Shhhush… don’t tell anyone but the religious right’s charade slips up again regarding their motives for supporting the ex-gay cause. (Hint: It has to do with providing them an excuse to justify discrimination against the millions of gay Americans content with their sexuality)
Alert reader Timothy sent me “What’s Their Real Problem With Gay Marriage? (It’s the Gay Part)”, by Russell Shorto, an article appearing in the New York Times Magazine dated June 19, 2005. Found about 70% into the article ex-gay theology is very clearly offered as the alternative to gay marriage:
Shannon Royce, the executive director of the Marriage Amendment Project, advised me explicitly: “The ex-gay movement is a very important part of the story.” [Brian] Racer [a pastor quoted elsewhere in the story] spelled it out clearly as well. “I’ve had quite a few opportunities to counsel people who were in a homosexual lifestyle,” he said. “They have generally found themselves in a desperate place. They know that Christ promises an abundant life, but that promise was made with some restrictions. These people have tried to find fulfillment in ways that are against God’s principles. So you don’t want to further the error by allowing gay marriage. Most of these folks have had an abusive situation that goes back to childhood. You want to heal that. You want to hold back the tide and not let such a high impact issue harm the whole society.”
Care to share some thoughts with pastor Brian Racer? Drop him a line here.
I haven’t read the referenced article, but it should be acknowledged that there is no such thing as gay marriage. There is marriage. That was the whole point of the advisory opinion penned by Margaret Marshall, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judical Court, following her opinion in the Goodridge case. There is no such thing as gay marriage. There is marriage. And denying same sex couples equal access to marriage denies those couple equality under the MA state constitution.
raj,
good point.
And I’m also sick of seeing quotes around “Gay Marriage” in the right wing press. The Washington Times always puts gay marriage in quotes; because, after all, its only CALLED marriage and isn’t REALLY marriage, ya know.
They even use the quotes for marriages taking place in Massachusetts, which are perfectly legal and are in all manner a marriage – other than the opinion of the Washington Times, of course.
However the other day they had an article in which they said that some gay couple somewhere had been denied a “marriage” license (with quotes). I had to laugh. Did they mean that the license they requested wasn’t REALLY a marriage license but was only CALLED a marriage license? If so, what was the problem of giving it to them?
After all, by their logic, couldn’t a “gay marriage” be perfectly entitled to a “marriage” license?
Tim, our marriage certificate doesn’t say “gay marriage.” It says marriage
We live in a western suburb of Boston. It is marriage.
It’s taken me a long time to figure out that the words that one one uses in a discussion actually can affect the discourse.
I wrote this into Stephen Bennett’s blog this morning:
I wish you wouldn’t use the worst parts of a child’s life to diminish, trivialize, and pathologize the best parts of the adult life that child grew into.
Lately, I keep thinking, “So what if it’s a product of abuse in some cases? We’re all a product of our environment somehow.”
Nobody tries to pathologize my taste for redneck men, even when they know my father was a redneck man. I’m glad they don’t, but it’s obvious that that is of an environmental origin, even more so than my taste for women is.
The quotes around marriage drive me nuts, too. I also get told that I shouldn’t call my wife my wife, but my “same-sex partner.” I am always tempted to inquire about their “opposite-sex partner.” After all, we have what they have–a marriage license which holds up in our city.
And raj–congratulations!
Blessed be!