RECENT  POSTS:  » Pro-discrimination activists continue to use one woman's one-sided spite against ex-husband to attack marriage equality » Audio: Tony Perkins minimizes actual religious persecution; pretends he and anti-gay pals face 'deadly consequences' » Ryan Anderson, Mark Regnerus, Rick Warren, other inequality advocates urge Pope to 'commit to marriage' » GLAAD: Are some anti-LGBT activists missing a self-awareness gene? » FRC faults Dems for broken, obstructionist Congress while advocating for broken, obstructionist Congress » FRC senior staffer: 'Ex-Gays: The Best Kept Secret in Your Child’s School' » Video: In inclusive ad, AZ Sec. of State hopeful makes discrimination his rival » That discriminatory OR baker is really overthinking reason why she's national news » Robert Oscar Lopez confirms belief that gay parents are like slave owners » Video: Values Voter Summit marriage panel was particularly boring, bad, ineffective this year  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

07/03/2008

Focu$ on the fundrai$ing: Gay $lam$ $till bankable

by Jeremy Hooper

Yesterday afternoon we showed you a Focus on the Family fundraising letter that respectfully recognized this writer's gay union. Well after the initial joy of that ironic situation subsided, I proceeded to actually open the letter. And guess what? I now know that FOF saves some of their most pointedly offensive logic for those coffer-fattening documents that they don't put on the Internet!

After the jump, find out how gays are "jettisoning the divine plan," how "powermongers in black robes" have somehow gone against Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and how demonizing every aspect of LGBT lives is still the "pro-family" side's bread and butter:

*Oh, and pay particular note to page 4, where Dobson ever-so-annoyingly asks the question, "Can you imagine being legally married in Oklahoma or Pennsylvania and not married in New Jersey or Oregon?" when such is the situation that married gay couples face every single day!

*Read this document on Scribd: Dobson letter

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I think what we all need to understand is that this is far more about money than anything else. We are these organization's bread and butter. When Dobson and Sheldon and the others whip their flocks into a frenzy, the coffers fill up. It's really that simple. If the California proposition is defeated, that's going to be a huge nail in their coffin. The beginning of the end. And then how will they whip their sheeple into a frenzy so they can buy that new boat they've been eyeing?

Yes, if it is defeated, we'll probably see the money pour into organizations across the country, but once Marriage is legal in CA, and has gone through, not only the legislative path to approval twice (albeit vetoed) and the judicial path to approval once, but also an approval in the form of a popular vote, it's going to be much harder for them to claim that the "will of the people has been thwarted." If CA stays legal, it's only a matter of time before the rest of the country follows. Their days are numbered.

I have no delusions that "teh gays" will be a fear-mongering hotpoint for their fundraising long into the future, but the more people wake up and discover we're not the demons the other side make us out to be, the less effective that will be. And the fewer funds that will stir up. And once we are no longer profitable for them, they'll leave us alone.

Posted by: Morry | Jul 3, 2008 10:46:57 AM

Morry: Agreed. That's exactly why we constructed the headline out of dollar signs and made several references to this being a coffer-filling maneuver.

Sadly, it continues to work for them. We are still the most marketable item.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 3, 2008 10:52:52 AM

It's funny that Dobson (somewhat respectfully) uses a reference from Lincoln in his gay bashing when the fundies were recently calling for the removal of Lincoln from Mt. Rushmore for his alleged homosexual trysts. Is he really that clueless? Or maybe he thought that the Lincoln reference would serve to ignite even more hatred from his wrathful hordes.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 3, 2008 11:13:20 AM

Well Dick, and not to mention that it's a speech all about unity and the equality of all citizens, which Dobson is using to support his modern-day fight to deprive a population sect of their rights.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 3, 2008 11:18:09 AM

I hate ironing too,.....but don't they see any of the irony it all?

Posted by: LOrion | Jul 3, 2008 11:31:32 AM

So, Jeremy, you're saying that he really is that clueless?

I know that there are many within the religious community (I know some of them personally) who have so completely isolated themselves from any contrary opinion that their delusion has become the only "reality" they know. Which is why I think that the APA should classify excessive religiosity as a psychological disorder - and I think that electroshock therapy is the prudent course of treatment.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 3, 2008 11:34:50 AM

I actually think that the fundies have a lot more to lose than we do in the CA vote. I think it was a big mistake on their part to go forward with it. If we lose, they've set our rights back a few years. If they lose, they've driven the proverbial stake into their own evil hearts.

I think it would have been more profitable for them to let California stand, and point to it as the evil that "could happen in your neighborhood!!!" I would have rather have hung onto the ambiguity and pulled in all the cash I could. Once that question is decided...uh...decisively, as it will be in the defeat of Proposition 8, it's all downhill.

Posted by: Morry | Jul 3, 2008 11:42:44 AM

One thing about "Proposition h8" is that we probably win either way. Since the California Supreme Court has already determined that the language of the proposed amendment is unconstitutional, it is more than likely that they will strike it down if it passes (that is if they don't disqualify it from the ballot before the election).

And there is a precedent for them in overturning a voter approved constitutional amendment. Back in the '60s, after the Rumford Fair Housing Act was passed in the California Legislature, the segregationists in the state got Proposition 14 passed by a 2:1 margin. Prop 14 effectively repealed Rumford (and several other anti-discrimination measures), and wrote discrimination into the California Constitution.

Prop 14 was an amendment to the constitution, but the California Supreme Court ruled that Prop 14 was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection guarantees of the constitution. That is also precisely what the Ronald George court determined with regard to Prop 22 when they overturned it and allowed same-sex marriages.

Prop h8 is as clearly unconstitutional as Prop 22 was (and Prop 14 for that matter), and it is only logical that Prop 8 would be overturned as well - that is if it isn't disqualified from the ballot before the election on any of a number of grounds, not the least of which is it's unconstitutionality.

Another thing about Prop 14 is that when appealed to the US Supreme Court the California ruling was upheld. But even more sweepingly, it ushered in a new era of equal housing opportunities throughout the entire country. So, this one hate-filled proposition 14 in California effectively ended discriminatory housing practices throughout the country - and we can thank the California Supreme Court for that as well. We could be looking at a sequel to Prop 14 in Prop h8.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 3, 2008 12:43:56 PM

Pretty unrelated, but funny. Somehow I was on FOTF's mailing list for a few years in the mid 90s and got several phone calls as well. At the time I had a loud thumpy (i.e. quite gay) dance song on my answering machine (M People's "Sight For Sore Eyes"). I came home one day to find a message from a somewhat uh, flamboyantly voiced guy: "This is Xxxx for Focus on the Family. We're calling to remind you of an important date blah blah blah. Thank you. Oh, and by the way...I love your music! *click*"

Posted by: Chris | Jul 3, 2008 4:09:02 PM

I am troubled by Dobson's conception of a threat to one's religious liberty because that one may be penalized for refusing service to a gay customer. Is it unreasonable to expect that if one wants to open a business that serves the public that they must, as a part of the licensing process, surrender the right to refuse service to customers based on their race, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc.?

Posted by: Darryl | Jul 3, 2008 4:29:09 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails