Ex-Gay Watch

FRC dictates “The Meaning of Marriage.”

Colin Stewart, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, pens a comparison between marriage and Humpty Dumpty. However, some might argue that reducing marriage to a children’s fable poses a greater threat to marriage than allowing gays simply to live without fear of imprisonment.

Everybody knows what the meaning of marriage “is” (ala Bill
Clinton). It is written in our hearts and consciences. In
short, marriage is a “self-evident truth” derived from the
“laws of nature and nature’s God,” which human governments
are required to recognize and protect if they are to retain
their legitimacy, according to the Declaration of
Independence.

All individuals have always defined marriage somewhat differently, and prioritized marital values differently. FRC, however, argues that it speaks for God and that everyone is obligated to define marriage beginning with FRC’s overriding preoccupation with the presence of a penis and vagina — never mind fidelity, commitment, relationship, and children.

As such, marriage predates and supercedes
the Constitution of the United States, and may not be
abridged by any branch of the United States government. A
self-evident truth may be denied, but its essence cannot be
altered.

FRC wages an implicit attack on civil marriage, declaring a conservative Christian hegemony over marriage. FRC also suggests that anything determined by the religious right to be a “self-evident truth” must be exempted from accountability to the Constitution, civil law, and the voters.

Marriage also predates the fountainhead of the democratic
legal system, the Ten Commandments, which specifically
affirm and protect marriage in both the fifth commandment
(“Honor your father and your mother”), and the seventh
commandment (“You shall not commit adultery”).

There are many ironies here.

• I do not believe the Ten Commandments have ever been widely recognized as the root of British or American common law;
• the religious right dishonors parents in attempting to take children away from their gay parents and in mandating antigay educational programs and encouraging antigay harassment in schools, against the wishes of parents;
• the fact, perhaps too often cited on this blog, that the social and religious milieu of the Bible Belt results in the nation’s highest divorce rates.

FRC continues:

In fact,
marriage goes back to the real “cradle of civilization,”
where the first two humans were a man (Hebrew adam) and his
wife, whom the man named Eve (i.e. “Life” or “Living”),
“because she was the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20).

FRC seems to replace legitimate human anthropological history with a tale of six-day creation, a 6,000-year-old Earth, and a wife who was the man’s named property. FRC ignores that Adam and Eve were never formally married, neglects to explain where their offspring obtained their spouses, and neglects to spell out the slow development of marital rituals.

Although marriage predates any written law, it has been
affirmed and protected in the laws and society of every
civilization throughout human history.

The history of civilizations does not appear to substantiate this claim. In any event, the religious right is attempting (through the Federal Marriage Amendment) to reduce marriage to a trite written contract of no particular longevity. FRC’s concern for marriage being larger than a written contract appears to be disingenuous.

No human culture,
however barbaric or pagan, has ever succeeded in redefining
the essence of marriage.

Conservative Christians have redefined marriage several times since the Industrial Revolution. What was once a pre-arranged agrarian contract of labor and reproduction evolved into a voluntary urban pact of household management and reproduction, accompanied to varying degrees by love and, much less often, fidelity on the part of the husband. Conservatives added mutual sexual gratification to the implied contract when the sexual revolution demanded it.

The concept of marriage is
ingrained in the human psyche: it is a “natural law.”

“Natural law” is generally held in disrepute in Western Christian civilization. It is an outgrowth, in part, of theocratic philosophies.

It is the natural crucible within which human beings are born,
nurtured, taught and protected, until they are old enough
to function as independent adults. Marriage is the
foundation of the natural family, and the source of the
universal bond of kinship which exists between father,
mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, grandparent, uncle,
aunt, nephew, niece and cousin.

Under this reasoning, gay marriage would strengthen the sacrament and institution. The religious right, in contrast, seeks to exclude gay parents, sons, daughters, grandparents and nieces from the family.

As everybody knows, “blood
runs thicker than water.” Atypical family structures, such
as single-parent households, are simply exceptions which
prove the general rule.

Census data continue to indicate that two-parent heterosexual-monogamous-first-marriage households are the exception, not the norm. It is unclear where FRC’s obtains its perception of U.S. households.

Why are we human beings “wired” this way? It is because we
are made in the image of God. As Moses wrote in the book
of Genesis….

FRC’s following argument is a literalist religious one.

Gay marriage poses no threat to religious marriage. Churches remain free to marry, or not marry, according to their values.

FRC wishes to impose its selective interpretations of the Bible upon the entire American legal system. It is not constitutionally entitled to do so.

Which brings us back to Humpty Dumpty.

In 2003, a vocal group of radical activists, claiming to
represent a tiny proportion of the population (less than
2%) who self-identify themselves as practicing homosexuals,
are demanding that the people of the United States, through
one or another of the branches of their government, agree
to “change” the meaning of marriage to comply with their
own definition.

Most people know of marriages that they disapprove of. Hollywood produces many inappropriate marriages, as do the leaders of the religious right and our major political parties.

Civil marriage does not imply that America “approves” of a given couple. Nor is there a request that marriage be radically redefined; marriage continues to adapt to society’s needs.

The fact that FRC bases much of its defense of antigay marriage on the words of Humpty Dumpty suggests FRC cannot think of a thoughtful case to make on its own behalf.

And the immediate question is whether, in this hour of
destiny, the American people will rise to defend the
essence of marriage as a “self-evident truth,” or whether
we will capitulate to the demands of a small band of
radical activists who, having hijacked the political
system, are now holding marriage hostage in pursuit of
their ultimate objective – the deconstruction of the
Judeo-Christian principles which undergird the American
republic.

This blog has documented anti-Semitism and un-Christian joyous secularism among groups like FRC that appeal to “Judeo-Christian” principles.

Additional FRC Resources:
Ken Connor’s USA Today op-ed against Americans’ right to privacy from an overbearing government.

In 2000, 18-year-old Matthew Limon was sentenced to prison in Kansas for having voluntary oral sex with someone three years younger. Both teen-agers were developmentally disabled.

Heterosexual teen-agers would have been sentenced to a maximum of a year and three months, and possibly just probation. But because Limon and his sex partner were both male, Limon was sentenced to 17 years, two months.

This disproportionate sentencing was a basic element of sodomy laws. And ex-gay umbrella group Exodus refuses to oppose harsh sentencing.

Today the Supreme Court threw out the 17-year sentence and returned the case to Kansas courts.

An article in today’s New York Times interviews “conservatives” who are uniformly angry at the Supreme Court ruling against sodomy laws.

However, all the interviewees appear to be Big Government moral conservatives employed by the religious right. No economic, small-government, or libertarian conservatives are interviewed.

Two top Exodus officials seem to be saying very different things, in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling against Texas’ sodomy law.

Mike Airhart offered an optimistic assessment earlier. However…

While spokesman Randy Thomas avoids moral absolutism and echoes Clarence Thomas, executive director Alan Chambers echoes Trent Lott and Jerry Falwell.

ALAN CHAMBERS: We don’t live in 1953 Christian America anymore.

And we don’t live in 1953 segregated, sexist, KKK-tolerant America, either.

RANDY THOMAS: States have every right to draft statements declaring what they deem appropriate moral behavior for the good of the society they govern.

In other words, Randy supports states’ rights to legislate morality.

RANDY THOMAS: Where the creators of these laws missed the boat is that instead of denouncing sin and offering grace, they created a criminal law.

Codifying morality in criminal statutes was ineffective and unwise.

RANDY THOMAS: It is completely understandable why the gay community, who does not share our moral values, would want these laws overturned.

Randy accepts the desire of gays to live freely based on morality which may not match his.

RANDY THOMAS: All they have to do is look around and see the permissiveness of our decadent sexualized society to feel unfairly singled out for punishment.”

Especially since the criminalized behaviors are a small part of broad social norms.

ALAN CHAMBERS: “Our young people are not going to grow up under the same teachings about morality that we did. The school books will simply state that homosexuality was legitimized by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2003.

Or our young people will read that the privacy of their parents’ bedroom and freedom from governmental harassment was legitimized.

– Steve B.

In a Focus on the Family article, moral conservatives argue that the Supreme Court ruling on sodomy laws is a loss for gay activists.

They say the ruling leaves gays without a key political tool — equal protection — that had been sought.

However, equal protection being too boring, Focus’s experts invent a string of bizarre and imaginative goals for the gay rights movement.

Ya gotta love creativity.

Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer, June 26, 2003:

QUESTION: And on the Texas sodomy case, does the President believe that gay men have the legal right to have sexual relations in the privacy of their own home?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think on this decision, the administration did not file a brief in this case, unlike in the Michigan case. And this is now a state matter.

QUESTION: So he has no position on this?

MR. FLEISCHER: It’s just as I indicated, the administration did not file a brief on this — as, I think, you know.

The next war: Bush and the Supreme Court

With William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor considering retirement, activists on all sides are preparing for a firefight over Bush’s next high-court nominee.
By Tim Grieve

“Caving in to the ‘homosexual agenda’”

Justice Antonin Scalia blasts the sodomy ruling, saying the Court improperly ventured into the legislative domain.

A great day for liberty

In his dissent from the Supreme Court’s historic decision in the Texas sodomy case, angry Antonin Scalia was right about one thing: The next step is gay marriage.
By Andrew Sullivan

Protecting “the most private human conduct”

Justice Anthony Kennedy reverses Texas antisodomy law, citing constitutional protection from “unwarranted government intrusions.”

Public-domain quotes from the Associated Press:

“This is a giant leap forward to a day where we are no longer branded
as criminals.” – Ruth Harlow, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the case and
legal director at Lambda Legal.

“If the people have no right to regulate sexuality then ultimately
the institution of marriage is in peril, and with it, the welfare of the
coming generations of children.” – Tom Minnery, vice president of public
policy at Focus on the Family.

“We still have a long way to go in achieving full equality, but the
court’s recognition that all women and men, regardless of their sexuality,
have a constitutional right to privacy is a huge step forward.” – National
Organization for Women President Kim Gandy.

“It is my opinion that this decision represents a paradigm shift from
the court’s previous decisions in holding that homosexual acts are protected
liberty interests and that the Texas Legislature has no rational basis to
forbid those acts.

I am disappointed that the Supreme Court justices who voted in favor
of the reversal did not allow the people of the state of Texas, through
their elected legislators, to determine moral standards of governance for
this state.” – Charles Rosenthal, a lawyer who argued the case for Texas.

“This ruling opens the door for new advances toward full equality and
should be viewed as a challenge to legislators to help pass important legal
protections for GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) Americans -
like employment nondiscrimination laws and comprehensive hate crimes
legislation.” – Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights
Campaign.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas law against
homosexual sodomy is a defeat for public morality and America’s families.
This ill-conceived decision will have serious repercussions upon public
health and welfare in Texas and other states that still criminalize
sodomy.” – Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of Traditional Values Coalition.

“We are all safer today because the court reaffirmed the principle
that bigotry and fear may not be the basis for criminalizing private
consensual conduct. Recognizing that Americans are entitled to respect for
their private lives, the decision is a ringing endorsement of the principles
of individual liberty and freedom from discrimination and bigotry.” – Glen
A. Tobias, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League and Abraham H.
Foxman, ADL national director.

From Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, June 26, 2003:

In 2001, a blue ribbon panel of military law
experts called for repeal of the sodomy statute on the fiftieth anniversary
of the UCMJ, calling its enforcement “arbitrary, even vindictive.”

The armed forces have discharged almost 9,000 service members for being
lesbian, gay or bisexual since “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was adopted ten
years ago. The reason for each discharge has been homosexual conduct.

“An open question,” according to SLDN Executive Director C. Dixon Osburn, “is whether future courts will
invoke the doctrine of military deference and avoid the underlying issue of
the constitutionality of either the federal sodomy statute or ‘Don’t Ask,
Don’t Tell.’”

Writing for today’s majority, Justice Kennedy ruled that the “right to
liberty under the Due Process Clause gives … the full right to engage in
private conduct without government intervention.” Kennedy further stated
that, regarding lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans, “The state cannot
demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private
sexual conduct a crime.”

“SLDN will look closely at today’s ruling and work with other legal experts
to determine what role it may have in tearing down the walls to equality in
our armed forces,” said Osburn.

From Integrity USA, June 26, 2003:

We would point out that no major US Christian denomination supported Texas in this appeal. The days of Christian-supported legal discrimination
against gay and lesbian people in the United States seem to be waning, and
for this we give thanks to God. We also give thanks that no longer can
opponents of the public celebration of same-sex unions in our Church use the
argument that such unions are “illegal” in many states. The Supreme Court
today put an end to that reality.