AARP: It's Not Who You Think It Is (Part 2)

by Steve Kipp

AARP promotes cohabitation over marriage and embraces same-sex marriage -- yet attempts to claim it is neutral on the issue.

Counterculture AARP

AARP's recent lineup of editors reveals its move toward a radical counterculture.

• Ed Dwyer: Ad designer for the Woodstock Festival program; former Penthouse Magazine contributor; former Playboy Magazine senior editor; former High Times Magazine editor, a publication "that features centerfold pictures of illegal drugs."¹ Dwyer authored a December 2004 "anniversary edition" article for High Times, explaining how his role there was "a dope-fueled mission" – including returning marijuana to the founder "because he wasn’t good at dealing drugs."²
• Steven Slon: Former Penthouse Magazine contributor; former Playboy Magazine senior editor.³
• John Stoltenberg, Managing Editor of AARP as of May, 2004. In one sense, Stoltenberg offsets the pornography industry background of other AARP editors. One online encyclopedia refers to him as a "feminist activist" while he is also recognized for contributions to homosexual publications.⁴ Having authored books such as The End of Manhood and Refusing to be a Man, he was "calling for the liquidation of the males for the good of the human species" as early as 1979.⁵ Stoltenberg maintained that "clinging to 'sex difference' is clinging to male supremacy."⁶ His conclusion to an article assessing a Promise Keepers’ event in the mid-1990s suggested that Promise Keepers "are supremely oblivious to the possibility that God's gender may have been created in the image of men, not the other way around."⁷

AARP OKs Porn

How has having former pornography industry editors affected AARP’s coverage of the issue within its publications?

• In a March/April 2004 column by Hugh O'Neill, he told a letter-writer that "level-headed adults can enjoy erotic pictures in private without undermining their relationships, their immortal souls, or the republic." O'Neill handed out additional moral judgments by advising wives to "reassure" husbands "that you don’t think he's doing a bad thing, or that you're living with the devil" and to go ahead and mutually integrate pornography into their sex life.⁸
• The article prompted responses from Web sites ranging from the American Family Association to Focus on the Family’s Pure Intimacy. "Handing out advice that a little pornography is good for a marriage and a couple's sex life is absolutely reckless," concluded AFA president Tim Wildmon.⁹ Marriage and Family counselor Rob Jackson sized up the AARP article:

A recent issue of the AARP magazine included a letter from a concerned spouse who reported that her husband was spending a lot of time viewing Internet pornography. The magazine’s response? The woman should not be concerned or judgmental, but use the opportunity to find out what her husband really wants out of sex. Completely glossing over the poor woman’s pain and frustration, the magazine actually encouraged her to contribute to the further breakdown of intimacy in her marriage. The response further argued that the husband's online porn viewing doesn’t necessarily mean he wasn't interested in his wife; it's just that she probably wasn’t able to provide what he wanted. Huh? While the magazine tried to answer a real question about sex in the golden years, it missed the truth that self-serving sexuality is as damaging in older age as it is at every other time in life.¹⁰

AARP OKs Cohabitation

AARP's managing editor, John Stoltenberg, cohabited with Andrea Dworkin for 24 years before marrying her in 1998.¹¹ His social agenda against traditional marriage and favorable presentation of cohabitation is revealed by his lifestyle:

• In reminiscing about his life without Andrea after her death, Stoltenberg recounted that "her life did not belong to me. It's why we never told anybody really that we married, because people get confused about that. They think, 'Oh, she's yours.' And we just didn’t want that nonsense."¹²
• Aside from keeping their marriage under wraps, a June New York Post brief stated, "Some of the elderly staffers at AARP The Magazine in D.C. are agog over revelations in New York magazine about managing editor John Stoltenberg…"¹³ In a New York Magazine interview, Stoltenberg admitted that his openly homosexual lifestyle "continued throughout his marriage."¹⁴ "Yeah, I did have male lovers. Sexual partners. Companions, "he says. "Yeah. I think as regards Andrea and me, neither she nor I had a concept of sexual faithfulness, but we had a strong conception of truth-telling. The betrayal was never the sex, the betrayal was not telling the truth."¹⁵
• Mere months after AARP hired a managing editor with 24 years' cohabiting experience, it published an article downplaying the institution of marriage in favor of cohabitation? (See October, 2004 AARP Bulletin article, "Unmarried Together: More older couples skip the wedding but still find bliss," which attempted to de-stigmatize living together. The article included spiritual advice from an anonymous priest that "God's very forgiving" and a couple's "priest assure them that God wants people to be happy." The article concluded that "Friends once 'preachy' about their live-in arrangement have also warmed to the idea.")¹⁶

Anti-Marriage Agenda Serves Only 1 Percent

AARP surveys reveal its pro-cohabitation message applies to few within its constituency demographic. Data shows that AARP is not serving any sizeable portion of the over-40 demographic. Rather, it is pushing an anti-marriage social agenda on behalf of only 1 percent of the older population.

1. Surprisingly, only 2 percent of Americans age 40 to 57 are cohabiting. The figure is only 1 percent for 58-to-69-year-olds and it's a negligible percentage for those 70 and older.¹⁷ In other words, that means that 99 percent of all Americans over 40 years of age are not cohabiting. Another AARP poll on sexual activity involving individuals aged 45 and older revealed that "for many women, sex lives end when their husbands die." ¹⁸
2. Boomers and previous generations have channeled their romantic investments within the institution of marriage – even when particular personal marriages ended in divorce. Similarly, when the three oldest demographic groups are sized up, an overwhelming percentage reject same-sex marriage. According to the AARP survey:¹⁹
• 89 percent of those 70 and older reject same-sex marriage
• 81 percent of those age 58-to-69 also reject same-sex marriage
• 74 percent of baby boomers do likewise

AARP and Same-Sex Marriage

At the grassroots' lifestyle level, AARP's membership base solidly endorses traditional marriage and disapproves of same-sex marriage. AARP's members disagree with their national and state’s leadership’s embrace of cohabitation and same-sex marriage. Some AARP state chapters have not been reticent to enter the same-sex marriage debate, despite claims from the national AARP office that it has not taken a position on the issue.²⁰ A telling sign of AARP’s "landing point" on this issue came when the Ohio ACLU trumpeted Ohio AARP's Issue 1 stance on its Web site.²¹

• Issue 1 was not as controversial as the mainstream media made it appear.²² It simply defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Yet, to hear Ohio AARP's spokesperson tell it, honoring traditional marriage and establishing it within the state constitution was horrific. Ohio AARP's associate state director for communications, Kathy Keller, told the Washington Blade, that Issue 1 would impact "all unmarried couples, heterosexual and homosexual. It was going to have a horrible effect on older adults by wiping out their health and inheritance benefits."²³
• Utah AARP likewise "cautioned voters" regarding a similar amendment in Utah, "saying it could impact unmarried elderly couples."²⁴

AARP's refusal to rein in either the Ohio or Utah chapters in 2004 departed from a 1998 precedent set when its regional office overturned similar action by the Hawaii AARP chapter.²⁵ These AARP chapters attempted to redefine marriage for all to accommodate a small percentage of experimental families.

"Eliminating the definition of marriage for everyone to serve only a few is unwise public policy by any measure," concludes Focus on the Family marriage and family analyst Glenn Stanton. "Such policy fails to recognize the wealth of benefits that marriage in itself provides as an institution to human and societal well-being. This is shown time and time again."

AARP's Same-Sex Coalition

• By late 2003 and beyond, AARP openly united with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR).
• The two organizations established a major "Voices of Civil Rights" multi-media campaign that included a bus tour and a Web site collaboration.²⁶
• The Web site classified homosexuality as a "civil rights issue." AARP’s Web site, press releases, Prime Time radio segments and other venues continually direct readers and listeners to its "civil rights" Web site. AARP/LCCR’s glossary defines the “gay rights movement" as "Seeks acceptance for homosexuality and homosexuals. The movement demands various changes in public perception as well as in law to provide the same rights to homosexuals that are provided to heterosexuals."²⁷

This collaboration and other actions raise numerous questions.

1. If marriage is not between a man and a woman, as AARP chapters in Ohio and Utah have gone on record formally opposing, then what is it? AARP cannot honestly work to erode the lawful definition of marriage while simultaneously claiming neutrality on the issue.
2. If AARP does not formally embrace same-sex marriage, why is it directly linking to homosexual advocacy pieces and organizations favoring it?
3. As AARP’s close coalition partner, LCCR was the most prominent signer of a March 1, 2004 open letter to Congress opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment.²⁸ Why is AARP tied so closely to organizations openly hostile to a traditional definition of marriage?
4. Given that the most common "right…provided to heterosexuals" under attack is marriage, how can AARP toss its name, budget and marketing campaign into the redefined "civil rights" ring that embraces comprehensive gay rights?
5. Why is AARP sponsoring a Web site embracing a movement that "demands…changes in public perception" as well as "demand[ing] changes…in law?"²⁹

State AARP Chapters Battle Traditional Marriage Definitions

AARP has increasingly positioned itself toward political advocacy and state-based activism:

• In early 2003, Adweek noted a new AARP thrust:

  Previous [marketing] work plugged individual services provided by AARP…Previous AARP [ad] work…focused on individual benefits a member received by joining the association. That changed when a new marketing firm was employed, with its "first work for AARP" having emphasized "the association’s advocacy work on political issues."³⁰

• AARP's new-found editorial activism in favor of cohabitation was only one new layer added to a foundation established by some state chapters, which grew in number from 23 to 53 between 2001 and 2003.³¹

The new AARP activism also marked a departure from its previous stance toward non-traditional families in the 1990s. The Associated Press reported in 1995 that AARP “…urged policy makers to seek ways to accommodate nontraditional households.”³² However, AARP narrowly defined nontraditional household parameters at that time. Note the following four categories of AARP concerns excluded about such families in 1995:

1. "Golden girls" (non-sexual cohabitation)
2. Grandparent caregivers
3. Extended families
4. Group homes

Although the national AARP did not openly pursue a pro-cohabitation policy until the late 1990s,³³ it allowed chapters to continually “flirt” with the idea:

1994: AARP’s California legislative chairman wrote a letter strongly backing AB2810, a domestic partner registry bill.³⁴
1997: The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force still touts the following 1997 quote in its Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual. It cites Jack Philp, legislative chair for the California AARP, who backed a domestic partners bill: “This bill would aid, strengthen, protect, and promote committed family relationships by extending, to unmarried couples, a limited number of rights and privileges enjoyed by married couples…”³⁵
1998: The Hawaii AARP chapter opposed the Defense of Marriage constitutional ban, but was overturned a week before the election by the regional AARP office.³⁶
2001: The ACLU of Northern California, AARP's ally in attempting to pass domestic partner bills AB26 and AB25, commended AARP's lobbying efforts: "On October 14, Governor Davis signed the most expansive domestic partners bill in the country after members of many civil rights groups including the ACLU, the AARP wrote thousands of letters and made thousands of calls."³⁷ Another source noted this constituted “years” of lobbying on the part of AARP.³⁸

By 1999, the flirting was over. AARP extended domestic partnership benefits to both homosexual and heterosexual employees.³⁹ Internally, it proved to be just one step toward becoming steeped within a broader gay activist human resources agenda that included a non-discrimination policy based on "sexual orientation."⁴⁰

Not Reflecting Its Membership Base

AARP cannot claim it is catering to constituency values; its own polling data reveal the differences:

• Its older members (70 and older) are highly conservative on social issues, especially issues like same-sex marriage ⁴¹
• Its other demographic groups, including the Boomer generation, depict other indicators of conservative thought and trends ⁴²

Even conceding that some Boomer social issues' views are more liberal (abortion, for instance) doesn't explain AARP's moves toward advocating stem-cell research, physician-assisted suicide, pornography usage, gay activist causes and cohabitation.

If you enjoy reading stories like this one, sign up for the free CitizenLink Daily Update e-mail. You'll get news and commentary from Focus on the Family Action delivered right to your computer.