.png){kind=logo}
January 23, 2012 at 1:01 pm 
Ed Brayton I often disagree with the Alliance Defense Fund, but I’ve also offered occasional praise for their work on religious liberty cases. Sometimes they’re absolutely right, and they do often have excellent attorneys working with them (as does the ACLJ, unfortunately). But ADF’s founder, Alan Sears, is a serious wingnut. Take a look at this interview with him, where he says things like this:
Q: In 2003, you authored The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. Why does this agenda pose such a threat?
A: Because no compromise is possible with the agenda, and those who advocate the agenda want to not only stop all disagreement — they want to punish anyone who does. It’s a form of totalitarianism.
Get that? Advocating laws that throw gay people in jail and denying them equal rights in every conceivable situation, that’s fine; thinking they should be free and equal, that’s a form of totalitarianism. And up is down. And black is white. And we have always been at war with Oceania.
Let’s just think about a couple of specific examples: They want to redefine marriage. Marriage was the first institution, created in the Garden [of Eden]. It predates all human institutions; it’s not something man can define.
Uh, no. There was no garden of Eden and no Adam and Eve. When you build your argument on the basis of childhood fairy tales, you are deservedly laughed at. Marriage, like all other institutions, was invented by human beings.
In different forums they say that no one should be allowed to refuse to marry, so if you’re a clerk in Massachusetts or in New York, where marriage has been redefined by judicial fiat or other action, you’ll lose your job if you refuse to participate in a ceremony.
Notice how he glosses over how same-sex marriage was passed in New York. They rail endlessly about “unelected judges” overturning the “will of the people” as expressed through their elected representatives, but when laws are passed democratically, they ignore that fact. Is there any other circumstance in which a government employee can refuse to provide an entirely legal service to any citizen? Could a clerk refuse to issue marriage licenses to interracial or interreligious couples? Of course not. But since gay people are evil sinners, they don’t have the right to expect the government to treat them equally and Christians should have the right to refuse to treat them equally. I guess that’s what they mean by “special rights,” eh?
Posted in 
No you will lose your job if you refuse to provide a service to those that you are legally obligated to provide said service to.
Way to build that strawman by adding ceremony into the mix.
Oh and one more thing, I’ve said this before but I think it is worth repeating, the Australian Aboriginals have had the concept of marriage in their culture for at least 30,000 years and that is a conservative estimate since their culture is estimated to have existed for 45,000-60,000 years.
So the Aboriginals had traditional marriage before God created the Earth? Maybe God stole the idea from them.
Same thing at the DMV where licenses have been created by other action. Muslims get fired if they refuse to participate in issuing driver’s licenses to women. Clearly, it’s a case of religious persecution.
Now a government worker who has to “sign a form” that only states that everyone is who they say they are and this contract was entered into, not endorsing it or approving it, is now “participating in a ceremony”. what a liar.
I used to think it would be better if the legislatures made gay marriage legal. But a friend of mine pointed out that if they did, then that is the same as people voting on what rights we will “give” people. The truth is, gay people ALREADY have the right to be married, inalienable and intrinsic to them as persons, and our government just refuses to recognize it. In that sense, the fight SHOULD be in the courts. Since any law could be modified or appealed, but a clear message from the supreme court that you cannot prevent adults from entering into contracts* would trump any law or idea.
*consenting, not under duress or trickery, etc.
That is the only interpretation that makes any sense. It is the assumption I make when thinking about and interacting with Fundies and it holds true. They think that gay people deserve fewer rights, therefore asking for the same rights is, to them, the same thing as asking for special rights. And pointing this out to them means you’re a meanie.
But enough about your agenda, Sears, can we talk about Teh Gay Agenda ™ now?
According to my google-fu, they also had polygynous arranged marriages, and a ban on speaking with your mother-in-law. The latter being something many people would support.
http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/socialorganisation.shtml
Not knowing anything about their culture other than my Google U search, I have no idea as to the veracity of the link. The writer used a lot of big words, so they must know what they are talking about.
http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/socialorganisation.shtml
Not knowing anything about their culture other than my Google U search, I have no idea as to the veracity of the link. The writer used a lot of big words, so they must know what they are talking about.
The info looks pretty accurate. Just bear in mind that there wasn’t one Aboriginal culture, but actually hundreds of related cultures spread across an entire continent. Polygnyous marriages and taboos on speaking to your mother in law, for example, would have been found in some tribes but not in others. Although I agree, that taboo should be more widely adopted.
Ed:
-Even if we can make the leap of faith that there’s any truth to the garden of eden, or adam and eve, they weren’t married!
I know there are believers who argue that god married them, but that’s not included in the bible.
Also, even if we can work past the idea that somehow Adam and Eve populated the planet, but only had 2 sons for children…even if we could do that (and my brain is about to explode at this point even trying), there sure would have been a lot of inbreeding and interfamily marriage! So what kind of traditional marriage is this guy talking about?
peicurmudgeon:
-I just clicked the link out of curiosity and though I found a lot of information presented, I found no links provided to verify the claims made. I saw no original source materials listed. As such, I take their claims with a grain of salt (where did that phrase come from?).
So Sears is saying that Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve is stare decisis. I did not know that. Does that mean the Levitical laws are all still in force?
Tony @10 says:
Well, there was no preacher, so god was going to preside over the ceremony, but he wanted to give away the bride. Then the snake started hitting on Eve, and everything got out of control, so the couple just ran away together. Anyways, ya-da ya-da ya-da, not there’s over 6 billion of us. Questions?
Following on with the Eden-was-real thread, we can ask
1. Were banns posted properly? (I assume Eden didn’t allow same-day marriage.)
2. Who were the best man and the maid of honor?
3. Was God properly ordained, and if so who ordained Him? And did he get ordained on his first attempt, or did he have to appeal being turned down because ordaining a divine being had never been done before?
4. You have to say `Under the laws of…’ when pronouncing them married. What laws did God reference, and who made them?
5. [Most important] Who caught the bride’s bouquet?
On the subject of who A+E’s sons married, I have always liked the line from `Inherit The Wind’ where the Darrow character asks the same question and then says `Or was there a separate creation over in the next county?’
For those of you interested the wiki article on Australian Aboriginal Kinship has some reference material listed at the bottom you could start there. It is actually quite a complex system.
How would this douche feel if an atheist gov worker refused to give a christian couple a marriage license? He wouldn’t get the parallel.
@brocasbrain
He wouldn’t understand that it would be legal for a gov’t to actually hire an atheist in the first place.