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

12/02/2008

Society: Please start helping us challenge biased illogic!

by Jeremy Hooper

Ya know, if more people would just listen to and process the flawed, anti-intellectual arguments that so frequently come out of the anti-gay side's mouths, we on the side of fairness would be much further along in our fight towards freedom. And if our allied leadership would take the time to directly challenge these flaws, perhaps (a) more people would start to take notice of the realities of this fight, and (b) we could work to encourage the TRUE child protection that comes through encouraging rational thought.

200812021218Here, consider a couple of quips that the Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver has given to Baptist Press. Not only are his reactions to Barack Obama's policies annoying in their desire to deny gay people of rights, but they are also JUST PLAIN WRONG-HEADED. Check 'em out:

Mat on DOMA's possible repeal:
In an odd twist, Obama has claimed he favors repealing DOMA because he wants states to have authority over their marriage laws -- an argument that Staver calls "disingenuous."

"He opposed Florida and California publicly in their attempt to amend their own state constitutions," Staver said, referencing two marriage amendments passed on Election Day. "He's not a states' rights person on same-sex marriage."

Uhm, so what -- Is Mat only in favor of states' rights when a person thinks said state should pass a constitutional ban?! Because last time we checked, a state's authority over marriage laws included that state's authority to NOT f**k with its gay citizens. And if we're not mistaken, this also means that citizens can weigh in on these state matters from both the pro-gay and anti-gay perspective! When it came to CA and FL, the president-elect chose the pro-gay, pro-equality stance, taking a stand against the proposed (now passed) amendments.

When it comes to gay marriage bans, Barack Obama falls under "let's not ban gay folks" umbrella not because he is "disingenuous" about states' rights, but rather because he is firm in his opposition to the historical missteps that seek to alter the states' governing documents. But by twisting his position in a way that robs him of his ability to disagree, Mat Staver and Baptist Press are being wholly disingenuous about their understanding of the word "debate," in that they are denying his right to have a position in the debate over amending state constitution. And they surely know better, but are doing so just to rile up those who will accept whatever they say. GROSS.

Moving on, this is how Staver and Baptist Press address the possibility that their "religious freedom" might be stifled by more and greater non-discrimination protections:

On ENDA:
"Once you have a religious exemption -- no matter how broad or narrow it is -- all it takes is one act of Congress to remove it or one court to find that it's an establishment of religion because it prefers religion over non-religion," he said.

Social conservatives and religious organizations, Staver said, could learn much from studying the case of Bob Jones University, which lost its tax-exempt status during the 1970s because it prohibited interracial dating and marriage -- a revocation upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the university reversed its policy in 2000 -- a reversal praised by Christian and conservative leaders -- Staver said the case nonetheless could be used in the future against churches and religious organizations viewed as discriminating on the basis of "sexual orientation," particularly if "sexual orientation" is placed alongside race as a protected class in federal law.

Okay, so here we have Mat giving social conservatives a warning sign. But how is he doing it? BY USING ONE OF THE UGLIEST HISTORICAL MISSTEPS IN RECENT MEMORY?!?! Is that really a smart strategy? Because to us, it would seem to only highlight how frequently the religious community has been wrong in its "moral values" claims. Especially when the recipient of the message they are sending is himself the product of a biracial union!

The courts ruled against Bob Jones University because Bob Jones University was IN THE WRONG. They were trying to have their tax-exempt cake and eat up others right to equality too. So by bringing it up now, Mat and Baptist Press are helping our side. They are reminding us that in the course of civil rights history, there is a legacy of social conservatives (1) protesting, (2) dragging their feet, (3) losing court battles, (4) slowly easing restrictions, before (5) eventually coming around to a more inclusive public (if not private) stance. This time will be no different!

So there ya have it. Two little quips, two arguments that should hold no holy water for anyone who values the God-given analytical mind that we think any supreme being would want us all to use to its fullest potential. The challenge: Getting people to care even a smidgen as much about this as they do about Britney Spears' documentaries.

Obama stands firm on 'gay rights' support [Baptist Press]

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


Your thoughts

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

Posted by: Fitz | Dec 2, 2008 2:19:39 PM


Thanks for putting up my comment...

As to your two points about the Baptist article... I really cannot figure out your first one...

As for the Second.. I find the article legally accurate because that is the controlling precedent (Bob Jones University).

Yes its politically inconvenient inasmuch as it equates the civil right movement to the same-sex "marriage" movement.

However- his point is that should the courts rule that way, like Bob Jones, every organization that doesn’t except same-sex "marriage" will be forced to eithe recognize such "marriages" or lose multiple benefits.

Neither of the points made in the article are "challenge biased illogic"

They are both perfectly logical and consistent...

It seems (simply) that the author doesn’t share your view that marriage is the moral equivalent of the segregated south.

Posted by: Fitz | Dec 2, 2008 3:34:40 PM

Fitz: Everytime someone from Opine Editorials posts here, they thank me for posting their comment. Of course the comments are posted -- we don't deny anyone here (except in the extreme cases specified in our comments policy).

I probably won't engage you, because my past experience with Opine has been less of a productive dialogue and more of a frustrating one-sided flaming. But I'm sure others will go a few rounds.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Dec 2, 2008 3:50:00 PM

Well I know I have never posted here personally.


However - as a philosophy major & a Lawyer... I must say

This comment was over the top.
"Two little quips, two arguments that should hold no holy water for anyone who values the God-given analytical mind that we think any supreme being would want us all to use to its fullest potential."

There is simply nothing (at all) wrong with the mans logic or analysis. You may disagree with his premises. But his logic is fine.

Posted by: Fitz | Dec 2, 2008 4:42:09 PM

"However - as a philosophy major & a Lawyer... I must say this comment was over the top."

As a human being with the right to an opinion (and one who has been covering Mat Staver for years), I must say I disagree. Your OPINION is that it's over the top, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Dec 2, 2008 4:46:41 PM

It's interesting that Fitz invokes MLK jr. considering....

A. MLK expressed concerned for gays, and would have supported our cause - His late Widow Coretta Scott King said so on many an occasion.

B. The chief organizer of the March on Washington was one Bayard Rustin, an Out Homosexual and close advisor to MLK. MLK knew of Rustin's orientation and despite pleas by many Black Pastors to distance himself from Rustin, MLK refused to do so.

Posted by: Jason D | Dec 2, 2008 10:39:12 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails