Leave it to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to try to rain on our parade.
I'm talking about NOM's "Gathering Storm" ad, in which various characters warn that recent gay-rights victories are threatening their fundamental liberties: "There's a storm gathering. The clouds are dark, and the winds are strong. And I am afraidâ¦"
The ad, in turn, prompted a number of YouTube responses, ranging from hilarious parodies ("There's a bullshit storm gathering"), to serious fact-checking, to exposure of the audition tapes.
The latter was embarrassing for NOM, since it highlighted that these frightened folks were actually actors reading lines. (Either that, or every single one of them is both a California doctor AND a Massachusetts parent-and what are the odds of that?)
Personally, I don't find it overly troubling that the characters are all actors. The ad contained a small-print caption stating as much, and besides, their forced emotion was about as realistic as the lightning in the background.
No, it's not the use of actors that's troubling. It's the fact that virtually everything they say is misleading or false.
The central claim of the ad is that same-sex marriage threatens heterosexuals' freedoms: "My freedom will be taken awayâ¦.I will have no choice."
One would think that Iowa and Vermont had just declared same-sex marriage mandatory.
But of course, they did no such thing. They simply acknowledged that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to the same legal rights and responsibilities as their straight counterparts.
How does this threaten anyone's freedom? The ad mentions three cases-presumably the best examples they have-to illustrate the alleged danger:
(1) "I'm a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job."
Not exactly. California doctors can practice whatever faith they like-as long as it doesn't interfere with patient care. The case in question involves a doctor who declined to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple, thus violating California anti-discrimination law.
I can appreciate the argument that a liberal society protects religious freedom, and that we should thus allow doctors in non-emergency cases to refer patients to their colleagues for procedures which violate their consciences.
But what are the limits of such exemptions? What if a doctor opposed divorce, and thus refused to perform insemination for a heterosexual woman in her second marriage? What if she opposed interfaith marriage, and refused to perform insemination for a Christian married to a Jew, or even for a Catholic married to a Methodist?
Or what if a doctor refused to perform insemination for anyone except Muslims, on the grounds that children ought only to be raised in Muslim households? These are questions our opponents never bother to consider when they play the religious-conscience card.
(2) "I'm part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we can't support same-sex marriage."
No, you're (an actor playing) part of a New Jersey church group that operates Ocean Grove Camp. Ocean Grove Camp received a property-tax exemption by promising to make its grounds open to the public; it also received substantial tax dollars to support the facility's maintenance. It then chose to exclude some of those taxpayers-in this case, a lesbian couple wishing to use the camp's allegedly "public" pavilion for their civil union ceremony. So naturally, New Jersey revoked the pavilion's (though not the whole camp's) property-tax exemption.
(3) "I am a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is OK."
Massachusetts parents-like any other parents-can teach their children what they wish at home. What they cannot do is dictate public school curriculum so that it reflects only the families they like.
What these complaints make abundantly clear is that by "freedom," our opponents mean the freedom to live in a world where they never have to confront the fact that others choose to exercise their freedom differently.
In other words, they intend the very opposite of a free society.
According to the NOM ad, in seeking marriage equality, gay-rights advocates "want to change the way I live."
There is a tiny grain of truth in this latter claim. Marriage is a public institution. If you enter the public sphere, you may think or feel or say whatever you like about someone's marriage, but you nevertheless must respect its legal boundaries.
Even so, I think our opponents have incredible chutzpah to frame this issue as being about personal liberty. Freedom means freedom to differ, not to obliterate difference.
Or as Wanda Sykes aptly put it, capturing the irony of the freedom complaint:
"If you don't believe in same-sex marriageâ¦then don't marry somebody of the same sex."
16 Comments for “Storm of Nonsense”
posted by David Skidmore on
The obvious response to these bigots who feel their freedom is being threatened is to present the other side. What about gay and/or atheist doctors who have to treat religious fanatics? Or a gay lawyer who has to defend a gay-basher? But then looking at someone else’s point of view is not the strong suit of NOM and the like.
posted by Gail on
Dr Corvino, I absolutely agree and adore your forthright observations about those who oppose to gay marriage. About 5 years ago, I had to argue similarly with my church’s council, who was preparing to issue forth a decree that anyone who participated in leadership must be of “high moral standing.” That meeting took place about 16 months after the pastor threatened to “out me” to the entire congregation. (I was serving as the music director and worship leader at the time.) Her distaste at my sexuality was her basis for deeming me somehow immoral and unworthy of leading our congregation into worship. I had resigned the position so MY sexual orientation would not become a divisive factor in the church. She felt otherwise and went on a campaign behind my back, culminating in this meeting.
During the meeting, the president of the council, with great discomfort because of my presence and the presence of about 8 others who supported me, began to read from the document being presented for approval. I had to wait until a motion was seconded and the floor opened for discussion before saying, “Let’s be honest. This document was prepared in an effort to prevent me from singing in this church because I am gay.”
The look on the pastor’s face was priceless!!! I sucked the thunder right out of her self-righteous hands! 🙂 I then proceeded to talk about out-of-context scriptures and several of the points you made in the video clip I saw earlier today. I am happy, validated and wholly encouraged by the progress being made toward legalization of gay marriage throughout the United States. My hope is that, in no small part due to your loving and firm and VERY HONEST speeches, that those who oppose gay marriage “because my church says so” will pull their sheepish heads up out of their pastors’ posteriors and realize they are following false prophets.
All this to say, THANK YOU!
PS:
The pastor of my church left the church about a year later. I was asked to return to leadership, and proceeded to successfully build the music and worship program of that church for another 3 years. I left there a year and a half ago because the sitting council (of which I was also a member) was rooting itself in a mindset that I could not agree with that had nothing to do with my sexuality (thankfully!).
posted by Regan DuCasse on
I’ve mentioned this on a few other sites, but it bears repeating or some thought as I go along.
These religious objections are coming from people who are service providers who haven’t let their prospective clients know just WHAT religion and how they express it, is.
Are there SIGNS POSTED listing the specific people that their religious exemptions can’t help?
No.
Are persons OTHER than gays and lesbians subject to equal treatment consistent with this religious discrimination?
No.
By making this an issue OUTSIDE of church buildings and property, those claiming religious liberty is compromised are not claiming that EXCEPT in the cases of gay and lesbian equality.
A gay person cannot be held accountable for NOT KNOWING who is who and in what way they are extending their religious expression in a service provider.
A gay person cannot be expected to have a religious law enforced in a country that doesn’t enforce religious belief, nor favors any particular religion or religious individual.
Because there are people of faith who DON’T discriminate for ANY reason, especially when it comes to individual profit making and exemptions from religious belief and service such things as usury, state gambling and working on the Sabbath.
Which makes the entire issue a load of bullshit and an excuse to selectively discriminate against ONLY those who have no choice in being gay and no way to AVOID religious people who certainly do have a choice.
posted by Bobby on
“California doctors can practice whatever faith they like?as long as it doesn’t interfere with patient care.”
—Lawyers can reject clients, photographers can reject clients, even bakers can reject clients. If a doctor doesn’t like lesbians, he can refer the lesbians to a gay-friendly doctor, which is what that poor man tried to do.
“Massachusetts parents?like any other parents?can teach their children what they wish at home. What they cannot do is dictate public school curriculum so that it reflects only the families they like.”
—Spoken like a true statist, right Corvino? Parents only pay the taxes that support the schools and their teachers with their pensions. So according to you, the education mafia should dictate the entire school curriculum with no accountability. Show Al Gore’s propaganda film about global warming, take the kids to a sex ed trip without parental consent, make the read “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins.
Public education needs to come to an end, property owners should have a say in what their taxes pay. We should encourage parents to send their kids to private schools by giving them school vouchers
I can understand the point of view of the ad makers even if I think gay marriage is no big deal and they should be concerned with the second amendment, free speech, and lowering taxation among other worthy goals instead of wasting millions of dollars fighting a minority of gays within the gay community that have partners and want to marry them.
However, freedom and individualism are being eroded in this country for the same of tolerance and conformity. Bush was a statist when it came to national security, rendition, homeland security, and a bunch of other measures to prevent another 9/11. The democrats and the left don’t want to torture anyone but doctors that refuse to treat lesbians trying to breed. They would rather protect the rights of a potential terrorist than protect the freedoms of a fellow tax-paying American.
I don’t like homophobia, but I like freedom, and Corvino clearly stands against that.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Hi Bobby,
It’s hard for me to simplify a statement, but seriously don’t you think that those people who have religious objections to providing a service to gays and lesbians ARE doing so selectively and are ONLY selecting gay people to discriminate against?
Religious freedom should also be rational and have REASONABLE expectations within diverse society.
We have certain customs, actions, services and obligations that are going to rub SOMEONE the wrong way, yet few of these people of faith are removing themselves from inevitable contact, nor can they.
Even the Amish and Lubavitcher communities aren’t so cloistered, yet respect that they can’t make the rest of us adhere to the laws their faith requires.
Mores the point, homosexuality is and always has been a human condition that PREDATES all religions and cultural establishment.
Hostility towards homosexuals and women are PURELY an invention, so therefore should get precedence where equal opportunity, protection and access are concerned, to be honest.
Gay people are spoken of as if a theory and consequence of negative influence, when it’s actually the role of God and so on that usually is.
In our continuing evolution of scientific and socio/political discovery, gay people are a constant in human history.
The legacy of religious abuse, should give pause to doing it again to YET ANOTHER minority in the human population. There is no reason to accept it, let alone protect it as it ONLY pertains to gay people and no others on the list of religious reprobate behaviors and endeavors.
I’m not buying the rationalizations that religious freedom REQUIRES this discrimination, because it’s not applied consistently or lived as purposefully for me to believe it.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
UGH! Typo error!
I MEANT to say, religious hostility and objections are PURELY cultural invention, so therefore SHOULDN’T get precedence…
posted by Bobby on
Hi Reagan,
“don’t you think that those people who have religious objections to providing a service to gays and lesbians ARE doing so selectively and are ONLY selecting gay people to discriminate against?”
—The right to discriminate is not based on whether you do it against one group or against all groups. In this case, we’re talking about people with strong religious convictions. For example, I knew a secretary that thought Halloween was sinful, so she didn’t attend the company’s Halloween party, should she be fired for not being a team player? Should abortions be performed by people who don’t believe in them?
“In our continuing evolution of scientific and socio/political discovery, gay people are a constant in human history.”
—I’m afraid this evolution has changed us from victims to persecutors. Like Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition, we have designated new witches to burn. So many us us are blind to the plight of others, why not turn things away. Say you’re a famous lawyer and a homophobe needs your help, should you not be free to refer him to someone else?
“There is no reason to accept it, let alone protect it as it ONLY pertains to gay people and no others on the list of religious reprobate behaviors and endeavors.”
—I doubt a christian adoption agency would place a kid in the hands of bikers, or couples with lots of tattoos and body piercings. A friend of mine chooses to have long hair, since he’s a man, he’ll never be able to get an office job with that look. Companies routinely discriminate on the basis of weight, even in Michigan where size discrimination is illegal.
“I’m not buying the rationalizations that religious freedom REQUIRES this discrimination,”
—Religious freedom REQUIRES special accommodation. Orthodox jews for example aren’t expected to come to work or take an exam on a Saturday, muslims aren’t expected to drink alcohol at meetings with clients, muslim women are allowed to cover their heads. Yet because secularism has become popular, now it’s cool to persecute the Christians and two secularize all christian aspects of our culture like Christmas and Easter by giving it new politically correct inclusive names.
I don’t know about you, but if someone doesn’t want me as a customer, I’d rather take my business elsewhere. In fact, there’s a book called the Gay YellowPages, that way you can support gay and gay friendly businesses instead of enriching homophobes and others who don’t want your business. Why must we complicate everything? Why must we force integration and tolerance?
This doesn’t create tolerance and acceptance but rather anger and backlash. Let us enjoy our victories without becoming cruel occupiers, lest the great majority rises against us.
Why give anti-gays the ammunition they need to destroy us?
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Hi Bobby, the difference between the colleague of yours with an objection to Halloween, wasn’t COMPELLED to attend a party!
Nor did was it a matter of keeping her job or not if she didn’t.
A doctor who specializes in ob/gyn may find themselves having to perform an abortion out of medical necessity for their patient’s optimal outcome. If he declined to have the skill he’s putting a woman’s health at risk. He chooses to be a doctor, most people don’t choose to be patients.
Your argument is running far afield. This issue still goes to the inevitable contact in a diverse society with many religions and cultures.
Gay people are the ONE CONSTANT in all this, who are culturally, morally and ethnically neutral.
Those with religious objections don’t identify themselves BEFOREHAND to give a gay person seeking the service they provide an option to not access them.
We both know and observe just how many religious people are willing to suspend their beliefs for the good of someone else or society as a whole.
There ARE plenty of things that are rejected for that reason.
So this is why this argument is weakest of all, and seems reserved exclusively for gay people.
After all, marriage itself is the affirming social environment in which participating is encouraged for the most marginal heterosexual, no matter who or what they are.
Abortion is another matter, for another argument.
posted by Bobby on
Regan, in my family there was a doctor who was excellent treating people with AIDS, all of them gay. He made a lot of money from them, and his patients trusted him, they told him of their sexual practices, asked him questions, and what did that bastard do? He told my mother that gays did disgusting things, he made my coming out process much more difficult, and why? Because he didn’t have the guts to reject the gay patients he hated. Instead, he helped them, learned from them, and only told my mother one side of the story, the “disgusting” side.
And here’s the shocking part, he wasn’t a religious person, not at all.
My point is that instead of suing religious people that reject us, that tells us to our face “sorry, but your lifestyle is against my religion and I can’t help you.” We should say “thank you.” Thank you for not taking my money, for not being dishonest, for not dreading every encounter with me.
Your doctor should be happy to treat you, he should be supportive, caring, he shouldn’t just be doing it just because it is his duty and he’s afraid of being sued.
Think of it this way, why do some women prefer women gynecologists over male gynecologists? The answer is obvious, some women are not comfortable with a man checking out their private parts, even if that man has 7 years of medical school plus post graduate studies.
There are plenty of gay and gay-friendly professionals out there. Dealing with a doctor who hates you is just stupid, even if you win the legal argument, you’ll never be sure if he’s really going to treat you with the best of his abilities or if his homophobia will compromise the quality of his work.
I understand your argument, you want people to be inclusive, fair-minded, to not discriminate. I just don’t think that’s something that can be legislated.
It’s just like a high school cafeteria, most people want to be with their own kind.
posted by Dave on
“But what are the limits of such exemptions? What if a doctor opposed divorce, and thus refused to perform insemination for a heterosexual woman in her second marriage? What if she opposed interfaith marriage, and refused to perform insemination for a Christian married to a Jew, or even for a Catholic married to a Methodist?
“Or what if a doctor refused to perform insemination for anyone except Muslims, on the grounds that children ought only to be raised in Muslim households?”
So what if doctors did any of these things? No one’s health would be endangered.
Here’s another question:
What if a doctor refused to use artificial insemination except with married couples who had failed to conceive naturally? That is, what if a doctor wouldn’t use the procedure except when the would-be mother and father were married to each other, and had failed to conceive via sexual intercourse?
Would the doctor be doing anything immoral in this case? No. And it would preclude helping a couple of lesbians conceive a child for themselves via artificial insemination.
posted by TS on
Bobby, I agree about the doctor thing. I’m not 100% clear on the law about this stuff, but I actually think legal precedent prevents almost all businesses from discriminating in almost all situations. I find this stupid. And I’m pretty sure the way it all works is through monetary entanglement with the federal (and/or perhaps state) government. I’m in favor of disentanglement and free enterprise, at least for now. The only complication I can imagine is if a huge preponderance of prejudiced people cluster in one industry or service. Perhaps the court could order the foundation of a competing public company.
But I think you should admit the education issue is actually a little more fraught. In this country and this culture, a child is not your property, he or she is a pre-individual that you are responsible for. (Perhaps the unpleasantries of this setup for parents is partly responsible for the drastic decline in birthrates in the West, but I’m not clever enough to suggest a morally acceptable alternative.) In a way, cloistering, brainwashing, or miseducating your child is a form of abuse. You can do grievous harm to the ability of future individuals to fit in and be happy. I always thought the Amish system of letting teens out into the English world to learn and decide for themselves was on the right track. One role public education (and the standards set for home schoolers, etc.) plays is to insure that parents aren’t filling children’s heads with nonsense and preventing them from seeing the real world as it is, rendering their future selves economically hopeless, socially isolated, or worse a brainwashed human weapon.
People who claim formal education can be used to turn children against their parents aren’t wrong per se, but they don’t understand exactly how it works. Trust me, I just graduated from public high school 3 years ago. No “authority figure” there had any real power to shape my worldview. I didn’t realize I was gay, and thus find myself permanently turned against my parents, by having a teacher say “Ok class, it’s ok to be gay so if you like members of the same sex, it just means you’re special.” I realized I was gay because that mindmeme was abroad in the society and culture I was immersed in while studying. There are still ethical and sociological complications in this, but by and by, I think everyone should have a chance to see the world as it is, and become Amish, a homophobe, an artist, or what have you because it would help them deal with the world in which they live, not because it’s the only thing they were ever allowed to know.
posted by Bobby on
Hey TS, I disagree with you, in this country your child is your property, you can homeschool him, raise him with any religion, have him join the KKK with you. “Child abuse” refers to a limited category of problems, such as sexual abuse, physical abuse, being in an environment with drugs and alcohol, but it does not refer to “ideological abuse.” This isn’t like Germany where parents who want to homeschool their kids face harassment from the government.
Personally, I’m glad I wasn’t homeschooled and had to suffer my indoctrination in a private school. I admit that teenagers are more independent than people give them credit, but that doesn’t mean they’re not easily influenced. Remember that Colorado teacher who compared 9/11 to little Eichmanns? The education field is full of people like that, both at the high school and college level. On the O’reilly Factor I’ve listened to recordings of professors ranting about Bush in the classroom.
Fighting for parental rights and control of education is benefiting to all parents, gay and straight. Giving the education mafia carte blanche provides paths towards indoctrination.
I recommend you read Godless by Ann Coulter, specially the chapter on education, it will make you angry.
“She cites Jay Bennish, the high school teacher caught on tape comparing Bush to Hitler and saying the U.S. is the ?single most violent nation on planet Earth,? as evidence. She also lists a number of schools busy banning Christian faith references, while forcing students to participate in activities of other faiths.”
posted by TS on
Bobby, why the needlessly thick line at the age of 18? Children are not property. The last concept of human property present in our culture was slavery, and we all know how that went. Why do we have any child abuse laws at all? Because we recognize that a child is not a toy or a means to an end, as is most property.
I’m well aware that aspects of the present education system are not fair. I’ve had teachers, one in particular from each side of the spectrum, actively punish people for not pretending to accept their opinions.
Actually, I think that public education should be pared down and retooled. I’d like to see a lot more practical education over theoretical, and a lot more civic over political. Perhaps the public education system should be linked with an enhanced system of licensure resembling the drivers license system. Civics = everybody has to obey the law. If you disobey and are caught, you will be punished. Also, you have to demonstrate some ability to think about the law, e.g. why it is necessary to a civil society for people to treat each other legally-humanely. So you get voting, free speech licenses. Health = This is the human body. All homo sapiens are variations on it. Some aspects of how it works are still unclear. If you take drugs, they have effect X because we think they work as Y. Sex always has to be consensual. Here’s what you do if there’s a problem. There are health risks, it may be emotionally challenging, and you should exercise caution. So you get consensual sex, drugs, medical decisions for self livenses. And an economics class about personal finance, working, etc. That is occuring simultaneously with whatever education you choose for yourself, precollegiate, religious, general, vocational, technical, etc.
posted by Bobby on
Hey TS,
“Children are not property.”
—Then why are they the responsibility of their parents? why do their parents sometimes get charged if their children commit a crime?
“Why do we have any child abuse laws at all?”
—For the same reason we have laws against bestiality and necrophilia, there are behaviors society finds gross. Besides, we protect the kids for the sake of the parents, it’s not different than laws against stealing slaves.
Society gets in trouble when they give children rights, that’s when you see children hitting their parents, misbehaving in public, stealing from their parents, and being out of control.
“I’d like to see a lot more practical education over theoretical, and a lot more civic over political.”
—I agree with that, I also think that since parents pay for the education of their children they should have a say.
For example, one of the things I hated about the private jewish school I went to was how religious the administration was compared to the parents. At one point we couldn’t order cheeseburgers anymore just because a minority of parents follows the biblical admonition against mixing meat with dairy.
If parents had had a say in that school, we could have voted on many issues. Instead, the religious fanatics are taking control and destroying the secular aspects of my school. So my viewpoint does not favor the left or the right, the secular or the religious, but it gives rights to all parents to make decisions in their children’s education. If public schools don’t agree, they shouldn’t get their funding from my tax dollars.
I’m telling you, education is a mafia, did you know that the president of Florida International University (a public school) makes $680,000 a year? That’s $180,000 more than Obama! And now those bastards have already increased tuition by 60% while closing several useless majors like dance and religion.
The parents need to take control of public schools, they have more common sense than the nazi educators with the masters and phd’s.
posted by Rob on
Hey TS, I disagree with you, in this country your child is your property, you can homeschool him, raise him with any religion, have him join the KKK with you. “Child abuse” refers to a limited category of problems, such as sexual abuse, physical abuse, being in an environment with drugs and alcohol, but it does not refer to “ideological abuse.” This isn’t like Germany where parents who want to homeschool their kids face harassment from the government.
Wrong Bobby. In your country your child isn’t your property like a slave used to be, only a dependency. While I have no issue with homeschooling per se, I do have serious problems when parents force their teenagers in handcuffs to go to some ex-gay camp. Talk about mind fucking. This kind antigay child abuse is one of the reasons why I support child emanicipation and the ability for gay teenagers to legally seize their antigay parent’s assets and propert
posted by Bobby on
“While I have no issue with homeschooling per se, I do have serious problems when parents force their teenagers in handcuffs to go to some ex-gay camp.”
—As horrible as ex-gay camps are, others would make the same argument about bootcamp, scared straight and other programs to discipline unruly children.
“Talk about mind fucking. This kind antigay child abuse is one of the reasons why I support child emanicipation and the ability for gay teenagers to legally seize their antigay parent’s assets and propert”
—You go too far, you want children to bankrupt their parents? To take what they have not created? Any child can seek a lawyer and argue for his emancipation, it’s been done before.
You have too much sympathy towards children without looking at the other side.
Children have been known to lie, blackmail, disrespect their parents, physically abuse their parents, steal from their parents, keep secrets (such as illegal guns or drugs) from their parents.
Parenting itself is a balancing act between providing love without spoiling and freedom without sacrificing discipline and respect. It is not an easy job and we should give parents the benefit of the doubt instead of calling social services just because little Billy got a well-deserved slap in the face after calling his mother a bitch.
Besides, ex-gay camps serve a purpose – they help convince parents that gayness can’t be cured!