| ||
| ||
|
Is there a connection between same-sex marriage and mass murder?
That's what one religious right outfit is suggesting. This week, Morality in Media disseminated a statement noting that the Iowa Supreme Court had legalized gay marriage on the same day that a gunman murdered 13 people in Binghamton, New York. The headline on the release: "Connecting the Dots: The Line Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders." The group's president, Bob Peters, notes that the "underlying problem is that increasingly we live in a 'post-Christian' society, where Judeo-Christian faith and values have less and less influence." And, he continues, this "secular value system is also reflected in the 'sexual revolution,' which is the driving force behind the push for 'gay marriage.'"
Here's the punch line:
It most certainly is not my intention to blame the epidemic of mass murders on the gay rights movement! It is my intention to point out that the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders.
That is, he's not saying that gay rights activists are directly responsible for the murderous actions of gun-toting madmen. But Peters maintains that those who champion gay rights are undermining the moral fiber of society and that this assault on traditional values creates an environment in which killing sprees can more easily occur. These acts of gun violence, he insists, are the poisoned fruit of the push for gay marriage.
Talk about exploiting tragedy to advance an agenda. It might be tempting to dismiss Peters and Morality in Media as marginal, but this group did receive federal funding from 2005 through 2007. The money supported a Morality in Media project, ObscenityCrimes.org, which paid two retired law enforcement officers to review citizen complaints about obscenity on the Internet and to forward the best leads to the US Justice Department for possible prosecution. A total of $300,000 was provided to Morality in Media through two earmarks Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) placed into spending bills, according to Peters. And a portion of that money went to cover Peters' salary. As The New York Times reported in 2007, no obscenity prosecutions had resulted from the Morality in Media's obscenity-tracking work.
Peters tells me that since 2007 -- thanks to the fuss about earmarks -- he has received no more funds from the US government. After the earmarked grants ran out in 2007, he did apply directly to the Justice Department and was turned down. Since then, he has raised private funds to keep ObscenityCrimes.org going. That may be for the best -- particularly for Morality in Media. Peters has recently attacked President Barack Obama's pick for deputy attorney general, David Ogden, as an "ACLU-minded" sort who would "likely weaken" government efforts "to curb sexual trafficking and sexual exploitation of children." It would be difficult -- or, at least, awkward -- for Peters to blast a Justice Department that was funding his own work.
In his statement on gay marriage and mass murder, Peters notes that Christianity and Judaism teach "that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves and to forgive others." But on the subject of gay marriage, he does seem to have a rather unforgiving approach.
The religious right picks and chooses which parts of the Bible they want to apply. And they choose based on which outsider group they would like to hate next. First, they emphasized slavery in the Bible when they wanted to hate black people. Now, they emphasize the parts condemning homosexuality so they can hate gay people.
They are completely and utterly disingenuous. They don't mean a word of it. They don't give a damn what the Bible says. They just want to use it as an instrument of hate.
The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination. Yet there are no Red Lobster Amendments. The Bible says you shall not wear two different types of cloths at the same time. Yet there are no Propositions against cotton and wool combos.
The Bible says you should leave your family and join Jesus Christ. The religious right pretends that Jesus was about family values. He wanted you to abandon your family. Read the Bible.
The religious right pretends that the Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. But that is a bald faced lie. Have any of these people ever read the Bible? The Bible is full of men taking on second wives, servants, prostitutes and concubines. And all the while, God heartily approves. How many wives did King David have? Eight? Twelve? Let alone his possibly gay lover, Jonathan.
Now the Bible says that a man shall not lie with another man. That is true. But it also says, in the same exact book, that adultery is an abomination. And the just punishment for this sin is execution. So, who will execute the first adulterer? Please step on up. May the one without any Biblical sin cast the first stone.
Here is a question no one can answer -- and lucky for the right wing, the media never bothers to ask -- why do you only focus on the part of the Bible against homosexuality but not on the part against adultery? It's one thing to say you're against adultery; it's another to take away their rights. How come no religious figure in this country has mounted a campaign to take away the rights of adulterers? Let alone execute them.
I'll tell you why. Because there are too many of them. Their followers are adulterers. They don't make for good scapegoats. They are not an easy target to ostracize and focus your hatred on. Gays are perfect. They are a small enough percentage of the population and different enough from the rest of us to be able to get people to focus their negative, barbaric instincts on them. The Bible is only a tool for this tribal, ugly tactic.
But I am tired of hearing people saying that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible when they never quote the rest of the Bible (probably because a great majority of church goers have never independently read the Bible or they have built up a reservoir of excuses for the parts they find inconvenient). So, from now, I would like to tell the Rick Warrens of the world, you are perfectly allowed to say how much you would like to take gay people's rights away from them based on the Bible so long as you agree to do one thing first -- execute an adulterer.
If you can do that for me, then I'll believe that you actually believe in the Bible literally and will accept your literal argument against homosexuality. Fair is fair. Step on up.
PS -- In case anyone is a maniacal literalist, please do not actually attempt to execute any adulterers or anyone else. Check yourself into a mental hospital instead because the seven headed dragon in Revelations could be out to get you.Summary: Radio host Jim Quinn claimed that heterosexual opponents of Proposition 8 are "guilty straights" and suggested that "gays never wanted to get married until ... about five years ago." In fact, same-sex couples have brought court cases to overturn bans on same-sex marriage for decades.
According to the website glbtq.com, the first court case challenging a ban on same-sex marriage was brought in Minnesota in 1970. Two men applied for a marriage license and sued the state when their application was rejected "on the sole ground," in the words of the Minnesota Supreme Court, "that petitioners were of the same sex, it being undisputed that there were otherwise no statutory impediments to a heterosexual marriage by either petitioner." The court upheld the ban on same-sex marriage in its 1971 decision. Numerous court cases challenging same-sex marriage bans have been brought since then, including cases in the 1970s, the 1990s, and the current decade.
As Media Matters for America documented, Quinn previously said: "The only thing that -- the only thing that gay marriage produce -- well, gay marriage doesn't produce anything that the state has an interest in. Gay sex produces AIDS, which the state doesn't have -- or should have an interest in. They should charge homosexuals more for their -- for their health insurance than they charge the rest of us." Quinn later added: "So why don't they charge gay men, especially, higher premiums? Because they're engaged in an activity that will have an impact on that -- on the health care system."
Talkers Magazine lists Quinn & Rose on its "Heavy Hundred" list, which it describes as a list of the "100 most important radio talk show hosts in America." According to the show's website, it airs on 18 radio stations and XM Satellite Radio.
From the November 19 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose:
TENNENT: You know, Elton John weighed in on all of this, and I thought it was interesting what he said. He said that -- he said, "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership." Hey, that's what we've been saying all along, isn't it?
QUINN: Good grief, the voice of reason.
TENNENT: He said, "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships." Now, see, this is interesting, because if that is -- you know, and this has been my argument all along. If there are the same rights -- equal rights within a civil partnership -- why are they going after marriage?
QUINN: Because it -- that's one of the basic underpinnings, one of the basic legs of Western civilization --
TENNENT: Right.
QUINN: -- and Judeo-Christian civilization.
TENNENT: They break that down --
QUINN: Right. Break it down, deconstruct it --
TENNENT: And you've broken down society.
QUINN: Exactly. Exactly. This is a purely -- the whole marriage issue is -- gays never wanted to get married until what -- about five years ago, we started to hear about this?
TENNENT: Yeah.
QUINN: No, this is all -- this is a purely political act.
TENNENT: See, he, actually, John -- Elton John distanced himself from the protesters and all the protests that are taking place in all the cities across the United States. He said, "What is wrong with Proposition 8 is they went for marriage."
[...]
TENNENT: This fringe that is out there -- and they're mobilizing, although they're seemingly bigger than a fringe, but they are still a fringe.
QUINN: Oh, yeah.
TENNENT: They are a fringe.
QUINN: They're very visible; loud.
TENNENT: And they're embarrassing to even other homosexuals in this country. They are. Their behavior, I think it's --
QUINN: Well, they've managed --
TENNENT: -- reprehensible. I really do. What?
QUINN: They've managed to fill the streets, though, with angry people. They get people all worked up about this stuff.
TENNENT: Yeah. And some of the people that are joining them aren't even necessarily gay, either -- you know --
QUINN: Oh, no. They're --
TENNENT: -- there are so many people at the events that aren't gay.
QUINN: Yeah, they're guilty straights.
TENNENT: Guilty straights -- there we go. So, Jim, I got a question for you. All of this -- like, later today, I hope, or possibly Friday, I wanted to go over some of the appointments.
—H.D.
Updated Thursday, November 6th 2008, 4:52 AM
Galbraith/Reuters Kurt Schade reacts during a rally in San Francisco against Proposition 8, which would reverse a previous court decision allowing gay marriage in California.
Greaves/Reuters Truong Quang Si, Herman Quinones and Diana Villeda (l.-r.) clap as polls show a lead for 'yes' on Proposition 8 in Irvine, Calif.
When it came to gay rights, voters in several states delivered a clear Election Night message: No, you can't.
While voters shattered racial barriers to elect Barack Obama, the nation's gays suffered a series of stunning defeats in their battle for equality as spouses and parents.
"It breaks my heart," said Leigh Grode, 50, a Queens native now living in Los Angeles with her spouse, Joan Spitler. "We're just so depressed. ... This is going backward."
California voters - in some cases, the same ones who propelled Obama to his historic win - chose to ban gay marriage in their state just six months after a court ruled the unions legal.
Florida and Arizona voters also voted against same-sex marriage. Arkansas passed a measure barring unmarried couples from taking in foster kids or adopting children - a move aimed directly at gays, its supporters said.
"The evening became bittersweet," said former "Star Trek" star George Takei, who watched in dismay as California's contentious Proposition 8 passed.
Even if it didn't happen Tuesday night.
"It's unfortunate that people spent their time and energy trying to stop us from loving who we love," said Stephanie Anne Davies, 47, a Brooklyn writer who married her partner of 13 years last month in California.
Like Takei and 18,000 other same-sex couples, the pair took advantage of a May court decision making gay marriage legal in California. Opponents put Proposition 8 on the ballot to overturn the court decision. The sides spent a combined $74 million on the most expensive social-issues campaign in U.S. history.
Exit polls showed the black voters who turned out in huge numbers for Obama were nearly 70% in favor of the gay marriage ban - clearly a mixed message on tolerance. Twenty-seven other states have passed similar bans. Only Massachusetts and Connecticut now allow same-sex vows.
"Here we just had a giant step towards equality and then on the very next day, we took a giant step away," said talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres in a statement. (Read the full text below.)
Gay marriages celebrated in California since May will remain valid - although legal challenges are likely, officials said.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the gay rights group Lambda Legal moved Wednesday to throw out the vote, arguing the dramatic change requires approval from the Legislature and not the voters. The California Supreme Court rejected the same argument in June when opponents tried to knock the proposition off the ballot.
"Watching the returns on election night was an amazing experience. Barack Obama is our new president. Change is here. I, like millions of Americans, felt like we had taken a giant step towards equality. We were watching history.
"This morning, when it was clear that Proposition 8 had passed in California, I can’t explain the feeling I had. I was saddened beyond belief. Here we just had a giant step towards equality and then on the very next day, we took a giant step away.
"I believe one day a 'ban on gay marriage' will sound totally ridiculous. In the meantime, I will continue to speak out for equality for all of us."
Turns back on campaign promises to oppose gay marriage in an emotional press conference:
Surprisingly poignant.
"I have close family members and friends who are a member of the gay and lesbian community. Those folks include my daughter Lisa, as well as members of my personal staff.
"I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones—for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back; someone with whom they can grow old together and share life’s experiences.
"And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I couldn’t look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationship—their very lives—were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife Rana.
If the GOP hopes to survive into the future, they'll need more of this. That's certainly the case in California, but that will also be the case nationwide in the midterm. A party that has built its power by demonizing government should understand that advocating for government meddling in people's personal lives is a long-term political loser.
