Focus on the Family and the Eagle Forum today admitted key objectives motivating their war against gay couples:
James Dobson lists a total of six reasons why gay couples will bring doomsday to the family. The first three reasons, predictably, assert that marriage somehow causes homosexuality to break out globally, creates chaos for gay couples’ children and their friends’ children, and compels heterosexuals to throw away all self-discipline. Nonsense — marriage maintains discipline and safety for heterosexuals and homosexuals — and their children.
Dobson’s Reason No. 4 says married gay couples would cause “the end of the state’s interest in marital relationships.” The Eagle Forum’s Lori Waters explains that the existence of married gay couples would give governments a reason to privatize marriage, returning authority over the institution to the churches (many of which are liberal). Then, governments would find a reason to drop the tax breaks and other benefits associated with secular marriage. But who, other than antigay activists or libertarians, would pressure governments to privatize and to end the incentives? In any event, I find it ironic that Focus on the Family for once defends the bogeyman of “secularism.” And if some limited form of privatization could save marriage from political hacks and meddlers such as James Dobson while preserving benefits for children, then perhaps it’s worth considering.
Dobson’s Reason No. 5 says marriages for gays would cause “a severe curtailing of the spread of the Gospel.” But many of these gays are Christians and Jews. So are their kids, and their extended families. Few people have sought to curtail the constitutional free-speech rights of antigay activists — but Dobson and his allies at Exodus have sought to curtail the free speech of tolerance advocates. Dobson’s assertion makes little sense.
Dobson’s Reason No. 6 holds that recognition of gay couples would bring an end to the culture wars. Unlike some of Dobson’s paranoias, this fear is reasonable. His $100 million organization’s revenues are increasingly dependent not upon healing ministries or constructive politics, but upon fueling as many political “wildfires” as possible, profiting from fear and loathing rooted in stereotypes.
To be fair, there are other groups that rely on fear and loathing for their revenues and their sense of purpose.
Can this blog critically analyze the ex-gay movement and its political affiliations without resorting to the same tactics? This is an issue that I struggle with.
I think James Dobson and his supporters confuse freedom of religion with freedom of speech and they confuse the power of religion to convenience with the power of government to enforce. Freedom of religion means you are free to worship as you please with as little government interference as possible. Freedom of speech means you can say what you please with as little government interference as possible. I do not see how allowing homosexuals to marry will endanger either. One of their fears is that they will be no longer able to call homosexuality a sin. Well last time I checked Jews are still able to call eating non-kosher items a sin. They just can not call the department of health and order the closure of a restaurant serving clam chowder. I know of a few branches of Christianity that consider women wearing pants sinful. They consider any occasion of woman wearing pants as cross-dressing. Well, they can enforce a dress code and eject members of their church that violate the dress code. They can publish articles and speak in public about the dangers of women wearing men’s clothes. They can continue their stand against women wearing the pants in the family even though most of the country does not agree with them. They can not eject a businesswoman wearing a pants suite on a flight.
I am a gay man that thinks that child bearing, child rearing, and marriage should go together. I think that a heterosexual marriage is the ideal place for that to happen. However I do not think that marriage should be so limited and I do not see how on earth would allowing us to marry endanger that. What now that gay marriage is legal daddy leaves runs off to marry the bus boy instead of one of the girls at the office? I also am also not foolish enough to think that the world is an ideal place or ever will be.
People bear children outside of marriage. People give their children up for adoption or are unable to raise their children. People are unable to have children or do not wish to have children. People are foolish willful creatures and things do not always work out as planned. What do you do with these people and their children? It is mighty hard to condemn the parent without condemning the child. What do you do with these relationships? It is beneficial to society to support people forming life long relationships for more reasons than children.
I do not see polygamy breaking out any time soon. From what I know of cultures that have polygamy it isn’t a sexual free for all. You are simply tied to more than one wife. I don’t see a country where divorce court is the norm ever going that way. I don’t see it happening in a world where people marry more so out of love than economic reasons supporting it and I don’t see it happening in a world where having large numbers of children is see more as a disadvantage than an advantage. A culture where woman have control over child bearing and can earn a good living without a man won’t be in much of a hurry to go to polygamy.
As for Mr. Dobson’s 5th concern – a reduction in the spread of the gospel, I think he is right. Gay marriage and the resulting respect for gay people will curtail the spreading of some interpretations of the gospel – those that Mr. Dobson believes are the only true ones.
That is a pity for Mr. Dobson – I am sure watching a society reject some of your core beliefs is difficult, but that is neither the government’s nor the gay community’s concern. If Mr. Dobson’s religious beliefs cannot hold their own in the face of evidence that they are wrong, then they deserve to be abandoned, just as the old notions of biblically-inspired slavery for African-Americans was abandoned.
The most powerful thing about this site, Mike, is that you have constantly treated the other side with absolute fairness, even though you are critical of their efforts. You have a point of view, but this site is not a diatribe nor is it screed.
That’s what makes it worth reading and that’s why it retains credibility. Don’t let anyone suck you into becoming a soldier in the cultural war. War is immoral no matter which side you’re on, IMO.
I read the article from FOTF. Really incredible. The only sources they cite are from within their own organizations, or front organizations. Their incestuous reporting is worse than LaRousche (sp?). At the end of the screed was a plug for the National Day of Prayer (Dobson’s wife is the chair again for the umpteenth year in a row). Guess that’s going to be hijacked for the ’cause.’ Sigh.
ANd I used to be a supporter of FOTF, they used to do a lot of good things before Dobson’s god became pursuit of political power by other means. … That, and his creating the Alliance Defense Fund.
My name is Veronica Shumpert here in Temple Tx
I am also against this foolishness that the law has allowed and if we pray more maybe someone in authority will understand this act is not of God and should of not been submitted and man aught to be ashame as well as women but who to blame sin is sin and I must say it for all. Why did this have to happen and who is behind it all?
There need to be a revisement done about this matter it is not for our children and for a child to grow up into or around