More Crap From the “Family” Groups

For those who believe these people are about freedom, think again. See this media release from GOProud:

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, GOProud, the only national organization of gay conservatives and their allies, responded to attacks from the anti-gay Family Research Council (click here and here). “Over the last week, the Family Research Council has shown its true colors – attacking GOProud for working with the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America to protect 2nd Amendment rights, attacking GOProud for supporting cutting taxes on American families, and for supporting the free market healthcare reform proposal offered by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK),” said Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director. “These attacks make it clear the Family Research Council doesn’t care one iota about the conservative agenda.”

I’m not speaking of individual conservative Christians. I know many, and they believe in small government and individual freedom. They understand what free will means. But the groups that claim to speak for them have become bastions of big government, and now are criticizing our promotion of the Second Amendment as a right of all Americans, no matter what their color, creed or persuasion:

Equalize “concealed carry reciprocity” amendment with gay rights via state rights. Support guns being carried and recognized across state lines, in order to further the agenda that gay marriages legal in only a few states be recognized legally in all. (July 2009)

Get that? National reciprocity is part of a homosexual conspiracy to get gay marriage legalized. Please don’t anyone tell Rep. Metcalfe that!

11 thoughts on “More Crap From the “Family” Groups”

  1. I think FRC is way too concerned about teh gheys, but it’s a bit of a stretch to say that they were attacking reciprocity. From what I could tell, they were quoting a Politico article, and by so doing were illustrating GOProud’s tendency to see everything in gay-only terms. Reciprocity was just one of many items in the block quote.

    Personally, I find FRC less offensive than those like Tom Campbell or Richard Posner, who claim to be from the “libertarian wing” of the GOP while supporting gun control.

    Typically, they subtly slip in gun control as one of their issues in the hopes that you won’t notice. For instance, they might say, “We represent a more libertarian wing of the GOP that puts its emphasis on fiscal conservatism, while remaining more open to non-traditional GOP positions like abortion rights, gay rights, and gun control.” Nothing says “open” or “libertarian” like Brady II’s proposal to send ATF agents on random house searches for violations of gun laws, after all.

    At least FRC doesn’t lie and call itself libertarian.

    1. Except the link they used in regard to carry was to HuffPo, not Politico. And it says nothing about only seeing things “in gay-only terms,” but addresses a very real situation that happened to a gay man where the right to defend himself with a pistol happened to save not only his life, but that of a companion.

      But, I am curious about this “gay-only terms” argument you have, Ken. Is NRA bad for framing issues only how they apply to gun owners? Or what about the NAACP for focusing on how policies will impact African Americans? How about FRC for framing things only as they apply to Christian families? Every interest group focuses on how legislation impacts them, and nothing in GOProud’s statements or writings in any way diminish the benefits that conservative policies will have on heterosexual folks.

  2. I say: let the gays marry only if they promise to mentor a few kids from low-income single-family homes. The vast majority of violent criminals in this country are young men with no father figure, who either don’t graduate high school or get pushed through the system.

    Helping 1 or 2 or kids per year would more than offset any theoretical societal damage, and would help repair the damage to families caused by divorce and birth-out-of-wedlock. A man who gets mentored and isn’t a worthless criminal is much more likely to have a stable relationship and marriage than the worthless criminal.

  3. What is the difference in allowing a gay couple to marry vs a heterosexual couple who are either or both atheists, previously divorced, or not fertile or never get pregnant? Other than one is currently allowed and the other isn’t.

    I have yet to see any argument against gay marriage that addresses that question. Either of the first two conditions are religious/social-based restrictions, and the last knocks out the “for the children” argument.

    Nor is the “look at what happens in San Fransisco” a good argument. Yeah, it is out in the street scaring the horses. But it is completely orthogonal to whether people should be allowed to marry. In fact, if you are for the family and monogamy as morality – why *stop* a couple from marrying? They’re still going to “shack up”, as it were…

  4. Oh, I see, they changed the URL instead. Interesting that their “correction” is in fact, factually wrong. (Claire represents Missouri, not Mississippi.)

    And now they claim they do more for gun rights than NRA? What the hell? What are they smoking over at FRC to think for one second that the claim can possibly stand up to scrutiny.

  5. Great post Bitter.

    Personally I reject the FRC as they represent a significant part of the social conservative/neocon trend that has marginalized conservative and libertarian thought in the last thirty years. It’s one thing the Tea Party has done right – keep divisive social and religious issues off the platform. Barry Goldwater was right!

    Did it surprise anyone that George Rekers, one of the three FRC founders and a self-proclaimed expert in ‘treating’ homosexuals was revealed as a hypocrite earlier his year when returning from Europe with his rent boy? I think some of the animus of these anti-gay groups comes from self-loathing.

  6. Personally, I LIKE the idea of tying national reciprocity together with gay marriage. Both can be seen as full faith and credit clause issues, and opposition (from either side) could be used to slam folks.

    Of course, I’ve been told I have a twisted viewpoint…

Comments are closed.