RECENT  POSTS:  » GLAAD: What FRC's exploitation of Robin Williams' death is really about » Scott Lively's new mission: Making America's churches super-duper extra anti-gay » BYU protects the sanctity of pre-printed greetings » Breaking: Supreme Court delays fairness, justice in Virginia » Negligent anti-LGBT voices determined to eliminate *all* nondiscrimination laws » Video: To Focus on the Family's Citizenlink, a simple business request = 'home invasion' » Audio: Former senior NOM official says we'll have 50 state equality by 2015 » Video: Florida AG Pam Bondi advocates for delayed (and denied, if she had her way) justice » Audio: Michelle Duggar robocalls against LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance in Fayetteville, AK » AFA commentator equates homosexuality with blindness, paralysis  

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

03/08/2011

We won't blame you for 1996's Macarena. But DOMA's on you, FRC!

by Jeremy Hooper

In response to Rep. Nancy Pelosi's claim that defending DOMA "places Republicans squarely on the wrong side of history and progress" in a move that "is nothing more than a distraction from our most pressing challenges," Family Research Council staffers say:

First of all, the foundation of civil society is not a "distraction." Secondly, conservatives didn't pick this fight--the President and his liberal allies did. Yet ours is the movement that's constantly criticized for bringing up wedge issues. If you ask me, the Left is the side obsessed with social change. Americans wouldn't even be discussing this if the White House had maintained the status quo. [SOURCE]

Uh huh, right.

First of all, the foundation of civil society includes LGBT people. Always has, always will. When America grows up and realizes that, we can move on from these discriminatory distractions. But as long as groups like FRC are still defining "foundation of civil society" by how fully certain tax-paying citizens are shunned, we're gonna remain on this silly sidetrack, screaming rhetorical nonsense at each other through split screen cable television rather than fighting the real world's literal social ills.

Secondly, not only did conservatives in general pick this fight -- THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY PICKED THIS FIGHT! As Tony Perkins recently reminded us:

"we took it back to our policy shop at FRC and formulated
the policy and actually gave it the name Defense of Marriage
Act
"

We've also shown you the two hour DOMA rollout press conference that FRC hosted in July of 1996, and have rounded up all kinds of vintage testimony that grunge era FRC staffers offered to both Congress and the American public:

THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE TO SAY [FRC]
WHY WE NEED THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT [FRC]
THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: EXPERT TESTIMONY [FRC]
THE IMPLICATIONS OF GAY 'MARRIAGE' [FRC]
THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON EDUCATION CURRICULA AND POLICY OF HOMOSEXUAL 'MARRIAGE' [FRC]
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: HOW ADOPTION POLICY IS AFFECTED [FRC]
THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: A SOCIAL WORKER'S VIEW [FRC]

So yes, FRC picked this fight. They birthed this patently unconstitutional baby. Americans wouldn't even be discussing this if the D.C. special interest group that operates under the FRC banner had kept their personal, faith-based whims off of others' civil rights!

Now, FRC staffers would surely say that they were simply reacting to "social change." But when they say "social change" as it pertains to LGBT people, what they really mean is benign peace, basic freedom, and an overall sense of fairness under the law. At the time that FRC was pushing DOMA, they were also fighting to keep sodomy laws on the books, and if they had their way, would surely put them back. Left to their own devices, they'd also certainly roll back hate crimes legislation, state non-discrimination laws, or any other program that accurately pinpoints a gay-related social problem and hones in on a remedy for the same. And they would of course eliminate marriage, civil unions, and/or domestic partnerships in states or jurisdictions where such are available. Because their "status quo" grants us a persona non grata status (if we're lucky). Their combatted "social change" is code-wording for not even social acceptance, but rather the most basic form of social tolerance. They don't want it. They don't want us. Not as us, at least.

So why are discussing this here in 2011? Well, because our nation's self-appointed moral authoritarians chose to turn every aspect of LGBT existences into a discussion. And don't ever be fooled: Their ultimate goal is for us to shut up and let them write this nation's world's heterosexist narrative.

Never.

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails