The “Family Research Con” duplicity
The Disingenuous Duplicity of the Family Research Council.
In this and the next few posts this week I’m going to explore a mere four paragraphs of information presented by the Family Research Council. The disingenuous duplicity of this organization is sore amazing. These are their words, so easily taken from their own website, www.frc.org That anyone still accords them a shred of respect is sad.
Such glib speakers they are, only a line by line, clause by clause refudiation of the mush should be done for the decent respect of the opinions of mankind. Not a word shall be bereft of examination. What a job it must be to go line by line through the rest of their crud! But someone’s got to put a towel around this naked emperor.
I do an FRC and ME debate.
They conveniently start off these four paragraphs I’m considering with a heading:
FRC: “LEVEL OF COMMITMENT IN HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS”
ME: It sounds so solid doesn’t it? Like what is to follow is some sort of end all and be all of the matter. Note the use of the one word “homosexual” for it gets interesting throughout this series of posts.
FRC: “If homosexuals and lesbians truly desired the same kind of commitment signified by marriage, then one would expect them to take advantage of the opportunity to enter into civil unions or registered partnerships, which grant them legal recognition as well as the legal rights of marriage.”
ME: Note now both “homosexuals and lesbians.” Presumably, “homosexuals” are now just gay men. Watch as the FRC alters their terminology repeatedly as they move through their four paragraphs, like they can’t quite decide which words they want to use for us, or perhaps to just befuddle the issue. Or maybe they’re just rushed for time or sloppy. Who knows?
OK, so now they present a range of options we might “take advantage” of — “civil unions or registered partnerships” and a “legal recognition” not defined, and “as well as the legal rights of marriage” Except that the four options that they say are “truly desired” by gay folks simply are not equivalent in anyway to anything to what we say is “truly desired” by us – which is, well, marriage.
FRC: — “the same kind of commitment signified by marriage.”
However, “marriage” is simply, purely, unavailable on the option list. As are all the options presented except in a few rare instances nationwide in the past 10 years only. We don’t “truly desire” “civil unions” — that’s what we get in a few states with sundry similar and different provisions such that a civil union in Vermont is different than one in California, yet a marriage in either is just the same. “Registered partnerships” of various kinds are available in a few cities, maybe a county or two, but no states – and are more like saying to the city “We’re going to have a joint bank account, if the bank will let us, and put both our names on the property deed if the state doesn’t have a provision against it.”
Meanwhile, because of DOMA there is really, actually, NO “legal recognition” whatsoever of whatever crumbs thrown to us in the 10 states that allow any such thing as even a recognition that we might actually have committed relationships at all — but by law nowhere near the marriage we “truly desire.” In fact, 40 states simply have more or less outlawed any such recognition by any name or word, legal or otherwise of our commitments within or from without the state. Even if such commitment was solemnized by the clergy of our choice in a jurisdiction that might have allowed a “civil union.” Maybe they would do better mentioning the coming court conundrum of the “full faith and credit” clause.
But, what “opportunity” might we “take advantage of” “if” we “truly desired” it? There is none. The FRC is flat out crazy to even make the statement that we don’t enter into what cannot be entered into. And certainly nuts to postulate some conclusion from such a situation.
FRC: “However, surprisingly few homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into such legally recognized unions where such arrangements are available, indicating that such couples do not share the same view of commitment as typified by married couples.”
ME: So, because we don’t enter into the essentially non-existent “recognized unions” — where available of course – this indicates we “do not share the same view of commitment … by married couples”? This is absolute mush and chutzpah coming from a group that spends every waking moment of every day working diligently and spending millions of dollars to fight the hundreds of lawsuits, political requests, street protests, public testimony, and even prayers to God Himself to soften the FRC’s cold, hard hearts all across the nation to stop us from our insistence on achieving the commitment recognition denied everywhere. What on earth do they think all the lawsuits headed to the Supreme Court are about? Could they truly be this stupid too not see our desires? To the point of saying we don’t have them despite the coming legal dilemma we created by the refusal to grant recognition and our insistence we’re going to get it. Or do they just have some strange agenda backed by the proof of mush-thought?
Hate to tell you fellas, but we have “truly desired” the “recognition” of our commitments for so long and so hard that we have forced a national debate on the issue. And nothing says “few” “desire” something than when some 5% of the population forces 95% of the population to debate the recognition of our commitments that is still withheld until everyone is absolutely sick of the discussion. I dare say, the FRC is stone cold clueless as to the depths of our desire for recognition. Clueless.
So then, astonishingly, they find a state which tossed a rubber bone to a starving dog and use this as proof of their proposition!
FRC: “Vermont — In April 2000, the governor of the state of Vermont signed a law instituting civil unions for homosexuals.”
ME: Note here, the “homosexual” is a stand alone, which is not the case just a few dozen words backward and further on, which is odd, this mishmash of terminology for such a “professional” effort at trying to further wreck gay folks lives. Are lesbians included here or not? It’s a like a high school project.
FRC: “The bill conferred 300 privileges and rights …”
ME: Let me use now their insouciant words, which they use to conclude their exploration of our “truly desire” levels, as you shall see: “Put another way,” some 1000 more or so were not conferred. Though for some reason this was not mentioned by these fine and um, honest folks. Not even in a formula like “300 out of 1350” or something. Also not mentioned by them is that absolutely Zero of those conferred by Vermont were federally recognized because of DOMA. Plus nearly 40 states have specific laws, passed at the behest and certainly the joy of the Family Research Council, that recognize absolutely Zero of the limited number of fine privileges we were granted as obviously somewhat less- than-equal before-and-under the law citizens of These United States. And the only such things conferred at all were the most business like of the bunch – perhaps a joint Vermont tax return. But hey, whose counting or thinking about that, eh?
Plus, these fine purveyors of “truth” did forget to mention that they are busy in all 50 states and the federal arena to make sure that not only are the 300 not recognized beyond the Green Mountains, but not even within if they could have their druthers. And you can see that at www.goodasyou.org which first sent me to this mush, almost pleading with someone to take it on, for the poor man there just seems to need rest from the defense.
And let us not forget, that in 2000 the FRC was actively filing the Orwellian-ironic “amicus” briefs with state and the federal Supreme Courts in an effort to not only keep gay sex itself illegal in 24 states, but to help spread the illegality back to the 26 states which had given a sort of dismissive “we can’t stop you, so we won’t arrest you” recognition of reality. It took until 2003 – three years after Vermont offered the crumbs, for the honeymoon bliss to be even legal enough to enjoy at the hotel in, say, New Orleans.
Indeed, for the time frame in which the FRC is telling the world that we don’t “truly desire” commitment – they were actively working to outlaw our true desires. That is just bald illogical nonsense, and an audacious duplicity I can’t truly fathom. Not to mention it would have been somewhat rational for any couple to purposely avoid such legal registration under the rational fear that the Family Research Council would have been successful in putting Vermont back on the road to criminalizing gay smooching. Maybe that’s the true reason the FRC is upset every last gay guy and gal in Vermont didn’t rush on down to the town clerk – my my, how much easier it would be for them to round us up for their true plan: They want to Export us gay Americans.
And because you’re oblivious to reality as you push your bizarre agenda to rid the nation’s families of its gay sons and daughters let me tell you, FRC, how our “commitments” we’re given “legal recognition” — we were subject to arrest.
In my own state of Louisiana – where your erstwhile leader Tony Perkins is from – it was commitment of a wholly different sort when our relationships were recognized. Up to 10 years in prison at hard labor. And you, while allegedly researching families wanted this law to stand!
Gentlemen, it takes a special form of chutzpah – a word you should become familiar with – to both plead and work for outlawing my commitments and denigrating them to the point of criminal arrest and incarceration while at the same time proclaiming to speak for me about what I truly desire.
Or a special form of lunacy. I’m not sure. As I’m not too sure about any politician in this nation who gives a moment’s notice to the Family Research Council’s duplicitous con job.
So a big gay guy’s smooch to you Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg — on Valentine’s Day — a day for love, even mine – which you know nothing about.
- Posted in: Uncategorized