Dear Family Resource Council

To: Family Resource Council

From: Mitch Berg

Re:  Get a Grip

To whom it may concern,

You have gone on record against…shall-issue concealed carry laws?

A new piece from the Family Research Council blasts Grover Norquist (President of Americans for Tax Reform; Member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association) for joining the board of GOProud, an organization of conservative gay Republicans. Among the alleged sins on the GOProud agenda :

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)

Have you lost your minds?

For starters – self-defense is a human right, without which the innocent are murdered and society is made even more vulnerable to tyranny.

There are those who make the case that gay marriage is a human right.  I disagree, and so do y’all, but the way to make the case that it is not, is not to undercut other human rights.

And if you want to influence policy, you might want to remember that most of your group’s supporters are also Second Amendment supporters, and shall-issue is one of the most important Second Amendment initiatives there is.

So get right, or get off my side.

That is all.

16 thoughts on “Dear Family Resource Council

  1. Marriage is, has been, and always will be the union of one man and one woman. These people and their fantasy are tiresome.

  2. Well, Kermit, no, it hasn’t always been, and isn’t always. The Bible records many multiple-partner marriages — Jacob had at least four wives, at least two of them sisters. Mormons used to have multiple wives — and still are expected to, in the next world — although only the Jack Mormons practice it now. Many Americans practice a form of polygamy — serial (titular, at least) monogamy.

    That said, Mitch is right. Whether or not you think polygamous or same sex marriage is a good or bad thing, the right of self-defense is far more important, which is why, among other reasons, that the Pink Pistols folks (who, by and large, favor SSM) are treated with respect (and sometimes polite disagreement on that issue) by the larger self-defense rights movement, despite the fact that approval of SSM is definitely a minority position in the self-defense rights movement.

    (Full disclosure: I’m uncomfortable with assertions that SSM is a human right; I’m in favor of allowing it because I think it’s good secular policy. As long as I don’t have to marry a guy; homie don’t swing that way.)

  3. Yes, and David had the husband of a woman he wanted put in the front line of battle so he could be killed. That doesn’t change the point.

    Marriage is a religious institution. If society wants to construct some other framework, fine. Just don’t usurp the title of marriage.

  4. Marriage is a religious institution, for some, sure. It’s also a civil institution — which is why, frex, justices of the peace can do marriages, as well as registered religious folks (like, well, me; I’m ordained, as are so many, but the Universal Life Church, as was my late cat, the Reverend Squish).

    Separating the two functions certainly makes sense to me.

  5. joelr Says: “(Full disclosure: I’m uncomfortable with assertions that SSM is a human right; I’m in favor of allowing it because I think it’s good secular policy. As long as I don’t have to marry a guy; homie don’t swing that way.)”

    Darn that’s rich Joel, THANKS!!

  6. joelr Says:

    June 24th, 2010 at 9:59 am
    Well, Kermit, no, it hasn’t always been, and isn’t always. The Bible records many multiple-partner marriages — Jacob had at least four wives, at least two of them sisters. Mormons used to have multiple wives — and still are expected to, in the next world — although only the Jack Mormons practice it now. Many Americans practice a form of polygamy — serial (titular, at least) monogamy.

    That said, Mitch is right. Whether or not you think polygamous or same sex marriage is a good or bad thing, the right of self-defense is far more important, which is why, among other reasons, that the Pink Pistols folks (who, by and large, favor SSM) are treated with respect (and sometimes polite disagreement on that issue) by the larger self-defense rights movement, despite the fact that approval of SSM is definitely a minority position in the self-defense rights movement.

    (Full disclosure: I’m uncomfortable with assertions that SSM is a human right; I’m in favor of allowing it because I think it’s good secular policy. As long as I don’t have to marry a guy; homie don’t swing that way.)
    _______

    I’m in full agreement with what you wrote Joel, all of it. (well, except that as a woman, I don’t want to marry a woman)

    Nor as a secular country is it appropriate for us rely exclusively on the Bible for definition of marriage.

    Historically, marriage has been about property, and inheritance, alliances, and other civil rather than religious issues. So however much KR would like to redefine it as exclusively a sacrament; it’s not happening – nor should it. Maybe you should go read some more history KR….

  7. I have nothing against gay people, nor do I want to restrict their freedom, but I really don’t why we should enshrine biological failure in our public policy.

    If marriage has a real purpose, and I think it does, we might want to consider what that purpose is and attempt to tailor our policies on marriage to it. Just my two cents.

  8. If you want to afford contracts between people to have more/greater tax benefits, then go for it.

    But the fact remains, whether you are homo or hetro or bi, we all have the same rights.

    Gay marriage/plural marriage is not the answer.

    And don’t make me go all Tina Turner on you.

  9. Actually, Dog, I think you’ll find that contract law has historically been about property, inheritance, alliance, and other civil issues.

    Which makes it a perfect tool for this very issue.

    That said, the issue this post REALLY focuses on is *actual* rights… not the right to redefine marriage. Self defense as a right.

    I think Mitch mentioned it in his post somewhere.

  10. Troy — I agree. That’s why I’m strongly in favor of secular (including legal) recognition of SSM. (I’m not — at all — suggesting that the state ought to mandate religious acceptance of it, anymore than I’d want the state to force, say, the Catholic Church to recognize my marriage. [I don’t know what the current state of Catholic theology is on marriage between two Jews; it’s just not important to me, and I don’t think my rights are affected, either way.])

    It’s not a terribly hot-button issue for me; while I’ve got family in same sex relationships that sure look to me like marriages, it’s not quite my ox being gored. That said, what with quite a few states now recognizing SSM (in one fashion or another), the secular/policy arguments are going to work themselves out, one way or another, probably in less than a generation.

    As to whether or not non-het sexuality is a biological failure, I dunno. Doesn’t seem obvious to me. Then again, if it is, it can (fail to) take care of itself.

    That said, I’m more than comfortable with the notion that those who don’t wish to engage in non-het sex can think — and say — that it’s bad. We’ve got far more pressing issues.

  11. As to whether or not non-het sexuality is a biological failure, I dunno
    Let’s see them naturally conceive another human being. Naturally, not with medical intervention.

  12. Joel, you say you are “strongly in favor” of homo marriage but you failed to substantiate why.

    Badda, spot on. Gay marriage is not the answer. If you want to give extra tax benefits to certain people in a relationship you should change contract/tax laws.

    And no one has been able to refute the fact that whether you are homo or hetro or bi, we all have the same rights. 8)

  13. Joel, you say you are “strongly in favor” of homo marriage but you failed to substantiate why.

    True. Another subject for another day.

  14. KRod,

    I suspect that Joel’s views aren’t terribly out of whack with mine. I see no reason gays shoudn’t be able to enter into a contract with one another. I believe “marriage” is religious, and I think it’s significant that there’s not a single major religion and few if any denominations that I’m aware of that sanction it.

    And if a denomination or religion DOES eventually find some theological grounds to sanction it, I will invoke my right not to worship there…

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.