Kris Mineau, president of the Mass. Family Institute, says he wants to ratchet down the “tone and rhetoric” and “raise the quality of the dialogue” on the marriage issue.
Sounds like a good idea — and we at BMG, of course, are all about civil dialogue. So, Mr. Mineau, we ask you to renounce the following hateful, disrespectful, non-civil remarks of VoteOnMarriage.org’s Chairman, Roberto S. Miranda. These are all taken from Dr. Miranda’s “Master Plan: Purpose – A Strategic Plan for the Church in Massachusetts.” (HT to Laurel for digging this thing out.)
It is no coincidence, of course, that something as dramatically distant from the Christian worldview as gay marriage would be originated in this region [Massachusetts]. Heaven and hell are dramatically at war in this region. Satan has staged a spectacular first attack, and the Church’s reaction remains to be seen…. The acceptance and celebration of gay marriage has such revolutionary implications for the human psyche, that it makes possible and even natural the contemplation of practically every other moral perversion. We must draw the line here.
And again:
Is it exaggerated to see prophetic significance in the fact that on September 11, 2001 Boston served as the point of departure for the deadly forces that spread so much destruction and havoc in this nation and all over the world? What took place at the material level is now being carried out at the moral and spiritual level, as the virus of homosexuality and gay marriage begins to spread dramatically all over this nation and perhaps the world.
Hmm. Gay marriage represents Satan’s first strike. Gay marriage leads to every other moral perversion. Gay marriage linked to 9/11. Gay marriage equals virus.
Oh, and here’s a good one, from Dr. Miranda’s “Liberty Sunday” presentation:
The homosexual movement is propelled by a powerful, aggressive instinct. The legitimacy and privileges it craves will not come without great cost to the moral and social system within which it seeks insert itself. Like a rogue foreign cell inside an organism it will continue to replicate itself and eventually wreck havoc within its overall structure
Again with the virus thing.
What do you say, Mr. Mineau? Will you renounce that kind of garbage? Or are you just asking the pro-marriage forces to unilaterally disarm while you keep trying to round up votes in the legislature?
We anxiously await your reply. Because we really would like to have a civil and respectful dialogue on this subject. But surely you can understand that such dialogue is difficult when the leader of the organization seeking to put the anti-marriage amendment on the ballot holds views like those. If we knew that there were prominent voices on your side who squarely rejected and condemned such rhetoric, we might have a useful starting point. Will you be such a voice?
You are cordially invited to post here on BMG anytime.
about the “tone” in Washington while saying a vote for Democrats is a vote for terrorists.
<
p>
Or maybe I’m thinking of Ari Fleischer counseling critics to “watch what they say” while Ann Coulter recommends blowing up the New York Times, threatening liberals and killing Supreme Court Justices.
<
p>
When the Right starts asking for a more civil tone, it’s best to keep your hand on your wallet.
<
p>
Oh, and what “tone” on the pro-equality side is Mineau complaining about?
And it made him sad.
<
p>
So it all evens out, you see?
The first step is to deal with the quality of the thinking of the opposition if these excerpts are any indication. The superstitious ignorance displayed in these comments is so profound that I have grave doubts regarding the viability of any lucid dialogue whatsoever let alone dialogue of “quality.”
<
p>
This is the crux of the opposition’s arguments on same-sex marriage?
<
p>
I’m all set then. I have my handbasket and a new map of Planar Earth, stamped and certified as scientifically accurate by the Kansas State Department of Education. I should have no problem navigating my way to hell.
Is there any reason not to respond to a request for civil dialogue made by someone who, from what I have seen, has always been civil in his dialogue with…civil dialogue?
<
p>
If so, I suggest the following be posed to Kris Mineau:
<
p>
“Kris, as I understand it, MFI’s objection to same-sex marriage is based on Christian scriptural teachings. I also understand that in the Christian scriptures, in his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul criticized the church in Corinth because some of the members of that church were engaging in acts of sexual immorality. But, at the same time, Paul said, regarding the sexual behavior of non-believers, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?” (I Corinthians 5:12)
<
p>
“Kris, isn’t Paul making my point? Isn’t he saying that Christian moral standard should be applied to Christian believers but that Christians shouldn’t try to impose their beliefs on those who aren’t Christians? Why is MFI judging those ‘outside the church’? What business is it of yours?”
<
p>
Just a thought.
that my post was not civil toward Mr. Mineau? If so, in what respect?
with civil rhetoric to K. Mineau. ANd a mighty fine example it is!
Although I’m sure PP will clue him in on this invitation to dialogue you’ve posted here David, maybe you should send him an e-vite. That way he can’t later say, gosh, I just didn;t know you all wanted to talk!
ALL of the anti-gay marriage groups in this state started life as anti-gay rights groups. They all share similar funding. A quick browse thrugh MFi’s “Hot Links” section shows pointers to books like “A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality” One link removed (through the “Journal of Human Sexuality”) takes you to links to “Homosexuality and the Nazi Party.” they seem to have removed some of the links to the “homosexual death style,” but you get the idea.
<
p>
Even worse than MFI is MassResistance (http://massresistanc…). They had a falling out with MFI over approach, but their missions are very similar.
<
p>
Here’s part of a MassResistance post on the ConCon:
<
p>
The homosexual activists outside on the street had apparently been given orders to tone down their thuggish behavior, after reports and videos of their behavior in November. They were fewer in number and relatively subdued. Inside (in the Gardner Auditorium) after their defeat, they sang defiant songs including “We Shall Overcome” — still trying to make us believe this is a matter of civil rights, rather than the normalization of perversion.
<
p>
Like Peter Porcupine, all the groups advocate for “no special rights” for homosexuals. The whining about “level of discourse” is just a silencing tactic.
As I said before, one of the biggest problems in dealing with the extremists is that not ONE public person, not ONE part of the MSM will tell the truth–these people are mentally impaired. This is not a level playing ground, and I really resent people who think it is.
<
p>
This is the playing field:
On the one hand: Citizens of Massachusetts who want the same rights as everyone else.
<
p>
On the other: Crazy cult members who think they should be able to restrict other people’s rights.
<
p>
You CANNOT deal logically with these people, because they’re not living in the reality-based community. We have the bloody Taliban in this country, and not ONE leader has the cojones to say that, to come out and say that the United States does not discriminate. Period. End of story.
<
p>
Joe Scarborough was discussing the alleged liberal bias of the news with several people, one of whom was a kool-aid drinking neocon, who kept insisting that the “other side” should be allowed to have a say when news stories appear to be slanted. One of the so-called liberals pointed out that news, frequently, agrees with the left.
<
p>
That is the impossibility of this discourse. The facts are that those who are against equal marriage are prejudiced–they may not think so, but at the risk of eliciting that same-sperm discussion–they are. The bigotry hides behind fear, tradition, religion, whatever. But it’s there. And we have upheld, time and time again, that the United States does not legalize discrimination. It’s so frustrating to have to fight this one more time. Doesn’t anyone learn from history?
<
p>
This is kind of like the “process” discussion. We can invite them to discourse, but if we keep talking to them as if they were sane, we’re not going to get anywhere.
But “fair and balanced” is rarely seen or heard in MSM or in politics. I mean, what’s the point of treating bigots as if they’re as important as true American patriots who believe in equal rights? Bigots have a total right to their opinion, but since the fairness doctrine was terminated, they are treated as if their opinions are facts. Why–because they quote the Bible? Last time I checked the Bible wasn’t the Encyclopedia Britannica–it’s a collection of parables mixed with fuzzy facts that’s supposed to help you live in a civil society. That worked out great, huh.
<
p>
If you can get one of the wingnuts to have a civil discourse without resorting to quoting from the Bible or making up some inflammatory lie about people they hate and are scared of, then by all means, I’m interested. But since i’m guessing that 99% of them won’t admit that the Bible isn’t fact and that their lies are lies, how is this going to happen? You ever try suggesting to a True Believer that his beliefs are just beliefs? That other people have beliefs that are just as valid?
<
p>
Until the religious nuts accept that they are just one voice–and a voice based on a belief system, not facts or legally recognized foundations of American democracy–it’s gonna be hard to have civil discourse.
<
p>
Maybe if we all clap our hands and truly believe . . .
Why, yes – I talk to Progressives, Democrats and Greens all the time.
<
p>
They rarely return the favor, preferring to rely on hyped-up stereotypes tp support thier existing point of view to conversations with actual conservatives.
<
p>
Did you know that 40% of the people voted in Mass. voted for Bush in 2004? If we split our electoral college votes like Maine, instad of our winner-take-all system, he would ahve gotten Three of them, cast in the Mass. House chamber. We are not talking about red-meat radicals far away in Topeka, or vile people like Mr. Dobson. We’re talking about 3 of the 10 people in line next to you in Stop and Shop.
Bush won just under 37% of the vote in Massachusetts. You’re giving him an extra 85,000+ votes he didn’t get.
<
p>
The funny thing about those Bush voters, though, is that they just can’t bring themselves to identify with the Republican party. Curious, that.
…but if it’s only 3, the point is still the same.
<
p>
I agree, Sco – but much of that has to do with what I call on my own blog ‘Adventures in the Alternative Universe’. I’ve been able to meet and talk with Elizabeth Dole, Mike Huckabee (don’t say ‘who’, he’s probably the next Vice President), Ken Mehlman, Kay Granger, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, Bush 41 and 43, Bill Frist – all in or around Boston – and NONE of it is on the news. Imagine Clinton, Clinton, Dean, etc. – with no news coverage. Right now, we have 7 candidates running for State Party chair – and have held two public forums for the candidates. I keep challanging Mr. Bernstein on the Phoenix to name three of the seven – so far, no luck. But he had ALL the details of the NEW HAMPSHIRE State chair race!
<
p>
Pleople think there IS no Republican Party in Mass. That’s why they ‘hesitate’ to align with us, even though they agree with us.
People know there’s Republican party in this state. They just don’t think it reflects their values or beliefs.
<
p>
Like it or not, the party in this state has gone from “fiscal conservative, social moderate” (aka “small-l libertarian”) to the party of “whatever the hell it is Mitt stands for.” Let’s call it the party of fiscal opportunism and social intolerance (aka “I got mine”), but it’s nothing Goldwater would recognize.
<
p>
There’s certainly no place for gay people in it, conservative or not.
…the person of whom you speak, but the few gay republicans I have met are fully aware of the fact that the tenor of the republican party in this state has become, thanks to Mr. Romney, decidedly anti-gay, if even only in terms of popular perception, and they are not the least bit happy about it and feeling less welcome because of it. Romney stuck it to gay republicans but good, and they know it. I am personally aquainted with two gay republicans who refused to vote because they could not in good conscience vote for Healey after she refused to distance herself from Romney.
lol.
<
p>
Yes, some of us can be just as obnoxious as the Kool-Aid crowd. Difference is, of course–when it comes to equal rights, anyway–we’re correct.
this debate is taking place. You have a few options here. You can decide that its not a discussion worth having and sit it out. You can also make broad, dismissive generalizations about 99% of the kool-aid drinking Taliban wingnuts who don’t agree with you and in doing so bypass any real discussion on the issues. Or, you can tackle it head on, raise your level of discourse, and beat them with better logic and better arguments.
<
p>
I highly encourage you to take the third option. If Socrates had decided that the Sophists were just a much crazies and decided to either dismiss them or get out of the philosophy business altogether we wouldn’t have Plato or Aristotle. I think its pretty clear that the better option (for society, not for his own hemlock drinking self) was to do what he did, and show that truth is not subjective. He single handedly put the Sophists out of business by taking his arguments to the people and showing them that he was right and his logic was better. You can do that too, if you want to.
that the real audience for any real debate wouldn’t be the MFI/VOM peole, it would be the electorate that is still undecided on or largely ignorant of what’s happening. That to me makes the discussion worthwhile, if not always pleasant because our “partners” in it are MFI/VOM people. It is sometimes hard to believe, but there are many in the general population who have not given 1 minutes thought to the issues raised by stripping civil rights from a minority via a plebiscite. This plea from Mineau may or may not led to anything real in terms of dialogue between the pro- and con-equality camps, but it did provide us with a great opportunity to throw up clear evidence that the “polite” folks at MFI/VOM are anything but. Their own words prove it.
I needed to vent, but of course the only way of getting this done in the reality that exists now is trying to convince not the crazies, but the average person.
I responded to your suggestion that I “drop the marriage angle” in my campaign against genetic engineering.
<
p>
You seemed to agree with me that a person should only have a right to conceive with someone of the other sex. Perhaps you’d like to continue our civil discussion at that old thread.
<
p>
Remember, the reason I am here at BMG pursuing this is because I think people that support equal benefits and protections for same-sex couples have a lot more to gain right now than they have to lose by pursuing the compromise. Married same-sex couples in Massachusetts are not recognized by their own country’s government, and most other states. That is like not being married at all, really. I think BMGers ought to be smart enough to look at the issue and see the light. The only thing they would lose is the right to combine gametes and the official name of the union. Unofficially, they could still call it marriage, we all could still call it marriage, and it would have all of the benefits and protections of marriage, but would technically be a civil union. Why are those two things more important to you than federal recognition and 50 state wide civil unions?
mis-typed my href. our conversation is here.
Even though you admitted
you never call for the replacement of hetero marriages with diminished civil unions. You only attack same-gender marriages. This makes your approach hypocritical, at best. Some would say bigoted. You’re on your own.
Banning genetic engineering would not affect a man and a woman’s right to conceive together. It would ban them from genetically modifying their gametes or embryo, but it would not affect their right to combine their own gametes together. On the other hand, banning GE would completely eliminate any possibility for a same-sex couple to conceive, or rather, it would prohibit same-sex couples – and only same-sex couples – from conceiving.
<
p>
But allowing same-sex conception will open the door to genetic engineering for every conception. It will pretty much force heterosexual couples to use genetic engineering rather than having “an ugly, stupid kid.” But they won’t want to use donor gametes, so they’ll be happy to use genetic engineering instead to just “improve” their own genes. This is why GE will be mainly used by heterosexuals, and I’m just as against it for heterosexuals. So my approach is not in the least bit bigoted or hypocritical. GE should be outlawed for everyone, and that means only natural conception is left – male-female natural meiosis, like you might remember from biology class. Or was biology too bigoted for you to remember?
See, I am the one supporting same-sex couples, not you. I don’t “attack” the couples, the only thing I want to change about their marriages is to take away their right to join their gametes, which you claim to agree with me about. (Or don’t you?) It would mean turning their marriages into civil unions, in order to not change marriage and protect everyone’s right to conceive with their spouse, but that can hardly be called an attack.
<
p>
I am the one with a real proposal to give real same-sex couples federal recognition now, when they need it. You don’t care about them, these couples might not be alive in ten years or whenever you hope the federal government will recognize same-sex marriages. I guess equal rights aren’t as important to you as you claim. My plan would also make it possible for states to enact civil unions even if they have passed amendments recently, because they would not grant “the rights of marriage”, so they wouldn’t be prohibited by most of those laws that I have seen. You don’t care about same-sex couples in other states, you don’t care that Massachusets same-sex marriages give the couple no security, since either one can simply move away to become unmarried. I think you “attack” these couples more than I do, you actually harm them in real ways, I only want to take away a right to do something none of them supposedly want to do anyway.
<
p>
Me: positive practical gains for real same-sex couples.
you: ideolgical stubbornness and the right to do genetic engineering that you don’t even advocate.
someone actually thought this comment was “worthless?”
<
p>
But no comments yet. I wonder if they in favor of genetic engineering? Or against giving the benefits and protections of marriage to same-sex couples?
We live in Taxachusetts where all our Congressmen are pointy headed, one Senator is a traitorous drunk and the other is an elitist traitor. They only say things for partisan gain or to help out their Hollywood or professorial friends. We watch movies by that extremist Michael Moore. We read moonbat blogs. We are eager to surrender to Islamofascists. We don’t care about families. We shirk responsibility for pleaseure at every possibility.
<
p>
In that rhetorical context we Liberals are supposed to be — what? — civil? We’re supposed say, “Oh no, my dear Conservative friend, I see your point but we are not that traitorous.”
is that some sort of briar patch thing?
should show their penises to their little boys in the shower.
<
p>
What are we supposed to say? “Not that there’s anything wrong with that?”
<
p>
You know, after Republicans got decimated in last year’s elections, I must have heard twenty times from national journalists how personally weird and abnormal the Republican House leadership was. They all said, everybody knew it was true; we just didn’t want to tell you.
<
p>
Same thing here. These people are freaks. I guarantee, nobody dedicates their lives to attacking gay people unless he’s done some diddling he’s ashamed of.
Although I would in my own mind think that entertaining a debate on the subject of my rights is akin to having to justify them, I think I would still like to see this debate take place. Mark my words, if the two sides get together it will not be to try resolve differences. It will be to publicly outargue the other side, and in doing so prove the validity of your point. If no other good was to come of a public dialog, at least we will have a chance to ask the tough questions we want answers to in front of those who might hear our point.
CS Lewis said it all http://en.wikipedia….
They want, as the post said, to impose unilateral disarmament on the other side.
it was just a joke anyway, sillies.
and related comments.
<
p>
is the current pro-amendment camp homogenous, meaning are they of one mind? because only if they are NOT, maybe some form of dialogue with them might be strategically useful. my gut reaction is to lean toward not spending time/energy/resources to “engage” with the organized opposition to marriage equality unless there is a stratregic value likely to come out of it.
<
p>
the above post’s hateful garbage spewed by VoteOnMarriage.org’s Chairman, Roberto S. Miranda must be publicly renounced by Kris Mineau, president of the Mass. Family Institute, if Mineau’s interest in “civil dialogue” is to be taken seriously and sincerely.
Polarization is a key element of political strategy. The choice of issues can determine the lines along which the polarization will take place.
<
p>
The objective is to lead with issues and themes that will cause a majority to agree with us. Such as, keeping government out of marriage, keeping families safe from fanatics, etc.
<
p>
In this context, the purpose of MFI’s “civility” offensive is to make the character of the marriage advocates themselves into the issue, perhaps even provoking more intemperate responses along the lines of Isaacson’s unfortunate “process liberal” epithet.
<
p>
David’s response–to make the character of the creeps the issue–is both obvious and correct, but doing so will require exceptional message discipline and savvy.
AnnEM wrote:
<
p>
is the current pro-amendment camp homogenous, meaning are they of one mind
<
p>
Ethan Jacobs at Bay Windows has written a number of articles documenting the relations between the anti-gay marriage groups in this state. They all share board members or funding. All of the organizations’ leaders self-identify as Republicans.
<
p>
Differences are almost entirely of degree. MassResistance is the more radical of the groups. They oppose the amendment because it allows existing marriages to stand. I’m not sure how active Mass. Citizens for Marriage is these days, but they’re the ones who used to fly planes with banners saying things like “END GAY MARRIAGE — FIRE JUDGE MARSHALL THIS MONTH.” MFI’s stands have been well represented here.
<
p>
MFI has publicly distanced themselves from MassResistance in an effort to appear more mainstream, but they all stand together at the State House.
Actually, maybe back in 1975 there might have been something to debate. There were questions about the origins of homosexuality. Was it an illness? Was it a choice? Was it amenable to therapy?
<
p>
Many years later, scientific consensus has been established that it is not an illness, it is not a choice, and therapy hardly ever changes sexual orientation. In 1975, one might have asked whether equal rights for homosexuals was equivalent to equal rights for alcoholics. In 2006, the question is just plain absurd. It is on that basis that courts have made so many decisions favorable to gay plaintiffs. The law hasn’t changed; the science has.
<
p>
Similarly, though, racial and gender discrimination were based to a degree on prejudices that wormed their way into science. We’ve come to see, for example, that race is largely a social and not a biological construct. Anyone who has read Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel would be very reluctant to say anything different.
<
p>
There is only a debate for those odd portions of our population on whom science — never mind empirical evidence — is wasted. Oddly, blue states, like Massachusetts, are great for holding heterosexual marriages together. In recent surveys, one finds the rate of divorce higher in those red patches where the regressive fear of homosexuality holds sway.
<
p>
Question: do we hold civil debates with the Flat Earth Society?
All the anti-gay marriage groups claim that homosexuality is “curable.” They trot out discredited doctors like Paul Cameron to back them up.
If homosexuality were a curable condition, then it would make perfect sense not to encourage it by allowing same sex marriage. To the wingnuts, this quackery is essential quackery otherwise their world view is in some trouble.
<
p>
But it’s also okay to refuse civil discourse, and instead let the honest emotion pour forth, to say “I am ANGRY that you are saying this horrible things, you SOBs.”
<
p>
You need both types of people to expedite victory.
<
p>
Support for gay marriage has grown in MA, yes? That means some folks have switched to “our” side. Imagine a kindly older lady who started as 70-30 in her mind against gay marriage when SJC decided, but now maybe she’s 70-30 in favor.
<
p>
Why’d she change her mind?
<
p>
Presumably a mix of seeing very fired-up people fighting for their rights, and cool heads calmly refuting attacks in the form of “kids need a mother and father”, calmly pointing out that since gay marriages began, “nothing bad has happened to MA society”, etc.
<
p>
Causes need hot emotion and cool reason, no?
<
p>
2. Did you actually read all of Guns, Germs, and Zzzzzzzz……? Kudos!
should be for our reasons and on our terms, with an eye towards strategy.
<
p>
There’s no ethical obligation to engage our opponents on their terms.
They’ve been discredited. The point I’m making is that some opponents should simply be discredited; some debated. One of the problems on the global warming issue is that the “debates” have legitimated a dangerous point of view.
<
p>
There is a difference of course between talking to individuals and talking to opposing organizations. With individuals, I’m all for the Milk of Human Kindness and in large quantities.
<
p>
Ideological opponents are a different matter. A cool political calculus — not an emotional one — points to the need to discredit them.
<
p>
Note that he Right has also makes such calculations and has no trouble at all discrediting our guys. I’m not saying this out of some excess of pasion, either. Isn’t my writing style reflective to the point of being dull after all?
<
p>
And I can give more evidence of my excessive reasonability:
<
p>
Not only have I read all of Guns, Germs, and Steel but I have read the entire volume aloud to my Significant Other.