Is that even-handed? NO! Not at more than nineteen to one!

Plus, Diane Sawyer often appeared to ask tough questions of the pro-homosexual adoption side. BUT she always let them explain away anything that was bad for them. She never gave the pro-family side the same opportunity.

For example, when Diane mentioned scientific studies that indicate real harm to children from homosexual "families," she allowed her pro-homosexual guests to make personal attacks on the scientists involved in those studies.

On the other hand, when a study looked bad for homosexual adoption, she allowed the same guest to twist the results into looking good for homosexual adoption. This same guest later said that all the studies point in the same direction.

But perhaps the most "clever" trick was to discuss the issue in such an emotionally appealing manner that those whose minds were not well-made-up ahead of time would be inclined to side with the homosexuals.

There was nothing designed to emotionally attract anyone to the Biblical position on this issue. In fact, even though the program was trying to appear balanced, several attacks were made on the Biblical position. It was called "hate-filled rhetoric," "bias," "closed-minded," and "wrong." They are talking about you and me!

Everything was designed to generate sympathy for the two homosexuals. After all, they have cared for some very sick children. Of course, it didn’t matter if lies had to be told to generate this sympathy: At one point, Diane said to one of the homosexuals, isn’t Florida saying to you that "You’re good enough to take care of him when he was sick, bit you’re not good enough to take care of him if he’s well." To which the homosexual replied, "That’s what the law says." Well, guess what. There is no such law!

Even the name of the program stacked the deck. It was called "Rosie’s Story: For the Sake of the Children."

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Now let me tell you what they could have done.

Because of our expertise on the legal side of this issue, Diane’s assistant contacted us before this program aired.

We had a good talk. During our conversation and follow-up correspondence, I informed her of the following matters and made the following offers:

• I explained the Biblical position on this issue.

• I told her of our various legal activities on this issue . . . that is, all the cases and briefs that you have helped us with through your prayers and financial support.

• I offered to be interviewed for the program.

• I offered to give her the names of other qualified folks on our side of the issue that they could interview.

• I informed her of a study by two University of Chicago Ph.D.s that repudiates ALL of the homosexual parenting studies.

Did she take me up on any of this? NO!

• While Diane did allow the Florida legislator to discuss the Biblical perspective, she did not use anything that I told her . . . and I have reason to believe that other Christian organizations were contacted and that their views were ignored as well.

• Diane did ask a couple of softball questions to Rosie about things that "they" say in legal briefs. The questions were so vague I couldn’t even tell if she was talking about our briefs or someone else’s. (But let’s hope that you and I had at least that much influence.)

• They did not interview me for the program.

• They did not interview anyone I recommended. In fact, they couldn’t have . . . because they never even asked for the recommendations.

• They never mentioned the study by the University of Chicago Ph.D.s. This was especially outrageous since—as I mentioned above—one of their guests claimed that all of the studies point in favor of homosexual adoption. BUT the study I referred them to refuted every one of the studies she referred to.

Given the "sneaky" appearance of impartiality of the program, it is amazing that Diane or anyone else was willing to admit anything negative about homosexual adoption. But when you listened very carefully, you heard the guests admit a lot of negatives about homosexuals as parents.

Of course, they tried to explain it all away. BUT the explanations don’t hold up. So . . . let’s see what the advocates of homosexual adoption themselves are willing to admit:

• Both Rosie and the two homosexuals admitted that in an "ideal world" it would be better for children to be adopted by a mother and father!

• Diane admitted that there are published studies on homosexuals molesting the children in their households.

• The "expert" admitted that homosexual household have higher rates of domestic violence.

• She admitted that homosexuals have higher rates of drug use.

• She admitted that homosexuals have higher rates of sexual promiscuity.

• She admitted that at least one study showed that children raised in homosexual households have much higher rates of experimentation with homosexuality.

When the pro-homosexual forces are willing to admit all of this, why should we have any hesitation to stand firm on this issue? Plus, the Bible teaching is clear!

I wrote this letter to help you understand how important your support has been over the years . . . and how vitally important it is right now and into the foreseeable future.

As this letter demonstrates, the media is stacked against us. High profile celebrities like Rosie have incredible influence. WE—with God’s help—must hold the line.

And one place that the National Legal Foundation has held the line is in America’s courtrooms. Let me remind you of just some of the cases that our faithful friends like you have helped us with:

• At the Tennessee Supreme Court, we protected the right of a mother who had left the lesbian lifestyle to prevent unwanted visitation by her former lover.

• At the Ohio Supreme Court, we argued that a lesbian cohabiting with another lesbian mother should not be declared the child’s parent.

• In a Florida appellate court, we argued that judges in that state have the right to take a parent’s homosexuality into account in making custody decisions.

• In a Georgia appellate court, we argued that a custody order that prohibited overnight visitation if a lesbian mother had overnight "visitors" included that mother’s lesbian lover . . . even if the lesbians had gotten a "civil union" from Vermont.

• On a more general level—but one that absolutely impacts our children—we have filed briefs with the Hawaii and Vermont Supreme Courts, arguing that same-sex marriage must not be allowed. (And on the legislative front, we have worked in nearly 35 states on legislation protecting marriage.)

Currently, we are monitoring situations in Georgia and Massachusetts . . . as well as the Florida adoption case that Rosie is so upset about. As the Lord leads and as our friends like you provide the finances, we will fight these fights, too.

And in the future, we will continue to prayerfully consider involvement in every single homosexual adoption and custody case that comes to our attention. All we need is your support! That’s why I need you to send your very best gift today.

Rosie claims that she does what she does for the sake of the children. Maybe she really believes that. BUT in light of both what the Bible teaches and what the homosexuals themselves admit about homosexual households, it is really you and I who are trying to protect children.

And for that reason, I have no qualms about signing this letter . . .

For the Children,

Steven W. Fitschen
President

P.S. We are quickly losing ground on this issue in the "court of public opinion." Of course, that doesn’t change God’s eternal truth on this subject. But it can make our work more difficult. Now is the time to engage the battle. The homosexuals have thrown down the gauntlet. It is not overblown rhetoric to say that America’s children are at risk. We must act NOW. Please let me hear from you today!