Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Politics

Why opposing the gay lobby is not anti-gay

Mar. 24, 2012 9:35am
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is founder and president of the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage Education Fund.
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is founder and president of the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage Education Fund.
[ x ]
ruthinfor@ruthinstitute.org
Author's Website

Earlier this month the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation’s (GLAAD) “Commentator Accountability Project” included me on their list of people who deserve special scrutiny before they can be engaged as commentators on the marriage debate. But it is organizations like GLAAD that need to be held accountable for the impact of their rhetoric on the public debate.

According to the GLAAD website, I have held myself out as someone who purports to be an “expert on the lives of LGBT people.” Evidently (and unbeknownst to me) I have devoted my career “making life more difficult for LGBT people.” Although these extreme statements have since been scrubbed from the site, the organization continues to claim that “Bias is Not Balance.” The undeniable implication is that my views are baseless. GLAAD’s systematic policy of slapping negative labels on their opponents without actually engaging them in debate reduces the quality of discourse in the public square.

Out of the hundreds of thousands of words I have spoken or written, GLAAD found a grand total of four quotes as evidence of my supposed “extreme animus towards the entire LGBT community.”  One of these is that I say redefining marriage will marginalize fathers from the family, because fathers will be considered inessential. GLAAD acts as if this were self-evident evidence of anti-gay bias.

This is very peculiar, as the claim that redefining marriage will marginalize fathers from the family is not a statement about the behavior, character or motives of same sex attracted people, male or female.  It is simply my forecast of one consequence of redefining marriage. I believe it with all my heart, and have said so on numerous occasions, citing a variety of reasons and evidence. I am not the slightest bit ashamed of this forecast.

My training is in economics. Economists examine how changes in public policies alter people’s incentives, and hence their behavior. So it is natural for me to ask, What will happen if we remove the gender requirement from marriage? I wonder what society will look like after 30 years of agents of the state making statements like this one from the Iowa Supreme Court: “The traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.”

You may disagree with me about how likely it is that making marriage a genderless social institution will marginalize fathers from the family. Or you may disagree with my assessment of the harm it would do. But you cannot deny that this is a serious question about the possible impact of changing the law and culture of marriage.

Evidently GLAAD believes that raising legitimate questions about the group’s preferred policies automatically makes a person “anti-gay.”  But surely one can disagree with policies advocated by the National Education Association without hating every teacher in America, just as one can surely oppose policies advocated by the NAACP without being a racist.

Redefining marriage raises questions that deserve to be fully aired. Trying to discredit skeptics changes the subject. Equating all disagreement with evidence of bias lowers the intellectual level of the discussion. These rhetorical tactics do not do the gay lobby any credit. In fact, responsible people of all parties should shun these strategies and make room for honest debate on this momentous question of changing the fundamental structure of our most important social institution.

 

Comments (10)

  • AmericanValues
    Posted on November 24, 2012 at 11:29pm

    Watch this moving testament to marriage and family by the young man who was raised by two mothers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q Then think about the claims above.

    Report this comment

    AmericanValues  
  • Truth not Spin
    Posted on March 26, 2012 at 1:51pm

    Looks like they upped Jen’s entries over at GLAAD. Keep talking Mrs. Morse.

    Report this comment

    Truth not Spin  
  • Truth not Spin
    Posted on March 26, 2012 at 12:50pm

    So Jen Ro Mo,

    Your economic training qualifies you to make these statements (directly from CAP)

    Says that “the parallels” between Nazi Germany and contemporary America “are really quite chilling” and what happened in Nazi Germany “is happening to us.” (0:18-0:35)

    - Claims that if marriage equality becomes legal, “Fathers will be marginalized. They will be considered non-essential.”

    - Despite polls that prove otherwise, says Catholics don’t really “accept the category of gayness.” (0:38-0:45)

    - Says being gay is a “completely shameless activity.” (0:20-0:27)

    I didn’t realize comparing gays to Nazis was a valid economic theory.

    Report this comment

    Truth not Spin  
    • Good As You
      Posted on March 26, 2012 at 4:36pm

      MORE from Roback Morse’s CAP profile:

      - Has called marriage equality for same-sex couples “a hostile takeover of the whole civil society” (9:35-9:44)

      - Claims “everybody who reads Genesis, everybody — Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Mormon — everybody who reads Genesis supported Prop 8″ (1:35-1:52)

      - Says the gay rights movement is “anti-human” and that “the job that religion does in most people’s lives, they are filling it up with Earth worship” (1:47-2:14)

      - Has referred to same-sex marriage advocates as “enemies of the human body”

      - Has made clumsy historical comparisons, positioning children of gay couples as victims of a “gross injustice”: “When slavery was abolished, all slaves became free men and women. When women obtained the right to vote, the discrimination ended with the very next election. But for children of same sex marriage, the situation will be different. When we come to our senses 30 years from now and realize that we have perpetrated a grotesque injustice, not a single child born fatherless or motherless within a same sex marriage will get his missing parent back. Only prevention will protect children’s rights. The thin disguise of marriage equality will not mislead anyone, nor will it atone for the wrong this day done”

      - Said that prior to Prop 8, she was the “typical, clueless Anglo-Catholic Californian thinking that Mexicans were all busboys or gardeners or whatever” (2nd clip, :57-1:08)
      http://www.glaad.org/cap/jenn

      Report this comment

      Good As You  
    • ratio_enough
      Posted on March 28, 2012 at 1:29pm

      Thanks for not interacting with her argument at all. None of what you have there responds to her claim that GLAAD’s intent is to stifle discourse in the public square.

      Report this comment

      ratio_enough  
    • sbenard
      Posted on April 9, 2012 at 1:36am

      The quote you cited didn’t compare gays to Nazis. You are perfect proof of the points she made in her article! Thanks for putting a highlighter under her comments!

      Report this comment

      sbenard  
  • Jason1111
    Posted on March 24, 2012 at 10:28pm

    When two women claim they are capable of having the same relationship as a man and woman do, the implication is that every man’s contribution to relationships, marriage, and family is replaceable and unnecessary. And two men claiming their relationship is just as much a relationship or marriage as a heterosexual committed relationship implicitly dismisses any contribution of every woman, thus also claiming women are inconsequential to relationships, marriage, and family. This is REAL (gender) discrimination. Also, comparing same sex parenting to single parents is extremely faulty, because (1.) people don’t typically get divorced on purpose and (2.) there is always a chance that an opposite sex parent can come into the mix and help raise the child. With same sex parenting, the child for the lifetime of the relationship and BY DESIGN is always deprived of either a mother or a father. It takes more than just two people loving each other to give the best environment and outcome for a child. Men and women are complimentary opposites psychologically, and parenting is not about what the parents want or about using children as “equality” trophies for a group of people’s particular private bedroom habit, but about what children ultimately need.

    Report this comment

    Jason1111  
  • Jason1111
    Posted on March 24, 2012 at 7:50pm

    GLAAD really stands for “Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against DISAGREEMENT

    Report this comment

    Jason1111  
  • Native54
    Posted on March 24, 2012 at 6:46pm

    Excellent commentary Dr. Morse … I find it appalling the some would use this thuggish and intimidating tactic to try and silence opposition.

    In fact today I’ve had many of posts speaking to the health risks of homosexuality and the infringement of free speech by activists like GLAAd removed from the Raleigh News and Observer comment thread supporting the NC Marriage Amendment being voted on, on May 8th.

    So don’t tell me that same-sex marriage will not infringe on the freedom of speech of their opposition.

    I can respect the humanity of a person without being forced to validate, sanction and endorse their sexual predilections, and behaviors. While I feel compassion for people caught up in this compulsion, and understand their desire for societal acceptance, and stamp of approval. Some compulsive behaviors are unhealthy, lead to a shortened life span, and therefore should not be encouraged.

    Should government endorse a behavior that is harmful to those practicing it, and in a larger context to society? And embrace and teach such an unhealthy behavior in the public schools as something to be emulated and experimented with by our children? And especially one that is not immutable, which race most certainly is. Equating the behavior of homosexuality with an immutable characteristic such a race is certainly insulting to a multitude of people of color. And if the LGBTQ community looses that comparison to race by the public, then they’re whole premise will be lost.

    Report this comment

    Native54  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love