Here are your answers/rebuttals: Six Big Lies

[Sapphocrat]

Six Big Lies

Bookmark it. Please. Use it. Please.

I just can't stand seeing everybody have to type it all out, over and over and over again, so here you go -- the complete answers to the Six Big(gest) Lies, myths, and other propaganda about marriage equality, spread by the gay-haters during the Prop H8 campaign -- which, apparently, have seeped into the consciousness of many LGBT supporters, who seem truly confused.

The article is Prop H8-specific (particularly Big Lie #1), but the bulk of it is applicable to all discussions of marriage equality; the lies -- and the rebuttals -- never change from campaign to campaign, year to year, or decade to decade.

Completely busted (with many quotes and supporting links:

1. Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are okay. ... Therefore, if the definition of marriage is changed, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between any two adults. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.

2. Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.

3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

4. Religions that sponsor private schools and which provide housing for married students will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine, or lose tax exemptions and benefits.

5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for hate speech and could be fined by the government. It has already happened in Canada, one of six countries that have legalized gay marriage.

6. It will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits. Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees.

You have my permission to copy and paste as much of the article you want, as long as you include a link to the original piece -- it took me a long time to write it.

[TriMera]

1. Bookmarked. Thank you, Sapphocrat. n/t

[PoliticAverse]

2. Concerning # 2.

Although a religious organization can't be forced to perform a marriage in some states they can be sued for not renting their
facilities for a same-sex marriage if such facilities are rented to the public.

Such a case happened in New Jersey. See:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

[Sapphocrat]

3. Did you read the article? n/t

[PoliticAverse]

4. Yes...

Including the part where you wrote:

"Let’s get the obvious out of the way first: It’s highly unlikely that a same-sex couple would want
to get married in a facility owned by an organization hostile to equal rights"

As it actually happened it's certainly not 'highly unlikely'.

You might want to update #2 pointing out that this doesn't apply to facilities rented to the general public since
in your article you have this as a hypothetical and it is no longer.

[Sapphocrat]

5. OK, just wanted to know before continuing, so I know where to start.

I know more than I even care to about the Ocean Grove Methodist case -- I'm sick of it, actually, since that case has been thrown in my face every time I've gone head-to-head with the gay-haters (same story with the Arizona-photographer case).

The Ocean Grove case is unique and, IMO, not applicable. It was pretty difficult to define the boardwalk pavilion (where the couple wanted to get CU'd) as a religious facility; in fact, it is technically part of a "public thoroughfare," deemed "open space" by at least one state official -- and was receiving a tax exemption (via New Jersey's "Green Acres" program) in exchange for offering privately-owned land to the general public for recreational use -- and had received taxpayer money for the maintenance/repair of the boardwalk and pavilion.

What's more, O.G. first received its tax exemption in a court ruling around the turn of the last century, because the O.G. org itself had dedicated the land as a "public highway."

That's a lot different from, say, a banquet hall on church grounds, or even within the confines of a private retreat.

In the end, as I'm sure you know, Ocean Grove, quite rightly, lost its tax exemption in 2007.

AFAIK, Ocean Grove is still free to discriminate -- it simply can no longer reap the undeserved rewards of free taxpayer dollars for doing so.

What's really weird about Ocean Grove: LGBT groups have been welcomed there in the past for all sorts of events -- which would lead any reasonable observer to believe Ocean Grove was gay-welcoming.*** I guess somebody just got their panties in a wad over a civil union.

And if that somebody had just relaxed and welcomed the lesbian couple, nobody would have noticed or cared, and Ocean Grove would still be nursing off the public teat.

Yes, I suppose I should have added all this to my "Six Big Lies" article. I didn't include it originally because the nuts and bolts of the O.G. case are so far afield of the issue of churches being "forced" to accommodate same-sex couples.

But then, I shouldn't assume the general public will go and do the research -- or even listen past the main talking points -- should I? :)


*** One Dem congressperson (Palone? Pallone?) said that by taking public money, O.G. was saying to the world that it was open to (all of) the public.

[NMMNG]

7. The problem with the RRRW bigots

is they want special rights (you know, those things they always accuse us of demanding). They want to take taxpayer money, but still be allowed to discriminate against anybody they want, including the people whose tax money they're using. They want to be protected by the law (such as anti-discrimination laws, the 1st Ammendment, etc) yet be above the law (free to discriminate against anybody they want, be allowed to deny religious freedom to others, etc). They're hypocrites of the highest order.

[Sentath]

10. Ah ( :

Thank you for the detailed version.

[Creideiki]

8. It's highly unlikely that someone will go to the moon this year

Yet it's happened before, so we can't rule out the chance.

It's highly unlikely that both the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers will have historic floods in the same year, but it's happening now, so we can't rule out the chance.

It's highly unlikely that a horse will win the Triple Crown this year. Yet it's happened before, so we can't rule out the chance.

Personally, I like to know who the hateful people are, so I know to stay away from them.

[Lil Missy]

6. bookmarked

[cate94]

9. bookmarked

and thank you.

[Pacifist Patriot]

11. Thank you!

My July sermon is on marriage equality and this will be a wonderful resource.

[Zorra]

12. Thanks

for saving my brain.

Really great work.

I was totally unaware of LavenderLiberal until just recently, hope to see its resurrection if that is what you plan for the future, you'll have my support.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Thanks for your hard work!

It is much appreciated!

[joeybee12]

14. Actually, I hope #6 is true...i hope it does cost them money...I hope

it bankrupts them.