Chambers made that bizarre statement on NPR’s Fresh Air this morning (alternate link 1 / alternate link 2). I created the following video to document that claim and examine some real statistics about how America views anti-discrimination laws.
I’d like to thank Jason at National Gay and Lesbian Task Force for helping me with the kickass statistics used in the video.
10/10/06 Update: Chambers is evidently too lazy to track down the Gay and Lesbian Task Force pride survey himself after “a friend emailed” him about this video. Chambers issued a pretty lame “clarification” essentially calling the study anecdotal, trying to place it on the same level as his own personal experience. Here’s that link to the Task Force’s entire survey. Maybe Alan’s “friend” will “email” it to him.
Dan your piece that you put together was amazing. I couldn’t have said it better myself. I really couldn’t. That was exactly what I wrote down while listening to the interview today. Thanks so much for commenting.
Wow. What an incredible statement by Alan Chambers, and an powerful, logical response. Wow. Great job Dan!! (and Jason form the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force!!)
Dan! You rock!
Hoe disgusting of Alan to make such stupid claims….of course gay couples want protections. Why on earth would we be fighting, blogging, protesting, if we didn’t seek protections. Why on earth would he say we dont’ really want protections when we have millions spent on the fight.
Joe,
what? you don’t know why? It’s to destroy marriage, overthrow capitalism, institute manditory homosexual sexual same-sex sex-orgies based on sex, and criminalize Christianity. How could you have forgotten – it’s printed right there in your copy of The Gay Agenda.
Workplace rights is a far cry from changing the way society has viewed marriage for two thousand years. Currently we all have the same rights. We all have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex.
Currently we all have the same rights. We all have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex.
Well Mel, that’s fine if you happen to be heterosexual, isn’t it? Isn’t this the way it has always worked? In many places fifty years ago, everyone was allowed to marry another of the same race, no “special rights” to enable mixed marriages, no sir. But what about the person who fell in love with someone of another color? Did the “same rights” mean “equal rights?”
Mel, what’s important is the right to marry the one person we love most. We most certainly do not all have this same right. Marriage has not been the same for two thousand years. In different times and even in some societies today men have married several wives. Is that in your version of marriage? How would you feel about eliminating all Republican candidates from the ballot in upcoming elections? Everyone would have the same right to vote Democrat – sound fair to you?
If love is the only criteria for marriage, why not marry two people you love? Why not polygamy? What about those who are bi-sexual? You may love one man and one women. Should you not have the “same rights” meaning “equal rights” in these situations. Would you think gays who had the right to marry have “special rights” over those who wish to marry more than one for love?
If love is the only criteria for marriage, why not marry two people you love?
Are you honestly not able to make a distinction between these issues or are you just being sarcastic? There is no “slippery slope” here, these are entirely different issues. You are talking about quantities, how many times one should be allowed to marry concurrently. A gay person finds themselves unable to marry a person of the same sex when that is the only person with whom they can and do have an intimate, loving bond. The reasons for wanting this are the same as for those who already have it – love, commitment, stability, family, recognition, as well as financial and legal privileges.
Gay marriage is about the same thing any marriage is about. The issue of polygamy is entirely separate; the mandate that one can marry only a single individual at a time truly is equal for all as long as one is not restricted as to the race or sex of the person one can marry. The laws against polygamy are equitable.
What would you have told the African American man of the early 20th century when he wanted to marry a white woman? Would you have made absurd comparisons to polygamy or perhaps worse? You could make that argument against anyone other than a male and female white protestant wishing to marry and it would make just as much sense – no more, no less. You are using catch phrases instead of compassion and understanding.
Yes, Mel, why not? It’s traditional, it’s biblical, it provides children with many parents. How could you possibly object?
Or do you not have any cogent reason why polygamy should be illegal, either?
Ok, let’s try to come back to the topic, which is the claim that gays are not interested in marriage rights or anti-discrimination laws. Mel’s comment fell within the outer boundaries of that scope as a claim that equality in marriage already exists – a tad absurd to me but germane. My reply to that seems to be taking us in other directions – sorry.
Alan Chambers made those absurd affirmations to escape from answering the outright question: Why a person that became from a gay orientation is working for legislation that would deny gay people their legal and social rights?
Yes, Alan evaded the question with his smooth responses that sounded reasonable (because of his voice tone) until you look at them closely. Terry Gross did an excellent job with her probing questions, especially in re: to Exodus’s increased political focus under Alan’s leadership. His answers seemed oh-so-compassionate, perhaps, to those who don’t understand the whole story. What was most absurd to me was the idea that Alan believes he would have wrongly/prematurely married a guy if given that legal option and as a result is working politically to prevent ALL gay persons from marrying. So he wants ME to be unable to marry MY partner because he believes it would have been wrong for HIM to do the same?! Even more disturbing was that Alan didn’t seem bothered by the illogic of that concept.
At least this time Alan didn’t explicitly say that long-term committed partnerships don’t exist. He only implied that they cannot be blessed by God. How nice of him to decide that for all Americans.
Great job on the info video, Dan.
So Mel- would you support legislation to restrict marriage only to same sex couples, on the principle that everyone would then have the equal right to marry someone of the same sex?
Hello all. I’ve been a lurker here for a long time, but just wanted to comment on Mel’s circular argument because of its stupidity. Actually Mel, by your logic, if homosexuals are afforded the right to marry, then rights would still be “equal” for everyone. We would not get “special rights” as you’ve stated. Everyone (gay and straight) would be allowed to marry one person of their own choosing, whether that person be the same gender or opposite gender. It would in fact be an extension of rights for everyone.
So, there you have it. I’ve actually applied your logic to the ENTIRE situation and it doesn’t hold up. Now, please tell me what your objection to gay people getting married is again.
Alan’s evasive answering is typical for politicians. It is not, however, the kind of answers a true “minister” seeking to speak truth would use. He defeats his own purpose by being a slick salesman. But then, he gets a paycheck from the political religious right by being that slick salesmen. After all, they need him to elect Republicans using the “gay marriage” debate.
I found Alan Chambers’ comments about most Gay people not wanting to get married incredibly offensive. How dare he set himself up as a spokesman for Lesbians and Gay men when he claims not to be Gay anymore and crusades to erase the very existence of homosexuality! His “happy talk” interview called to mind the irritating plasticity of a TV infomercial pitchman. I only found him amusing when he referred to his marriage as a “Garden of Eden” relationship. Forbidden fruit, snake and all, I suppose, and we all know what happened to Adam and Eve: Banishment from Paradise! Family turmoil! Chambers was very likely predicting his own future. The man is living in a dangerous fantasy world, and he wants all of us to join him there. Can’t speak for anyone else, but it gives me no end of pleasure to frustrate him!
Mel, I happen to be bisexual. While its not my responsibility as an LGBT to justify restricting marriage to two people the reason should be obvious even to you. With a 50% divorce rate its clearly hard enough to make a relationship work with only two people in it. Trying to make a relationship work with 3 or more people in it would obviously make it much more difficult to keep everyone happy and satisfied – polygamy is ill advised solely for practical reasons such as minimizing jealousy and the transmission of STDs. Although I love both men and women I know I can’t balance my needs and desires with more than one love.
Sorry for the imposition David, I had to say it.
Chambers has it backwards – its the gay political activists who may be more inclined to be against equal marriage rights. The activists dream of a Coalition of the Dispossed to rise up from the streets and topple capitalism. The average guy/gal just wants the security marriage rights afford.
Alan Chambers obviously reads this blog. He has responded to previous posts on the blog. It would be nice to see him stand up and defend his “Fresh Air” comments. I was listening at the time he made his comments and was just plain shocked that anyone would make such a rediculous statement. Even the most homophobic in our society would recognize that statement for what it was: a lie.
Another issue that has been kicked around during this discussion about marriage is about the issue of love. If marriage was only about love, it wouldn’t matter whether same sex marriage was legal or not. Any two people can love each other with or without a marriage certificate. Legal recognition of same sex marriage is about all the legal rights, priviledges and obligations that go along with marriage. This involves property rights, inheritance rights, health insurance rights, pension rights, child custody rights, etc. The surviving half of a gay couple can lose property, pensions, shared funds and the couple’s children. I doubt Alan would be able to find any but the most well heeled couples who don’t care about these issues, and even the most well heeled cared about preserving their relationship with their kids.
Alan obviously doesn’t know the national audience that listens to “Fresh Air.” That one comment completely undercut anything else that the guy had to say on the subject.
We all have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex.
Odd, I do not recall anywhere in the Bible where polygamy was forbidden. Be that as it may, let me ask you a question Mel: does this mean you have no objection to a homosexual marrying your sister or daughter?
Chambers reminds me of those prim Southern ladies during the 1950’s and 1960’s, assuring anyone who would listen that “MY negro maid certainly doesn’t support those so-called civil rights activists, no siree!”
So I guess Alan’s not gonna comment. Would really like to hear his response to all this, though.