Hate Groups: The Post Clouds the Issue

The Washington Post this morning published a piece that misrepresents the concept of hate and the categorization of several anti-gay groups as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The piece opens with the statement:

In the debates over gay marriage, "hate" is the ultimate conversation-stopper. In the gay marriage debate, stop playing the hate card

and then goes on to list three stories of educators or students who took an anti-gay stance and received negative feedback for it. One person was dismissed from his job and reinstated, one was "denounced," and one group was "marginalized" by the college. Woo, those anti-gays sure have it tough.

Then the writer, Matthew J. Franck, comes to his bread-and-butter paragraph:

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-respected civil rights organization, publishes a "report" identifying a dozen or so "anti-gay hate groups," some for no apparent reason other than their vocal opposition to same-sex marriage. Other marriage advocacy groups are put on a watch list.

The SPLC has made it very clear, over and over, that nobody was put on their list because of their opposition to same-sex marriage. From the introduction to the report:

Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.

Lies and groundless name-calling. Not "vocal opposition to same-sex marriage."

A little farther down in the Post piece, the author says this:

The SPLC's report on "hate groups" gives the game away. It notes that no group is listed merely for "viewing homosexuality as unbiblical." But when describing standard expressions of Christian teaching, that we must love the sinner while hating the sin, the SPLC treats them as "kinder, gentler language" that only covers up unreasoning hatred for gay people. Christians are free to hold their "biblical" views, you see, but we know that opposition to gay marriage cannot have any basis in reason. Although protected by the Constitution, these religious views must be sequestered from the public square, where reason, as distinguished from faith, must prevail.

Marginalize, privatize, anathematize: These are the successive goals of gay-marriage advocates when it comes to their opponents.

Let's be clear. I have heard Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council speak many times, I have appeared opposite him on television, I have sat in meetings with him, and here is his message: gay people are promiscuous, perverted, disease-carrying pedophiles who want to recruit our children into their lifestyle. He expresses this opinion behind a well-constructed curtain of researchy-sounding terminology, his sentences are well formed, his vocabulary sophisticated, he tends to smile when he speaks and I have never seen him raise his voice. His is the face of hate that the SPLC observed.

We first met Peter Sprigg when he spoke out against a sex-ed curriculum that would introduce the topic of sexual orientation, and he said nothing about marriage equality -- I don't know if I have ever actually seen him address that particular issue. I'm sure he opposes gay people marrying, but that's not what makes him a hater. The truth is, he opposes everything about gay people. He has assembled all the arguments he can find to support the most disgusting stereotype of gay people, and he travels around the country persuading ignorant people that the stereotype is accurate. He spoke in our county (read the transcript HERE), the topic was "myths about homosexuality" and every point he made supported the idea that the nastiest, most hateful stereotype of gay people is absolutely true. And he did not once mention gay people wanting to marry. The SPLC's classification is not based on any group's opinion of marriage equality.

Franck has changed the subject from the classification of certain groups as hate groups to an analysis of the debate for and against gay people marrying. It's kind of fascinating to see how he is going to try to elicit sympathy for the haters, the reader is supposed to agree that they have been wrongfully vilified simply for having traditional Christian beliefs:

First, ignore the arguments of traditional marriage's defenders, that marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that children will have mothers and fathers, and that same-sex marriage is not an expansion but a dismantling of the institution. Instead, assert that no rational arguments along these lines even exist and so no refutation is necessary, and insinuate that those who merely want to defend marriage are "anti-gay thugs" or "theocrats" or "Taliban," as some critics have said.

Second, drive the wedge between faith and reason, chasing traditional religious arguments on marriage and morality underground, as private forms of irrationality.

Finally, decree the victory of the new public morality - here the judges have their role in the liberal strategy - and read the opponents of the new dispensation out of polite society, as the crazed bigots of our day.

First, those arguments against marriage equality do not deserve countering; there is no way in the world that gay people marrying will damage the marriages of straight people or the institution of traditional marriage. It's not that you have to "ignore" the argument or call anyone names over it, it just doesn't make sense.

BTW, I followed his links. The phrase "anti-gay thugs" is used by a commenter in the first article. The commenter then goes on to say, "Personally I think we should have a 'gay gas' that can transform straights into gays. Then we should drop a 'gay bomb' on America and let things develop." So, you have a ... strange person writing that comment, I can't tell how much of it is satire but there is no sign that the author of the article agrees with any of it. The article itself looks at the link between the GOP and an anti-gay group in Arizona, and is pretty good.

The word "theocrat" is used one time in the article The Post says calls people who oppose marriage equality that, even though the site is called "Theocracy Watch." The word is used in a link and not in the text. Also, there is no use of "theocracy," "theocratic," or any other form. The article does not call people who oppose marriage equality "theocrats," Franck is simply hoping you won't do what I did, and follow the link.

And the third link is a post by Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, author of American Taliban, talking about the similarities between the rabid religious right in our country and the Taliban. There is a quoted comment that mentions same-sex marriage, but Kos never says anything about it. He certainly is not saying that everyone who opposes marriage equality is like the Taliban. Post editors should have clicked on the links before they allowed this piece of propaganda to go out to the public.

As for his second point, that opposition to marriage equality is seen as irrational, if some religious group chose not to allow marriage between individuals of the same sex, nobody would care. It is not a question of the irrationality of the belief, it is a question of trying to get people who are not members of that religious faith to abide by their system of taboos. Some religious groups don't eat ham, which I think is delicious; I don't care if they eat it or not, it's their business. I do not judge whether the belief is rational or irrational. I would care very much though if they tried to make it illegal for me to eat ham. And that is exactly what the Christian right is doing to gay people, making it illegal to marry the person they love whether you are a member of their church or not.

His final point, about the "new public morality," might have a kernel of truth to it. There is a new public morality. Gay people have done a really good job of opening up to the world and letting the rest of us see that they are just people, not so different from us. Fifty years ago they had to be secretive about their orientation, and now most people understand the simple fact that some people are attracted to people of their own sex. It's not a big deal, it turns out, it doesn't hurt anything if some people are gay or lesbian, but not many years ago it was a secretive, mysterious thing that most straight people knew nothing about. Now, people who continue to propagate to the old-fashioned stereotypes in spite of obvious truth are, indeed, viewed as the "crazed bigots of our day." Because that's what they are.

This article presents a false idea and then argues against it. Franck alleges that the SPLC classified some groups as hate groups because they oppose same-sex marriage, and that is simply not true. If his premise had been correct, then the article might have been worth reading, I would agree that holding an opinion and hating are two different things, and that it would not be nice to classify someone as a hater just because they don't think gay people should marry. But that isn't what the SPLC said.

I'm sorry to see The Post headed this way. This piece does not clarify any issue but only confuses readers who might not be following the culture wars as closely as we are. The SPLC had very good reasons for designating those anti-gay organizations as hate groups.