Threats and Intimidation

I'm sure you've all heard about the deep-seated anxiety on the anti-gay right about the potential -- that's "potential" mind you -- threats and intimidation from "militant gay activists" if, for example, they publicly list their donors, or if their "expert" witnesses appear to testify at trial, or if their supporters put campaign signs in their yards. In that light, I found this interesting -- from NYT:

As in past years, the local religious opposition to same-sex marriage will have the support of a Washington-based national political lobby, the National Organization for Marriage, which formed in 2007 to fight same-sex legislation around the country. That organization was behind the April 12 blitz of automated phone calls singling out voters in about a dozen Senate and Assembly districts where legislators have said they are undecided. Brian Brown, the group’s president, said the calls urged voters to tell lawmakers they opposed same-sex marriage.

“We spent over half a million dollars in New York” in 2009, he said, “and we’re ready to spend that and more this time. We are willing to spend a million against any Republican senator who votes for gay marriage.”

Sure sounds like a threat to me. (And that money's from secret donors.) And from an out-of-state organization seeking to interfere in the politics of New York. And Brian Brown, being the well-spoken, civilized person he is, is bragging about it.

Actually, he's starting to sound a little shrill.

The religious leaders in this effort are making arguments -- well, the Times calls them arguments -- that just don't hold water:

They make a two-tiered argument. First, they cite biblical injunctions against homosexuality.

Umm -- have they read the First Amendment? The part about establishment of religion? That objection's completely irrelevant. And to those who say we have to understand their deeply-held convictions, try this: point out to them that those convictions are theirs, not anyone else's, and they don't belong in the civil law. In fact, they're not allowed in the civil law.

Second, they warn that social services, like foster care and adoption, provided by religiously sponsored charities could be endangered by the legalization of same-sex marriage. They point to Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., where Catholic Charities stopped participating in adoption services rather than face a mandate to place children in homes without regard to the sexual orientation of the couple.

Sounds like another threat, to me. And they don't mention, for some reason, that other agencies were very happy to take up the slack -- and the taxpayer funds that went with it. In Illinois, religiously-affiliated adoption agencies are being audited to make sure they're complying with anti-discrimination laws, and they're not happy about it. Why do you suppose they think that they shouldn't have to obey the law just like the rest of us? Now, it would be perfectly allowable if Catholic Charities wanted to support adoption services that discriminate on the basis of Catholic doctrine -- with their own money. But not with mine. Another bit from the article on that score:

But State Senator Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat who has co-sponsored the same-sex marriage bill in past years, said civil liability for violating discrimination laws was already a fact of life.

And this, from Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin:

And to the Catholic Church in Illinois, I say:

I support you.

I totally agree that if Catholic girls wish to give their children up for adoption and want them to go to Catholic families and be raised in the Catholic faith, then Catholic organizations should be able to facilitate such adoptions. With Catholic dollars.

Read Kincaid's post. It's a good one. (Sounds like something I'd write.)

I find it highly instructive of the nature of modern Christianity -- and Judaism, or at least segments of both groups -- that they are so insistent on maintaining their ability to preach marginalization and exclusion against those they disapprove of -- and to insist that the rest of us allow their biases to form the basis of our law. And pay for it.

And here's the howler of the day:

The Rev. William Gillison, vice chairman of the Empire Missionary Baptist Convention, which represents several hundred Baptist churches around the state, said he had preached against legalizing same-sex marriage many times at his church in Buffalo, and would again. “This is a case where the state has entered an area that rightfully belongs to the church, not the other way around,” he said. (Emphasis added)

Um, no. Marriage has always been a civil contract. That's why we call it "civil marriage." It doesn't belong to the church and never has.

I find the assumption on the part of these people that the laws of the land that apply to everyone must conform with their limited and authoritarian world view to be fairly repellent. It's time the rest of us pointed out that their authority is limited to those who choose to permit it. I'm not one of them.