On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to license and recognize same-sex marriages.(1) Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy declared that "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family."(2) To many, this decision was sudden—a dramatic shift in American jurisprudence achieved through aggressive litigation and activist judging. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing in dissent, protested that "Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law."(3)
However, Obergefell did not emerge out of a vacuum. The decision represented the culmination of a much longer philosophical and legal trajectory that began not with gay rights activism in the 1960s, but with the Protestant church's acceptance of contraception in 1930. This paper argues that the acceptance of deliberately sterile sex created the philosophical foundation for all subsequent transformations in sexual ethics and family law. Once sex was severed from procreation, the inherent connection between sexuality and the male-female binary was dissolved. If procreation is optional, heterosexuality itself becomes optional.
R.J. Rushdoony, argued in The Politics of Pornography (1974) that modern sexual libertinism aims not merely at behavior modification but at the destruction of Christian civilization itself. Rushdoony traced the genealogy of contemporary sexual ethics to the Marquis de Sade, who explicitly sought to murder the Christian God through the exaltation of unrestrained sexual desire. (4) What Rushdoony identified as a war on Christian values can be more precisely described as a war on being itself. It is an attempt to deny that bodies have inherent meanings and that biological sex orders human life toward particular ends. They removed the meaning from the very foundation of what it is to be.
For nearly two millennia, Christian teaching condemned artificial contraception. Protestant reformers including Martin Luther and John Wesley maintained the Catholic position that procreation was marriage's primary purpose and that deliberately sterile sex violated God’s natural law. (5) This consensus shattered at the seventh Lambeth Conference of 1930, when Anglican bishops voted 193 to 67 to approve contraception under certain limited circumstances. (6)
Resolution 15 of the Lambeth Conference permitted contraception "where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence." (7) While carefully worded to preserve procreation as marriage's "primary purpose," the resolution opened a door that has never been closed. The decision to permit contraception even in limited cases implicitly accepted that sexual intercourse could be legitimately divorced from its procreative end.
American Protestants quickly followed the Anglican lead. In March 1931, the Federal Council of Churches, representing Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational, and other denominations, issued a statement defending family limitation and urging repeal of laws prohibiting contraceptive education and sales. (8) By mid-century, most Protestant churches had abandoned opposition to contraception entirely, treating it as a matter of individual conscience rather than theology.
The Catholic Church alone maintained its opposition, most notably in Pope Pius XI's 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii, which condemned artificial contraception as "a sin against God" regardless of circumstances. (9) However, even the Catholic Church's resistance would weaken over time, as millions of Catholics used contraception despite official theological teaching.
What began as a theological capitulation soon received legal sanction. In 1965, the Supreme Court decided Griswold v. Connecticut, striking down Connecticut's ban on contraceptive use by married couples. Writing for the majority, Justice William O. Douglas located a constitutional "right to privacy" in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various Bill of Rights provisions.10 This invented right created constitutional protection for deliberately sterile sex within marriage.
Seven years later, Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended contraceptive access to unmarried individuals. Justice William Brennan's opinion declared that "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." (11) With this decision, sex was formally and irreparably severed from marriage. The Court had constitutionalized recreational sex as an individual entitlement to entertainment.
The connection to abortion was immediate and explicit. In 1973 (just one year after Eisenstadt) the Court decided Roe v. Wade, discovering a constitutional right to abortion in the same privacy doctrine. (12) The logic was inescapable: if sex need not result in children, and if pregnancy occurs despite contraception, abortion becomes the necessary backup. Contraception attempts to sterilize sex through technology and drugs, abortion sterilizes sex through blood and violence.
Once sex was severed from procreation, traditional sexual morality lost its rational foundation. If heterosexual sex need not be procreative, why must sex be heterosexual at all? The answer required a fundamental reclassification: sin had to become pathology, and pathology had to become identity.
On December 15, 1973 (the same year as Roe) the American Psychiatric Association's Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. (13) This decision followed years of activism by gay rights organizations who disrupted APA conferences and demanded the declassification of homosexuality. In 1972, Dr. John Fryer appeared at the APA's annual meeting wearing a mask and using a voice distorter, declaring, "I am a homosexual. I am a psychiatrist." (14)
The APA's decision was not based on new scientific evidence demonstrating that homosexuality was normal. Rather, Robert Spitzer, who chaired the committee studying the issue, concluded that homosexuality did not meet the definition of mental disorder because many homosexuals were "satisfied with their sexual orientation and demonstrate no generalized impairment." (15) This represented a fundamental shift; mental health was now fundamentally defined by subjective satisfaction rather than objective order. If individuals experienced no distress about their condition, psychiatry had no grounds to classify it as disordered.
Opponents petitioned for a referendum, which upheld the board's decision by 58 percent of voting members. (16) This vote became infamous as evidence that psychiatric classifications could be determined by politics rather than science. Yet defenders of the change argued that science itself required interpretation, noting that even astronomers had voted on whether Pluto was a planet. (17)
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in his 1996 book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, argued that the 1973 decision was not a product of scientific discovery but from political pressure. Satinover documented how gay activists systematically disrupted APA meetings, protested psychiatric practices, and organized campaigns to reframe homosexuality as a normal variation of human sexuality. (18) The reclassification, he contended, was achieved through a combination of intimidation, selective citation of research, and the exploitation of psychiatry's crisis of legitimacy during the 1970s.
The sexual revolution did not spontaneously erupt in the 1960s. Its intellectual foundations were laid decades earlier by Alfred Kinsey, whose 1948 Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and 1953 Sexual Behavior in the Human Female radically redefined American sexual norms.(30) Kinsey, a University of Indiana zoologist, claimed that 10 percent of American men were homosexual, that 69 percent had been with prostitutes, and that 95 percent of American men had violated sex crime laws.(31) Dr. Judith Reisman later exposed Kinsey's research as fraudulent, revealing that over 25 percent of his subjects were prostitutes and prison inmates, including sex offenders.(32) Yet Kinsey's fabricated data became the scientific foundation for the sexual revolution, treated as authoritative proof that traditional Christian sexual morality was unnatural and psychologically harmful.
Hugh Hefner explicitly positioned himself as "Kinsey's pamphleteer," founding Playboy magazine in 1953—the same year Kinsey's female sexuality volume appeared.(33) Hefner promoted contraception, abortion, premarital sex, and pornography as marks of sophistication, while attacking marriage as oppressive and emasculating.(34) The first issue of Playboy featured an article warning against "gold-digging women" and declared: "If you're somebody's sister, wife or mother-in-law and picked us up by mistake, please pass us along to the man in your life and get back to your Ladies' Home Companion."(35) This was not sexual liberation but rather a sophisticated propaganda campaign to detach sex from procreation, marriage, and family formation.
The connection between Kinsey's fraudulent science and Hefner's cultural programming demonstrates a coordinated ideological assault. With Rockefeller funding, Kinsey established the pseudoscientific premise that Christian sexual morality was statistically abnormal and psychologically damaging.(36) Hefner then popularized these claims through mass media, creating a feedback loop where elite opinion shaped popular behavior. Hefner later mentored Helen Gurley Brown, who transformed Cosmopolitan into Playboy for women, completing the revolution's assault on both sexes.(37) By the mid-1960s, the narrative of inevitable sexual liberation had achieved cultural hegemony.
The sexual revolution was fundamentally religious, not merely behavioral. The counterculture explicitly rejected Christianity in favor of alternative spiritualities that validated sexual libertinism. Many hippies abandoned organized Christianity for Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, neo-paganism, and Wicca—traditions that either lacked Christianity's sexual constraints or actively celebrated sexual expression as spiritual practice.(38) Timothy Miller described the hippie movement as "essentially a religious movement" whose goal was to transcend the perceived failures of Christianity's "repressive" sexual morality.(39) The counterculture was profoundly anti-Christian, treating traditional sexual ethics as the primary obstacle to human flourishing.
The New Age movement emerged directly from this milieu, synthesizing Eastern religions, occultism, and sexual liberation into a comprehensive worldview hostile to Christianity. Beginning in the 1960s, these movements explicitly rejected "Abrahamic religions and their conservative social mores," embracing instead "alternative lifestyles," "unconventional dress," "use of cannabis and other recreational drugs," and "laissez-faire sexual behavior."(40) The Findhorn Foundation in Scotland became a center for New Age spirituality, attracting countercultural adherents who saw Christianity's sexual ethics as fundamentally incompatible with authentic human existence.(41) These movements provided the spiritual justification for rejecting Christian civilization's entire moral architecture.
Philosopher Augusto Del Noce identified this religious dimension with particular clarity. Wilhelm Reich, whose 1936 The Sexual Revolution influenced the counterculture profoundly, explicitly argued that "the only ideas that should be tolerated are those that do not undermine 'sexual happiness' and the process of disintegration of the traditional form of family."(42) Reich's language is unambiguous: the Church can only be tolerated if it abandons traditional sexual teaching. Del Noce continued: "The book's rigorous consistency shows that no compromise is possible between traditional morality, taken in its entirety and without modification, and sexual liberation."(43) This was religious warfare—the systematic destruction of Christianity's authority over human sexuality and the elevation of personal autonomy as the supreme religious principle.
The sexual revolution's primary casualty was the family. California's 1969 no-fault divorce law initiated a legal transformation that swept the nation. By the mid-1980s, virtually every state had enacted similar legislation.(44) The divorce rate more than doubled between 1960 and 1980, from 9.2 divorces per 1,000 married women to 22.6 divorces per 1,000 married women.(45) While less than 20 percent of couples who married in 1950 divorced, approximately 50 percent of couples who married in 1970 ended their marriages.(46) Approximately half of all children born to married parents in the 1970s saw their parents divorce, compared to only 11 percent of children born in the 1950s.
This transformation was not accidental but ideological. The sexual revolution explicitly targeted marriage as oppressive. Playboy's anti-matrimonial position treated wives as threats to male freedom and single women as "enemies in embryo"—potential spouses who could "henpeck the ensnared Playboy reader."(47) The sexual revolution promoted an individualistic ethic where personal psychological happiness trumped obligations to spouse or children. In 1962, about 50 percent of American women agreed that "when there are children in the family parents should stay together even if they don't get along." By 1977, only 20 percent held this view.(48) The older institutional model of marriage—which understood marriage as ordered toward children and the common good—was replaced by an expressive individualism that treated marriage as terminable at will whenever it failed to deliver personal fulfillment.
The connection to homosexuality is direct. Once marriage was severed from procreation and permanence, it became merely a romantic arrangement between autonomous individuals. If marriage exists primarily for emotional satisfaction rather than child-rearing, then the sex of the partners becomes irrelevant. The normalization of no-fault divorce, cohabitation, and serial monogamy created the philosophical foundation for same-sex marriage. By treating biological sex as incidental to family formation, heterosexuals pioneered the logic that homosexual activists would later exploit. The sexual revolution did not liberate sex from repression; it liberated sex from meaning. And once sex lost its inherent connection to procreation and family, traditional sexual morality lost its rational foundation.
Yet the sexual revolution promised not only ideological transformation but practical liberation. The APA had declared homosexuality normal in 1973. No-fault divorce laws had freed individuals from permanent marital obligations. Alternative religions had provided spiritual justification for rejecting Christian sexual constraints. The revolution appeared complete. But within a decade, the physical consequences of liberating sex from its created purposes would become catastrophically visible. The same young men whom Kinsey, Hefner, and the APA had assured were merely exercising normal sexual variation began dying in unprecedented numbers. The revolution's triumph would be short-lived.
In the early 1980s, physicians began observing clusters of otherwise healthy young men suffering catastrophic immune system collapse. The condition was initially called GRID (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency) because it appeared overwhelmingly among homosexual gay men. (19) Satinover, who worked as a physician during this period, recounts the medical community's expectation that confronting these consequences would prompt behavioral change within the homosexual community.
This expectation proved mistaken. Instead, the condition was renamed AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), and activist groups successfully reframed the epidemic as a public health crisis requiring medical intervention rather than behavioral modification. The medical reality remained stark: anal intercourse causes profound physiological damage, including micro-tearing of rectal tissue, immediate bloodstream contamination, and exposure to fecal pathogens. Associated diseases include gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, hepatitis B and C, HPV, recurrent anorectal infections, chronic incontinence, elevated risk of rectal cancer, and immune system collapse. (20)
Dr. Anthony Fauci, who would later become the object of controversy during the COVID-19 pandemic, rose to prominence by incorporating activist demands into AIDS research funding and treatment protocols. (21) The pattern established during the AIDS crisis, expert authority elevated beyond competence, dissent reframed as moral danger, and coercion justified as compassion, would recur in subsequent public health interventions.
By the early 21st century, the legal groundwork for same-sex marriage had been laid through decades of incremental cultural and philosophical change. In 2003, Lawrence v. Texas struck down state sodomy laws, with Justice Kennedy declaring that gay persons "are entitled to respect for their private lives." (22) Ten years later, United States v. Windsor (2013) invalidated Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, requiring federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in states that permitted them. (23)
The stage was set for Obergefell. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion grounded the right to same-sex marriage in both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Marriage, Kennedy argued, is central to individual autonomy, embodies a unique two-person union, protects children and families, and remains a keystone of social order. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry therefore violated their fundamental liberty and equal dignity. (24)
Chief Justice Roberts's dissent forcefully rejected this reasoning. "The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage," Roberts wrote. "And a State's decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational." (25) Roberts accused the majority of enacting their own vision of marriage rather than interpreting the Constitution: "The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment." (26)
Yet from the perspective of this paper's thesis, Obergefell was neither sudden nor radical. It represented the logical conclusion of premises accepted in 1930. Once sex was severed from procreation, marriage lost its inherent connection to the male-female complementarity required for procreation. If marriage is fundamentally about love, commitment, and companionship rather than procreation, then the sex of the partners becomes irrelevant. Justice Kennedy's soaring rhetoric about marriage embodying "the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family" makes perfect sense in a contraceptive culture. But it would have been incomprehensible to any civilization prior to the 20th century, all of which understood marriage as intrinsically ordered toward children.
The redefinition of marriage necessarily entails the redefinition of parenthood. If marriage need not be procreative, then biological parenthood becomes incidental rather than essential. This logic manifests most clearly in assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy arrangements.
When same-sex male couples desire children, they must rely on egg donors and surrogate mothers. The children produced through these arrangements are deliberately severed from their biological mothers, who often remain anonymous. Proponents defend these practices as "family building," but they more accurately represent family manufacturing—the commercial production of children according to adult preferences.
Rushdoony presciently identified this trajectory in The Politics of Pornography. He argued that the Marquis de Sade's philosophy aimed at reducing human beings to their genitals, denying any inherent meaning to bodily existence. "Man is nothing but genitals," Sade proclaimed.27 In such a vision, procreation becomes merely a biological function that can be separated from sex, commodified, and recombined according to will. Women become bio-machines whose reproductive capacity can be purchased. Eggs become inventory. Wombs become rental properties. And children become products designed to satisfy adult desires.
This represents not merely the redefinition of family but an assault on being itself. Bodies, in this framework, signify nothing. Biological sex has no authority. Human beings are divisible into parts that can be marketed and rearranged. The created order yields to human autonomy.
Once desire becomes identity, resistance becomes harm. Once resistance is harm, speech becomes violence. Once speech is violence, the state must intervene. This logic explains the rise of conversion therapy bans that criminalize even talk therapy for individuals seeking help aligning their behavior with their religious convictions.
Multiple U.S. states and Canada have enacted laws prohibiting "conversion therapy," broadly defined as any practice, treatment, or service designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Canada's Criminal Code amendments impose penalties up to five years imprisonment for causing someone to undergo conversion therapy, removing a minor from Canada for this purpose, or promoting or advertising such services.28
In Colorado, a licensed Christian counselor is currently challenging restrictions that forbid talk therapy with minors who voluntarily seek help aligning their thoughts and behavior with biological reality. The state has declared that such conversation itself is forbidden—not because it involves coercion or medical intervention, but because it questions the primacy of self-identified desire over biological reality.29
Meanwhile, the same legal regime that forbids helping individuals change their sexual orientation enthusiastically promotes medical interventions to change their biological sex. Puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical mutilation are celebrated as "gender-affirming care." Helping someone accept their body is abuse; helping someone reject their body is compassion. The contradiction reveals the underlying agenda: not human flourishing, but the denial of created order.
The contemporary crisis of sexuality cannot be understood apart from the church's failure. When Protestant denominations accepted contraception in 1930, they surrendered the theological foundation for a coherent sexual ethic. Once the church blessed deliberately sterile sex, it lost the moral authority to oppose any sexual act performed by consenting adults.
The church's failures extend beyond contraception. For generations, evangelical Christianity has cultivated an effeminate piety emphasizing emotional worship experiences over masculine discipleship, feelings over formation, and mood music over martial virtue. Having trained men that true Christian piety is soft, sensitive, and tearful, the church should not be surprised when some embrace homosexuality as the logical conclusion. The church created what might be called a "gay greenhouse"—an environment where effeminacy flourishes and masculinity is suspect.
Moreover, the church has failed to speak truthfully about the shame of sexual sin. Modern Christianity has adopted precious language about "sexual minorities" and "same-sex attraction," avoiding biblical terminology for sodomy and sexual perversion. This linguistic retreat represents not compassion but cowardice—a refusal to call sin by its proper name lest offense be given. The church's silence has been deafening.
The path forward requires repentance at every level. The church must recover its biblical teaching on sex, marriage, and procreation. It must abandon the contraceptive mentality that severs sex from fruitfulness. It must cultivate masculine virtue rather than sentimental piety. It must speak truthfully about sexual sin while offering genuine hope for transformation through the gospel.
For those individuals struggling with same-sex attraction, the church must offer neither therapeutic accommodation nor behavior modification. The church must return to her original mission proclaiming the gospel. Christ crucified for sexual sinners. Christ risen for sexual sinners. The promise of the Gospel is not that desires will instantly change, but that through repentance and faith, believers die and rise again with Christ in his death and resurrection, and their sins are left behind in the grave. The same power that raised Jesus from the dead can raise sinners to new life. Conversion is possible, but not through some secular ritual of therapy but through the blood of Christ.
The direct line from the Lambeth Conference of 1930 to Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. The acceptance of contraception severed sex from procreation, creating the philosophical foundation for abortion rights, the normalization of homosexuality, the redefinition of marriage, and ultimately the denial of biological sex itself. All culminated in the selling of infants before they are even conceived. Each step followed logically from the premises accepted at Lambeth: that sex can be legitimately divorced from its procreative purpose, that bodies do not have inherent meanings, and the autonomous human has ultimate and unlimited authority over created order.
The legal transformation from Griswold through Obergefell constitutionalized this philosophy, embedding it in fundamental rights doctrine. The psychiatric transformation from pathology to identity normalized it, making resistance to homosexual practice itself a form of mental disturbance. And the criminalization of conversion therapy completed the revolution, making it illegal to resist the new orthodoxy.
Rushdoony correctly identified this trajectory as religious in nature, not merely a debate about policy preferences but a fundamental conflict between rival conceptions of humanity and cosmos. The sexual revolution is the Sadean vision realized; the denial that bodies have meanings, that male and female signify distinct purposes, that sex orders human life toward procreation and family formation. It is, as Rushdoony argued, an attempt to murder the Christian God and destroy His law-order.
Christians need not despair. The same gospel that offers forgiveness for sexual sin also offers power for transformation. The church's task is not primarily political but theological; to recover and proclaim the biblical vision of sexuality, marriage, and family. This requires intellectual rigor to understand how we arrived at this moment, moral courage to speak truth about sexual sin, and spiritual power to offer genuine hope through the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The contraceptive mentality failed. The promise was liberation; the result has been alienation, family breakdown, demographic collapse, and the commodification of children. The sexual revolution promised freedom but delivered bondage. It promised authenticity but produced confusion. It promised fulfillment but generated despair. After nearly a century of experimentation, the evidence is clear; severing sex from procreation does not liberate humanity. It alienates us from ourselves. In the name of ‘Identity’ and ‘liberty’ we have erased the very liberty and identity from our culture.
The alternative is not a return to Victorian prudishness with upturned prideful noses, but to recover the biblical vision of sexuality as the union of husband and wife, ordered toward the generation of life and the formation of families as an allegory of divine love. There is no other way for Christians to resist the forces of fragmentation and dissolution. This alone honors the created order. And this alone offers genuine human flourishing.
Watch the Documentary here: https://youtu.be/oucxhMfjX2k
Bork, Robert H. Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. New York: Regan Books, 1996.
Carlson, Allan. "History of Contraception in the Protestant Church." Bound4LIFE, June 1999. https://www.bound4life.com/history-of-contraception-in-the-protestant-church
Drescher, Jack. "Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality." Behavioral Sciences 5, no. 4 (2015): 565-575. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5040565
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
Holmes, Oliver Wendell Jr. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
Kennedy, Anthony. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
Lambeth Conference. "Resolutions from 1930." Anglican Communion, 1930. https://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/127734/1930.pdf
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
Lombardo, Paul A. Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
Rushdoony, Rousas J. The Politics of Pornography. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1974.
Satinover, Jeffrey. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996.
Spitzer, Robert L. "The Diagnostic Status of Homosexuality in DSM-III: A Reformulation of the Issues." American Journal of Psychiatry 138, no. 2 (1981): 210-215.
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013).
Waldman, Ariel. "Eugenics and the Approval of Birth Control at the 1930 Lambeth Conference." Journal of Ecclesiastical History 74, no. 4 (2023): 812-832.
Del Noce, Augusto. The Crisis of Modernity. Translated by Carlo Lancellotti. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2014.
Ehrenreich, Barbara. The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, 1983.
Miller, Timothy. Hippies and American Values. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991.
Reisman, Judith. Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences. Arlington, VA: Institute for Media Education, 1998.
Wilcox, W. Bradford, and Steven L. Nock. "Marriage and Divorce." National Affairs (Winter 2011).
1. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
2. Ibid., 675.
3. Ibid., 711 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
4. Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Politics of Pornography (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1974), 11-15.
5. Allan Carlson, "History of Contraception in the Protestant Church," Bound4LIFE, June 1999.
6. Ariel Waldman, "Eugenics and the Approval of Birth Control at the 1930 Lambeth Conference," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 74, no. 4 (2023): 812.
7. Lambeth Conference, "Resolution 15," 1930.
8. Carlson, "History of Contraception."
9. Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 1930.
10. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965).
11. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972).
12. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
13. Jack Drescher, "Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality," Behavioral Sciences 5, no. 4 (2015): 565.
14. Ibid., 571.
15. Robert L. Spitzer, quoted in Drescher, 573.
16. Drescher, "Out of DSM," 574.
17. Ibid.
18. Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 31-47.
19. Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, 49-65.
20. Ibid., 51-52.
21. Ibid., 63.
22. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003).
23. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013).
24. Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 670-671.
25. Ibid., 711 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
26. Ibid., 713.
27. Rushdoony, Politics of Pornography, 14.
28. Criminal Code of Canada, Section 320.101-320.104.
29. 417 First Street v. Polis, currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
30. National Catholic Register, "From Lust to Dust: The Legacy of Hugh Hefner," August 27, 2020.
31. Judith Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences (Arlington, VA: Institute for Media Education, 1998), 278.
32. Ibid., 307.
33. Crisis Magazine, "The Original Groomer," November 1, 2022.
34. Barbara Ehrenreich, The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, 1983), 47.
35. The New Republic, "Hugh Hefner's Incomplete Sexual Revolution," May 11, 2021.
36. Reisman, Kinsey, 278.
37. National Catholic Register, "From Lust to Dust."
38. Timothy Miller, Hippies and American Values (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991), 43.
39. Ibid., 44.
40. "Sexual revolution," Wikipedia, accessed January 27, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution
41. "New Age," Wikipedia, accessed January 27, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age
42. Augusto Del Noce, The Crisis of Modernity, trans. Carlo Lancellotti (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2014), 156.
43. Ibid., 157.
44. W. Bradford Wilcox and Steven L. Nock, "Marriage and Divorce," National Affairs (Winter 2011).
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Ehrenreich, Hearts of Men, 47.
48. Wilcox and Nock, "Marriage and Divorce."
