« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
08/21/2008
FRC platform: Zero footing for peaceful gay existence!
The Family Research Council has released a document called "25 Pro-Family Goals For The Nation," which they say is (a) "a yardstick by which to measure the promises and policy proposals of all the candidates who seek their votes this year," (b) "a model for the platforms the Republican and Democratic parties will write this summer," and (c) "a blueprint for how those we elect can promote and protect the family and its values in 2009 and in the years to come." But for those who truly believe that the "pro-family" goals are simply meant to "protect families" rather than target gay-headed households, this revelatory document might instead serve as "a much needed eye-opener regarding the frankly frightening way that the evangelical community is trying to shape the political landscape in a way that leaves absolutely no room for LGBT equality." Because from marriage equality, to ENDA, to hate crimes legislation, to "Don't Ask Don't Tell," the Family Research Council has laid out an agenda that is almost bizarrely focused on pushing our lives and loves outside the sphere of normalcy!
Here are some choice samples:
On marriage:
"Marriage is not simply a civil institution, nor is it simply a religious institution. It is, instead, a natural institution, whose definition as the union of one man and one woman is rooted in the order of nature itself. There is only one reason why marriage is treated as a public institution—to promote and regulate the type of relationship that can result naturally in the reproduction of the human race. Marriage encourages the raising of children by the mother and father who conceived them. Social science confirms that children who are raised by their own married mother and father are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than those raised in any other family structure."
...
"In addition to deliberately creating and affirming motherless or fatherless families, other harms would result from same-sex “marriage.” Homosexuals are less likely to enter long-term partnerships, less likely to be sexually faithful, and less likely to remain committed for a lifetime. Commitment, sexual fidelity, and lifelong marriage would all decline if the behavior of homosexuals is incorporated into society’s concept of marriage. Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow. Religious liberty and freedom of speech would also suffer, since opposition to same-sex “marriage” would be treated as the equivalent of racial bigotry."
...
"Homosexual relationships do not benefit society—in fact, they impose significant burdens on it."
...
"Congress should consider measures which would withhold certain related federal funding from any state that fails to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. For example, federal “family planning” funds could be withheld from any state that fails to recognize authentic marriage as the foundation of the healthy 'family.'"
On DADT:
"Men and women who volunteer to serve [in the armed forces] should not be forced to bear the burden of social experimentation and flawed personnel policies that invade privacy and hurt morale, discipline, and readiness."
...
"Proposal: Improve understanding and enforcement of the 1993 statute affirming that homosexuals are ineligible to serve in the military, and oppose congressional efforts to repeal the law."
On U.N. reform:
"The numerous compliance committees organized to oversee the implementation of U.N. treaties have a storied tradition of inventing obligations of sovereign states to legalize abortion, promote homosexuality, and adopt other liberal social policies. These policies are nowhere to be found in the treaties, but signatory states—especially small countries with dependent economies—have no recourse against the internationalist bureaucracy. Likewise “special rapporteurs” in all manner of areas use their investigative mandates to promote far-left social policies—such as the pro-homosexual Yogyakarta Principles—around the world, rather than doing their job."
On "freedom of religion":
"Proposals:
*Congress should reject (or the president should veto) the 'Employment Non-Discrimination Act.'
*Congress should reject (or the president should veto) any federal “hate crime” legislation including sexual orientation. State legislatures and governors should reject similar bills.
*Congress should pass legislation that affirms and strengthens the religious freedom of Americans as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and rooted in the nation’s history.
*A “Freedom of Conscience Protection” law should protect the right of individuals, businesses, and religious institutions to express and carry out their moral views regarding homosexuality in the school, in the workplace, or in the public square without fear of legal retribution."
On so-called "reparative therapy" (which is currently rejected on its merits or lack thereof, not because of a supposed "agenda"):
"Mental health therapists who offer “reparative therapy” to help people overcome unwanted homosexual attractions face the prospect that such therapy will be declared unethical, with its use being deemed punishable by the relevant professional bodies."
...
"Proposal: Professional licensing bodies must be prevented from imposing politically driven agendas on members or potential members of the health care professions (e.g., requiring that obstetrician-gynecologists perform or refer for abortions or that medical students train
to perform abortions, or prohibiting reparative therapy for homosexuality and other conditions)."
***
And most offensive of all? They have the nerve to call these sorts of ideas "pro-family," even though their fostering of misunderstanding has caused immeasurable strife for American families everywhere. From loving couples denied marriage equality to concerned parents who have been convinced that their lesbian daughter is in need of "fixing," the policies that they consider to be "protections" have discredited and even demonized the millions of families that feature an LGBT person or persons. The least they could do is own this divisiveness by calling their goals "pro-hetero-family" or "pro-only-the-type-of-family-with-which-we-agree"!
But whatever. There is something to be said for them putting it all out there, showing the world what type of America we would see if "pro-family" ideas were left unchecked. Groups like FRC might constantly accuse the gay community of having a "militant agenda." However, if you understand the true definition of either of those words, it is not hard to determine which side's goals more truly fits the descriptor: Those who simply want to have their civil equality and citizenship respected and treated equitably, or those who have declared a "culture war" in which they try to have their personal faith views exalted above basic fairness.
Your thoughts
As if Tony Perkins and his family are "normal".
It must be torture to have a pretty-boy dad who obsesses over homosex. Beings that's all Tony ever talks about, I won't be surprised if all 5 of his kids go gay.
Sound familiar, LaBarbera?
Posted by: Scott | Aug 21, 2008 9:38:51 AM
*A “Freedom of Conscience Protection” law should protect the right of individuals, businesses, and religious institutions to express and carry out their moral views regarding homosexuality in the school, in the workplace, or in the public square without fear of legal retribution."
This is a particularily bad bad bad idea. It would set up the precendent that whatever your bigotry, whether it be racism, sexism, anti-semitism, all you have to do is say it's a "deeply held religious belief", and thus you can circumvent the civil rights act and any other pertinent legislation. After all, just about every religion demonizes non-believers....so you could state that you have the right to fire all the non-christians. You could state that you have the right to fire all the women at your company and refuse to hire any in the future because you believe "strongly and deeply" that women should not work outside the home.
These aren't just anti-gay policies, they're anti-american. Our constitution, our values are all about freedom, freedom to do whatever it is you feel like doing so long as you don't hurt other people or their property. Even making foolish choices are protected. to say to one group "i'm allowed to discriminate against you solely because of my religious beliefs" invites other biogtry to come along as well.
Posted by: Jason D | Aug 21, 2008 11:32:16 AM
Did anyone notice that their "Freedom of Conscience Protection" law is intended to prevent LGBs from being out and holding a job at the same time? I thought the nutjobs had long ago adopted the strategy of saying that LGBs can do what they want as long as they don't expect any societal approval of what they do. Doesn't this little proposed law disclose the lie in the rhetoric, and rather blatantly so?
Of course, this reminds me of a little segment on Mcneil/Lehrer when _Lawrence v. Texas_ came out: based on their rhetoric, one would have expected the RRR folks to be ecstatically pleased with the decision; they were actually foaming at the mouth over it. I almost called an exorcist.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 21, 2008 11:33:22 AM
I want these distributed far and wide, just so everyone on the fence sees what the real definition of "pro-family" is. With soldiers serving (and dying) overseas, and recruitment of teenagers, and the housing bubble popping, and the price of gas going up--all real issues that matter to all kinds of real families--they *still* insist that the main priority is to make life as miserable as possible for LGBT people. Absolutely ridiculous.
Jason D, you called it. When I finally embark on my interior decorating business, you think I'd be allowed to refuse a "pro-family" conservative Christian client on account of my religious beliefs as a Pagan? You think the would-be client would be understanding about my right to my religious freedom? I'm kind of guessing not.
Though I do have this delicious visual in my head of a gay atheist hairdresser exercising his religious freedom to discriminate on the heads of people like Tony Perkins, right before a televised speech.
Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | Aug 21, 2008 11:52:47 AM
Despicable. However, I too hope these get distributed far and wide. Let everyone see that no matter how FRC tries to sugarcoat it, they want to turn the clock back about a century. These folks are fanatics and I have no problem with them showing the world that.
Posted by: John | Aug 21, 2008 12:58:03 PM
"Congress should consider measures which would withhold certain related federal funding from any state that fails to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman."
"Proposal: Professional licensing bodies must be prevented from imposing politically driven agendas on members or potential members of the health care professions (e.g., requiring that obstetrician-gynecologists perform or refer for abortions or that medical students train to perform abortions, or prohibiting reparative therapy for homosexuality and other conditions)."
In addition to hating any gay equality, these nuts also hate individual freedom. States and the residents therein should not be free to make their own decisions but should instead be coerced to follow the dictates of these authoritarian theocrats. Self governing bodies should be forced by the government to adopt specific values.
Very very unAmerican.
Posted by: Timothy | Aug 21, 2008 2:52:52 PM
The last point should make us want to pass laws outlawing ex-gay therapy. My feeling is it should be absolutely unlawful to perform such therapy and a prison sentence of no less than a year should discourage exodus and others like them from promoting it.
Posted by: adam kautz | Aug 21, 2008 2:59:15 PM
comments powered by Disqus
