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


Frank Turek pushes same anti-reality rhetoric that led his movement to loss

by Jeremy Hooper

TurekFrank Turek is a longtime voice of anti-gay hostility and an early adopter of the anti-equality movement's now-definitive "victim" meme. So it's no surprise that he, a North Carolina resident, is all kinds of angry at the recent actions that brought marriage equality to his state and others.

But while he's free to be angry and to shout said anger from the rooftops, Mr. Turek does need to at least deal with reality. Like, for example, when he writes this:

[Marriage is] the one institution best capable of creating and then raising children by encouraging their mothers and fathers to stay together. It’s the basis of a civilized society. We can’t build and maintain a civilization through homosexuality or by equating it to what moms and dads do. You may claim that’s bigotry, but it’s really just biology. (Sorry, I didn’t set up the facts of nature. I have noticed, however, that conservatives attempt to change their behavior to fit reality, while liberals attempt to change reality to fit their behavior.)
FULL: Who Does the Constitution Protect? [AFA]

Mr. Turek might have a point if we were talking about replacing heterosexuality with homosexuality. But of course we are not. We are talking about our world, as it exists and has it has always existed. Gay people are a part of that world; this is a fact of nature. Expanding marriage rights to include same-sex couples and our families simply acknowledges basic truths about our society—as it is already, right now. Expanding these freedoms is the civilized thing to do.

The idea that people with certain sexual orientations can and should "change their behavior" is the true bastardization of reality.

Further on, Mr. Turek writes:

What do you think would happen if some federal judge wrenched a passage of the Federal Constitution out of context and summarily struck down Maine’s law democratically decided law approving same-sex marriage? Do you think the people preaching “tolerance”—including their cheerleaders in the media—would tolerate such judicial abuse? The airwaves would be blasting howls of unfairness and calls for judicial impeachment. Yet when the same thing is done to strike down marriage laws based in biological reality—laws passed by millions of voters—liberals celebrate that those voters have been disenfranchised. Saying that one judge’s vote counts more than the votes of millions of Americans is an unequal way to advance “equality.”
FULL: Who Does the Constitution Protect? [AFA]

Cool thought exercise, bro. Except, of course, this is a comparison between apples and oranges. Particularly if we're talking about a faith-driven orange that had dedicated his life toward turning the apple's basic freedoms into an overwrought and cruel political sparring match ginned up primarily by one party for the sake of votes, paychecks, and access.

The truth is that there is no comparison between the expansion of freedoms and the cruel subjugation of freedoms. The anti-gay social conservatives like to pretend there is because they are hyper defensive about what they have done and their role within civil rights history. But few are buying it. Most people are quite capable of seeing the world of difference between a theoretical court ruling that literally takes away tangible rights from a minority population, and most understand why the denied population would have a credible basis for outrage. Most also understand why the discriminators who've been fighting to take away our rights not only have no basis for such outrage, but the mere claim that they do have such a basis is itself outrageous.

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