Instead of validating marriage for same-sex couples, Maine voters cruelly voted 52.75 percent to 47.25 percent (87 percent of precincts reporting) to strip away this most basic right and leave gay families and their children legally unprotected and vulnerable. According to journalist Rex Wockner, “it was the 31st time that same-sex marriage has lost at the ballot box in a U.S. state. It has never won.”
As I watched the World Series this week, I could not help but think: If a player were 0-31 at bat, he would be demoted to the minor leagues. Yet, the major league players in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender movement can’t seem to change strategies or try new approaches. We are a creative people who produced the likes of Michelangelo, Tennessee Williams, Oscar Wilde and Perez Hilton. Yet, in our collective wisdom, we are unable to switch gears and admit that our tactics are not working
I want to make it clear that I am not blaming the campaign in Maine. They did a fantastic job in all aspects of this fight. NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality Campaign Manager Jesse Conolly took us within a stone’ throw of winning marriage at the ballot box in a rural state.
What I have an enormous problem with is that we keep repeating the same fundamental mistakes. Our wisest and wealthiest made their fortunes by testing and perfecting products before they went to market. They would never think of placing an appliance or software in stores before the bugs were worked out.
Yet, we continuously test-drive our messages while actual campaigns are taking place. We repeatedly act shocked that our opponents are soulless charlatans who lie, cheat and use immoral fear tactics to win. Our persistent “surprise” at the “recruit your children” canard and on-the-fly strategy to counter it is a foolproof recipe for a 0-31 record.
It is time we wake up and acknowledge that the GLBT fight for equality is the world’ first “Civil Likes” movement. Each year, a popularity contest is held somewhere on the map and if the locals find us likeable our families are protected. If the natives have a negative view of gay people, we remain second-class citizens.
Given this reality we have to make a major choice.
We can declare the current process a disgusting and humiliating insult to our humanity and opt out of all future referendums. The movement would make the case to the nation why such votes are anathema to American values and in the process educate people about our families and quest for equality. A powerful campaign of continued and sustainable civil disobedience would have to supplement this strategy.
Or, we can continue to participate in degrading referendums. But, if we do so, we have to stop pretending that the majority of the American people understand the U.S. Constitution, much less the notion of equality. Those who vote against GLBT rights simply do not like gay people and their antipathy, often masked by religious bigotry, overrides the idea of equal protection. What our public relations experts will have to figure out ways to make us more likeable and overcome such objections.
This idea of sucking up to voters is as nauseating as it is un-American. Reality, however, necessitates unless we opt out of the process, we have to sober up and admit that we are perennially running for Prom Queen, yet have failed to take home the crown. If we can’t get people to like us, we will continue to lose for the next five to ten years, until demographics finally shift definitively in our favor.
Our donors will save a small fortune in the long run if they pick a few states where we won’t win marriage in the foreseeable future and test likeability campaigns. Additionally, a few cities should be selected to test pilot programs to focus on winning over minority voters.
It is also crucial that we create pilot programs — while no referendum is underway – where we hit back harder at our opponents. The fact is, religious fundamentalism, whether it is Islamic, Catholic, Mormon, Protestant or Jewish does not appear compatible with equality. Can you name one fundamentalist enclave where gay rights exist? Thus, when these groups attack us we should stop coddling them and join with religious moderates to make the fundamentalists pay dearly by driving up their negatives.
Some of my suggestions will work, while some will not. There are other people who have fresh ideas that need to be tried. But, the bottom line is that we need to stop test-driving the car during actual referendums in states that can actually be won. By the time we get on the big stage, we should understand exactly what makes voters like us, be able to refute our opponents recurring lies and know precisely how to dish out as much pain as we receive.
The old adage is practice makes perfect and we must figure out how to hit the damn ball when it doesn’t count, so when we enter the World Series we don’t approach it like it’s training camp.
Tags: gay rights, Jesse Conolly, Maine, No On 1, referendum27 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
I’ve been proposing, only half in jest, that gay people should go on the offensive and start treating others, as they are being treated, by sponsoring the “PROTECTION OF RELIGION AMENDMENT” or PRA for short.
Here is part of my letter to the editor that was printed last year:
The following apes the prevailing arguments against same-sex marriage to show how the fundamental rights of religious minorities could also be taken away by a scant majority of voters:
The proposed Protection of Religion Amendment (PRA) defends the traditional definition of religion as America’s founding fathers knew it in 1791.
Legal recognition of newer cults is a slippery slope because it would allow demonic cults that molest and eat children to be called a religion.
To avoid discriminating against cults, I support giving them some of the same rights and benefits as traditional religions.
Being born in a cult is not a choice. However, I know many ex-Mormons who have converted to my traditional religion with compassion and help from God.
I am not anti-cult and have many friends who are Mormons. I do not mean to offend anyone with PRA.
Here is a link to my blog post that includes links to the newspaper edited by a LDS Mormon that published my letter:
http://thomaskraemer.blogspot.com/2008/11/protection-of-religion-amendment-gt.html
Comment by Thomas Kraemer — November 4, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
“If we can’t get people to like us”
Why don’t we just focus on those of us that are most likely to be deemed acceptable (or better still, respectable) to the general American public? For this to be even remotely practical, it will be necessary to form that dreaded tool of American politics, a lobbying group. Sad to say, in order to meet our goals we will need to populate the organization with only the “best and brightest” of the GLB crowd. Yes, this will mean primarily attractive gay white men and a few attractive gay women, with perhaps a token POC or transfreak (sorry, “transgendereds”) so no one can say it is too elite. The idea is that, once the organization has built up it’s fund raising machine, we can use it to cross pollinate more targeted groups which will then lead the fund raising for state level campaigns and handle the work “on the ground” such as the creation of television ads and of course, more fund raising. The only problem will be effectively discounting local so-called “grassroots” efforts -do you have any idea how much fund raising they can suck away from the larger goals? It is staggering, really. I think we have a winning strategy here. It’ll need a name of course, and I propose something sell-able such as the “Human Right Coalition” or similar. If this can be achieved, I have no doubt that we will easily gain marriage rights in at least half the states by 2017.
Comment by Sarasnavel — November 4, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
My suggestions:
The ACLU, Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign should jointly sue the IRS to strip the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church of their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, because the law prohibits them from engaging in political activity. Under Supreme Court doctrine, those bringing lawsuits in Federal court must first demonstrate that they have standing to sue, usually by showing that they have suffered in some concrete way. These churches have politically engaged in seeking to deny civil rights protected by the US Constitution along with a plethora of legal benefits that go hand-in-hand with being married under the law.
Secondly, a civil class action lawsuit should be filed by all LBGT people and those who support this cause, in Maine and California against both these churches for the same reasons.
Comment by TexasCowboy — November 4, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
[...] November 4, 2009 · Leave a Comment Wayne Besen [...]
Pingback by What He Said, Part 1 « Life of Jason — November 4, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
All along I have found it reprehensible that I am voting on whether or not some people can enjoy the same rights that I have. I’ve worked on these campaigns, I voted against California’s Prop 8, I have tried to help win same-sex marriage equality – but all along had this nagging doubt: am I legitimizing the fact that this innate right is being *voted* on?
If enough folks did it, it could work – it’d have to be massive, though – otherwise it would just be a small group of activist folks essentially opting out of the political process. But a movement… that’d be sweet.
Thanks for this piece. I’d like to see it spread all over to the back of beyond and see if it’s possible to do this effectively.
Comment by QuoterGal — November 4, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
Wayne, you have hit the nail on the head with this one. “What about the children?” is THE oldest trick in the book. That we have no counter for it — and act like it won’t get dragged out again?! — is shameful on the part of the leadership of this movement.
I say we just call bigotry bigotry, loud and clear. “I’m not prejudiced, but-” means “I AM prejudiced.” “I don’t have a problem with it, but-” means “I DO have a problem.” We as a community need to call people on this instead of saying, “well he’s basically a nice guy…” and letting it slide. Because he’s basically a nice guy who hates us for who we are, will vote against our having civil rights he has, and contributes to organizations that slander LGBT people as a class of people.
We do and will continue to leave everyone else’s children the hell alone; your kids that you created and were essentially born gay will come talk to us when they’re ready. In the meantime, howsabout I get my civil rights! And it’s not just about marriage. It’s important, but in the media marriage coverage kicks hate crimes and equal opportunity law to the back seat, despite it affecting more people and being just as important to ensuring public safety and livelihood.
Sarasnavel, It took me a minute to see your sarcasm tag, but now I want to give you a big kiss on the cheek.
QuoterGal, When I vote in a regular election, I retain my concern that I am legitimizing a not-so-democratic system, usually with my only choice between Bad and Worse. I keep voting because my refusal to participate in a system I don’t support renders me voiceless and usually empowers Worse in a way that is detrimental to me personally and to causes I believe in. Thank you for your efforts to keep Bad and Worse on the defensive!
Comment by DC — November 4, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
Thanks, DC!
What I don’t get is this: why are we not calling them out on their hypocrisy? Who decided that religion is untouchable and cannot be mentioned by the oppostion? Why are we afraid of mentioning the discrepancy between how they act and what they profess to believe?
We need a two pronged attack , not a defense! The first prong should consist of publicly calling them on their hatred and very pointedly showing that their actions are far from those Jesus promoted (you know…Love, Acceptance, Kindness?).
The second prong is a big pro-LGBT campaign, *with kids*. Get it into everyone’s heads that we also have loved ones, we also have kids, we love our families and are good people. We must be seen as regular people, working regular jobs with regular families, not stereotypes that someone else has defined. Then repeat the hypocrisy message again.
Comment by Sarasnavel — November 4, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
An excellent article. We don’t win rights by getting down on our knees. People are always going to fall for a scare story, every time. Human beings are by nature irrational.
It’s outrageous a minority’s rights are put to the public vote, it’s tantamount to mob rule. There is no reason why average citizens should understand the complexities of sexuality, any more than they should know how to plumb a house.
For example, the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution in the USA is one of the worst levels in the western world, equivalent to that of Turkey: nearly half the population believes the book of Genesis to be literally factually correct account. Only 15% say this is the sole explanation for our origins. However, we don’t let the people decide whether junk science like ‘intelligent design’ should be taught in the biology class.
There are some things that people are simply not qualified to rule on. Sexuality is exactly the same thing.
Also, it is ironic that the Catholic Church should pour half a million dollars into a campaign that uses the experience of Massachusetts to tell the public that ‘gays are after your children’. Perhaps a relevant question that should have been asked in an advert countering these lies would be:
Who would you rather have to babysit your children? Kevin and Joe from next door, or elderly virgins in a dog collar? I think you know the answer before you can say ‘Cardinal Bernard Law’, the man wanted by police and still shielded by the Vatican.
Comment by adrianT — November 5, 2009 @ 5:50 am
I am currently living right around the corner from the American Family Association’ headquarters smack dab in the middle of the Bible belt. We’re not successful in these campaigns because we are playing right into their hands. The AFA keeps its doors open with donations from those responding to its ministry (I use the word with a bitter taste in my mouth) and we’re giving them exactly what they need to keep the fires burning. We’ve got to remember that a central theme of the Religious Right movement is “Christianity is under attack by the devil”. The more we oppose their perception of religious freedom the more we fuel their fires. We must acknowledge that faith has a place in American society, no matter our personal religious (or not) convictions.
If we want equal rights, we’ve got to be willing to take a high road. This is radical but we’ve got to be willing to provide the Religious Right with a forum within our own community; I mean a really public forum. Invite them to Gay Pride; invite them to our street fairs; invite them to our political rallies; and give them the microphone for a set period of time. During that time, we stop everything; we sit quietly, listen intently, and keep our focus directly on them. When they are finished we make sure that they are surrounded by our brand of acceptance; we practice what we preach and make damn sure that they have nothing to take back to their constituency but our demonstrated willingness to respect them. Because truly, this is our real nature and this is how we expect people to treat us. If they want to continue treating us with disrespect, let it be on them.
Our quest for marital equality will follow suit. IMO, we show respect for Holy Matrimony; let it be, and seek marital equality under our own definition. Marriage has been defined by the Religious Right and we’re letting the Religious Right define our desires for legal recognition, our desires for acceptance, and our Gay agenda; we haven’t done any of these in the public eye for quite some time. We know we aren’t trying to redefine marriage but really we aren’t getting anywhere by the “that’ not true’ campaign. They’ve got us on the defensive. It’ time we take an offensive approach that is well thought out with the sensitivities of the nation in mind; if we want to become a part of mainstream then it comes with some responsibilities on our part.
Comment by Tim — November 5, 2009 @ 9:41 am
Tim,
I’m of mixed feelings about your proposal. I agree that we’ve been playing right into their hands, but possibly for different reasons. I think that the mass of American people are being played by charlatans. They are having their beliefs twisted by the real ‘Devil’, the greed for power and money that has taken over those heading the religious orgs. And we need to call their leaders on their hypocrisy, by name. And yes, I do mean to call them “the Devil that has led the flock astray”. But it needs to be done carefully in order to discredit the leadership without attacking the organization or the followers. The idea is to replace the head of the monster with one that may be much more to our liking. The key is to simultaneously public embrace the ‘regular believers’ and reaffirm their core belief in the teachings of Jesus.
Comment by Sarasnavel — November 5, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
Sarasnavel said “Yes, this will mean primarily attractive gay white men and a few attractive gay women, with perhaps a token POC or transfreak (sorry, “transgendereds”)”.
Its obvious you’re not sorry at all, don’t try to play us for fools. You intended to insult transgendered people just as you intended to exclude them when you referred to the GLB crowd instead of the GLBT crowd. Don’t try to play holier than thou regarding the ant-gays when you’re just as bigoted as they are except to a different group of people.
Comment by Priya Lynn — November 5, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
What we need is a new coalition of non-believers and moderate religious people and organizations to directly challenge the creeping dictatorship of theocratic fundamentalism in the United States.
Socially, culturally, economically and morally such fanaticism is eating a way at our nation, the same way it a corrosive force throughout the globe. Conflict and backwardness is almost inevitable in countries where religious fanaticism (of any religion) has taken root. And, by the way, LGBT people have no right to exist in such places.
A powerful, all-encompassing campaign must be waged to remind Americans that we have thrived because of pluralism, separation of religion and state, belief in science and education as well as the freedom not to believe at all. It is time to stop playing the game on their turf, by their rules, using their language. We must take back our country from the fanatics who would divide and degrade our nation.
Of course, we have to always respect peoples’ right to believe what they want. This is the defining creed of this nation. All people should be treated with dignity, as long as they return the favor.
However, we are under no obligation to respect the backward and dangerous beliefs that cause enormous pain and suffering throughout American and the world. Indeed, if we are to remain a successful nation and a viable and sustainable world, we have a duty to challenge the destructive beliefs of those who threaten the survival of a civilized humanity.
America must, once and for all, end the notion of compulsory Christianity (that’s what our opponents really want) and religious coercion in the public square. Let people pray to whomever they want in church on Sunday. But we have to stand up and not let political fundamentalists turn our nation into a church – their specific church – Monday through Saturday. Because anyone who has spent 10 minutes reading their literature understands this is what they truly want. This notion of dominion is what excites them and makes them work so doggedly against a free America.
We need to change the direction of this country before it is too late.
Let Maine and California be warnings. These radical fanatics truly believe they have the right to decide if you are equal. And to pass laws to keep people in their place. We must create an America where such ideas are anathema and antithetical to the national spirit and character.
If we do not succeed, we will see the continued erosion of freedom until we no longer recognize this country.
Comment by Wayne Besen — November 5, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
I would agree with Tim to an extent. And Thanks TWO for posting this. Once we mend the gap between the Church and the LGBT community we will see results advancing our cause in the polls.
There is a new generation of people entering the churches and they DO have a more open mindset toward us. They just have not been given the opportunity to stand up for us yet due to the silence on homosexuality in most churches, and when it is mentioned – uneducated, religious hate is taught. THAT is the message we must change. That is the approach that will work. We must change the perspective of the church by educating and and loving them where they are. After all – we are asking an ancient religion to re-evaluate their fundamentalist thinking.
I’m a pentecostal pastor’s daughter. I have grown up in this religious strong hold, attended Pentecostal Bible College and still hold very firmly to my faith. I am a lesbian. Wayne is right when he says that we as LGBT people do not seem to have a place in the church – This is my burden in life! I want to see this changed! To see how we are attempting this and to join our cause – check out http://www.imagaychristian.com/gay_gap.html
Comment by Kori Ashton — November 6, 2009 @ 10:37 am
wayne,
boy, how gracious you are. gee, in your scheme
of things we christian conservatives are free
to worship as long as it is sunday only. monday
through saturday we can just stay out of the
public square. sorry wayne, tnat’s not how it works!
as christians, we are called to live out our faith
24/7, not just sunday only. I don’t know what
literature you have been reading, but you could’nt be more wrong. We do not support nor preach “compulsive
christianity” , rather we are called to bring
to a lost and sin filled world the good news
that God gave His Son as a sarifice to pay
the price for our sins, and by accepting Christ’s
sacrifice, we are reconciled to God. This gift of
salvation is freely given, and as such can
be rejected, that is our choice. God does
not force it on us, and we as christians do
not force it on any one. By the way, priya lynn
Jesus could and did give His life on the cross
and took to himself the punishment for your
sins. the world has never known so great a
love as this, I’m just sorry you have
chosen to reject it. I urge you to read Jesus’
words in John 15:12-15
Comment by brad anderson — November 6, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
Brad Anderson:
You obviously do not live in the real world or you must not read the newspaper.
Each day, religious fanatics are trying to force others to live by the rules that are set in their individual churches. Even if those churches preach a shallow, bigoted, exclusionary form of religion.
Yes, you can come in the public square like anyone else. No, you can’t use taxpayer money to proselytize or compel people to share your faith. Your religion is a private affair – it is not to be used to set public policy, so we all must be forced to live by your rules. That is an evil form of totalitarianism.
The civil marriage issue is Exhibit A. Our opponents are against it because they believe their church is in opposition. But why do I have to live by rules imposed by a church that I do not belong to, don’t contribute to, nor agree with?
Why does one church that is anti-gay, get to make the rules for Christians who do not belong to a discriminatory houses of worship? Why do they consider themselves superior and get to coerce others to obey their commands through the law?
What the fundamentalists really want is dominion over people and the ability to compel ALL citizens to obey their church rules – even if it is against their will.
Thus, they have the nerve to deny civil marriage – which deals with legal contracts for all people – based on sectarian church rules.
This is anti-American and the foe of true freedom. Brad, a new coalition of nonbelievers and those who love God are rising up to challenge the lies and controlling aspirations of authoritarian bigots who fear God. This is a battle you are going to lose. I guarantee it.
America has a choice: We can embrace the modern age of or regress to the Middle Ages. For most people, the choice is very clear. They want to live in a world of progress, science, facts, education, the Golden Rule and medicine.
People are fed up and increasingly speaking out against busybody religious fanatics who can’t seem to mind their own damn business. All they bring the world is poverty, overpopulation, ignorance, famine and war.
The people have had enough.
Comment by Wayne Besen — November 6, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Maybe I’m having a bad no-hair day, but I’m tired of social conservatives being called “Christian” by government and mass media — social conservatives are often anything but Christian in belief and behavior, and their violation of Christian norms is as plain as day.
People like Brad know almost nothing about the Bible, nothing about Judaism, and they openly condemn the message and values of the Gospels.
IMHO, it is not quite enough to stop people like Brad from denying religious freedom to everyone else. It’s way past time to go further: The mass media and government should reject their false claims to be Christian and report them as they truly are: Proudly ignorant worshipers of anger, fear, gossip, defamation, bigotry, and hate-based violence.
End of rant — for now.
Comment by Michael Airhart — November 6, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Brad said “This gift of
salvation is freely given, and as such can
be rejected, that is our choice. God does
not force it on us”.
LOL, yes, right, take salvation or be eternally tortured, that’s “freely given” and “not forcing” it on anyone.
Brad said “By the way, priya lynn
Jesus could and did give His life on the cross
and took to himself the punishment for your
sins.”.
Jesus is imaginary. Imaginary characters have done nothing for me. It’s a concept of gross injustice to believe an innocent person should be rightfully punished for another’s wrongdoing. It is also a concept of gross injustice to think a third party can absolve any wrongdoer of guilt.
Comment by Priya Lynn — November 6, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
IMO, we gain little by demonizing each other. Christ, and the faith of Christianity, isn’t our enemy. That being said, I understand Wayne’ (if I may be so familiar) opposition to the AFA as, in many ways, I share your sentiment. I listen to AFR almost every day and am consistently shocked by the misrepresentations (I’m being nice) of the findings reported in scientific journals, of the motivations of groups such as ourselves and others who are in political opposition, and even other faith based organizations. I could really digress into this topic but I’ll save that for another discussion.
My suggestion comes from my conviction that we are only truly capable of orchestrating change through our willingness to change within our own ranks. For example, I do not believe that we are in a position to orchestrate change within the traditional, especially not the fundamental (Evangelical), Christian community. We are witness to an enormous groundswell of ultra-conservative political thought being, IMO, erroneously linked with Christian values; not just gay issues, but environmentalism and economic policy. Again, personally I would agree with Wayne on much of his sentiment. I believe the Christian community will eventually awaken to the high-jacking of their higher calling, hopefully sooner than later; but that will only come from within their own ranks.
I am sure many of you would agree that the gay community is not in the business of telling other people how they should live, far from it. Yet, that is the very thing of which we are accused. Neither are we in the business of attempting to silence the expression of religious freedom in any way, again far from it. Yet again, that is the very thing of which we are accused. Rather, we embrace diversity by nature; we do not fear it, and perhaps that is our community’ most endearing characteristic to bring to mainstream America.
I must say, this is a tremendous forum.
Comment by Tim — November 7, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
Tim, I disagree if you mean that change can come from within the *conservative* “Christian” community. In my opinion, most people who disagree with the hijacking of conservative Christianity have been steadily driven out of the large conservative churches since an egotistical and sadistic lunatic fringe began a takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention in the early 1980s.
If you mean that change can occur as refugees from the un-Christian Right join legitimate Christian denominations such as the United Church of Christ, the Religious Society of Friends, or the Episcopal Church, then I would certainly agree with that.
Comment by Michael Airhart — November 7, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
Listening to the rants on AFR, I’d have to agree with you Michael. The apparent unconditional acceptance of these rants as truth by the listening audience is mind boggling to me. When I’ve checked into the validity of facts and statistical information presented, I’m more often than not shocked at just how badly they’ve misrepresented the truth. I suspect that at some point rational minds will win out. At least, I hope so.
Comment by Tim — November 8, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
michael
you don’t knw me at all, and yet you keep
misresentating me and make false statements
about me. Allow me to set them straight for
you:
1. I do know the bible, very well in fact,
having studied it for many years.
2. I do know judaism, thank you
3. I do not represent any christian church
I just try to present God’s truth as
revealed through the bible
4. I do not and have never advocated churches
using public money to further thier goal
Michael you accuse me of being a proudly ignorant
worshipper of anger fear gossip, defamation,
bigotry, and hate filed violence. You don’t know me
at all,yet you make these false allegations
against me. Unless you can prove your allegations
against me, stop making them and apologize!
BTW michael, can you show me any place in the
bible where it approves same-sex relationships
( no david and saul were not homosexual and
naomi and ruth were not lesbian). Can you
show me any place were the bible approves of
sex between two men or two women? I don’t think so.
finally wayne, you say thst my christianity is
a private affair, and that churches and christians
should not be involved in setting public policy,
do I really need to remind you of the church’s
and christians involvent in ending slavery in the
1800s(yes there were some misguided people that
tried to say that the bible justifies slavery, they
were wrong) The church and individual christians
were very involved in trying to set public policy
then, and have every right to do so now
Comment by brad anderson — November 12, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
Brad, since you reject the Bible when it suits you — and since you deny the essential nature of the Bible — there’s really little point in debating scripture.
As for your other points, you have demonstrated again that you don’t know the Bible well, and you have not demonstrated any understanding of Judaism or God’s truth.
I’ll take your word for it, for now, that you oppose faith-based initiatives, tax exemption for churches, the use of public property for Christian displays and prayers, and the use of taxpayer funds to support insurance benefits for heterosexual state workers.
Comment by Michael Airhart — November 12, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
Brad says: “The church and individual christians
were very involved in trying to set public policy
then, and have every right to do so now.”
When you say, “set policy” what you really mean is compulsory Christianity (specifically your fundamentalist version) and forcing all tax paying citizens to live by the rules of your church.
Sorry Brad – that is un-American. We believe in freedom of conscience and allowing people to select their own belief system – or none at all. We are adamantly against the state choosing one religion and forcing everyone to live by oppressive sectarian rules.
When it comes right down to it, that is exactly what “setting public policy” from a fundy point of view really is by definition.
Mainstream people of faith and the majority of freedom-loving Americans will not stand for such totalitarianism.
Comment by Wayne Besen — November 12, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Brad, you said:
“do I really need to remind you of the church’ and christians involvent in ending slavery in the 1800s?”
Do I really need to remind you of the Churches’ and Christians’ involvement in perpetuating slavery? Yes, many individual Christians worked (alongside many individual non-Christians) to abolish slavery, but they were opposed tooth and nail by many other Christians, who appealed to the Bible to justify their stance. “They were wrong,” you say. Yes, I agree; they were. And I regard those who appeal to the Bible to justify discrimination against gay people as being equally wrong.
To suggest that the churches as such were responsible for the abolition of slavery is downright misleading. The Christian denominations which, as a whole, opposed slavery were those widely regarded as “fringe” or even heretical, e.g. the Quakers and the Swedenborgians. The Roman Catholic Church declared definitively that slavery was always morally wrong only in 1965. It was in February 2006 that the Church of England finally made an official apology for its own involvement in the slave trade.
“Can you show me any place were the bible approves of sex between two men or two women?”
No. Nor would one expect to find one. The biblical authors understood little about such things. There is no valid reason why we today should be bound by their limited understanding. The Bible condemns lending money at interest far more often than it condemns homosexual sex, but no modern Christian, as far as I’m aware, feels obliged to close his or her savings account or to cancel his or her pension scheme.
Comment by William — November 13, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
White Protestant churches continued to support slavery and racial discrimination up through the 1980s, when I was a young reader of Campus Life.
Campus Life, the youth edition of Christianity Today, told me that it was wrong for me as a white guy to date or marry a black woman because it might cause scandal for my parents. They also cautioned against marriage to a Catholic and condemned marriage to Jews and Mormons.
Many white evangelical churches continue to exclude black and especially Latino persons from leadership, and many exclude women from leadership. Many of these churches align proudly with the likes of Lou Dobbs, the Patriot movement, and other haters of Christian immigrants.
As William points out, it’s sad at best, pathetic at worst, that Brad brands real Christians (Quakers) as heretics and aliens, while stealing credit for their accomplishments.
Comment by Michael Airhart — November 13, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
Brad said “can you show me any place in the
bible where it approves same-sex relationships
( no david and saul were not homosexual and
naomi and ruth were not lesbian).”
Yes, David and Jonathon were gay and Naomi and Ruth were lesbian. II Samual 1:26 says that David loved Jonathon more than women. In Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 Jesus affirmed a gay couple:
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html
In Matthew 19:10-12 Jesus said some are born gay.
Comment by Priya Lynn — November 13, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
,..] http://www.truthwinsout.org is other relavant source of information on this issue,..]
Comment by Trackback - Free Internation Call >> How to make free international call — November 19, 2009 @ 6:05 pm