Tony Perkins and FRC need to just go away.
Wednesday, November 7th, 2007Tony Perkins and the FRC have a problem with Homosexuals. Apparently, Tony Perkins cannot live a moral life if homosexuals are treated as people, just like everybody else. There is no other reason I can think of that he is so opposed to two amendments to HR 3685. In his recent press release he states:
House Amendment #1 to H.R. 3685 by Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-Calif.) will grant special rights to transgendered people. House Amendment #7 to H.R. 3685, offered by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), is a very limited amendment that purports to protect religious institutions but, in fact, denies protection to most Christian schools and other private groups and businesses.
Tammy Baldwin is not from California (she is from Wisconsin), so someone needs to do some fact checking for Mr. Perkins. Congresswoman Baldwin’s amendment (pdf) does not give “special rights” to anybody. It understands the fact that people who are born with one gender but identify with another gender should be protected when they seek to live their lives as a member of the gender they identify with. Even conservative Louisiana, the state that has banned marriage and civil unions for homosexual couples, allows people to be issued a new birth certificate if they have gender reassignment. I wonder if Mr. Perkins feels that this hurts his family as well.
George Miller’s statement on the bill seems to contradict Tony Perkins as well. According to the statement, the bill exempts religious organizations. So any religious organization that Tony Perkins belongs to will be free to discriminate against all the gay people they want. He need not worry that gay people will infiltrate his little cabal and destroy the hatred that he holds dear.
What ever happned to “hate the sin, love the sinner”?
Let’s see where else Tony Perkins is absolutely wrong.
If this legislation passes, it will mainstream homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism
It will do no such thing. No more people will be gay, bisexual, or transgendered if the law gets passed. The majority of people will be heterosexual and no law can change that.
and provide activists a legal tool for punishing employers who do not approve of these lifestyles
No it doesn’t. An employer need not approve of “these lifestyles” to follow the law. Period.
They will either accommodate these sexual behaviors or face the full weight of federal civil rights enforcement.
Wrong. If they would be required to accommodate those sexual behaviors, they would be required to allow them to commit sexual acts in the workplace. They are clearly not required to do so.
This legislation essentially seeks to silence those with religious beliefs, either through legislation or the lawsuits this bill will create and encourage.
Again, Tony Perkins is incorrect. People with religious beliefs are still free to follow them, whatever they are. And if Mr. Perkin’s religious beliefs tells him to hate gay people he is more than welcome to do so. Preventing businesses from discriminating against gay people would not prevent people from speaking out against homosexuals if they so desired. If it did, the law would be unconstitutional.
Perkins completes his release with: “Thank you and God bless you.”. I guess he should add “unless you are gay”.
As a side note, this post has prompted me to start a new category: “What is wrong with America” to point out the things that are, well, wrong with America. I may go back and update other posts with this tag, but I will hope to make frequent updates to this category. But first and foremost, Tony Perkins absolutely represents what is wrong with America.
Update #1: The bill passed the house. Here is the bill text. The bill does not require quotas and the bill protects religious institutions (even schools that are Christian but non-affiliated). So in those areas, Tony Perkins was dead wrong. Unfortunately, the bill did not include Tammy Baldwin’s amendment. She withdrew it because she felt it would cause the bill to not pass. I don’t quite understand that logic, but it is rather unfortunate if true. I guess Republicans could have voted to pass the amendment to get enough Democrats to vote against the bill as a whole. However, I just don’t think that Republicans would risk having a yes vote on this issue listed on their record.
