On April 26, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean did the unthinkable: he signed into law a so-called "civil unions" bill. This new law will give homosexual couples the same benefits of marriage--meaning they can file joint tax returns--and it even provides for clergy to preside over the ceremonies. The only difference is, they don't call it marriage.

Why would Dean do this? Was it because of the overwhelming support of the people of Vermont? Hardly. Every straw poll in every town meeting showed that the people of Vermont opposed homosexual marriage by a 3-1 ratio, and domestic partnerships 3-2.

No. He did it because back in December, the Vermont State Supreme Court told the governor and the state legislature they had to. (Last time I checked, only the legislature has the power to make law. I think those judges should take another look at the job descriptions provided for them in the Constitution.)

The fact is, homosexual marriage has been rejected everywhere that it has been put to the people. For example, on March 7, the people of California voted to defend marriage by passing Proposition 22, the so-called "Limit on Marriage Act," by a 61 to 39% margin. California was the 31st state to do so. Not long after that, West Virginia became number 32.

The problem is also raging in churches. Even though the Bible is clear on homosexuality (see Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11), many denominations have also become embroiled in the homosexual "marriage" debate. At their General Conference next week in Cleveland, the United Methodist Church will continue to debate whether or not action should be taken against clergy who preside over such ceremonies. Similar struggles are happening in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A), the Episcopal Church and others.

So why has homosexuality become such a hot topic? The argument over the entire homosexual debate is based on the false premise that homosexuals are born that way and can never change. However, this is not supported by science or experience. If homosexuality were genetic, there would be no former homosexuals. As Martin Luther King's niece, Alveda Scott King, has said, "I've met many former homosexuals, but I have never met a former black."

Maybe that's why hundreds of former homosexuals were treated with such hostility and disdain when they stepped forward with the message, "We're standing for the truth that homosexuals can change," in the Truth in Love campaign that featured ads in major newspapers and in television commercials around the country.

But what about the "science" that seems to conclude some kind of "evidence" for the "genetic basis" for homosexuality?

The Bailey & Pillard "Twins Study," in which roughly 50% of pairs of identical twins in a selected group were homosexual, has been widely reported as "evidence" for a genetic link to homosexuality. Without going into the study's many other flaws (such as the fact that the twins studied were raised together with virtually identical environmental factors), think about what this research really says. Identical twins, by definition, have identical genes: identical hair, skin, eyes--everything. That means if there were a "gay gene," they would ALL have that too-not just half of them. This study, which has been heralded by homosexual activists and the media as "proof" that homosexuality is genetic, actually proves the opposite.

Then there's the Hamer "Gay Gene" Study that supposedly found an "X chromosome-linked gene" underlying male homosexuality. It has been repudiated by Science magazine and discredited by scientists from the Department of Clinical Neurological studies, University of Western Ontario, and the Department of Genetics at Stanford Medical School.

But what about the American Psychiatric Association-didn't they decide, back in 1973, to remove homosexuality from its list of disorders? What you haven't heard about this decision is that it wasn't a result of any new scientific evidence. It was the result of a vote to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders by only 16 % of the APA. Those psychiatrists who disagreed were shouted down in public forums and threatened until few were willing to undergo that kind of abuse. Despite the APA action, four years later, in 1977, a survey conducted by the Journal of Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality reported that 69 % of the 10,000 psychiatrists polled considered homosexuality a pathological adaptation.

No, you're not "born that way," according to science and the thousands who've left homosexuality behind. The foundation on which the homosexual agenda is built has been shattered. Calling people names in order to silence them may work on the playground, but should not be a factor in determining public policy or in redefining marriage. Nor should stealing and deception.

Marriage throughout civilization has been between a man and a woman in every nation and in every state, throughout time. But because seven unelected judges in Vermont strong-armed the state legislature, all that is changed. Perhaps the upcoming elections will remind those legislators that they answer to the people - and not to the courts.