From the New York Daily News:
…Corkins acknowledged as part of his plea agreement that he had taken a number of steps to plan the shooting. He bought the pistol the week before and practiced firing it. He also visited the headquarters of the Family Research Council, and he purchased the Chick-fil-A chicken sandwiches the day before the shooting…Corkins also acknowledged that he considered making a bomb but didn’t have the patience to do it. In his pants pocket, police found a handwritten list of groups that also oppose gay marriage. Lawyers did not include the list of organizations in the plea agreement.
In a statement released after Corkins’ plea, the head of the Family Research Council blamed the shooting in part on the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has labeled the organization a hate group.
In his plea agreement, Corkins acknowledged he identified the council as “an anti-gay organization” by visiting the law center’s website. The head of the council, Tony Perkins, called on the group to stop labeling his organization and others hate groups because of their stance on gay rights. The law center said it stands by its label.
Dana Milbank’s WaPo column right after the shooting last August remains apropos:
…this shooting should remind us all of an important truth: that while much of the political anger in America today lies on the right, there are unbalanced and potentially violent people of all political persuasions. The rest of us need to be careful about hurling accusations that can stir up the crazies.
Human Rights Campaign isn’t responsible for the shooting. Neither should the organization that deemed the FRC a “hate group,” the Southern Poverty Law Center, be blamed for a madman’s act. But both are reckless in labeling as a “hate group” a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions, on issues from stem cells to euthanasia.
Categories: Marriage
AMEN!
Sigh.
This conversation. Again.
Sorry Elizabeth, but I strongly disagree with Millbanks here and your somewhat-tepid agreement with his superficial “analysis.” I think we can vigorously condemn this shooter’s actions (and many aspects of our hyper-violent culture where notions of civility are regularly mocked, even here on this site), without taking away the power for long-marginalized folks to call out extremist groups as being hateful.
But, since you disagree, maybe you can offer some alternative suggestions for a better course of action.
Elizabeth, Karen, and others, what would be a better way, in your opinion, for people who support LGBT people to describe an extreme group like the Family Research Council, if not with the label “hateful”?
Is the use of the word “hate” ever justifiable for LGBT people and our allies to use, in your opinion? Who gets to make that call? Heterosexuals who can barely muster up lukewarm support of LGBT equality?
Do you oppose the use of words like hateful, unnatural, immoral, and disgusting to describe LGBT people and those who promote marriage equality?
Agree to disagree and be respectful.
I agree that rhetoric should be toned down all around; but I don’t think that SPLC should be, in any way, held even a little bit responsible for the actions of a crazy person.
If someone shot up Westboro baptist church, I think it would be A.) equally tragic and B.) solely the fault of the person who did it, even though most people agree that they are a hate group.
(My point is not to say that FRC is “just as bad” as Westboro. Rather, my point is that the number of people condemning them as a hate group has no bearing on the actions of a crazy person. In other words, even if there were no website condemning FRC as a hate group, the shooter probably would have just come to his own conclusion or found another target.)
The would-be killer has a list of other “anti-gay marriage” organizations according to police. This could have easily been me.
Lumping in mainstream conservative Christians organizations with neo-nazis is reckless, even if you want to vigorously criticize their views. Among other things mainstream organizations have known offices conveniently located.
It could just as easily have been someone like me. This insanity has to stop.
NOM is, for all intents and purposes, a hate group, too. I think when you advocate that blacks and gays be pitted against equal other in public discourse, or that the children of same-sex couples come forward to bemoan their upbringing, the hate is pretty obvious. A quick visit to the articles and associated comments on NOM’s website will dispel any doubt about NOM’s status.
The SPLC serves a useful, perhaps vital, service in identifying hate groups. Groups that legitimize ugly social viewpoints towards minority groups also serve to rationalize bad behavior towards those minority groups.
A shooting does nothing to support unequal legal treatment for gays and lesbians, no matter how much mileage the anti-gays want to get out of this incident. And for every shooting of a malicious and anti-social anti-gay activist, there are dozens of suicides of desperate gay people.
The body count for each side is grossly disproportional.
“This insanity has to stop.”
Exactly. We should legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states, and therefore neutralize the issue as a flashpoint. Only then can we have a calm discussion about how society is, or isn’t, affected. It simply is untenable to put a specific minority at a social disadvantage and expect the civil discourse and well-meaning analysis that seems to be required.
So Kevin, because I believe that True marriage can only be between a man and a woman, you think of me as a “hater”? That’s a rhetorical question.
I HIGHLY respect with NOM stands for and defends. I don’t hate.
I also think that you cannot hold the Southern Poverty Law Center responsible for this man’s actions. However, I hope that everyone who agrees with me will hold the same standard in discussions of people who bomb abortion clinics and not blame anti-abortion rhetoric for the actions of crazies.
I think the Southern Poverty Law Center should take down the label of “hate group” for groups that oppose same sex marriage.
It’s an unfair label and I think it makes the use of the label much less effective.
In my mind hate groups are groups that call for violence against others. Many groups that would call for violence are opposed to same sex marriage. They believe for whatever reason that it is wrong and it will harm society if it is legal.
Suggesting that anyone who thinks marriage has to be between a man and a woman is the same as someone who is part of a group that calls for genocide or lynching is inflammatory and uncivil. It does nothing to advance the discussion or win converts.
It also undermines the credibility of groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and makes it less likely that people will believe groups like KKK are hate groups.
If I am understanding this “New Conversation” on marriage correctly, it boils down to agree to disagree, not that the redefinition of marriage wins and anyone who believes otherwise is wrong and/or a “hater”. The tower of babel metaphor comes to mind. Going our separate ways.
Diane,
“I think the Southern Poverty Law Center should take down the label of ‘hate group’ for groups that oppose same sex marriage.”
I encourage you to become more informed about this issue. A mere opposition to same-sex marriage isn’t what puts a group on its list of hate groups. The SPLC states:
I think the Southern Poverty Law Center should take down the label of “hate group” for groups that oppose same sex marriage.
In the Southern Poverty Law Center’s own words:
Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.
“I HIGHLY respect with NOM stands for and defends. I don’t hate.”
Then defend NOM’s tactics of pitting blacks and gays against each other to stop legal same-sex marriage. Defend the vicious comments NOM permits on its website. Defend NOM’s strategy of soliciting the children of same-sex couples to come forward and describe their horrible childhood experiences at the hands of gay couples.
Explain why NOM is “defending” marriage, yet has not a single policy position on legal pre-marital sex, legal adultery and legal divorce. How on earth is that possible?!
Diane, you clearly lack enough information to understand what it is that wins an organization the coveted title of “hate group” from the SPLC.
Do you think the KKK is a hate group? So far as I’m aware, they do not advocate disparate legal treatment for the groups they hate. What do you make, then, of a group that advocates enshrining into law marginalized status for gay and lesbian people, as well as their children, such as NOM?
I think the ‘hate group’ terminology is widely overused, and I take a dim view of thin-skinned people who like to throw around terms like ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, etc whenever they feel offended. That said, I don’t find much to disagree with the SPLC’s claim here. The Family Research Council wasn’t put on the list for saying that homosexuality is immoral, they were on the list for these reasons. Definitely a hate group.
“Both Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia: Sprigg has written that most men who engage in same-sex child molestation “identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,” and Dailey and Sprigg devoted an entire chapter of their 2004 book Getting It Straight to similar material. The men claimed that “homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses” and similarly asserted that “homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.”
“That’s the least of it. In a 1999 publication (Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia) that has since disappeared from its website, the FRC claimed that “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order,” according to unrefuted research by AMERICAblog. The same publication argued that “homosexual activists publicly disassociate themselves from pedophiles as part of a public relations strategy.” FRC offered no evidence for these remarkable assertions, and has never publicly retracted the allegations. (The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”)
“In fact, in a Nov. 30, 2010, debate on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews” between Perkins and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Mark Potok, Perkins defended FRC’s association of gay men with pedophilia, saying: “If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children. So Mark is wrong. He needs to go back and do his own research.” In fact, the college, despite its hifalutin name, is a tiny, explicitly religious-right breakaway group from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 60,000-member association of the profession. Publications of the American College of Pediatricians, which has some 200 members, have been roundly attacked by leading scientific authorities who say they are baseless and accuse the college of distorting and misrepresenting their work.
“Elsewhere, according to AMERICAblog, Knight, while working at the FRC, claimed that “[t]here is a strong current of pedophilia in the homosexual subculture. … [T]hey want to promote a promiscuous society.” AMERICAblog also reported that then-FRC official Yvette Cantu, in an interview published on Americans for Truth About Homosexuality’s website, said, “If they [gays and lesbians] had children, what would happen when they were too busy having their sex parties?”
“More recently, in March 2008, Sprigg, responding to a question about uniting gay partners during the immigration process, said: “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them.” He later apologized, but then went on, last February, to tell MSNBC host Chris Matthews, “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied. At around the same time, Sprigg claimed that allowing gay people to serve openly in the military would lead to an increase in gay-on-straight sexual assaults.”
OK, Hector St-Claire, you’ve convinced me.
Kevin, the KKK has a historic tradition of actually lynching people.
“So Kevin, because I believe that True marriage can only be between a man and a woman, you think of me as a “hater”?”
No Karen, it’s because you want the government to adopt your personal or religious belief, to the detriment of an already maligned minority, gays and lesbians. It’s because people like you typically refuse to even acknowledge the harms done to gay and lesbian people.
You are free to think of marriage in whatever way you want. You are not free to hijack the government to enforce your view on others, to their obvious detriment, and for no discernible benefit to society.
“Kevin, the KKK has a historic tradition of actually lynching people.”
And the Bible advocates that gay people be put to death.
Your move.
This thread has strayed towards NOM which is unfortunate for a number of reasons. With respect to NOM, what angers me is that suggest that gay people are a threat to children. For doing so, I deem them a hate group irrespective of the judgment of the SPLC.
The lesson to be learned through all this is that groups like FRC need to dial down their abusive rhetoric. Now I just labeled NOM a hate group and one might easily say that I am guilty of the same form of rhetoric. That would be a false equivalence. I am not trying to take away anyone’s rights. Children are not being bullied and beaten bloody due to the things that I say. Moreover, I am not lying when I say that NOM suggests that gays are a threat to children.
There are very good reasons why SPLC has designated FRC a hate group. The label is preventable and could even be removed if FRC would stop claiming that gay men are predisposed to being child molesters.
As a gun violence survivor I am extremely concerned for the man who was shot. There is no excuse for violence. I am not suggesting that FRC “had it coming.” I am saying that FRC has succeeded in angering many people. They anger me. the would be more responsible if they would reduce their anti-gay rhetoric.
No Kevin, I’ve given up on the laws of man to do the right thing a long time ago.
Karen wrote:
“If I am understanding this “New Conversation” on marriage correctly, it boils down to agree to disagree, not that the redefinition of marriage wins and anyone who believes otherwise is wrong and/or a “hater”.”
I’m not sure I understood this “New Conversation” on marriage, as you did, Karen. I understood it to mean, let’s concentrate on str8 marriage, the 99.9% of what marriage is … and, forget the same sex marriage brouhaha. I understood it to mean, IAV/FS is not giving support to same sex marriage; but, instead wants to focus on the current Marriage problems: problems of one-man, one-woman ’til death do us part, etc.
If I’ve misunderstood this “New Conversation”, which I signed onto … if it really means IAV/FS is supporting same sex marriage (implicitly saying it’s OK, without vocalizing that) now let’s discuss marriage … then, I want to un-sign myself.
“No Kevin, I’ve given up on the laws of man to do the right thing a long time ago.”
Karen, if you are expecting the law to provide you with something in synch with your religious beliefs, you’re setting yourself up for frustration. There is no natural connection between the two, and in the US, we are specifically charged with NOT creating a connection between the two.
It seems to be an irresistable target for people of faith: “get the government on my side, and impose my beliefs on everyone!”. What do you care what the government says is ok or not ok, if your focus is on God?
I consider the Amish America’s most biblically correct group. They don’t seem to care what the laws are, so long as they aren’t forced to alter behavior they consider biblically required. I doubt the Amish even exercise their right to vote, generally speaking. They certainly keep a low profile in the culture wars.
Kevin, you have not be following. I’m not religious and you can’t pigeon hole me. sigh
Teresa, I’m not exactly clear about this muddy “new conversation” either.
Conversation between Karen and Kevin:
“ “So Kevin, because I believe that True marriage can only be between a man and a woman, you think of me as a “hater”?”
No Karen, it’s because you want the government to adopt your personal or religious belief, to the detriment of an already maligned minority, gays and lesbians. It’s because people like you typically refuse to even acknowledge the harms done to gay and lesbian people.
You are free to think of marriage in whatever way you want. You are not free to hijack the government to enforce your view on others, to their obvious detriment, and for no discernible benefit to society.”
Let’s unpack this conversation, a bit. The following is going to ruffle some feathers here:
First, a marriage between one-man and one-woman is not fundamentally a religious belief. The coupling of one-man/one-woman for the benefit of the couple and the possible resulting children precedes religious belief. It’s embedded in the human biology, and gifts/builds the society built on that relationship
Second, not permitting same sex sexual behavior, same sex marriage is in fact not maligning anyone. No one has a ‘right’ to do wrong. Any government that finds ‘rights’ in permitting wrongs has written its own death sentence.
I don’t think NOM or any person who values traditional marriage is, by that fact, thinking less of same sex attracted persons … as persons. That may have been a fact some years ago; but, I don’t see that prevalence, today. I don’t think Maggie Gallagher thinks less of me because I’m gay.
Last. Kevin, no one is ‘hijacking government’ that opposes ssm. We, who are opposed to ssm, are free to do whatever is legal, in whatever forum we choose to voice that opposition. If you choose to perceive that as ‘hating on you’ … that is your choice.
“First, a marriage between one-man and one-woman is not fundamentally a religious belief. The coupling of one-man/one-woman for the benefit of the couple and the possible resulting children precedes religious belief. It’s embedded in the human biology, and gifts/builds the society built on that relationship”
Then why are religious freedom concerns so prominent in this discussion? Do the religious folks agree with you that marriage isn’t fundamentally a religious belief? In fact, and I’m going to take a wild guess here, male-female couples will form whether marriage exists or not. And male-female couples will have sex, with or without the intention of creating a baby, whether marriage exists or not.
If marriage is such a “gift” to society, why isn’t marriage required of any sexually active fertile different-sex couple? Why not make the distinction between couples with children, or capable of creating them, from couples incapable or undesirous of children? It would really drive home this new marriage principle that marriage is all about children. Even better if same-sex couples with children were required to get married, too. Because it’s all about the kids, right?
“No one has a ‘right’ to do wrong.”
Sigh. There is nothing wrong with same-sex behavior. And certainly nothing that the government needs to be concerned about, short of limiting the promiscuity that spreads diseases, which encouraging faithful marital relationships for straight or gay couples does.
“I don’t think Maggie Gallagher thinks less of me because I’m gay.”
That may be true, but she does see you as different, and therefore less worthy of complete citizenship rights, including marriage. As low an opinion of Maggie Gallagher and her allies that I have, I don’t advocate that she, and they, deserve fewer legal rights because of my personal opinion.
I believe it IS hijacking government, to enforce a personal belief that lacks a public policy benefit, and in fact, harms a specific segment of the population that has no choice but to be subject to the laws. It’s particularly offensive to hijack government and impose a public policy that harms children, in my opinion. If that’s what you want, then you have a heightened burden to explain to the rest of us why you want a public policy that harms children.
Hi Fannie– You write “Sigh.
This conversation. Again.”
Can I tell you that stung? To me, this is not ‘oh this again.’ When the shooting happened last August I felt terrible–I’ve been at Family Research Council to give a talk on my book on children of divorce, I’ve worked with some nice people from there over the years–and I also felt scared for my colleagues. Our Institute is not on SPLC’s hate list but our leaders in the past have opposed same sex marriage and I don’t trust crazies with guns to make fine distinctions. I emailed my colleagues at the office that day to be please be careful about opening the door to anyone.
And now that the case is in court I learn that the guy did have a list in his pocket of others. I would not be surprised if my friend Maggie’s name was on there.
This is not “oh this again.” This is scary and real. I’m not being alarmist or dramatic. I’m just saying, this is not about theoretical people potentially being harmed. Just the way your fears for people being harmed are not theoretical either.
Elizabeth,
Your post is about something incredibly unfortunate and violent. It’s about an incident, and a column, that was hashed out with a lot of nuance and thoughtfulness in previous comment threads at this very blog.
Hence my exasperation. Your post, with very little commentary of your own, contained no concession, acknowledgement of, or elaboration upon that previous conversation.
I am much more receptive to your explanatory comment than I am to your post, precisely because it contains an actual argument and more detail about why you’ve posted what you’ve posted.
I understand and can appreciate that you, Maggie, and Karen are afraid because you have or do oppose same-sex marriage.
But, it is never going to be self-evident to many people that the SPLC is somehow responsible for this shooting, or that the SPLC should stop calling certain groups hate groups.
And, for the sake of accuracy, can we all stop claiming that the SPLC calls groups hate groups for mere opposition to same-sex marriage?
Hector, who I rarely agree with here, has made a fair and reasonable concession that the FRC’s behavior makes the group deserving of the “hate group” label- noting the various statements and misrepresentations about gay people the group has made.
If you, Karen, and Maggie do not believe this behavior warrants a “hate group” label, what kind of behavior is this indicative of, in your opinion?
And, what do you think of the FRC’s behavior, from a moral standpoint?
I’ll also add, that while you think it’s unfair, possibly inaccurate, and that it makes you unsafe to call out groups like the FRC as a hate group, here’s what the FRC’s Tony Perkins says about gay “activists”:
“Those that understand the homosexual community — the activists — they are very aggressive…everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They’re intolerant, they’re hateful, they’re vile, they’re spiteful”
Do you think it similarly makes gay people unsafe when Tony Perkins calls us hateful (among other things)?
I hope you might understand too, why it stings when you call your friends at the FRC “nice people.”
I wholeheartedly condemn this atrocious act of violence. No political stance or hate speech justifies murder or attempted murder.
Also, hateful speech and behavior should be called out for what it is when it occurs. As horrendous as this act is, zero blame should be placed at the feet of SPLC, nor should this act cause them to re-think how they apply their hate-group label. As others have pointed out, SPLC is actually quite careful and deliberate when applying the label, so as to ensure that the label is justified and maintains its power.
I completely understand and do not minimize the fact that this event is scary to those who publicly oppose gay marriage. I would be scared too, and this state of our world is not okay. As a lesbian (a “recognizable” one at that), I am scared to go into certain neighborhoods and parts of the country. I am careful when and where I show my partner affection. To be clear, I am not trying to play a who-has-it-worse game — I am only saying that who you are and what you believe unfortunately makes you a target in this violent world full of people who are willing to commit atrocities in the name of politics and/or religion. As humans, we all face this reality, though some of us might acknowledge or have experience with it more than others. This is an awful truth.
In light of this truth, the answer is not to take the power to name hate away from the marginalized people who are the targets of hate. To name hate for what it is is not worse than that hate itself. Too often, to me, the message from those who oppose gay marriage or equal rights for women or minorities sounds like: “It’s worse for you to call me a bigot or hateful than it is to actually be a bigot or hateful.” Can others recognize how misplaced this message is? Do you see why this is the message I hear?
If you are a person or a member of a group who opposes gay marriage, and seeks to make a secular argument against gay marriage for the good of society (as you see it), and your argument is not grounded in animus or bigotry or hate, then strategically, I would think that you would want to acknowledge anti-gay bigotry when you see it, name it as such, and to make it very clear to the world that you are not that. If on the other hand, you defend hate when it exists and resist calling it hate, do you see how it makes it harder to see the difference between you and them? I’m not saying that you are like them, I’m not saying you are hateful, but I am saying that your message is less clear.
Hector provides some pretty strong evidence for why FRC is labeled a hate group. So often I hear from those who try to make a civil argument against gay marriage claim that anti-gay animus, hate, and bigotry is a figment of our collective gay imagination, or that it is uncivil to call it out when it exists. To you I say, why don’t you want to call it out when it exists?
Naming hate is the only civil defense the marginalized have.
What you are espousing here, Teresa, is an extreme-minority, fringe position. (Which you’re free to do.) In reality, the vast majority of people who oppose equal rights for same-sex couples do so, in whole or in part, for religious reasons.
I don’t think I, or anyone, should be expected to take the arguments of people who claim secular opposition to SSM seriously unless they completely and openly disavow the support of the religiously-motivated SSM opponents. Until then, I think it is completely fair to view your line of thinking as the “false front” for a movement that overwhelmingly religious in nature.
Karen, when one side is arguing against the status quo and the other side is arguing for the status quo, there is no such thing as “agree to disagree.”
If we are to “agree to disagree” on the issue of same-sex marriage, that means that each individual who chooses to marry should have the option of entering into a legal mixed-sex marriage or a legal same-sex marriage (with a willing partner.)
Is that what you are advocating for? If not, please don’t use the phrase “agree to disagree,” because it is nonsensical.
“Agreeing to disagree” about women’s suffrage would mean that both sexes have the right to vote, but individual women could abstain from voting if they chose. Do you understand what I’m saying about this phrase? Or do you think that we could “agree to disagree” about women’s suffrage while women are legally banned from voting?
Finally, if a mentally unbalanced person took violent against a Jewish synagogue after looking online for a list of “Jewish” establishments, we would not take issue with the use if the word “Jewish,” would we?
I feel very sorry for Floyd Corkins and for the security guard he shot. Corkins clearly became unhinged because of the hatefulness he encountered from FRC and other hate groups, named and unnamed. The unremitting assault on the self-esteem of homosexuals in this society takes a very heavy toll. That, coupled with the availability of guns, is going to lead to irrational action in which people get hurt.
The assaults on gay people are far more numerous than the assaults on anti-gay activists. Indeed, the assaults against the haters of homosexuals are very rare. I suspect that they will rise in the future as the opponents of gay rights become very more desperate and resort to every more ugly rhetoric and hatred.
We saw lots of this hatred especially during the North Carolina campaign over Amendment One. We saw how “Christians” talk about gay people when they think no one is watching, preachers saying everything from wishing gay people dead, to proposing a concentration camp, to advising parents to assault their gay children.
Well, some of us are going to respond violently to this kind of violence. I am sorry that Corkins reacted the way he did, but I certainly understand his anger. I hope that he receives help and is able to salvage his life.
Obviously, Phil is on the right track: let’s legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states, and then start a real discussion about whether it should be legal or not. Only when the playing field is level, and our constitutional duty to equal treatment of all citizens realized, can a sane and rational discussion occur. All in a much less tension-filled environment.
A side benefit is that we get to see the reality of the pros and cons of same-sex marriage, and same-sex parenting. I would think Mark Regnerus would be a big proponent of legalizing same-sex marriage, since he seems to want to study same-sex parenting, or perhaps rather, merely draw conclusions about it.
If the argument(s) against legal same-sex marriage is compelling, it will become even more powerful with the support of actual, real-life data to back it up.
I should add that many of the kinds of hateful rhetoric identified by Hector in reference to FRC also appears in connection with NOM. NOM has a moderated blog, for example, yet almost everything that Sprigg, Perkins, et al. have said at the FRC appears with nauseating regularity on the NOM blog. NOM, although not designated a hate group by SPLC, certainly engages in hateful behavior and rhetoric.
I also consider rhetoric like this from Teresa hateful: “Second, not permitting same sex sexual behavior, same sex marriage is in fact not maligning anyone. No one has a ‘right’ to do wrong. Any government that finds ‘rights’ in permitting wrongs has written its own death sentence.”
Quite apart from the ignorance it spews (same-sex sexual behavior in the United States is in fact a right, a constitutional right, thanks to Lawrence v. Texas), it also, in the very fashion of Westboro Baptist Church, says the nation itself is committing suicide because it permits its citizens to exercise freedom. This rhetoric is repugnant. In Canada and England and most advanced European nations, it would certainly constitute hate speech.
I know it’s the weekend, but I hope sometime soon you- Elizabeth, Karen, and Maggie- will have something to say about the Family Research Council’s rhetoric that has been cited here since you three have seem to taken the contrarian position in this thread that it’s inapt to call this group a “hate group.”
It’s more than anger that gets someone to the point of trying to commit murder; It’s anger in combination with frustration. To the extent that “they” even listen, if you make them aware of a fact that they don’t like, rather than adapting they attack the messenger or torture logic to demonstrate that it’s not a fact at all. Regnerus is the perfect example of that exercise. It’s not Mark’s methodology – it’s liberal academia in concert with the liberal media.
I have read at least a dozen of the amicus curiae briefs in the marriage cases. Almost every one of them includes the Regnerus study as an exhibit. Knowing full well that they are incorrect, they assert that gays are not good parents. It might have been Randy Thomasson (I’m not sure) who once claimed that gay men adopt boys in order to molest them. Stuff like that gets people upset to put it mildly.
The entire marriage argument is based on porous rationale – something that David Blankenhorn dissected. I suspect that after he went public, he had a period of great relief that comes with intellectual honesty.
Elizabeth, you said:
“Our Institute is not on SPLC’s hate list but our leaders in the past have opposed same sex marriage and I don’t trust crazies with guns to make fine distinctions.”
I’ll also add, to hammerpants’ point, I’m not sure what the motivation is for opponents of SSM who have relatively large platforms to not regularly and very vocally call out people like Tony Perkins and organizations like the FRC for their misbehavior.
(And… I’m assuming here that you agree with commenters here that the FRC’s rhetoric has been out of line at times. But, I also realize that not all of you- Elizabeth, Maggie, and Karen- necessarily agree on that point).
I know we’ve also discussed this topic before, but if you don’t explicitly make fine distinctions between yourselves and these groups, how do you expect anyone else, let alone “crazies,” to?
To be clear, I have come to appreciate that the IAV is not, in my opinion, in the same ballpark as the FRC, but as people with the ear of folks at the FRC, I’m trying to understand if you have ever suggested to them that some of their rhetoric is out of line and if you have ever publicly done so. This isn’t a “gotcha,” I just genuinely don’t know or don’t remember if you have.
You demand that the SPLC stop using the word “hate,” but where are the demands you make of your friends with respect to their out-of-line rhetoric?
In my opinion, that would go a long way in establishing more trust and, possibly, reconciliation in the LGBT and allied community, if that’s something the IAV is even interested in.
This is the correct path of action, of course, but I can understand why some opponents of SSM have difficulty seeing this. We must first understand that legal, optional same-sex marriage, alongside legal, optional heterosexual marriage, is a neutral, moderate position. (I use the term “heterosexual” here to designate marriages that have two sexes, not to indicate that the participants are necessarily of heterosexual orientation.)
It has taken us a while, as a country, to realize this. For years, advocates of including an option for legal same-sex marriage for people who are not interested in heterosexual marriages seemed like an extremist position. They were, and are, painted by their opponents as the weirdo fringe.
That wasn’t actually true, but, the status quo being the status quo, it took a while to see it. On the other hand, those advocating for a total ban on the option of entering into same-sex marriages are the extremists, and I think society is finally recognizing this fact.
There was a time in this nation’s history when it was believed that a woman was not qualified to vote, based solely on her gender. That was the mainstream, majority opinion in America. But it was an extremist position. The fact that it was held by a majority doesn’t change the fact that it was an extremist position. It is now, and always was, extremist.
Hi Fannie,
One way to be in the world is to make lists and use labels and call people out publicly.
Another way to be in the world is to be as sincere and true as you know how to be, get to know people as human beings, but often satisfy nobody.
Phil: I don’t think I, or anyone, should be expected to take the arguments of people who claim secular opposition to SSM seriously unless they completely and openly disavow the support of the religiously-motivated SSM opponents.
Explain this better, Phil. It sounds like you’re saying that secular persons or agnostics or atheists are not to be taken seriously unless they are at war with, or indicate hostility to, religious people. Is this what you are saying?
Until then, I think it is completely fair to view your line of thinking as the “false front” for a movement that overwhelmingly religious in nature. [sic]
Are you saying that secular opponents of SSM have been created, bought and paid for by the religious?
Is it not possible for people to come to the same general conclusion about a particular issue through different angles? Or do you have such infinite wisdom that you just know that only one conclusion is possible for a non-religious person to come to?
(Is it not possible for people to come to the same general conclusion about a particular issue through different angles?)
It sure is. But if you’re so desperate to win your political battle you are prepared to affiliate with and even try to manipulate organisations who came to those conclusions differently, then you have a problem. FRC is clearly lying about the dangers posed by homosexuality to society and supporting draconian legal sanctions based on those lies. Libertarians have all kinds of nonracial reasons for objecting to the civil rights laws, but if they decide getting those laws reversed necessitates an alliance with Stormfront, White Resistance and the Klan, that is a problem.
(Another way to be in the world is to be as sincere and true as you know how to be, get to know people as human beings, but often satisfy nobody.)
This makes no sense. Because you know someone as a human being and consider them your friend their bigotry and mendacity become irrelevant? Your obligation to the truth is suspended? Your sincerity is all you’re obligated to contribute?
This “new conversation” is pointless without respectful consideration. Wise words Elizabeth. I have no further comment.
Phil wrote:
“In reality, the vast majority of people who oppose equal rights for same-sex couples do so, in whole or in part, for religious reasons.”
Phil, I counter this statement of yours, with, so what? If I hold a position that is opposed to ssm based on purely rational thought (philosophically) that in no way diminishes my argument.
Phil:
“I don’t think I, or anyone, should be expected to take the arguments of people who claim secular opposition to SSM seriously unless they completely and openly disavow the support of the religiously-motivated SSM opponents.”
Your statement here, Phil, makes no sense, at all. Why different people come to a similar conclusion does not immediately infer being allies.
Phil:
“Until then, I think it is completely fair to view your line of thinking as the “false front” for a movement that overwhelmingly religious in nature.”
A line of thinking, a thought process, a conclusion drawn from rational philosophy, just ‘is’. It has no need to ‘join’ a group, act the poseur for anything or anyone. What one chooses to do with a rational argument is, in fact, another issue, another thought process, entirely.
Phil, you do an injustice to people, when you reach conclusions based on false reasoning.
BTW, Dana Milbank was harshly criticized for the column cited above in which he creates a false equivalency between the FRC and the HRC. If I recall correctly, he ultimately apologized.
Elizabeth,
“One way to be in the world is to make lists and use labels and call people out publicly.
Another way to be in the world is to be as sincere and true as you know how to be, get to know people as human beings, but often satisfy nobody.”
I really see that framing of ways to be in the world as a false dichotomy. If you evidenced an understanding of why the SPLC uses the labels it uses and acknowledged the FRC’s rhetoric that Hector and I have cited above, you might come to at least some understanding or concession that perhaps the SPLC is being sincere as well.
If you’ve read the FRC rhetoric cited here, you might come to see that the FRC is pretty interested in slapping labels on people too. I understand why you might be scared. But, it also stings that you won’t acknowledge the FRC’s rhetoric that has been cited here. According to them, I’m hateful, vile, and aggressive- basically everything the FRC is, if Tony Perkins can be believed, but in “triplicate.”
You think a “crazy” might pick up on that rhetoric and come hunt me and people like me down?
Maybe I’m scared too. Maybe fear has been a part of my life since the day I came out. Maybe I should show you some of the creepy and threatening emails I’ve gotten over the years as a blogger. Men have told me that I deserved to be raped, have given me detailed suggestions on how to commit suicide, have obsessively commented on some of my posts about how “sick” and “disgusting” lesbians are, and have subtly threatened to assault me in ways that are just veiled enough.
But, I don’t see this as a game of Who Has It Worse. My point is to let you know that the way I see it, groups like the FRC embolden the people who harass me. In my view, the SPLC calling these groups hate groups is a way to try to make that harassment, and actual hate crimes, stop.
So, general platitudes like yours and Karen’s only go so far in these conversations. And, I don’t feel that we’re really engaging on any substantive level here. This issue isn’t going to be resolved in one or two sentences where we spout general, non-contentious statements along the lines of can’t we all just get along?
But, if you don’t want to engage on a more meaningful level, that’s your choice. I can respect that. I was just explaining why I disagree that the SPLC should stop using the hate group label.
Rob,
Do you have a link to Milbank apologizing? I’d be interested in reading that.
“This “new conversation” is pointless without respectful consideration.”
Truer words were never spoken. It is enormously disrespectful to vilify gay people in the manner that the FRC, NOM and their various allies do. It is enormously disrespectful to put an already maligned minority at further social disadvantage by denying them equal treatment under the law, barring access to an important social institution because doing so doesn’t comport with your personal or religious feelings.
Perhaps most shocking, it is disrespectful to accept the collateral damage that is the poor outcomes for children who are either gay and children raised outside of wedlock by same-sex couples.
I think a New Conversation about marriage should have a plank whereby signatories agree to legalize same-sex marriage everywhere, both to turn down the anti-gay sentiment and rhetoric in society and create the circumstances where the politics about marriage are diminished.
Kevin, I’m not going to take your bait….this line of attack won’t get any of us anywhere. I hope we all can find piece understanding and acceptance of differences.
peace
Fannie: You seem to be challenging other bloggers on this site who don’t like the “hate group” labeling nevertheless to call out FRC and other groups when they at times traffic in hateful rhetoric. Well, I am a blgger on this site who does not like the “hate group” labeling and who nevertheless has publicly challenged FRC on what they say about lesbians and gays, and will continue to do so in the future, to the best of my ability. Not sure if that helps.