RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: NOM's guide to pressuring lawmakers to ban marriages (while pretending you're doing something good and positive instead) » Full trailer: 'The Normal Heart' » Vintage Clinton era oppo memo perhaps even more relevant today » Concerned Women For America advises churches to lockdown exclusionary marriage views » Video: What does conservative columnist Cal Thomas see as America's biggest threat? Take a guess. » Correcting NOM's fallacious fear graphic » Gee, Bryan, can't understand why federal courts are rejecting you gay = incest view » Former NOM sr. associate admits shift: Moving away from intellectual arguments, focusing on spiritual » Prop 8 defense attorney now planning lesbian daughter's wedding » If you can't afford your event, NOM, perhaps you should just cancel  

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

02/23/2009

Wherein Tony Perkins justifies all of our earlier points

by Jeremy Hooper

Earlier today we posted a lengthy piece detailing why we felt a suggested marriage "reconciliation" that appeared as an Op-Ed in this weekend's New York Times could never, ever work. Now, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins is lashing out Tony-Perkinsagainst the same Op-Ed. However, he is doing so for very different reasons from us. And in fact, his reasons actually support our position that LGBT people CANNOT GIVE AN INCH to those who wish to keep us legal strangers!

Here's what Tony has to say:

In a surprising departure from his prior positions, David Blankenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values, partnered with Jonathan Rauch for a stunning op-ed in yesterday's New York Times called "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage." In it, the pair advocates the creation of a federal civil union law which would give same-sex couples "most or all" of the benefits associated with marriage while somehow strengthening religious conscience protections. Blankenhorn's concession is disturbing on several levels. As we have seen elsewhere, civil unions are a Trojan horse for homosexuals' ultimate goal of marriage. Once a national civil union law is in place, denial of marital status would be almost impossible to defend.

Far from a "compromise," Blankenhorn's position surrenders on the core question of whether the relationship involved (homosexuality) can be recognized as a social good. If it can be, the ability of other institutions to deny it recognition will be on a path of extinction. Their proposal also confines religion to specifically religious institutions or para-religious institutions. But any religion worth its salt (and light) demands moral behavior in all realms of life, so all sorts of freedoms will necessarily suffer curtailment under this regime. This is of little matter, however, because this proposal is a halfway house to the ultimate goal--something I suspect Rauch knows.

Blankenhorn's Sour Note on Marriage [FRC]

See what we mean? The whole point of the Rauch/Blankenhorn piece was to find middle ground, something we protested since (a) we are the only ones who really have anything to lose here, and (b) we are owed full equality! However, Tony is saying this middle ground is wrong because we gay people don't deserve ANYTHING. He's saying that even a lesser-than thrown-bone is still one bone too many. And, of course, he's doing so because of his personal, chosen faith views regarding LGBT people's morality.

Let this serve as yet another bullet point for our earlier piece. The religious right deserves no concessions on the issue of marriage equality! The differences between our two sides could not be any clearer.

**UPDATE, 2/24:
You can also put RNC chair Michael Steele in the "can't give an inch" camp.

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


Your thoughts

Wow! He used the "Trojan horse" analogy too! He must keep a pretty close eye on your site, Jeremy.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 23, 2009 6:53:14 PM

The concession is not to the religious right. They're hypocrits and pharisees. The concession is for the millions of straight folk who are selfish about marraige but from a sense of fairness would support civil unions. They're the ones to talk to. I wouldn't argue directly with Perkins and his ilk. If he were really doing research on the family, he would have noticed by now that there are many perfectly healthy gay families. His real job is to twist the facts and cherry pick scripture to make the right's hatreds seem reasonable.

Posted by: Wilberforce | Feb 23, 2009 9:07:07 PM

The problem remains that we're the only ones being asked to make concessions.

Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Feb 23, 2009 11:04:58 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails