Audio: Janet Parshall's religious convictions can beat up your religious convictions!
Janet Parshall takes a caller, then tries to school him in the law. Tries, but quite plainly fails:
[SOURCE: In the Market with Janet Parshall]
Okay, let's break this one down.
First: If sex and sexual orientation are defined only by behavior/activity (they're not, but let's play along), then all sex and every sexual orientation must be held to the same standard. So by Janet's token, any marriage-bound couple who came before a clerk would be seeking a license that is based on their shared behavior.
Two: The setup that George, the less-than-pro-gay caller, offers up is one where a clerk bases a certain opposition on his or her religious convictions, regardless of merit. The clerk's convictions could be wildly offensive or they could be moderately limiting -- it wouldn't matter. The problem George presents is one of a world where all kinds of people have all kinds of faith beliefs. George's point: That if we are to talk about personal conviction in this way, we have to consider this full spectrum of possibility, not just those that are most politically advantageous.
But three: Janet Parshall's answer is 100% about what kind of merit she personally places on the idea of LGB sexual orientations as either a natural human variant or a recognized protected class. This is a completely irrational response, regardless of one's view on sexual orientation and/or marriage equality! The caller isn't asking for personal agreement or disagreement with any of the scenarios he laid out, he is simply saying that these scenarios are possibilities, knowing what we know of our fully fleshed out faith-filled world and the limitations that some enact on the basis of theology. Janet is just choosing to ignore his points so she can move on to her pre-concocted "homosexuality is a behavior or activity" script.
Four: The far from impartial Janet, by making it all about her personal disagreement with LGB-ness as natural human sexual orientations on par with heterosexuality, is only enhancing the caller's valid point. Janet is showing that (a) she holds a particular view about same-sex couples, the same way others might look down on interracial, divorced-and-remarried, interfaith, atheist, premarital-sex-having, or any other kind of couple; and (b) she holds her own conviction above others that clerks might use to deny a license, simply because her evangelical faith has put some sort of special prominence on opposing homosexuality. And again: By doing so, Janet is proving the special, heightened exception that people like herself, Maggie Gallagher, and Rose Belforti truly want!
Let's take five and digest the ridiculousness.
comments powered by Disqus