not about values

It's not about what anybody says about gay marriage. Really, it isn't. It's about what they do:

Two organizations that work very hard to maintain this status quo and roll back any protections that [gay people] may have are the Family Research Council and the Marriage & Family Foundation. For example, the Family Research council leadership has officially stated that same-gender-loving behavior should be criminalized in this country. They draw their pay, in part, from the donations of companies like Chick-Fil-A. Both groups have also done “missionary” work abroad that served to strengthen and promote criminalization of same-sex relations.

Chick-Fil-A has given roughly $5M to these organizations to support their work.

Chick-Fil-A’s money comes from the profits they make when you purchase their products.

This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him.

Asking for “mutual tolerance” on this like running up to a bully beating a kid to death on the playground and scolding them both for not getting along. I’m not trying to dissolve Mr. Cathy’s marriage or make his sex illegal. I’m not trying to make him a second-class citizen, or get him killed. He’s doing that to me, folks; I’m just fighting back.

All your life, you’re told to stand up to bullies, but when WE do it, we’re told WE are the ones being intolerant? Well, okay. Yes. I refuse to tolerate getting my ass kicked. “Guilty as charged.”

(Emphases added throughout)

Do I think eating at Chick-fil-a makes one a horrible person? No, I do not. Do I think that calling for a boycott is going to hurt their bottom line? No, I do not, and I never did. Do I think that besides giving money to some morally reprehensible organizations, they do a great deal of good in their communities and are generally a good employer? Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.

But I also think that it is completely fair to call attention to where that money goes, and how it is used. This isn't about a benign expression of personal values. It is about actively working to maintain and expand a second-class existence for a minority of people.

I guess if you support that, you aren't necessarily a bigot. But you definitely are on their side.


Bike Bubba said...

I think your source libeled the FRC. I just looked at their site, and it says nothing about re-criminalizing homosexuality.

(in other words, source, please)

Brian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian said...

Hardball, Feb 2 2010:

MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?

SPRIGG: Well, I certainly...


MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?

SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

MATTHEWS: So, we should outlaw gay behavior?


That's Peter Sprigg, VP for policy for the FRC, appearing in that capacity.

Transcript here:


Gino said...

compelling link, btw.

Mr. D said...

I guess if you support that, you aren't necessarily a bigot. But you definitely are on their side.

That's a fun game to play, the "definitely on their side" game. So riddle me this -- if a person is pro-choice, should they automatically be associated with this guy?

I suspect you'd find it ridiculous to make such a charge. As would I. After all, someone who supports the right to abortion isn't necessarily a supporter of a guy like Gosnell. But such a person would definitely be on their side. Right?

Brian said...

I'm not playing a game. I'm genuinely trying to change the minds of people that I think are well-meaning but deeply wrong.

Mr. D said...

I'm not playing a game. I'm genuinely trying to change the minds of people that I think are well-meaning but deeply wrong.

Right, but the construct you're using is faulty. Guilt by association won't work -- in fact, it's likely to get the backs up of people who are well-meaning. I am genuinely trying to get you to see that.

Brian said...

Here's the thing, though. I don't think opposition to marriage equality is bigoted because I disagree with it. I disagree with it because I consider the position to be a bigoted one. That's why it's wrong. If I don't point out why it is wrong, why the hell should anyone listen, much less change their mind about it? Without a reason, it's a completely arbitrary opinion.

You might think my reason is bullshit, in which case I guess you won't find the argument very compelling. But I suspect the reason this gets your back up is because we agree that bigotry is bad, even if we do not agree whether a particular thing falls under that category or not.

I don't consider "well-meaning" and "holding bigoted views" to be mutually exclusive categories. You don't have to have malevolent intent where a simple deficit of empathy and/or perspective will suffice.

I've really tried to avoid racial analogies in this discussion, but I'm going to use one, here. If you grow up being told your whole life that black people are inferior, and that's why it's important not to let them integrate into white society, you are very likely to adopt this view unless and until it is challenged. And you aren't really culpable for holding this clearly bigoted view, unless and until someone gives you a reason to think otherwise.

That isn't really hypothetical. I'd say it accurately describes the perspective and experience of a hell of a lot of (well-meaning) white people in the southern US (including a few of my own relatives), for an awfully long time.

But they were wrong, too.

Mr. D said...

Here's the difference; if you really want to win the hearts and minds of people, telling them that they hold bigoted views isn't going to work.

The reason the civil rights movement was successful wasn't because people were telling white folks they held bigoted views; it was successful because of the overwhelming dignity of the leaders and the fundamental decency of the people involved. The people who moved the ball forward were Martin Luther King and Ralph Bunche and Jackie Robinson. It wasn't Malcolm X or Stokely Carmichael. Martin Luther King told people about the dream he had, not that they needed to get their mind right.

When I watch folks taking an "in your face" approach, or getting on a soapbox and telling people that they hold bigoted views, I wince. It's counterproductive. But go right ahead and see if the approach you endorse works. Have fun storming the castle.

Gino said...

'homosexual' means that one has a proclivity to behaviors that other people, for solid moral/theological reasoning, hold opposition to.

this is the root of the whole issue.

you cant say the same about black, asian, white whatever.

Brian said...

Things like Brown v. Board of Education (judicial activism) and politicians like LBJ being willing to tell the southerners in his own party to pound sand had a little bit to do with it as well. Integration did not come to the south because people asked for it politely.

As for King, he was decried as a dangerous radical and communist agitator by many in his time. And I seem to recall him organizing a boycott or two...

Gino, I think you underestimate/forget the extent to which segregation (and slavery before it) was justified by "solid moral/theological reasoning."

Mr. D said...

Integration did not come to the south because people asked for it politely.

I didn't say that it did. But winning hearts and minds was why it stuck. In this life you need carrots and sticks.

Bike Bubba said...

a) One member of FRC noting that the law ought to be open to anti-sodomy laws is not equivalent to all of FRC champions anti-sodomy laws.

b) If homosexuals wanting to marry were comparable to interracial couples wanting to marry, we would have some trouble. But they're not. The argument against the former is that it's simply not marriage; the argument against the latter was eugenics and dilution of the dominant race.

Seems you're having a little bit of trouble with logical categories, friend. What needs to happen for the unconvinced to be convinced is a good argument that notes the legal need not just for civil unions or a "artificial next of kin" status, but actual marriage.

Brian said...

a) Right, so there's no relationship between what the Vice President for Policy of an organization says in public and the policy of that organization. Good to know.

b) I don't recall mentioning interracial couples. I do recall mentioning segregation, i.e., a very recent example of a widely held societal norm that was justified by (among other things) the Bible and tradition, that well-meaning people supported out of a reflexive conservatism, and that was at its core bigoted and therefore wrong.

I am pretty confident in my grasp of logical categories. But I'm not making a logical argument, here. I'm making a moral argument. As are you.

The main difference is that I will admit it.