Family Research Council: Marriage Is Defenseless Against Homosexuals

I’m real salty today because my baseball team lost a big game last night. I completely recognize how insignificant that really is and I’m still fucking pissed. So fuck everyone and everything that gets in my way today (and maybe tomorrow). This includes FRC because they had the misfortune of being one of the first things I saw this morning. GRRRRR!

Shut. The Fuck. Up.

OK so let’s go through this. Join me for a nose bleed, won't you?  

0:12 Federal Judge (himself a homosexual) Declares the U.S. Constitution guarantees right to homosexual marriage.

a)      It is irrelevant what Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s sexuality is. If it were a legitimate concern, using the FRC’s (and others) logic, then whenever a church/state case came up all religious judges would have to recuse themselves.

b)      The statement and idea that Judge Reinhardt declared “the U.S. Constitution guarantees right to homosexual marriage,” is misleading. Reinhardt ruling he stated:

 “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples,”

This is an important distinction. Homophobic Christian theocrats are fond of saying (as they do later in this video) that recognizing same-sex marriage is a “special right.” As usual they are either blind or bullshitting. It is not granting a special right to cease hindering the rights of others when the right in question is enjoyed by others. In other words, it is not recognizing same-sex marriage so much as it is ensuring everyone is granted equal rights under the law. It’s called the 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution motherfuckers. Look it up.

Another important point in the ruling overturning Proposition 8 is the following:

Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Case No. C 09-2292 VRW (2010).

FF#19 Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter.

Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize

marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil

marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently

whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that

recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship

under state law.

  

a. Tr 195:13-196:21 (Cott: “[C]ivil law has always been

supreme in defining and regulating marriage. * * *

[Religious practices and ceremonies] have no particular

bearing on the validity of marriages. Any clerics,

ministers, rabbis, et cetera, that were accustomed to

* * * performing marriages, only do so because the state

has given them authority to do that.”);

b. Cal Fam Code §§ 400, 420.

This means that religious concepts of marriage and their ignorant, archaic beliefs are irrelevant in the eyes of the government. It cannot recognize them or it crosses the 1st Amendment line. Period.

0:26 U.S. Defense Department Announced that military chaplains will be permitted to perform homosexual weddings.

Notice the word “permitted” and not “forced.” Big difference.

0:32 Tony Perkins: “For nearly a generation we've neglected marriage leaving it nearly defenseless to homosexual activists who are now trying to redefine marriage out of existence.”

Complete fabrication. How does recognizing the rights of others amount to “redefining marriage out of existence”? It doesn’t. This is a red herring and an appeal to emotion, namely fear. I'm not even sure what to say about this it is so misrepresentative. If gays get married, marriage will still exist. Even the straight kind, just as god intended!

0:42 Tony Perkins cont: “Same-Sex marriage: it contradicts god’s will as revealed in the creative word.”

Prove it. Regardless, that is your god. Try as you might, others do not have to recognize your god or the backwards and immoral rules of your religions. I know Perkins and his ilk do not recognize the 1^st Amendment except in some warped sense, but they do not get to inflict their religion on anyone.

0:47 “Violating god’s law only brings pain and heartache. Right is called wrong. Good is called evil.”

You’re god is an asshole. I think that is more of a reflection of you then the other way around.

0:56 “It is because we have yielded moral authority to the demands of special interests or the ruling of some aberrant judge. As a result, all of society suffers.”

Again, those are your morals. I reject your morals and you have no authority. You are the special interests demanding special treatment to inflict your religion on society. How exactly does society suffer because of same-sex marriage? Explain that. Quantify it. You cannot. Society would suffer if you had free reign. Society would suffer if you had the power to do as you wish in the name of your pathetic deity. Actually, I think society suffers because of you, your religion, and the hate and discrimination you peddle. You are a bigot, a coward, and a charlatan.

1:08 “The mother-father parenting arraignment is the one most conducive to the well-being of children; which is the key to a healthy and prosperous society.”

Again, prove it. Your brothers in bigoted arms Focus on the Family got their asses handed to them when trying to argue this point. You have shit.

1:22 And here we have a touching story about how the good Christian family has been exposed to the knowledge that gay people exist and raise families <gasp!>  by a horrible secular school probably run by Satan.

1:51 just listen to this line spoken by a Christian parent. Join me in weeping over the irony, friends.

2:09 The top comment on this video is so good: “the tears of the bully, nothing is so pure.” I mean really…

The rest of the video is just a call to “vote your values, your biblical values,” so they can take hold of the government and instill their religious values.*

So that’s it. I listened to that multiple times to transcribe sections of it and I think I’m ok.   

Video via On Knees For Jesus

*What would happen if FRC and those like them gained control of the U.S. government? Well, might I interest you in some articles on Dominionism?