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


Royal marring: FRC fellow pits Will & Kate against Elton, equality, measured discourse

by Jeremy Hooper

And today's list of Family Research Council-initiated offenses continues. To recap: FRC prez Tony Perkins has already likened us to terrorists, and his staff has teased a forthcoming documentary purporting to show what "a frightening place" a gay-accepting America will be. Now comes the following royal wedding assessment, courtesy of FRC Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Robert Morrison.

Some things to look out for:

  • Comparison between DOMA and the WW1 era Defence of the Realm Act -- a measure that was solely designed to protect Britain from actual invasion. As in the kind with bombs.
  • Deliberate mention of Sharia law, with the implication that marriage equality is its first cousin.
  • Offensive mention about Muslims hearing about Jesus and not rioting, as if the worldwide Muslim population's restraint on this point is somehow shocking.
  • Deliberate (and clumsy) mention of Sir Elton being in attendance, without mentioning his legal partner and co-parent, David Furnish (whose invite is itself a repudiation of FRC's cruel agenda)
  • The whole piece framed with a religious narrative, even though DOMA and the organized fight for marriage equality pertains SOLELY to CIVIL marriage.

Have at it:

SNIP: How is it that we who say “I will” were forced to say “I will not?” How were we placed in the anti position, the position of disadvantage? Propaganda scores its greatest victories before the contest is engaged, by setting the terms of the debate, by its framing of the issue.

I was faced by this framing question fifteen years ago. When our friends in Congress wanted to protect marriage by statute, they came to us at Family Research Council. We’re going to win this thing anyway, they said. But the opponents are really offended by the title of the measure, The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)) They say it’s unnecessarily confrontational. Can we change the title of the bill to “the definition of marriage act?”

No, I replied. In my only contribution, I argued the title was educational. It teaches everyone who hears it that marriage is under assault. It forces each of us to declare “I Will” or “I Will Not” support this essential and endangered institution.

I had read my Bagehot. I was inspired by the British Defense of the Realm Act (DORA). I believe that the defense of marriage is as important to America as defending our republic. In fact, marriage is the foundation for the state. It preceded the Constitution and will survive the Constitution.

Marriage is under sustained assault today. So is the British monarchy. So are all the nations that were formed by the English language, laws, and customs. Every day in Britain, Sharia makes dangerous inroads, eroding the Common Law while endangering all liberty. All the while Britain’s government seeks to marginalise Christians.

Today, we heard the Word of God about marriage preached to the Gentiles. The Word does not come back void. Billions of people heard it in the most appealing, most engaging way. Muslims around the world heard about Jesus Christ and did not riot.

Sir Elton was among the invited guests. All were urged to attend to the Word. All had an opportunity to consider its eternal meaning. The nations rise and fall, but His Word will stand forever. Will you defend marriage? I Will.
FULL: Prince William’s Vow: “I Will” [FRC Blog]

I will too, Mr, Morrison. And pointing out your organization's overplayed hands will greatly help me in my defense efforts. Thanks for that.

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