Dispatches from the Creation Wars

So I posted the other day about the Federal judge striking down Oklahoma’s law that prohibited them from recognizing adoptions by gays performed in other states. You had to know the religious right was going to react by throwing a blizzard of empty catchphrases around, right? Here’s the little snippet in Agape Press, which labels the report Sooner State judge overrules pro-family statute:

“Another example of judicial activism at its worst.” That’s how the head of the Family Research Council is reacting to the latest court ruling favoring homosexuals. A U.S. district court judge has declared that Oklahoma’s law that prohibits state officials from recognizing same-sex adoptions from other states is unconstitutional.

Okay, we’ve got “judicial activism” and “pro-family” on the board. Do I hear “destroying marriage”? Why yes, I do:

FRC president Tony Perkins says this “stunning case” is just the latest example of why Congress must pass a constitutional amendment to prevent activist judges from destroying marriage in America.

Woohoo, the trifecta – three completely meaningless catchphrases in a single paragraph. Tell them what they’ve won, Johnny. Well, they’ve won my ridicule. First of all, let’s analyze this “pro-family statute”. The plaintiffs in this case included two female partners with twin 7 year old girls. One of them gave birth to the girls, but the other one is also a legal parent by virtue of adopting them in their then-home state of New Jersey. The two women are the only parents the twin girls have ever had. But this “pro-family” Oklahoma law means that one of those parents – one of the two primary sources of emotional security for those girls – is legally declared to be absolutely nothing.

If the other parent should die or become incapacitated, the legal system in Oklahoma considers her to be no different than a total stranger. She can’t order medical care for her children, or sign a consent form. She doesn’t even have any visitation rights if her children are hospitalized. The children would become wards of the state because, legally, the woman who has raised them since birth is considered nothing to them whatsoever. Doesn’t it seem just a tad bit Orwellian to call a statute that breaks up families a “pro-family” statute?

And let’s take a look at that “destroying marriage” notion. Tony Perkins, doing his best to be appointed the uber-idiot of the year, says that this demonstrates the need for the Federal Marriage Amendment to keep judges from “destroying marriage”. First of all, Mr. Perkins, this case has nothing at all to do with the Federal Marriage Amendment; if it passes (and it won’t), it will not change this situation one iota. But even if it did, I’d love to hear ol’ Tony explain why we have to rip the children away from the only parents they’ve ever known in the state of Oklahoma to avoid “destroying marriage”. I know lots and lots of people who are in marriages. Not one of those marriages is helped even a tiny little bit by Oklahoma law breaking up families where the parents are gay. Whether those two 7 year old girls have both of their parents or not will have no effect on anyone’s marriage anywhere in the world, including Tony’s.

I guess we ought to be used to this kind of cartoonish fear-mongering from the religious right by now. They don’t have a rational argument to be made for why the children of gay people, adopted or otherwise, should be taken away from their parents, so what else can they do but scream “The fags are coming to destroy your marriage” over and over again? Who needs rational arguments when you have empty catchphrases that allow their followers to think they’re thinking when in reality they’re only reacting to fear-laden propaganda?

Comments

  1. #1 daenku32
    May 26, 2006

    Amen brotha! Of course ‘the Cons’ have another defence at things like this. They will claim that complaining about Tony Perkins and FRC is like complaining about cursing of your drunk neighbor; the target is not provide representation of any significant group of drunks or Christian Conservatives. That their use of ‘family values’, ‘protecting marriage’ and ‘judicial activism’ is distorting the “normal” Christian Conservatives usage of these catch phrases.

    I don’t know if the “normal” Christian Conservative realizes how much their political power rides on Perkins’ side of political spectrum. I think some books have written about it but I haven’t honestly read them even myself. I think it would be worth blogging about.

  2. #2 VisualFX
    May 26, 2006

    What’s to say? Just more bigotry and stupidity from the Religious Right.

    I fail to see how allowing gay couples to marry is a threat to my marriage. As far as I can determine, I will still be married to my wife if gay marriage is allowed. My kids will still grow up straight (or gay) regardless of whether gay couples marry. As far as I can determine, heterosexuals will still have sex with each other, get married to each other, and make (or adopt) babies together even if homosexuals are allowed to do the same. I simply do not see the connection.

    But, as you have so often said, reason, logic, and rationality are not part of this crowd’s MO.

  3. #3 plunge
    May 26, 2006

    What I dob’t get is the respect that the agape press gets. People treat it like it’s just another christian science monitor, when really it’s more like a junior worldnutdaily. I don’t know how many times I’ve read a story from agape only to realize later that they left out a bunch of key facts and misrepresented everything.

  4. #4 plunge
    May 26, 2006

    What I dob’t get is the respect that the agape press gets. People treat it like it’s just another christian science monitor, when really it’s more like a junior worldnutdaily. I don’t know how many times I’ve read a story from agape only to realize later that they left out a bunch of key facts and misrepresented everything.

  5. #5 Capt. Rational
    May 26, 2006

    I’m still waiting for a compelling argument as to why gay marriage needs to be outlawed. The best anyone has come up with so far is bullshit catchphrases like you mentioned. How two homosexual people getting married will have any impact on any other marriage or anyone or anything other than the couple itself is beyond me. I think I’d respect them more if they just came out and said that they don’t like gay people. On pretty much every other issue I’ll let people have their own opinions, but on this one they are absolutely, 100% wrong times infinity. Same goes for teaching ID.

  6. #6 sdanielmorgan
    May 27, 2006

    How is it “pro-family”, again, to refuse to legally recognize a couple with an adopted child? Doesn’t all of this promote the idea of gay couples not committing themselves to one another for life, and not raising a family? How is this “pro” family?

  7. #7 CPT_Doom
    May 27, 2006

    How is it “pro-family”, again, to refuse to legally recognize a couple with an adopted child? Doesn’t all of this promote the idea of gay couples not committing themselves to one another for life, and not raising a family? How is this “pro” family?

    Ah, it is “pro-a specific form of family,” namely, father at the head, mother adoringly submissive by his side, and the children as their property.

    I can tell you, from frequent visits to my family in Massachusetts, that nothing has changed with gay marriage – well, almost nothing. The coach of my nephew’s football league did joke, at their season-ending banquet, that because he lived in Mass., although he had four boys, he might STILL have to pay for a wedding.

    And that is pretty much the attitude of the people up there. The initial flurry of horror over the topic has ended, the legislature voted down the attempt to amend the Constitution and create civil unions for those who aren’t heterosexual, and even a citizen petition to put a worse amendment, banning both marriage and CUs, had to resort to fraud to get a lot of their signatures. I doubt even that amendment will pass the legislature in two consecutive years, as required, and it only needs 50 votes.

    Let’s face it, the “pro-family” movement is simply the latest in this country to gain political power and $$ by scapegoating. They have taken the easy, although morally bankrupt, route of catering to the worst prejudices of human beings.

  8. #8 ericnh
    May 27, 2006

    As someone who works at a local station in Boston, I’ve got to say CPT_Doom is right on this one. It’s a dead issue as far as news goes up here. People are more concerned about how much it’s going to cost to drive to the Cape this holiday weekend than whether gays can marry.

  9. #9 JeremyHandlebars
    May 29, 2006

    Actually I think you are all wrong. After finding out to my horror that it is now acceptable in the lefty, vegetarian liberal states for those damn homos to marry I feel suddenly compelled to terminate my marriage, abandon my lifelong commitment to the love of my life and part my buttocks for any passing chutney ferret to plunder at will. That’s how dangerous it is.

    Or, then again, perhaps I’ll just invite my friends round for dinner, change the cat litter and carry on living my life as normal. Just maybe…

    Idiots.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.