Gas prices? Housing bust? No, no -- it's gay 'I do's that are gonna dick us over
In a recent edition of his daily "Washington Update" in which he crudely referred to gay couples who wish to marry as "wedding crashers," the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins (or his ghostwriter) said the following about the supposed financial woes Califronia marriage equality will bring to the nation:
Gay "marriage" may be a boon for business in the short-term, but accelerating the breakdown of the family will cost Americans billions more in the long run. Last month, researchers found that what happens to the family has big implications for federal and state spending. Each year, the government has to fork over $112 billion dollars in welfare, anti-poverty programs, criminal justice costs, and remedial education just to pay for the decline of marriage. That's nothing compared to what California's marriage mayhem will mean to taxpayers if a voter initiative to reverse this ruling does not pass this November.
Hmm. So who are these researchers of which Tony is referring? Well, he's talking about a "pro-family" study that was commissioned by the Institute for American Values, Georgia Family Council, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and Families Northwest (*read full study after jump). But what's really funny/ interesting/ maddening about Tony citing this data is that even though the groups responsible for the study are staunchly against marriage equality for same-sex couples, such arrangements are not even mentioned one time in their findings. In fact, the woes that are detailed in the research are those of family fragmentation, which marriage equality would only stabilize, not undermine!
As so often the case with these "pro-family" types, Tony is just accepting it as a fact that gay marriage is a corrosive rather than productive force. But why? Even if you think that gays have one foot in the door of Hades, by what rationale do you logically attribute the possibility that their cohabitative commitments will eventually be more sealed to a rise in familial instability?! It certainly sounds good if your goal is to stop gay equality at any cost. However, if you think with a reasoned brain rather than a socio-polico-religiously motivated mindset, then the notion that Jim & Bob's big fat gay wedding will in any way put John & Judy on welfare will unquestionably come across as mentally bankrupt.
Wedding Crashers Good for Business, Says Gov. [FRC -- Wash. Update]
**The study data:
they can tie anything into gay marriage cant they?
Posted by: queerunity | May 27, 2008 11:34:53 AM
Didn't Mr. Perkins read his cited study?
If anything, the researchers make the case for marriage equality on many fronts including financial stability of the family unit, welfare of children, and a reduced burden on taxpayers.
What part doesn't he understand? I suppose the usual FRC inanity of "I don't like it because I don't like it, so there!" is the only logical reason.
Posted by: dave b | May 27, 2008 11:56:19 AM
Yeah, the economy will collapse, just like it did in Massachussets....
....Oh, wait maybe it won't.
Posted by: GayMormonBoy | May 27, 2008 12:23:21 PM
Perhaps the more important bit of information we should be discussing is Tony P's concern that the ballot measure may not pass.
"That's nothing compared to what California's marriage mayhem will mean to taxpayers IF (EMPHASIS ADDED) a voter initiative to reverse this ruling does not pass this November."
All of sudden, the Fundies don't seem so cocksure of themselves.
Posted by: stojef | May 27, 2008 1:07:26 PM
If we have any kind of intelligent ad service here: So far here's what I'm thinking.
SAY NO TO HATE,
SAY NO TO FEAR,
SAY NO TO Out-of-State bigots.
SAY YES TO LOVE
SAY YES TO LOVE
SAY YES TO Ellen and Portia
SAY YES TO George and Arnold.
SAY YES TO Everyone who wants to be happily married!
Posted by: LOrion | May 27, 2008 7:51:22 PM
No one reads these "studies." They exist for one, and only one purpose: for Perkins (and those with similar political agendas) to quote from. There are no real studies that support their claims, so they pool their funds and pay some "researcher" to pen his (or her) name to a pound of paper that "confirms" what they have been claiming - it is a widely used tactic from those on that side of decency, and it is the height of intellectual fraud.
When you see the title "Empirical Literature Review" describing the effort that was undertaken to formulate the conclusions, it usually means that the literature was located to support the conclusions - rather than the other way around. It also points out the fact that there was no real research going on.
That said, the only thing that Perkins can do to justify his chosen profession "Queer Evisceration Team Leader" (I'm assuming), is to point to all of the ills of the world that we didn't cause, and then conflate the facts to insinuate that we did cause them (and are exacerbating the situation). And with a little bit of fast talking (the skill that serves a conman well), they can leave an audience believing that everything evil and bad originated from the same-sex marriage proponents.
It's actually pretty ingenious, but you would just think that by now everyone would be somewhat immune to their tactics.
Posted by: Dick Mills | May 27, 2008 8:58:56 PM
"you would just think that by now everyone would be somewhat immune to their tactics."
Well that's the problem, Dick. There is virtually nobody in the mainstream media who is calling these folks out on this. If they mention these "studies" on most cable news show, the host and even the person on hand to give the counterpoint typically will just move on without calling the data into question.
I understand why, because it would (a) eat up precious time and (b) prove somewhat difficult to fully explain I in this setting. However, we have to have more people calling shenanigans on this unscrupulous tactic!
**To be fair, however, we do have to acknowledge that this is not exclusively a far-right tactic.
Posted by: G-A-Y | May 27, 2008 9:03:52 PM
I fully agree with all of your points, Jeremy. And, on both sides, there are many who simply don't want to be immune.
Posted by: Dick Mills | May 27, 2008 9:16:44 PM
The Perkin was on Colbert last night. He said that Jesus didn't care about same-sex marriage, but that Paul refused to engage in Homosexual activity (my paraphrase). Stephen suggested that Paul also favored adult circumcision, but that "the barn door was closed on that idea."
It seemed pretty tense (but that could just be me).
Posted by: Dick Mills | May 28, 2008 12:45:16 PMcomments powered by Disqus