« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
08/13/2012
'A throw-away line': How nothing is ever good enough for the anti-LGBT movement
Check out how the ever-closed-off Family Research Council (words attributed to president Tony Perkins) chose to address the Democratic Party platform and, specifically, included language about religious freedom:
More than 3,700 black pastors are hoping to demonstrate just how betrayed they feel with a special "Mandate on Marriage" initiative. Led by the Coalition of African American Pastors, the group is urging the President to retract his statement that "gay marriage is a civil right." Unfortunately, their job got a lot more difficult thanks to platform language like this: "We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples." Interestingly enough, the party did include a throw-away line about endorsing "the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference."
Americans know better than to believe that this fig leaf of a phrase. They've watched the marriage debate unfold in the military, where Navy leadership has actually leaned on chaplains to consider officiating same-sex "weddings." What the DNC really means is that it's happy to defend Americans' First Amendment rights--as long as they confine those rights to the four walls of their church. Of course, that doesn't solve the real problem, which is the incompatibility of religious freedom and same-sex "marriage." As long as that tension exists, something has to give. And that "something" is usually faith. [FRC Washington Update]
See the line I bolded above? See what FRC calls a "throw-away line"? That line could and should be the very verbiage that puts this contrived "culture war" debate to rest. The reason it can't and won't be? Well, because groups like the Family Research Council are unwilling to accept one iota of compromise in their ongoing fury to eliminate any and all rights and protections for LGBT couples!
For years, those of us on the side of equality have been extremely careful and articulate about the separation between the civil marriage equality that we are seeking and the right of religious entities to make ceremonial decisions for themselves. But what's happened, year after year? The far-right continues to use personally-held faith convictions against the civil. Those who speak for an guide the "pro-family" movement refuse to even listen to what we are saying, calling both our sincerity and our motivations into question when we offer up such language. No matter how pure our intent or how sound our principle (and the fact that religious ceremony is always an optional component of civil marriage is undeniably sound), groups like FRC tell their supporters that we are the ones who are being deceptive. That we are the ones confusing things. That we are the ones are posing a threat to religious freedom, even though they are the ones who have determined religious freedom to mean their right to clobber us with their version of religion without restraint or hesitation.
It's enraging, this ongoing onslaught of aggressive ignorance. And that's precisely what it is, too: aggressive ignorance. Don't be fooled—Tony Perkins and his cohorts fully understand what I am saying in this post. Mitt Romney certainly understands civil and religious distinction. The reason they fib for God is because they know they can still do so and score points with those who've they've cast as the "victims" in this whole marriage debate. What we are dealing with is a deliberate tactic to push down facts so that religious right propaganda can dupe just enough people for just a little bit longer. It's a cynical game that they play for connections, votes, and, of course, profit.
In a world of honesty, what FRC calls a "throw-away line" would be celebrated in the easy spirit that is its intent. In a world of "values voting," however? Those steering the ship continue to gamble on the hope that Jesus prioritized the shunning of LGBT people more than he meant the whole bearing false witness thing.
Your thoughts
comments powered by Disqus
