It is interesting that the RRR has conceded the issues of discrimination in jobs and housing. My Baptist Bible College schoolmate, Jerry Falwell, was recently quoted saying as much and James Dobson may be coming around as he was talking about Hazel Meirs nomination to the Supreme Court and her affirmation to the Dallas Gay Political Caucus that gays should not be discriminated against, said:

"You know what? I do," Dobson said, affirming her response. "I don't believe that homosexuals should be denied a job. I don't believe that they should not be able to buy a house. I don't believe that they should not have the same rights everybody else does. I just don't believe that there should be special rights given to homosexuals that are not given to everybody else." (Focus on the Family Email Newsletter - Citizenlink - 10 October 2005) (emphasis mine)

The RRR will eventually have to concede the marriage issue as the courts rightly interpret the Federal and state laws our Congress and legislatures have passed that say the government may not discriminate against its citizens in the matter of marriage.

We stand fast and face them down.

Jonathan Hutson has made some very good marketing ideas which, to me, sound a lot better than the "fairness" strategy the glbt community has used in losing 22 elections in the last few years.

by JerrySloan on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 07:53:39 PM EST

One of the religious right's successful PR strategies has been to assemble a stable of professionals with impressive-sounding degrees (MD, PhD, etc.) who seem to speak knowledgeably on a range of issues of concern to them - such as ID and SSM. Since it's very difficult for casual observers to evaluate the credibility of their credentials, experience, or information, the naive tend to be impressed and frequently quote them to buttress extreme claims. In reality, these "professionals" are regarded as charlatans and political hacks within their professional communities. Not only are their opinions not mainstream; they frequently "cherry-pick" and distort reasonable studies and site fraudulent or "junk science" data in support of their views.

One such individual is Warren Throckmorton, a PA psychologist, who has waged an aggressive campaign against gays and gay marriage and in support of reparative therapy. In 2003, he was recruited by the theocratic right in Ohio to testify in support of a defense of marriage bill then moving through the House. Members of the state psychological association were concerned lest legislators vote on the basis of disinformation and offered to testify about current mainstream professional views and the peer-reviewed research on which they're based. Although the DOMA bill passed in spite of their efforts, I thought it might be helpful to link to Drs. Jensen and Fradkin's testimony (both 12/3/03 under 125th General Assembly) since it is a reasonable reflection of current professional thinking and, in addition to rebutting Dr. Throgmorton's claims, it presents research that's may be helpful in countering religious right claims. However, as noted up-thread, "just the facts" aren't always persuasive.

In regard to the seemingly successful claim that SSM will destroy straight marriage, it's a bit of a sticky wicket: first, because religious right claims are vague and second, there's been no research on the effects of SSM since it's hardly existed here. However, that hasn't prevented conservatives from going across the pond to find data to support their views. The most "coherent-sounding" argument I've seen in regard to the evil consequences of SSM comes from the political right (and may be used by the religious right to support their claims). Kurtz's Weekly Standard article uses (or misuses) data on gay marriage and registered partnerships in Europe to construct a case that SSM will basically destroy civilization as we know it. Amusingly, the rebuttal in this case comes from the Log Cabin Republicans who link to an important study (pdf) with which you may be familiar by Badgett, an econ professor at U Mass Amherst, that examines the European data and ably challenges Kurtz's conclusions. Recommend reading all these links for the details if you haven't already done so. It should be pointed out that many of Kurtz's claims are based on the common misperception that correlation equals cause and effect.

The Weekly Standard article is also notable for revealing some of the thinking behind the agenda and ways in which religious and political right goals may complement each other. In an aside on general cultural mores and marriage, Kurtz notes that:

In Sweden, as elsewhere, the sixties brought contraception, abortion, and growing individualism. Sex was separated from procreation, reducing the need for "shotgun weddings." These changes, along with the movement of women into the workforce, enabled and encouraged people to marry at later ages. With married couples putting off parenthood, early divorce had fewer consequences for children. That weakened the taboo against divorce. Since young couples were putting off children, the next step was to dispense with marriage and cohabit until children were desired. Americans have lived through this transformation. The Swedes have simply drawn the final conclusion: If we've come so far without marriage, why marry at all? Our love is what matters, not a piece of paper. Why should children change that?

Two things prompted the Swedes to take this extra step--the welfare state and cultural attitudes. No Western economy has a higher percentage of public employees, public expenditures--or higher tax rates--than Sweden. The massive Swedish welfare state has largely displaced the family as provider. By guaranteeing jobs and income to every citizen (even children), the welfare state renders each individual independent. It's easier to divorce your spouse when the state will support you instead.
----------------
There are also cultural-ideological causes of Swedish family decline. Even more than in the United States, radical feminist and socialist ideas pervade the universities and the media. Many Scandinavian social scientists see marriage as a barrier to full equality between the sexes, and would not be sorry to see marriage replaced by unmarried cohabitation. A related cultural-ideological agent of marital decline is secularism. Sweden is probably the most secular country in the world. Secular social scientists (most of them quite radical) have largely replaced clerics as arbiters of public morality. Swedes themselves link the decline of marriage to secularism. And many studies confirm that, throughout the West, religiosity is associated with institutionally strong marriage, while heightened secularism is correlated with a weakening of marriage.

Hmm...not all about sex and the bible, is it? Welfare state, big government, higher taxes - maybe some economic concerns there.  And then there's feminism, gender equality, those uppity, independent women who can walk out - egads, how will male dominionism survive? And what if the US follows Europe's march toward secularism - social scientists deciding what's moral instead of clergy? People might begin to think for themselves. And who would support the mega-churches, the "prosperity gospel" clergy, and the "Christian" empires? Better not let that secular ball roll any further downhill with gay marriage. Keep the women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. And keep everyone in church where they can be told what to think and who to vote for.

Just trying to be realistic, not discouraging, but in thinking about strategies, we'll have to do more than frame. The justice frame makes a  lot of sense to me but how will it play to people who don't give a damn about justice, or any of those evil "secular values." It seems that to be successful we'll have to be aware of some of the self-centered and dysfunctional thinking that underlies their agenda and be able to alleviate the fears of those who feel that the world is spinning out of control and leaving them behind. They would prefer to leave us behind.

by Psyche on Thu Dec 15, 2005 at 12:06:34 AM EST