The Congressional Budget Office said gay marriage would, on the whole, benefit U.S. taxpayers.
The Family Research Council responded, as Scott Lewis notes, with non sequiturs.
A liberal Catholic blogger thoughtfully and methodically analyzes the recent and sometimes stereotypical reasoning of Ron Belgau, who is an activist in Courage, the Catholic antigay, pro-chastity movement.
(Note that I describe Courage as both antigay and pro-chastity. In fact, I recognize there are individuals in Courage who affirm gay rights to a limited extent while affirming a preference for chastity. Unfortunately, Courage as a whole tends to oppose tolerance and political, social or religious equality for gays.)
Focus on the Family attempts to smear two leading evangelicals — Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis — as New Age leftists.
Both evangelists have spent decades battling poverty and racism in America, but both evangelists also have strong records of upholding Biblical authority, emphasizing conservative belief in salvation through Jesus Christ, and maintaining a conservative sexual ethic.
Focus joins a Southern Baptist ideologue, Albert Mohler, in mischaracterizing the religious beliefs of Campolo and Wallis. Focus illogically implies that because Campolo and Wallis are less politically extreme than the SBC, Campolo and Wallis are somehow part of some nefarious leftist movement that is “outside Christian cardinal doctrines.”
As it happens, Campolo and Wallis have always criticized the partisanship of both left and right.
Exodus, the Orlando-based network of ex-gay activists, joins the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, and other anti-tolerance organizations in inventing a remarkably blatant lie about Congress:
Congress is poised to make homosexual marriage the law of the land.
In fact, no proposal to legalize marriage is before Congress or in effect in any state besides Massachusetts.
Instead of accurately reporting the situation, Exodus joins amend-the-U.S.-Constitution activists in asserting that anyone who votes against a Federal Marriage Amendment — in other words, anyone who opposes hasty changes to the U.S. Constitution or who opposes a religious-right attack on states’ rights — is pro-homosexual-marriage.
The activists also neglect to fully inform their audiences of what they are supporting in a Federal Marriage Amendment. One must look elsewhere to learn that at least two versions of a draft Federal Marriage Amendment are circulating in Senate committee.
One version of the FMA exploits the U.S. Constitution to prohibit state legislatures and courts from recognizing either marriage or civil unions for same-gender couples. Another version, S.J. Res. 30, permanently bans state legislatures from recognizing marriage for same-gender couples and prohibits any court (state or federal) from authorizing civil unions for same-gender couples.
It appears that the version to be voted in July may indeed ban civil unions. Conservative former congressman Bob Barr testified June 22: “The Federal Marriage Amendment, however, would invalidate any civil union provided by the Massachusetts state constitution, and of course would also invalidate all same-sex marriages in the state.”
In a June 23 press release, the Family Foundation of Virginia declares (emphasis mine):
Of course, since we are affiliated with Focus on the Family and Family Research Council, we have taken some direction from Dr. Dobson and from Tony Perkins.
S.J. Res. 30, introduced by Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, simply defines marriage only as the union of a man and a woman, and restricts the privileges to be conferred only to that relationship. While this amendment does not address other forms of same sex marriage such as civil unions, there is simply not enough support in the U.S. Senate for a more complete amendment.
However, we believe that the FMA, if passed, will do several things:
1) FMA will give us a foundation from which to work. The fact is that while it isn’t perfect, without it, we will lose this battle in a very short period of time. When the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas decision legalizing sodomy came down just one year ago this month, analysts said it would be years before we had to think about same-sex marriage. Instead, it was months. We feel that once the Congress and the states settle on the definition of marriage in an amendment, we will have the momentum to begin to take back what we have lost. We have to defend the definition while we are trying to protect the institution.
In other words, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council view FMA as a first step toward re-enacting “what we have lost”: so-called “sodomy laws” — next time, perhaps, at the federal level.
2) The whole issue of civil unions is complicated. While we would prefer an amendment that included a ban, that is just not going to happen considering the current make-up of Congress. However, Virginia is in a very good position since we just passed a ban on civil unions. Consequently, other states may follow. This is a pure example of federalism at its best; the Constitution leaves to the states that which it chooses not to deal with.
The Family Foundation of Virginia is being more than a little dishonest here. The new Virginia law does not merely ban civil unions; it bans any contract, such as a power of attorney, financial agreement, or visitation consent, between two people of the same sex. And a preceding Virginia law already prohibited private companies from offering benefits to employees’ same-sex life partners.
3) Either way, a vote on FMA will put our Senators on record when it comes to marriage. This may prove very important in the Senatorial elections later this year. Focus on the Family and Family Research Council are heavily involved in educating citizens in those states that have Senators up for reelection that either oppose FMA or have not taken a position.
“Put our Senators on record” — that pretty much expresses the real intent of “Protect Marriage Sunday.” Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council — with Exodus and the Family Foundation of Virginia firmly in tow — view the U.S. Constitution as their only political football, in a desperate election year in which incumbents from both parties face possible ouster over a badly botched war in Iraq, a soaring incidence of terrorism, and the permanent loss of millions of manufacturing jobs.
Even the pro-life vote is slipping.
Focus on the Family, which opposes unfettered free speech for gay-tolerant viewpoints, digs up a 2001 incident in Britain, in which an antigay street preacher was assaulted and arrested. Focus views the arrest and conviction of the preacher as proof (somehow) that gay tolerance is a threat to free speech.
Focus’ angry recollection of this dated incident is sketchy — intentionally, perhaps, because in this story it turns out that a gay activist prominently defended the incendiary preacher’s free-speech rights.
Read more…
David Berkowitz murdered six people and severely injured others during a 1970s killing spree.
Now ex-gay movement marketer and underwriter Focus on the Family is marketing audiotape and CD recordings touting mass murderer Berkowitz’s conservative-Christian moral virtue — for a $9 “donation” per recording.
The Focus web site offers a “listen now” link where listeners might presumably listen to Berkowitz for free. But the link leads to a radio program archive where Berkowitz, at this writing, is nowhere to be found.
According to the New York Daily News, authorities will seize the proceeds from Focus and Berkowitz — if it is determined that either profited from the CDs.
Christianity Today defends Focus rhetorically, suggesting that the organization is profiting from Berkowitz no more than the media.
A factual defense, assessing the profit margin on the recordings, might have been more effective.
This month, my job changed, my salary rose, my office moved… but ex-gay activists remain as committed to conflict, resentment, and tired old refrains as ever. I must admit: Covering their pessimism, their isolationism, their lack of faith in themselves and God is unrelentingly depressing.
There’s gotta be a way to encourage positive thinking, promote constructive engagement, maybe even evoke just a trace of independent accountability in the movement. Thoughts?
Former New Yorker Peterson Toscano, who endured 17 years of ex-gay reparative therapy in Manhattan and elsewhere, returns to the city to present his one-man comedy, “Doin’ Time in the Homo No Mo Halfway House,” for one night only at 6:30 p.m. Monday, June 14, 2004, at Marble Collegiate Church, 29th and Fifth Ave. Admission is $6.00 or $15.00 with dinner and is sponsored by GIFTS, the GLBT group at Marble Collegiate.
XGW has previously reviewed Toscano’s show:
Ex-Ex-Gay Takes Comedy on the Road, Jan. 25, 2004
A Visit to the Homo No Mo Halfway House, Oct. 16, 2003
A press release for the June 14, 2004, show continues:
Read more…
If love and sexual desire are distinct experiences with distinct and separate biological underpinnings, then what does that mean for the ethics and politics of same-sex love and same-sex genital behavior? What relationship, if any, should exist between the two?
Jason Kuznicki of Positive Liberty explores that question for both “liberals” and “conservatives,” after reading a recent article in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science.
Founded as a day for Americans of all faiths, the National Day of Prayer is now closely tied to Focus on the Family. It is headquartered in Focus offices, James Dobson’s wife is the chairman, Focus is compensated for “services rendered,” and the NDP’s prayer list (political agenda) is a watered-down version of Focus’ joyous secularism. Both Focus and the NDP promote a so-called “Judeo-Christian” order that more closely conforms to a mystical American patriotism than to mainstream, nonpartisan, global Jewish or Christian belief.
What’s the ex-gay connection, you may ask?
Read more…
Recent Comments