective that allows the New York Health Department to think they are making a bold move. Recommending limits of any kind, but only for the duration of the pandemic, that’s a radical step for them.”

“One thing they never do is discuss sex in a moral context,” Morse observed. “For them, talking about sex and morality in the same breath is puritanical and obsessive. But since the Centers for Disease Control says there are 20 million new STD infections each year, maybe there’s something to be said for self-restraint.”

Morse concluded: “Other casualties of the Sexual Revolution include divorce, failure to achieve intimacy, fatherless families, declining fertility and a pornified culture. It’s unlikely that the New York City Department of Health has put out memos on any of this.”

The Ruth Institute’s upcoming Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution – Protecting Children and Families (July 17-18 in Lake Charles, Louisiana) will examine many of these issues.

The Ruth Institute is a global non-profit organization leading an international interfaith coalition to defend the family and build a civilization of love. Find more here.

References:

“NYC Health Department gets graphic in coronavirus sex memo” https://nypost.com/2020/03/21/nyc-health-department-gets-graphic-in-coronavirus-sex-memo/

The memo itself: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-sex-guidance.pdf

Sexually Transmitted Diseases – HealthyPeople.gov https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/sexually-transmitted-diseases

Jennifer Roback Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.

To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse, contact media@ruthinstitute.org.


The Sexual Deep State

By Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first published December 10, 2019, at American Mind.

The Sexual Revolution was never about freedom. It was always about control.

America is no longer governed by the Constitution in the sense the Founders understood. Instead, we are governed by a collection of unelected, unaccountable administrative agencies. Readers of this site are likely familiar with the concept of the Administrative State.

Readers of this site are also familiar with the concept of the Deep State. The Deep State goes beyond this bureaucracy to include other structures of society that are not strictly part of the government, but which support and promote and protect it in various ways. Media, academia, entertainment, corporations, charitable foundations, and even professional sports have become part of the interlocking structures that constrain people’s behavior and thinking. The “Deep State” is deep in the sense of being pervasive, powerful, and largely hidden.


In this article, I build on these concepts and propose the additional concept of the Sexual State. The sexual regime under which we all live shares key features of the Deep State and relies on and supports the Administrative State. This claim has vast political and personal ramifications.

The Sexual State

Despite appearances, the Sexual Revolution has nothing to do with enhancing individual freedom. On the contrary, cultural elites commandeered the power of the State to implement their utopian social-sexual vision. The Sexual Revolution serves the interests of this elite ruling class. The Sexual Revolution did not arise from a spontaneous upwelling of “cultural change” or the inexorable “March of History.”

To illustrate this point, consider the sexual revolutionary issue du jour: inventing and securing rights for the so-called transgender person. Boys who say they are girls must be allowed to participate in girls’ athletic competitions. Public libraries must host drag queens reading to toddlers. Men who say they’re women must be admitted to domestic violence shelters and incarcerated in women’s prisons. No serious person can maintain that ordinary people are organically demanding these policies, each more bizarre and aggressive than the next.

Although some are True Believers and are motivated by their abstract ideological commitments, for the most part the elites are foisting these ideas on the public to serve a combination of their ideological, financial, and personal interests—to satisfy their raw desire for power.

Pharmaceutical companies, for instance, have a financial interest in the transgender ideology. People who attempt to live as the opposite sex will require a lifetime of medical care, including expensive drugs and hormone replacements.

The enforcers of “politically correct” pronoun usage will need ever-increasing amounts of legal, as well as cultural power. These enforcers include but are not limited to functionaries of the State. The arbiters of taste and public opinion will have their status enhanced. They can announce new standards of behavior, invent new offenses (called “micro-aggressions”), and form twitter mobs to attack violators. No doubt many of them enjoy the rush of power that arises from the socially sanctioned ability to inflict harm on others.

Like the Bolsheviks, the True Believers in the Sexual Revolution have given their lives to an irrational ideology that has no chance of actually working, if by “working” we mean implementation without the continued destruction of what remains of our civilization. But the irrationality of their fantasy does not deter them. They convince themselves that the nobility of their objectives justifies everything and anything. They think they only require more raw State power, and the manipulative power of propaganda, in order to succeed.

The Sexual Revolution Defined

The ideology of the Sexual Revolution includes three elements.

1. The first marker of a “good” and “decent” and “progressive” society is the separation of sex from babies.

Contraception must not only be legally available, but also subsidized and actively promoted. Of course, abortion on demand is a requirement too, as a back-up plan in the event of contraceptive failure. I call this the Contraceptive Ideology.

2. The second idea is that a “good” society should separate both sex and babies from marriage.

A person doesn’t have to be married before having sex or having a baby. Behind this is the deeper idea that kids don’t really need both parents. Kids are resilient. They can survive despite multiple changes in their parents’ choice of sexual partners and living arrangements. In fact, the kids might even benefit, because the kids will be happy as long as their parents are happy. I call this the Divorce Ideology.

3. The third idea is that a “good” society tries to eradicate the significance of differences between men and women.

Certain types of feminism blazed the trail for this ideology. In its early form, it asserted that differences between men and women were socially constructed and almost certain evidence of injustice. The ideology has morphed into transgenderism, which asserts that technology and social engineering can overwrite the sex of the body. In both versions, the sex of the body is insubstantial and can be changed at will. I call this the Gender Ideology.

In fact, we might say that this is the defining feature of the entire Sexual Revolution: human will can override physical realities of sex and reproduction.

This ideology asserts: not only can we obliterate the sex of the body, but we can also build an entire society in which sexual activity is sterile—a society in which child-free sex is the default setting. Reproduction occurs only at the will of the individual parents, and on their terms. The Divorce Ideology insists that we can override the most basic human attachments, that between a child and his or her mother and father. We attempt to convince our children and ourselves that the biological bonds between us are unimportant.

This assertion of human will over nature is the first significant overlap between the Administrative State and the Sexual Revolution.

As Claremont Institute Senior Fellow John Marini, one of the most important theorists of the Administrative State, argues, this shift from reason and natural law to the raw will of the political class is one of the hallmarks of the move away from constitutional governance and toward the current regime of rule by administrative agencies. Marini argues that rule by the elite technocratic class began with Woodrow Wilson in the original “Progressive Era.” It came to full fruition with Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Congress announces a vision, and tasks the bureaucracy with its implementation.

The natural feedback loops that might correct wildly unreasonable objectives do not operate. Ordinary folk who are subjected to the Administrative State cannot vote it out of office, as they might under a constitutional regime. Nor can they take their money elsewhere, as they might in a market setting. Whether the government’s vision be reasonable or not, whether it be chosen by the people or not, the bureaucracy chugs along.

Let us look at a few recent examples of the Sexual State in action, to see how it fits in with Marini’s analysis.

The Sexual Deep State at Work

#SaveJames: James Younger and the lawlessness of the family courts

A divorced father in Texas wishes to raise his twin sons both as boys. Their mother treats one of the boys as a girl, calls him by a girl’s name, dresses him in girl’s clothing and sends him to school as a girl. The family court had given full decision-making rights to the mother, excluding the father’s input into decision-making about medical and psychological care. Due to a public outcry over the case, the judge backed away from the original decision and is now giving the father shared rights.

Most of the discussion has centered on the transgender aspect of the case. I wish to call attention to the power of the family court in regulating the life of a law-abiding father.

In court documents from this case, we see the mother’s “wish list.” She asks that the father be enjoined from cutting his son’s hair, using the “wrong” pronoun, or calling him by the “wrong” name. At one point, the mother requested that the father be prevented from going within 500 ft of the children’s school. The mother complained that the father might attend a parents’ event at the school, and “out” the boy as a boy to people who had only known him as a girl.

The transgender aspects of this case are built upon existing divorce law. The courts have had this kind of authority over the lives of law-abiding parents for a long time. Family courts regulate the minutiae of family life, including their finances, how they spend their time, where the children go to school, and yes, even the children’s haircuts.

Family courts are an example of the Administrative State on steroids. They are accountable to no one. Often, their proceedings take place in secret. The judge in the Younger case placed a gag order on both parents, preventing them from talking to the media until the boys turn 18. In fact, the documents alluded to above are posted on a website called www.gagthis.org created by friends of the father.

Marini observes that the Administrative State robs citizens of the power of self-government and lodges it in the hands of experts. Family courts and the administrative apparatus around them will say that they decide issues “in the best interests of the child.” The truth is that “the best interests of the child” is for them to live with both parents in a lifelong union of love and fidelity.

Many well-meaning people suppose that “no-fault” divorce means mutual consent divorce. This is not the case. Our divorce regime is a unilateral divorce regime. Anyone who wants a divorce gets to have one: The State always takes sides with the party who wants the marriage the least. The State incentivizes disloyalty and infidelity between spouses. And when things go wrong, the State empowers itself to clean up the mess.

The injustices of the unilateral divorce regime have been known for a long time. The Deep State could, at any time, enact divorce by mutual consent. Yet, they do not. The most reasonable explanation is that they like the system exactly the way it is.

David Daleiden: The Deep State circles the wagons around abortion

Undercover journalists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt recorded Planned Parenthood employees discussing the sale of body parts from aborted babies. These journalists believed they were “investigating violent felonies committed against children born alive in Planned Parenthood facilities.”

Planned Parenthood filed a civil suit, alleging that Daleiden and his team committed illegal wiretapping, trespassing, breaches of confidentiality, and more. As one analyst put it, Planned Parenthood attorneys must walk a fine line “to make the case that Daleiden and his team illegally recorded private conversations, without admitting what exactly those conversations were about.”

Planned Parenthood won their civil suit with the help of a cooperative judge. U.S. District Judge William Orrick III has ties to Planned Parenthood: he served as secretary and counsel to one of their affiliates, and his wife made inflammatory public statements against the defendants. He did not recuse himself, nor did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals compel Orrick to recuse himself.

Orrick steered the case away from First-Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of the press issues that would normally be at play in a case involving investigative journalism. He cut off testimony and evidence that called attention to “exactly what the conversations were about.” He refused to let the jury see most of the videos in question. He instructed the jury to find the defendants guilty of trespass. The only question for the jury in his courtroom was the amount of the damages to be awarded.

This case illustrates the elements of the Deep State working together. Abortion being legal is not enough for the Deep State. The Abortion Industry must be beyond criticism. And why is that? Because, despite their continual claims to the contrary, abortion is not “just another medical procedure.” If it were, the Abortion Industry and its cheerleaders would not object to health and safety regulations. Nor would the Ruling Elites object to the Abortion Industry being investigated for potential felonies.

Abortion must be protected because it is the ultimate guarantor of the position that sex is a sterile activity. Every person old enough to give meaningful consent is entitled to unlimited, child-free, problem-free, guilt-free sex. If abortion has serious side effects, even if only for some people, publicizing that fact undermines the “right” to sex. If the Abortion Industry is out for its own financial gain and should not be trusted, that too undermines the belief that inconvenient conceptions can always be undone.

That is why keeping abortion “safe, legal, and rare” has never been enough.

This brings us to the personal interests of many in the Elite classes. Delaying childbearing has become the cost of entering the professions. That means many of our most successful and visible and influential people have used contraception or abortion. They literally cannot imagine what their lives would be without it. Journalists, lawyers, foundation officers, business executives, and politicians all join hands to protect the Abortion Industry from skeptics like David Daleiden.

Incidentally, the Abortion Industry makes a lot of money, including millions from tax-payers.

Jeffrey Epstein: tying it all together.

The recent arrest and “suicide” of Jeffrey Epstein brings together all the key features of the Sexual Deep State.

As everyone now knows, Jeffrey Epstein was guilty of a lifetime of sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable young “adult” women. He provided these young girls and women to powerful men in the top echelons of society, including government and academia. We can be fairly sure that top media executives covered for him. Epstein blackmailed the men while he was exploiting the victims. Elites from multiple sectors conspired against the weak. What made it possible, beyond the use of raw power?

Reports from the victims tell us that he preyed upon fatherless girls and girls from foster homes. This is a revealing fact. The fatherless girl is a sitting duck for predators. Fathers are natural authority figures. The ideology of “feminism”—which now holds that all men are potential rapists and not to be trusted—delegitimized fathers in this very role: as authority figures. Between that psychological reframing, and terrible public policies, fathers have been systematically removed from the home—and particularly from the homes of the poorest and most vulnerable. The functions they used to perform are now performed by the State and its functionaries, or not performed at all.

This dynamic has parallels throughout our society.

Law enforcement is now constantly undermined; police officers are ceaselessly delegitimized. Sowing distrust of lawfully constituted law enforcement creates a void in public safety. A paid rent-a-mob steps into the void, with the tacit approval of elected officials. The likes of Antifa are answerable to no lawful authority, only to whoever is paying them and whoever is permitting them to operate with impunity. But as Angelo Codevilla has observed, Antifa violence is only a problem in places where the city fathers allow it to be a problem. Without the protection of local elected officials, “Antifa’s numbers and their capacity for mayhem are no match for ordinary police forces—nor for armed citizens.”

The Sexual Revolution also creates and promotes the Ideology of self-indulgence, conveying the unmistakable message that everyone is entitled to do whatever they can get away with. Prosecutors said Epstein had three active US passports and owned multiple jets and houses around the world, including his own private island. Witnesses and victims feared Epstein’s retaliation and blackmail. This is the sort of man who can get away with a lot.

But the ideology of the Sexual Deep State relieves people of nagging consciences. Epstein’s conscience is malformed, to put it mildly. In 2011, he told the New York Post, “I’m not a sexual predator, I’m an ‘offender.’ It’s the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel.” He once allegedly received three 12-year-old girls as a birthday present. No ideology should justify the actions of a man like that. But the Sexual Revolution provides just such excuses.

Conclusion

I cite many other examples in my book, The Sexual State.

The Sexual Revolution has been a power grab. This is why I capitalize the term “Sexual Revolution.” No matter what one’s opinion of it may be, I think we must give it the historical dignity it deserves. The Sexual Revolution has been every bit as significant in reshaping society as the French Revolution, or the Bolshevik Revolution.

The “social conservatives” are not the ones trying to “impose their morality” on an unwitting society. The Sexual Revolutionaries are enforcing their morality upon our citizenry with impunity. The “social issues” are not just soft, fluffy issues, unworthy of the attention of serious thinkers. Undermining and replacing the regime of the natural family is serious business, with the capacity to undermine everything else traditional America and conservatism claims to hold dear, including fiscal responsibility, the limits of government power, and the primacy of reason itself.

That is why relegating “social issues” to the margins is a big mistake for the future of a free society. The Sexual Deep State needs to be seen for what it is: an essential part of the ruling ideology of the political class and its tyrannical administrative state.

 



'The Sexual State': How Government and Big Donors Gave Us the Sexual Revolution

By Tyler O'Neil

This article was first posted October 4, 2018, at PJMedia.com.

Cover of "The Sexual State" by Jennifer Roback Morse
 
In 21st century America, sex is all around us: on television, in movies, in classrooms, in politics, and even in churches. Sex permeates our desires, our expectations for relationships, even our identity. The Sexual Revolution goes far beyond the LGBT movement, and it has fundamentally reshaped American society. But few Americans actually grasp exactly where this revolution came from. An explosive new book reveals that government and wealthy donors, rather than impersonal historical forces or newly liberated women, propelled the Sexual Revolution.

"The State bears the greatest responsibility for the toxic sexual culture in which we live," Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute (RI), writes in "The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologues Are Destroying Lives And Why the Church Was Right All Along." She presented five other explanations for the Sexual Revolution, and found each one wanting.


Many have suggested that the Sexual Revolution came about through the inevitable and impersonal "march of history." This view does not work "because it robs us and our forbears of human agency." Even the overhyped birth control pill "is just an inert piece of technology" that people could decide to use or not use, or use in different ways.

Morse also rebuts the feminist narrative, which suggests that "these changes have been one long string of victories for the benefit and advancement of women." Ironically, the very success of women's liberation "undermines the claim that women have been completely powerless and dominated by the patriarchy throughout all of recorded history." Furthermore, the author argues that "the pro-life movement is dominated by women," suggesting that not all women want more of the Sexual Revolution.

Perhaps the most common explanation for the Sexual Revolution is the "liberationist narrative," which posits that everyone is more free thanks to new sexual norms. This view also cannot explain how age-old oppression was immediately dissolved in one generation, Morse argues.

Furthermore, many people "have become less free, in fact actually oppressed, by the very forces that are supposedly liberating us. The breaking of family bonds has increased the size and scope of the State, including the intrusion of the State into the everyday lives of ordinary people." She mentions college sex tribunals, family courts — which even rule on which schools and churches children can attend — and higher taxes to pay for social workers who manage tough divorces and family breakdown.

Morse also rejects the "over-population narrative," which suggests that "too many people create ecological disaster and economic backwardness," so the State needs to control population through birth control and abortion. Interestingly, advocates of this narrative "haven't been able to adapt the narrative to the changing circumstances of population decline, which the Over-Population Narrative itself helped bring about."

Finally, the author turns to a "steal capitalist narrative," explaining the Sexual Revolution by pointing to the many people who benefit financially from family breakdown. Abortionists, pharmaceutical companies, the fertility industry, pornographers, divorce professionals, family court judges and lawyers, medical professionals who specialize in sexually transmitted diseases, and social workers all perversely benefit from family breakdown, contraception, and abortion.

Even higher education and employers benefit from women choosing to get married later, to go to school and to work, rather than raising a family. Morse claims that employers benefit from easy divorce as well, as women are less able to rely on their husbands to financially support them. She suggests that these factors cement the Sexual Revolution, but they do not explain it.

The author boils the Sexual Revolution down to three basic "ideologies:" the Contraceptive Ideology separates sex from childbearing; the Divorce Ideology separates sex and childbearing from marriage; and the Gender Ideology eliminates the distinctions between men and women that individuals do not explicitly embrace.

"The Sexual Revolution needs the State for one major reason: the premises of the Sexual Revolution are false," Morse declares. "Sex does make babies. Children do need their parents, and therefore marriage is the proper and just context for both sex and childbearing. Men and women are different." The Sexual Revolution requires "reconstructing society" around a rejection of these basic truths, so it involves a great deal of propaganda.

"If you can make people believe Bruce Jenner, the 1976 male Olympic decathlon winner, is a woman, you can make them believe 2 + 2 = 5. If you can make people afraid to say, 'Bruce Jenner is a man,' you can make them afraid to say anything," Morse quips. "The Sexual Revolution is a totalitarian ideology with a blind commitment to the implementation of its tenets, regardless of the human costs."

The book begins with a list of victims of the Sexual Revolution, a topic for a future article. Those victims include children of divorce, spouses who did not want to get divorced, women who waited too long to have children, young women who wanted to abstain from sex, and more. Suffice it to say, the Sexual Revolution has harmed many people.

Morse narrates how the state unleashed the Sexual Revolution, beginning with the Supreme Court contraception case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The Contraceptive Ideology predated this decision and played a large role in pushing the Court to change the law on contraception.

The author cites liberal attorney Leo Pfeffer and conservative historian Allan Carlson, who agreed that governments will consider contraception necessary once they have established welfare states — in order to prevent the subsidized poor from having children. Tragically, the U.S. government pushed contraception before Griswold, pushing contraception in post-World War II Japan and other foreign countries considered to be U.S. interests.

In the 1960s and 1970s, USAID started pushing contraception and abortion, thinking these "family planning" efforts would help other countries defeat poverty. These policies were also wrapped up with the ugly eugenics movement in America.

In order to downplay the ugly history of eugenics, contraception activists turned to the work of Alfred Kinsey, an academic who claimed that "up to" 67 to 98 percent of American men ha had premarital sex and that 69 percent of American males had at least one experience with a prostitute. His claims were shot down by other researchers, who exposed his shoddy methods. But the Rockefeller Foundation funded his research and sent his crackpot theories mainstream.

Planned Parenthood and its allies enjoyed connections to elites, and helped push the Court in the direction of legalizing contraception for anyone across the country.

Similarly, elite institutions and big donors pushed no-fault divorce, Morse argues. After Ronald Reagan signed the first no-fault divorce law in 1968, the American Law Institute (ALI), founded with support from the Carnegie Foundation, crafted model legislation to insert the state in between husbands and wives — and favor the spouse who wanted a divorce.

The ALI pushed for decriminalizing private sexual acts between consenting adults, a key plank that struck down states' ability to regulate obscene materials and contraception.

By 1974, all but five states had adopted a form of no-fault divorce.

Morse argues that no-fault divorce positions the power of the state on the side of whichever spouse least wants the marriage to continue. This damages spouses who are committed to the marriage, but it also damages children who do not grow up with both of their parents. It also empowers the government, which now mediates between divorced mothers and fathers.

The author argues that the claim "the kids will be all right" is propaganda. She cites the work of Judith Wallerstein, who found that divorce has a long-term impact on children — damaging their prospects for romantic relationships in adulthood. Similarly, the worries about husbands abusing wives are overblown, as studies have shown that women and children are more likely to be abused in cohabiting relationships than in marriage.

Finally, Morse argues that the government and elites pushed the "Gender Ideology" — long before transgender identity went mainstream — in order to encourage women to be "ideal workers:" "a person who never takes time off, is never sick, whose mental and psychological focus is entirely on the job."

"We've built a society around the premise that our educated women must be permitted to time their 1.6 pregnancies right down to the minute when it's most convenient. But convenient for whom? All too often, it means the convenience of the employers, or the interests of the career path, or of those who hold the student debt which the young woman or young couple must pay down," Morse claims.

The author does not lament the fact that women have entered the "managerial class," highly paid professions which do not involve manual labor. She herself is a member of this class. Rather, she suggests that the pressures of work and the benefits of this class enable people to overlook the obvious differences between men and women.

"People who do manual labor aren't deluded for a moment that men and women are interchangeable," Morse quips. For this reason, men are vastly over-represented in the dangerous professions.

Women's involvement in the workforce need not be connected to the Sexual Revolution's Gender Ideology, the author argues. "I claim the right to participate in the labor market as women, not as men in skirts." She suggests that "educated women would be better off if they accepted that their fertility peaks during their twenties and planned their lives around this fact."

Morse lays out a basic life plan: Women should go to college for a liberal education, not a vocational one. They should et married and have kids early, using their higher educations to be involved in educating their kids. "Let your husbands support you. Trust them. Be grateful for them," and when the children are older, go back for an advanced degree and work.

Tragically, activists are pushing on all these issues and more. Morse discusses same-sex marriage in a chapter on the Gender Ideology. She recalls the battle over California's Proposition 8.

"The 'Yes on 8' campaign was arguably the largest grassroots campaign in history," she writes, noting that California's secretary of state website crashed because there were over 5,000 pages of contributors to the campaign. Yet modern "progressives" "took Proposition 8 to court on flimsy pretexts and rich people's money."

After Proposition 8 passed and the people had amended their constitution, California's attorney general refused to defend it. The people's will failed thanks to an effective pocket veto. in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013), the Supreme Court ruled that proponents of ballot initiatives like Proposition 8 could not defend such laws in court, enabling Gov. Jerry Brown (D-Calif.) to resume same-sex marriage in the state. Now-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) performed the first same-sex marriage after this ruling.

As with Proposition 8, wealthy liberals continue to push Sexual Revolution issues, particularly abortion and contraception. George Soros and Warren Buffett continue to fund abortion groups, and they use their money to "shape political institutions so they can use the government to recreate the world in their own image and likeness," Morse alleges.

Importantly, the book notes that contraception carries health risks for women, and some studies have shown that hormonal contraception is as likely to cause cancer as smoking. "Smoking has been all but banned, tobacco companies have been sued, and smokers have been socially shunned," Morse writes. "By contrast, the government actively promotes the use of hormonal contraception while the media plays down the risks."

Abortion, often considered an alternative should contraception fail, also carries tremendous health risks to the mother, which medical associations keep secret for political reasons, the author argues. She also notes that wealthy donors funded abortion activists who convinced the Supreme Court to strike down Texas regulations treating abortion clinics like any other medical facility.

"When the people of Texas, acting through their duly elected state legislators, enacted health and safety legislation for abortion clinics, the elites of society knocked it down," Morse declares.

"The Sexual State" makes a compelling case that state power and wealthy elites pushed the Sexual Revolution, and people should fight back. While Morse does address LGBT issues, her book mostly focuses on the negative impacts the Sexual Revolution has had on family life, harming faithful spouses, children of divorce, and many others.

Morse, a Roman Catholic, presents a very Catholic view of these issues and champions the Catholic Church's approach. Her book was ill-fated to release shortly after the sexual abuse scandal broke, but her points still stand.

The book may be too polemical, but it raises important questions about the hidden harms of the Sexual Revolution and who benefits from this humongous social change.

"The Sexual State" is an important book for libertarians to wrestle with, as it presents a compelling case that big government benefits from the Sexual Revolution, and that marriage and family would help weaken the power of the state.


The Sexual State: how a rolling revolution is destroying lives

 

Divorce Child, by Javad Alizadeh, Iranian artist. CC via Wikimedia

 

The author of a new book talks about the elite ideologies driving today’s sexual culture.

Jennifer Roback Morse | Sep 10 2018 at Mercatornet.com.

 

Did the Sexual Revolution just sweep through society like a mindless force of nature, or did powerful people actively promote it? Why is the sexual revolutionary propaganda so relentless, and increasingly bizarre? Do children have rights to be born into an intact family with parents who stay together for life? Are men and women really different? Does it matter? These and other pressing questions of our day find answers in a new book by Ruth Institute President Dr Jennifer Roback Morse: The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives and Why the Church Was Right All Along. Here she answers a few questions of our own.

 

 


 

 

* * * * *

MercatorNet: Like every revolution, the sexual revolution (SR) that erupted in the 1960s has created a lot of victims. In the first chapter of your book, “The Misery of Modern Life”, you identify a number of them. Which types of victim do you think are the least recognized, even among those critical of today’s sexual culture?

Dr Morse: The victims of the divorce culture are almost completely invisible. I include the abandoned spouses, or reluctantly divorced persons, who would have liked to remain married, but were divorced against their will. Few people realize that under U.S. no-fault divorce law, the government always takes sides with the person who wants the marriage the least.

We do not even ask the questions that would allow us to answer the question: “how many divorces have a reluctant partner?” Since the book went to press, I have found evidence that suggests as many as 70% of divorces may have a “reluctant” partner. But the person who found this was not looking for it. He stumbled over it in the course of looking for something else.

The children of divorce are also socially invisible. They are supposedly “resilient,” but in fact they suffer for a lifetime. I also think apart from committed pro-life advocates, very few people recognize the health problems associated with contraception and abortion.

You also identify different ideological strands of the SR, concerning contraception, divorce and gender. What role has each played – first, contraception?

A good and decent society should do everything possible to separate sex from babies. I call this, the Contraceptive Ideology. Unlike many commentators who say things like, “The Pill changed everything,” I consider the ideology far more important than technology.

The ideology tries to convince people that sex without a live baby is an entitlement. All sorts of nasty things follow from that, including the depredations of people like Harvey Weinstein.

Divorce?

The Divorce Ideology is that a good and decent society should do everything possible to separate both sex and babies, from marriage. Behind this lies the idea that children don’t really need their own parents. Kids are so resilient that adults can switch partners and living arrangements without worrying about the welfare of their kids. But we know now that this is completely false. Kids do need their own parents. Deliberately separating kids from their parents without an unavoidable reason is unjust to children. In this section of the book, I discuss the children of unmarried parents, as well as children of anonymous donor conception. All these kids have tenuous, at best, relationships with one of their parents.

And gender?

The Gender Ideology started with “feminism” that stated that a good society should eliminate all distinctions between men and women. All such differences are socially constructed, and evidence of injustice. Therefore, society should reconstruct itself to eliminate all those differences. This is the thought process that led to the US federal government declaring that all colleges should have equality in sports programs. Since men are generally more interested in sports, the federal government went around shuttering men’s wrestling teams to create “equality.”

Now the gender ideology has morphed into transgenderism which says that a person’s bodily sex is less important than their idea of who they are and what they want to be. This has led to males who “identify” as female winning girls’ track and field events.

What unites these two versions of the Gender Ideology is that the sex of the body is unimportant and can be over-written with enough social engineering and medical technology.

You also identify the various “narratives” by which these ideologies have been advanced: “the march of history,” liberation, feminism, overpopulation... What is the relative importance of each of these?

Under the Liberationist Narrative, I list several sub-types, the Consumerist, the Orientation, and the Gender Identity sub-narrative. Important also is the (Stealth) Capitalist Narrative. I think most people can recognize the significance of feminist and various forms of liberationist thought. So here, I want to emphasize the others.

The March of History story is important because it wipes out all moral responsibility for anything: all these changes in society just “happened” like a force of nature. The Over-Population Narrative is significant because the population controllers provided the money for an awful lot of the subsequent stages of the Sexual Revolution. And the (Stealth) Capitalist Narrative is important precisely because it is “stealth.” In the first place people are making money from the Sexual Revolution.

Secondly – and importantly -- employers have benefited from having a whole class of new workers, eager to prove their worth in the market, and having few non-market alternatives. I am speaking of women, of course. The “careerist” branch of feminism basically delivered women into the hands of employers on terms that benefited the employers. Most people don’t notice that, until it is pointed out to them. And the fact that people are making money from the Sexual Revolution must be confronted honestly, if we really mean to create positive chance.

Against these you posit “the Catholic narrative” about sex – which is, in essence?

The Catholic Narrative directly challenges all three of the Ideologies of the Sexual Revolution. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that each of the ideologies challenged some aspect of Catholic teaching. The Catholic Narrative has the virtue that it can account for the failures and unhappiness caused the Sexual Revolution, something virtually none of the other narratives even considers.

We could summarize Catholic teaching from the perspective of children, in this way. Start from the premise that children are entitled to a relationship with both of their parents, in the absence of some unavoidable tragedy. How can we structure society to ensure children receive what is due to them?

Reason logically from this premise and here is what you get:

  • Form a lifelong plan for cooperating with the one person who will co-parent with you. That is the institution formerly known as “marriage.”
  • Only have sex with the person you are married to.
  • Stay married unless someone does something really awful.
  • Don’t attempt a “remarriage.”
  • Be nice to your spouse, so he or she can put up with you.

In other words, you end up with traditional Christian sexual morality. There is more to Catholic theology of marriage, of course. But at this moment in history, protecting the basic human right of every child to a relationship with both parents would be an achievement worth celebrating.

Many would argue that the Catholic narrative has been a notable failure, even amongst Catholics, who apparently contracept like everyone else and whose clerical ranks have harbored sexual abusers. Doesn’t this discredit Catholic teaching, or at least put it in the realm of idealism?

On the contrary: The Catholic narrative is daily being proven correct. The heartbreaking situations we see all around us are the direct result of NOT living according to the Church’s teaching. Thinking with the Church, embracing the Church’s teaching with enthusiasm is really the only possible way out of the problems we face.

We now know why so many clergy refuse to preach or teach on the sexual issues, and why so many dioceses have a lackluster record in this regard. There are way too many men using their position of authority and respect in the Church to pursue their private sexual purposes.

However, this makes it even more important that faithful Catholics take up the challenge of educating themselves, living the Church’s teaching, and sharing it with others. We can’t wait for the clergy to put their houses in order.

By contrast, hasn’t feminism, for example, been a great success, achieving much for women?

Define “success.” People reflexively define “progress” and “success” in terms of women participating in higher education and in the labor force on the same terms as men. But what has been the price of this form of “equality?” One of the first footnotes in my book cites a study of happiness. Women have been growing less happy both absolutely, and relative to men over exactly the period of greatest entry of women into the labor force. And, women’s participation in both higher education and the labor force had been increasing steadily since the beginning of the 20th century, well before “feminism.” I argue that we could have attained increased participation in higher education and the professions, without all the toxic ideologies we have had to endure.

Your basic thesis is that the sexual revolution “needs the state”. Why is that?

The Sexual Revolution is irrational. Each one of the ideologies is false. Sex does make babies. Children do need their parents. Men and women are different. Building an entire society around the opposite of these statements simply cannot be done.

That does not mean the attempt to do the impossible is harmless. Quite the contrary. Attempting to do the impossible requires a whole lot of power, force and propaganda. The “advanced” countries of the world are run by people who believe doing the impossible is a high moral duty. Therefore, they can always justify increased power for themselves. This explains the whole course of the Sexual Revolution.

Who benefits from our predominant sexual culture?

The “elites” as I use the term, include the rich, the powerful, the influential, in any field of endeavor. People like Warren Buffet and George Soros in our time, and John D. Rockefeller III and Katherine McCormick in times past, have financed the spread of the ideologies. Academics produce and promote the research. Entertainment elites of the likes of Harvey Weinstein create the propaganda. Their motives are varied but include the fact that some of them are making money, and some of them desire social permission to do what they want sexually without fear of social sanction.

If, as you argue, the majority of people never wanted the ideology of the Sexual Revolution, let alone its effects on marriage and the family, why haven’t they used the democratic system to get rid of it?

There are a couple of reasons. First, the propaganda for the Sexual Revolution is very effective. Most people do not connect the dots between these ideologies and the problems they and their families are experiencing. Second, the Sexual Revolution is very well financed. Warren Buffett, for instance, has given over $1 billion to support abortion, and abortion political advocacy. There simply are no funders of comparable size for the social conservative side of the issues.

Finally, the ideology of the Sexual Revolution appeals to some of our deepest fantasies about ourselves and wishful thinking about the world. “Everything would be alright, if we just allowed people to do whatever they want.” “I do not really have to restrain myself sexually.” “The problems in my marriage are my husband’s fault.” And so on. Pride is not only one of the Seven Deadly Sins. It is also The Original Sin. Every person is susceptible to appeals to their vanity.

In your closing “Manifesto of the Family” you list a number of things the government should stop doing, or start doing, and some that the rest of us could do. Would you like to talk about the latter?

In my 15-point Manifesto, the first 10 points are all things the government should stop doing, because it never had any business doing them in the first place. The last three points are really all about love. We need social encouragement for long-lasting love, inside the family.

The propaganda campaigns of the last 50 years have created a watered-down, almost unrecognizable redefinition of love. Starting with “Love the one you’re with,” in the sixties, down to things like “Love wins,” and “Love makes the family.” These are marketing slogans, designed to “sell” people on a program of political and social change. These slogans are not much help in hanging in there with our difficult relatives. For instance, people never stop to ask what happens to the family if the love goes away. Does the family disappear? Do the children lose their parents? The slogans can’t handle the questions. We have been chasing our tails, “looking for love in all the wrong places,” as the song says.

Agape love, the highest form of Christian love, requires much more of us. At the same time, that kind of complete self-giving love is the only form of love that can really satisfy us. Committed Christians have the best chance of offering the world what it is really looking for. That is why I believe my Manifesto for the Family can lead us toward a Civilization of Love.

 

 

 


Tags

Support the Ruth Institute