While many people take for granted the fact that it is dangerous to use articles of faith [...]]]> Some things are so stupid they’re hard to think about.  I mean that literally.  See, Nick Rizzuto has written a column for conservatives called, “Time for a Separation of Science and State.”  He really has.  He starts off with:

While many people take for granted the fact that it is dangerous to use articles of faith as the basis for public policy, we often fail to realize that science too represents an extremely dodgy justification for law.

He supports this by saying,

Arguably, scientific fact changes more rapidly than religious dogma.

Now, I would rephrase that as:  Science corrects its errors more rapidly than religious dogma. But Nick continues:

What was undeniable truth one day might be discovered to be quackery the next. The most glaring example of this in the 20th century is the science of eugenics.

Eugenics is a discredited theory about racial and genetic purity.  Nick claims it led to the Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924.  This horrendous law permitted forced sterilization and banned interracial marriage.  All because of science, he alleges.  Never mind the that Virginia passed its first ban on interracial marriage in 1691, long before eugenics.  Never mind that that in 1959, the last time interracial bans were upheld, the judge supported them on religious grounds.   Nope.  It’s all science’s fault

Nick’s really taking a shot in the global warming debate, of course.  Since he can’t deny the scientific consensus, he’s trying to argue we should ignore it.  Bizarrely, he reasons that because scientists are capable of admitting they’re wrong, we shouldn’t pay attention to them when we make policy decisions.

Once again, we are beset by a group of people who are insisting that the science is settled and unquestionable. Policy, they argue, must reflect this absolute truth. The problem with this is that the very idea of unquestionable science makes it no different than faith. Any scientist will tell you that the only way scientific progress even occurs is if science is constantly and rigorously questioned.

Well, he does sort of have a point.  Scientists don’t deal in certainty, and generally won’t say they’re 100% of anything.  Nick recognizes that.  Surely, then, his advice would be to dismiss the idea that we can achieve certainty in worldly matters, to operate as best we can within the limits of our knowledge, and to adjust our policies as our understanding of the world improves.  In other words, to be more genuinely scientific.

Did I fool you?  Ha!  Here’s the last sentence of his article

It’s time to take science out of the realm of politics and return it to its rightful place.

Wow.  He’s not just dismissing the policy implications of global warming.  He’s dismissing the policy implications of…science.  He’s not merely saying we should remember that scientific findings can change – he wants us to take science out of the realm of politics.  What kind of world would that be?  Consider a few very real-life possibilities:

• Let’s bring back cholera! Englishman John Snow invented the science of epidemiology when he traced an outbreak of cholera to a tainted water pump.  He convinced local officials to disable the pump and stopped a potential epidemic.  Nick Rizzuto  would have discarded this policy suggestion as worthless because physicians of the day thought cholera was the fault of “bad air.”  And if science changes then we shouldn’t base policy on it, right?
• Let’s fight wars with rocks! A strong defense is central to conservatism, but who needs science when debating defense policy?  Who needs radar and satellites and flying machines?  Who needs to think about science when researching new defense technology?  Let’s go back to the pre-science weapons: rocks and sticks.
• Let’s starve! The Dustbowl years of American agriculture –

No, I can’t go on.  Really, it hurts too much to deal with so much stupid.  I could explore his notion of returning science “to its rightful place,” whatever unspecified place that is (apparently an objective, questioning view of the real world has no rightful place in political decisions) but why bother?  Because he’s not really making an argument.  You know what he’s doing?

He’s inventing a talking point.  Yes, a talking point, a pet phrase, a new bit of jargon: “separation of science and state.”

As a sound bite, it’s a nice attack on the separation-of-church-and-state idea.  First, it sneaks in an implicit but unproven equivalency between science and religion (even though, as he’s admitted, science is much quicker at updating and correcting itself).  And on top of that, it opens the door to making religion into law:  If we don’t separate science and state, why should we separate church and state?

I come back to this theme over and over, but it seems like the Right is offering up another thought experiment to see if it takes hold.  An experiment in the politics of sound bites.  And do you know how we can be sure that Nick Rizzuto isn’t making a serious argument?  Because he never answers a basic question:  If we take science out of policy-making, then on what basis do we make policy?

Nick may have an answer.  But if so, he’s not willing to say it.

This is Mecklenberg County Commissioner Bill James.  During a a debate on whether to offer domestic partner benefits to county employees Commissioner Vilma Leake spoke of her son, who died of AIDS in [...]]]> Opponents of marriage equality love to position themselves as defenders of morality.  Why, then, are their actions so often despicable?

This is Mecklenberg County Commissioner Bill James.  During a a debate on whether to offer domestic partner benefits to county employees Commissioner Vilma Leake spoke of her son, who died of AIDS in 1993.  Bill’s response to this tragic, personal story was to lean over to her and say,

So he was a homo?  Really?

Having displayed his Christian virtues of kindness and compassion, Bill might have stopped there.  But no.  The next morning, he lied about the incident on radio station WBT. He told radio host Keith Larson he was simply asking Vilma for clarification, and claimed:

Before I could get completely through it, she reacted and made some sort of comment to the effect that somebody needed to hurt me.

Ah, so he didn’t mean to say “homo.”  She cut him off!  It was all Vilma’s fault! Except at this point the host played the clip of Bill saying,

So he was a homo?  Really?

Bill’s first response was to say, “What the heck was that?” And when the host told him exactly what the heck it was, Bill paused long and hard before answering, “If you say so.”

Next, caught in a clear and stark lie, Bill changed tactics and said he didn’t know “homo” was a derogatory term.  And since then, he’s gone on a two-prong attack. He’s called Vilma a hypocrite, because decades ago she married a clergyman in a church that opposed homosexuality.   And he’s shocked – shocked! – that this woman has threatened him with violence (actually, she said, “You’re going to make me hurt you.  Don’t do that to me.  Don’t talk about my son.”).

Let’s recap Bill’s strategy in the civil equality debate:

1. Degrade
2. Lie
3. Attack

Even if Bill genuinely didn’t know “homo” was derogatory, it’s still true that his first defense was to lie about saying it.  We see this constantly from anti-equality forces: they toss out deceit after deceit, and see which ones they can get away with.  Meanwhile, we spend the bulk of our time on the defensive, debunking their falsehoods even though the news cycle has moved on to the next deception, leaving the truth unheard.

The pattern is clear:  Our opponents abandon their moral principles in the course of their moral crusade.  Either they know they’re doing this, and it’s a failure of character, or they suffer a kind of unreasoning moral blindness when it comes to homosexuality.  That’s the mark of homophobia — which they claim doesn’t exist.  Even as they prove themselves wrong, again and again.

PS:  Bill James made one comment on WBT that hasn’t gotten much attention:

If she’s going to use her dead son’s tragic death as justification for allowing the behavior to go on – you know, more of that behavior to go on – I don’t think that she’s honoring her son’s memory.

“Allowing the behavior to go on.”  Let that sink in and give you a chill.

Who can take this seriously? No one who has a close gay relative, neighbor, friend, or colleague. All we have to do to win is live outside the closet.

Studies show that straights who know gays are far more likely to support equality. Our opponents have never [...]]]> This is why we’ll win:

Who can take this seriously? No one who has a close gay relative, neighbor, friend, or colleague. All we have to do to win is live outside the closet.

Studies show that straights who know gays are far more likely to support equality. Our opponents have never come to grips with this. If we were such villains, you’d expect those who know us the best to fight us the hardest. But it ain’t so. Our enemies rely on ignorance, and we have the power to destroy that ignorance. You’ll never change Pat Robertson’s mind by casually mentioning your weekend plans with your partner. But you might change that undecided middle-of-the-roader in your carpool.

The next step in our battle will be to talk to EVERYONE we know about marriage equality. This video is my first stab at developing a set of answers to our opponents’ objections. I hope it can help prepare people and give [...]]]> So we lost the CA Supreme Court fight.  Boo hoo.  We’ll win the war.

The next step in our battle will be to talk to EVERYONE we know about marriage equality. This video is my first stab at developing a set of answers to our opponents’ objections. I hope it can help prepare people and give them confidence for those one-to-one conversations that will win us equality.

Download a text compilation of these points. Also, a list of the source videos after the jump.

You’ll have to cut and paste these links into your browser — I’m crazy busy getting ready for the AIDS LifeCycle bike ride from San Francisco to LA, and don’t have time to make it pretty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw7YoXXxRj4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTiTYRvaloQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EczIRpJkVZM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM2MNdIGT7g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNdaAyQp_Og

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4A1tH5MbMU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUskV1RxRfA

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905120037

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKoqpV2L9_4

http://glaadblog.org/2009/05/13/bill-oreillys-evolution-marriage-equality-thing-will-lead-to-unions-with-a-goat-duck-turtle-dolphin/

(And in case you’re convinced by Kirk and his friend, check out check it out.

I just want the right to marry a man.

Not a dog — no one has that right.

Not a child — no [...]]]> I have a new argument in mind when someone claims, “If you legalize gay marriage, you’ll have to let people marry their dog or a child or their sister or a whole group of people.”

I just want the right to marry a man.

Not a dog — no one has that right.

Not a child — no one has that right

Not a close relative or a whole group of people — no one has that right.

I just want the right to marry a man — and half the population already has that right. I just want to extend it to the entire population. So that men and women are equal under the law. That’s completely different from those other examples.

I like this because I can say it quickly and because it gets to a key indisputable distinguishing fact: No one can marry a dog, but some people can already marry a man.

I’ve written about slippery slope arguments before, but I’m always looking for rebuttals and that are simple and short. We have to remember that many undecided voters simply don’t care much about marriage equality, don’t think about it all that much, and will cast their ballot based on sound bites.

I can be long-winded, so I’ll never lack for lengthy arguments. My personal challenge is to be brief. In fact, based on what I wrote above, I could shorten it to:

No one can marry a dog, but some people can already marry a man. This just gives men and women the same rights.

On the other hand repetition does help drive a point home. Gut reactions, anyone?
I’ll be out canvassing for marriage equality today, and if I have a chance to use this, I’ll let you know how it goes

Congress will soon vote on H.R. 1913, which adds “sexual orientation” to existing hate crime legislation. Naturally, the religious right — and TVC in particular — is fighting it with lies. They claim:

H.R. 1913 broadly defines “intimidation,” thus a pastor’s sermon could be considered “hate [...]]]> Don’t believe anything you hear from the Traditional Values Coalition.

Congress will soon vote on H.R. 1913, which adds “sexual orientation” to existing hate crime legislation. Naturally, the religious right — and TVC in particular — is fighting it with lies. They claim:

H.R. 1913 broadly defines “intimidation,” thus a pastor’s sermon could be considered “hate speech” under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any “sexual orientation.” The pastor could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime.”

One problem. The word “intimidation” doesn’t appear in the bill. Anywhere. And this is such an easy lie to catch — so easy I have to wonder if they’ve actually deluded themselves into believing it. As if they have a psychological disorder that clouds their thinking about homosexuality. Hmm, what could we call that?
The right’s primary tactic against H.R. 1913 is to claim it will:

Criminalize so-called “hate speech,” which is any speech that is critical of homosexuality or gender confused behaviors. The suppression of free speech will be justified by the claim that such speech “incites” individuals to commit violence against LGBT persons.

They’re basing this on an exchange between U.S. Representatives Louie Gohmert and Artur Davis:

Mr. Gohmert: [If] somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?
Mr. Davis. No.

Which leads TVC to assert:

Ultimately, a pastor’s sermon concerning religious beliefs and teachings on homosexuality and gender confused behaviors could be considered to cause violence and will be punished or at least investigated.

Let’s leave TVC’s fantasy world behind and deal with facts:

FACT: “Hate speech” appears nowhere in the bill.
A hate crime is when someone:

willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person.

Bodily harm. Fire, guns, and bombs.

FACT: If a criminal says someone incited him to violence, the authorities have a duty to investigate.
That’s true whether it’s a hate crime or not. Remember Gohmert’s hypothetical: “[the]minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit [violence].”
Here’s a hypothetical of my own, based on Gohmert’s: Suppose a minister says, “Leviticus 20:13 tells us homosexuals shall surely be put to death. Now go kill the faggot running the soup kitchen next door!” TVC is outraged — outraged! — that the minister could be investigated (merely investigated!) if someone ran the faggot over with his car and pinned a note, “Leviticus 20:13” to his body.

FACT: H.R. 1913 has First Amendment protections built in.
It states:

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

FACT: H.R. 1913 amends existing law to extend protections already established for hate crimes based on religion.
Right-wing Christians claim to be victims of hate speech these days — and yet they don’t bring charges in the U.S., even though they’ve been protected by federal hate crime law for forty years. Why? Because hateful speech isn’t illegal.
Their own actions — or lack of action — show they’re just fearmongering when they claim the law will criminalize speech. They’re also hypocritical in denouncing protections offered to gays and lesbians without acknowledging that they themselves already have them.

But we have to do more than counter their lies with the truth. When confronted with this campaign of deceit, point out that our extremist opponents can’t mount an argument without dishonesty and hypocrisy. When you see this from a religious group trying to claim the moral high ground, you know you’re not dealing with devout believers trying to protect our culture, but troubled souls working out their own personal demons.