The Marriage Protection Amendment and Other Serious Silly Things
 

May 8 2006
Counterbias.com
MEL SEESHOLTZ
 

Former Republican senator John Danforth, an Episcopal priest, made some blunt and astute comments in relation to the proposed amendment the U.S. Constitution to “protect marriage”:

“Once before, the Constitution was amended to try to deal with matters of human behavior; that was prohibition. That was such a flop that that was repealed 13 years later,” Danforth said.

 

Referring to the marriage amendment, he added that perhaps at some point in history there was a constitutional amendment proposed that was “sillier than this one, but I don't know of one.”

To even propose amending the Constitution to enable discrimination is contrary to the document’s raison d’être. Those proposing and backing the amendment must know that. Therefore, either they’re just plain bigots or they’re doing what they’re doing for their own self-interest and political gain. Probably all of the above.

The political strategy was concocted by Karl Rove, America’s Machiavelli, and propagated by zealots such as James Dobson and his Focus on the Family syndicate, Lou Sheldon and his ultra-homophobic Traditional Values Coalition, and Tony Perkins whose Family Research Council sponsored the theocracy-on-parade Justice Sunday events (JS I, JS II, JS III). The Rovean anti-gay strategy brought funds flowing into their homophobic coffers, increased their political clout, and reelected the dividing-Uniter-turned-Decider, whose been busy destroying the country ever since.

Proponents of the Constitutional amendment say they’re “protecting marriage,” as Mat Staver – in his usual irrational form – recently claimed in a New York case: “The Liberty Counsel leader contends that recognition of marriage between people of the same sex would result in ‘the abolition of male and female by making gender irrelevant.’”

What is this man talking about? Is he suggesting same-sex marriage would extinct heterosexuality, nullify heterosexuals’ sexual desire and change human physiology? Does he really think same-sex marriage would make all heterosexuals psychologically and physically impotent?

He and his ilk claim to be “protecting marriage.” From what? From whom? From people fighting for the right to get married?

If “traditional marriage” is threatened, it certainly isn’t by same-sex couples. The institution may, however, be threatened by heterosexuals, Britney Spears, and “born-again” Christians: “among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%.” The Christian research-marketing Barna Group’s report also documented that “nearly one-quarter of the married ‘born agains’ (23%) get divorced two or more times.”

Recently, Sen. Sam Brownback – a Republican from Kansas, the state that redefined “science” – pleaded for the passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment, which even he admits is doomed. Perhaps the senator should looks at recent polls that document the Marriage Protection Amendment is at the bottom of Americans’ list of priorities.

But Jay Brown of the Human Rights Campaign noted the Rovean political strategy still at work: “The Federal Marriage Amendment consistently ranks dead last on a list of voters priorities but that won’t stop Congress from using this discriminatory amendment as a political ploy going into the elections.” Confirmation of Mr. Brown’s insight came in a May 5, 2006 report from 365Gay.com: “Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is coming under fire for using same-sex marriage as a tool to garner support in his bid for a US Senate seat.”

Following in the footsteps of Brownback and Steele is Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church, in Lanham, Maryland, who recently made some interesting statements when he used same-sex marriage as a political ploy to justify discrimination:

“There is a Judeo-Christian basis for all of our laws in America, and marriage came from the Church – in a sense – to the secular society,” he explains. “We believe that marriage is a sacred right, not a civil right…”

The bishop may want to read some history books. The civil institution we call “marriage” predates “the church.” Historically, “the church” simply glommed onto an existing secular institution and added its own dogma to enhance its social and political control, and the financial benefits that control brought.

How politically convenient – and reprehensible – that Bishop Jackson, an African-American, forgot that many who employed his “thinking” used a “Judeo-Christian basis” to argue for slavery and to justify segregation in the name of “morality.”

Morality is always the product of terror; its chains and strait-waistcoats are fashioned by those who dare not trust others, because they dare not trust themselves, to walk in liberty.

– Aldous Huxley

Trust. Can anyone trust – much less respect – a member of a minority who advocates denying civil equality to fellow citizens of another minority?

A May 1, 2006 Associated Press article by Steve Lawrence illustrated the point in relation to a self-proclaimed minority member arguing against civil equality for members of a different minority:

SACRAMENTO – State Sen. Sheila Kuehl says a key aspect of history is missing from school textbooks – the contributions that homosexuals have made to California and the nation.

 

Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, has introduced a bill that would fill that void by requiring textbooks and other social science materials to discuss contributions that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people have made to the state and nation’s economy, politics and society.

 

The bill also would prohibit textbooks from criticizing people because of their sexual orientation. Current law sets that standard for discussions of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender and disabilities. [italics added]

Mr. Lawrence also reported on a group strongly opposed to the legislation, a group notorious for its efforts to marginalize gays and lesbians even further and deny them any form of respect or civil equality:

Benjamin Lopez, a lobbyist for the Traditional Values Coalition [TVC], an Anaheim-based group that views homosexuality as an abomination, doesn’t dispute the fact that gays have been discriminated against and have made contributions to American society.

 

But he contends Kuehl’s bill amounts to “social engineering and social indoctrination.”

 

“You’re talking about elevating a practice, a lifestyle, and putting it on par with the struggles of blacks, women and (other) minorities,” he said. “As a minority myself, that’s tremendously offensive.” [italics added]

Mr. Lopez’s feigned “morality” is as transparent as his specious reasoning. Although there is not yet absolute proof that sexual orientation has a genetic and/or neurophysiological basis, scientific evidence is clearly mounting. That aside, apparently Mr. Lopez is unaware that one’s “religion” is, without question, chosen.

People can choose to be whatever religion they want and can choose to “practice” it as a “lifestyle” with varying degrees of intensity. Lopez and his organization are among the first in line to defend the civil rights and civil equality of those practicing religious choices and expressions, as long as those choices and expressions are in accord with TVC’s parochial socio-political dogma, of course.

Mr. Lopez and the TVC vigorously campaign to have “approved” Christians’ contributions to American society not only noted but highlighted in textbooks and every other venue. Yet TVC’s political lobbyist claimed acknowledging the contributions of gays and lesbians would be “social engineering and social indoctrination.”

How hypocritical. How irrational. But Lopez did even better than that in relation to what Huxley said about “morality” and “trust.”

The TVC lobbyist agreed that gays have been discriminated against and have made significant, important contributions to American society, but found acknowledging that history “tremendously offensive.” How could anyone trust – much less respect – the judgment or reasoning of a member of a minority who fights to keep another minority repressed and excluded?

Not surprisingly, a recent report issued by The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute documented that legislators with low ratings on gay and lesbian equality issues also received low ratings from organizations that promote the rights of people of color, including the NAACP and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The rhetoric of America’s quintessential homophobe Lou Sheldon and his Traditional Values Coalition were duly cited in the report.

On May 2, 2006, Rev. Sheldon, founder and chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, fired off a letter to the president of CBS television. The TVC headline screeched “CBS & ANTI-CHRISTIAN GLAAD TEAMING UP: GAY & LESBIAN GROUP OFTEN ATTACKS CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS.”

“Attacks Christian believers.” As usual, Sheldon – who has frequently teamed up with Justice Sunday participant Bishop Jackson – acknowledged only those “Christians” who agree with his fanatical dogma and ignored all the others who refuse to sign on to his pathological pro-discrimination campaigns against civil equality for gays and lesbians, many of whom are themselves practicing Christians. Sheldon and the rest of the radical Christian Right do so love to play victim while they victimize.

GLAAD is the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination. What CBS and GLAAD produced was a public service spot against discrimination. But Abramoff beneficiary “Lucky Louie” didn’t see it that way:

“Broadcasting GLAAD’s message to your audience can hardly be called ‘a public service.’ It is more an affront to the overwhelming majority of religious Americans whom GLAAD regularly calls ‘hateful’,” Rev. Louis P. Sheldon wrote in a letter to CBS President Leslie Moonves.

No one personifies “hateful” more definitively than Louis P. Sheldon: the man who after the 9/11 terrorist attacks argued against giving aid to the surviving members of gay and lesbian partnerships, many of whom had children, and the man who suggested rounding up gays and HIV+ people – presumably that would include children – and putting them in concentration camps he euphemistically called “cities of refuge.”

What other motives did Sheldon have for writing to CBS?

At the very least, I believe CBS should apply an equal time standard to this sort of activity. My organization, the Traditional Values Coalition, would be willing to discuss some sort of message which would provide the balance lacking from GLAAD’s anti-religious attacks.

Seems Lou was just looking for some free publicity to spew more of his vile bile. His “anti-religious” comment is pathetic, but typical. Apparently Sheldon believes civil discrimination is a “Christian” virtue and “civil equality” an “anti-religious” attack. Even conservatives have questioned Sheldon’s ethics and motives.

Sheldon’s equally fanatical daughter and TVC’s executive director, Andrea Lafferty, also got into the act:

“I am calling upon TVC supporters to contact their local CBS affiliates to ask that they refuse to air any public service announcements by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) next week during ‘As The World Turns,’” said Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director Andrea Lafferty today. “The underlying message of GLAAD’s PSA is that anyone who opposes homosexual conduct is prejudiced or intolerant. This is propaganda, not accurate information.” [italics added]

Let’s see…

Prejudice: 1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one’s legal rights or claims 2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

That’s a perfect description of Sheldon’s, Lafferty’s and TVC’s homophobic social and political campaigns. 

Intolerant: 1 : unable or unwilling to endure 2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights [italics added]

That also perfectly describes Sheldon’s, Lafferty’s and TVC’s social and political campaigns against civil equality for gay and lesbian Americans.

“Civil marriage” in a secular society is a “civil right,” by definition. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that in its 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling that legalized interracial marriages, something Bible-quoting “moral religious folks” had fought against: marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man” and the freedom to marry is “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.”

Same-sex marriage poses no threat to the civil institution, just as interracial marriage and women’s equality within “traditional marriages” posed no threat, despite the blasphemous yammering of those claiming to know “God’s will.” If anything, change would strengthen the institution by allowing it to evolve. A sophomore in a social issues course I teach said it best in an essay he wrote:

One of the main arguments against same-sex marriage is that it contradicts “traditional marriage,” which in a sense, is true. Marriage has traditionally been defined as the union of a man and woman as husband and wife, but what isn’t taken into account is that the tradition of marriage is consistently changing over time to better suit society. If we followed only “tradition,” women would still be property and interracial couples would not be allowed to marry. Women were given equal rights, interracial marriages are now legal, so why can’t we accept same-sex marriage?

 

Think about it: if same-sex marriage were to be legalized, would it really be that bad? There are ridiculous beliefs that if people are more accepting toward homosexuality, future generations will turn gay. That’s preposterous. There have been scientific studies that suggest biology, including genetics or inborn hormonal factors, plays a key role in a person’s sexuality. Many psychologists agree that sexual orientation isn’t a conscious choice. …

 

The AIDS epidemic plays a significant role in the controversy. Many people fear that homosexuality is “the cause” of diseases being spread throughout the world. They’re wrong and ill-informed, but if AIDS is such a huge concern, then wouldn’t same-sex marriage be beneficial for society? Marriage calls for monogamy, which means that couples have sex only with each other, as opposed to being single and having multiple partners.

 

I don’t believe that the government should waste so much time and money to discriminate against such a small portion of the population. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted campaigning against same-sex marriage. That money could have been put toward something more constructive, such as feeding the hungry, providing for the homeless, and preserving our planet.

But the advocates of discrimination don’t let history, common sense or reality get in their way. Neither do some of their Bible-thumping brethren.

On May 1, 2006, the Christian “news” service Agape Press featured an article titled “Founder Anticipates Creation Museum’s Spring ‘07 Opening With Excitement”:

Progress is being made on a facility that will house exhibits designed to proclaim the authority and accuracy of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. The Creation Museum … is well under way; and later this month, the museum will be unveiling its large and uniquely designed bookstore.

 

The Creation Museum is a project of Answers in Genesis, a ministry that helps Christians become equipped to defend the biblical account of creation. The 50,000-square-foot museum will feature exhibits and other teaching tools that will show visitors how science confirms biblical history. …

 

According to [Ken] Ham [president of Answers in Genesis], the museum is already receiving worldwide attention. “The international press are getting very, very interested in this,” he says, “and it’s going to be not just a national event here in America. It’s going to be an international event when it opens in April 2007.” [link added]

The “worldwide attention” is due to the fact that educated people in the twenty-first century can’t believe that despite the overwhelming evidence accumulated by scientific research – not to mention the archeological and geological records – there are still those who believe dinosaurs played with human children in Eden and that vegetarians Mr. and Mrs. Tyrannosaurus rex were passengers on Noah’s ark.

America’s religious fanatics have become the laughingstock of the world. But never fear. Their homophobic cronies are close behind as they attempt to carve out new legal defenses to justify irrationality and discrimination.

The headline read “Mom Kidnapped Son, Feared Dad ‘Turning Him Gay.’” The article was as unbelievable as spending billions to “protect” something that is not threatened and to build a “scientific” museum to a myth:

A woman has told a Florida court that she kidnapped her 11-year old son and fled the country because she believed her former husband was turning the boy gay.

 

Caren MacDonald is accused of custody interference. She took the boy from a Ft. Lauderdale school in 2001 and went to Costa Rica. They remained there for four years but was arrested by U.S. Customs agents in June 2002 in Houston as she disembarked from an airplane that had arrived from Costa Rica. …

 

MacDonald and her husband fought for custody of the boy. During the dispute a court ordered psychiatrist testified that MacDonald was unstable and a judge awarded sole custody to the father. MacDonald was ordered to have no contact with the boy.

 

During her testimony in the criminal case MacDonald attempted to portray her ex-husband and his partner as sexual predators. …

 

She also accused the partner of massaging the boy on his buttocks several times, an allegation she also had made at the custody hearing. But last week the boy testified that there had been no inappropriate behavior and that his mother has forced him to lie at the custody hearing about being molested.

Caren MacDonald’s defense is more off the wall than the “Twinkie Defense”:

Ask anyone who’s heard of Dan White – and there are fewer and fewer people who have – how it was that the clean-cut, conservative San Francisco supervisor received such a light sentence in the shooting deaths of progressive San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and gay Supervisor Harvey Milk 25 years ago [now almost 28 years ago], and it brings an automatic response: the “Twinkie defense.” The impressionable jury, they’ll say, swallowed the defense contention that Dan White gobbled Twinkies, which blasted sugar through his arteries and drove him into a murderous frenzy. About as simple as: “Eat a Twinkie, commit a murder.”

While the “Twinkie Defense” may be an urban legend, Caren MacDonald’s is for real: “Be a homophobe, commit kidnapping.” Homophobia – “an irrational hostility, hatred, or fear of homosexuals” – is indeed a mental disorder inherent among the sanctimonious.

You also have to wonder about the mental health and motives of those who use “Christianity” to promote discrimination and work so feverishly to hurt other people and their families ad majorem gloriam Dei.

The “mind” of those claiming dinosaurs played with human children in Eden is clearly missing-in-action.

It seems they’re all simply hiding behind and using “religion” to advance their own personal and political agendas and line their own pockets.

---