Tweet
Today Washington United for Marriage launched MarriageFactCheck.com “to provide rapid response to the misrepresentations and falsehoods raised by opponents of Referendum 74 and the bipartisan marriage law which allows all loving couples in Washington to marry.”
WUM, a coalition of more than 500 organizations, congregations, unions, and businesses, is asking voters to Approve Referendum 74 this November to keep Washington state’s new freedom to marry law on the books.
The first fact check: Washington Catholic bishops’ statement exhorting parishioners to reject Referendum 74 and the marriage law. WUM writes:
Challenging the latest release from Washington’s four Catholic bishops that calls on parishioners to reject Referendum 74 and the freedom to marry, Washington United for Marriage (WUM) today launched marriagefactcheck.com countering the bishops’ assertions and reminding voters of the facts surrounding the state’s bipartisan law.
In a press release issued this week, the Bishops reaffirmed their opposition to the law while at the same time, reinforced their goal to have parishes collect contributions this Sunday for Preserve Marriage Washington (PMW), the group opposing the law and R74. The statement the Bishops asked to be read in churches this Sunday is titled “Marriage and the Good of Society”.
“We understand and respect that the bishops oppose the freedom to marry, but we cannot sit by and allow anyone, even the bishops, to misrepresent the law or the facts,” said Zach Silk, WUM campaign manager. “Knowing what’s certain to come this fall from our opponents, we’re launching marriagefactcheck.com so voters know the truth and aren’t scared or swayed by continuous misrepresentations of the law.”
Marriagefactcheck.com takes Issue with the following assertions made by the bishops:
Assertion
“The new law would separate marriage from procreation and the right of children to be raised by their mothers and fathers.”
Fact
Including loving gay and lesbian couples in civil marriage does not in any way impact or change anyone else’s marriage or family. Many heterosexual couples marry and never have children, but want the bond and commitment that is universally understood when they marry. As the Pew Research Center found, having children ranked 8th on a list of things that make a successful marriage. Additionally, marriage ensures that children of same-sex couples are fully protected under the law.
Assertion
“The new law would have a chilling effect on religious liberty by making it discriminatory for public and private institutions to promote the unique value of children being raised by their biological mothers and fathers.”
Fact
The new law does not affect religious marriages, religious institutions or clergy in any way. No religion would be forced to marry gay and lesbian couples, or recognize those marriages. In fact, the law specifically protects religious liberty and faith leaders are free to either support the freedom to marry—as a growing number now do—or proselytize against it. Religious exemptions of this kind are now becoming the norm in marriage equality laws—as seen in New York, Connecticut, Vermont and Maryland.
Assertion
“No institution or individual could propose that married mothers and fathers provide a singular benefit to children without being accused of discrimination.”
Fact
Again, the new marriage law expressly protects the right of free speech and religious speech. It simply allows all loving couples to enter into a civil marriage. In fact, the text of R74 explicitly states: “A regularly licensed or ordained minister or priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official shall be immune from any civil claim or cause of action based on a refusal to solemnize or recognize a marriage under this section…”
Assertion
“The bishops also made reference to religious institutions, including the Catholic Church, that have been forced to suspend ministries such as adoption and foster care because of conscientious objections to same-sex marriage.”
Fact
The bishops like to refer to suspension of services, most notably in Massachusetts, Washington, DC and Illinois, where each Catholic charity made a decision to abandon adoption services rather than comply with existing non-discrimination laws that apply to any entity receiving state funds. Furthermore, in all cases, the conflict arose over long-standing non-discrimination laws that have nothing to do with same-sex marriage. And in the most recent case in Illinois, after getting rebuffed at two court levels, the Church finally abandoned its lawsuit altogether. Finally, in each case, state and city agencies quickly moved to transfer those service to adoption and foster care agencies that would consider qualified gay and lesbian applicants.
Assertion
“The redefinition of marriage does not bestow any new legal rights on couples of the same-sex in Washington State. In 2009 a law was passed that granted to registered domestic partners every legal benefit enjoyed by couples in traditional marriages.”
Fact
States that have passed civil unions have found them to be fundamentally unequal. After New Jersey enacted civil unions, in 2008, an independent Civil Union Review Commission issued a report arguing that the civil union act “invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children.” A commission in Vermont drew similar conclusions in 2008, nearly a decade after it passed its civil union law. Also in 2008, the Supreme Court of Connecticut struck down a statute that prohibited same-sex marriage, finding that civil unions and marriage “are by no means ‘equal.’”
Assertion
“Faithful, monogamous marriages between one man and one woman will cease to be the legally-established social standard for uniting children with their parents, even though social science has established that children do best when raised in homes with married mothers and fathers.”
Fact
A wealth of legitimate social research has found children of same-sex couples do not experience negative outcomes because of their parents’ gender. In 2010, sociologists Judith Stacey (NYU) and Tim Biblarz (USC) conducted a review of nearly every study on gay parenting. They found that, “Current claims that children need both a mother and father are spurious…” And the American Academy of Pediatrics “recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.” (More here, here and here.)
14 Comments
The typical Christian persecution complex in action
“Persecution complex”? That’s just for show. The bishops are certainly revealing themselves to be shameless liars, though.
ia this washington DC or Washington state?
Washington state. Thanks for pointing out that this was unclear. I’ve revised the text.
The 1% who own and manage this country don’t actually care much about gay marriage, abortion guns, or religion. But they recognize that there are not enough rich white guys to be politically competitive, so they need to create reliable voting blocs of surrogate voters. Their strategy has been to use the social issues to rally the cultural conservatives to the GOP side. The real agenda is another tax cut for Mitt Romney and the evisceration of government rules and regulations that might impact the Koch Brothers. It’s a very transparent game, yet their clueless followers still haven’t figured it out. The little old lady in Kansas casts her ballot for GOP candidates because she’s been told she is supposed to hate and fear gay people, but the net result is that a hedge fund manager somewhere gets a reduced capital gains rate.
Thanks Laurel for the article, it’s very informative. I hope that it helps in the fight for their rights.
Fixed it for ya.
I am acquainted with a lot of Christians whos concerns over persecution center on others who are being persecuted, not themselves. Look around…
The Catholic Church is stuck on this “procreation” mandate that hastens the destruction of the habitability of our planet for future generations. After all that we have learned about population growth, climate change, and quality of life, how can they remain oblivious? They should be encouraging couples of all persuasions to maintain committed relationships regardless of childbearing. If they really care about “life” and the well-being of children, they should be encouraging gay couples to marry and adopt the many foster kids that need a loving and supportive home. But these Troglodytes are so entrenched in their dogma they can’t see their own prejudice and hypocrisy, and their followers who know better refuse to challenge the leadership. This is stupidity beyond comprehension.
It is the domain of religious types to assert they have a conduit with eternal, unshakble Truth and then consistently play fast and loose with facts.
You have to understand that the whole thrust of Christianity is that this life is to prepare for the afterlife — that’s its only purpose. Its central mystery is death and resurrection. (One reason I find it so ironic when the pope refers to secularism as a “death cult.”)
And God gave man “dominion” over the earth.
So it doesn’t really matter what we do to the planet, because if you’re a good Christian and do just what you’re told, you get to leave it all behind, so it doesn’t matter what kind of mess you’ve made. Besides, it’s yours to do with what you will.
And the whole procreation thing and condemnation of same-sex marriage is based on the doctrine of “Natural Law,” which is something that was made up by a bunch of bishops in line with what they think the world should be, not with what it actually is — there’s nothing “natural” about it.
As Paz3 had to modify Stevie1′s original comment, I needed to modify yours.
A brief story:
I came to faith not because I was in fear for my soul or any of that jazz, but from being hungry and hanging around winos, drag queens, hookers, crack dealers, and other such people: those who, by circumstance or design, are very much marginalized and living in the shadow of “normal” society. We were all eating at the same place — the Glide Memorial Church kitchen in SF’s Tenderloin District. A drag queen named ‘Sharleen’, with an adam’s apple like a racquetball, invited me to Sunday services over some talk and shared cigarettes. “Oh, pastor Cecil is such a wonderful preacher, you have to come down Sunday morning!”
The overall message from Glide is pretty much a full-reverse of what I was expecting. They are very focused on the life we are living, and helping people live it as best they can for as long as possible. Glide is dead serious with the New Testament bit about feeding the hungry, comforting the afflicted, and healing the sick. And the people doing it aren’t all about earning Holy Brownie-Points, they do it because it’s the right thing to do, and it needs doing.
The upshot is that I had my own personal revelation: “Holy shit, it turns out Christians aren’t all sanctimonious judgmental money-grubbing swine. I wonder what else I can learn from them?”
Look, I’m not trying to witness or evangelize here. I can’t. You show me someone who claims to know the nature of God, I’ll show you someone who is either mentally ill or after your money. I also believe the world would be a better place if people treated faith like they treat masturbation: while everyone engages in it in some form, and it’s nice to be around people who have the same views and interests, you really shouldn’t be whippin’ it out in public.
I guess my point is christians (note the lower-case ‘C’) mostly aren’t dicks. (The ones who emphasize that they’re upper-case ‘C’ Christians do tend towards dickish behavior, admittedly.) I don’t know who you were hanging around with that gave you the idea christianity is fascinated with death; that is a completely foreign concept in my experiences with Methodists, Congregationalists, and Episcopals. I’m a member of an Episcopal church now — any church that puts up with Robin Williams can handle me — and like the other churches above, we are very much embracing of life and all its joy. We’re not sitting around waiting to die.
It’s a broad brush you’re painting with: being dismissive of all christianity is like saying you hate rock and roll, because the only band you ever heard was Nickelback.
I don’t actually agree with your clarification, but I’ll grant this: the teachings of Christ point to living this life as something worthy in itself, and deserving of a certain amount of support. The teachings of the institutional Church (meaning all the denominations) are more in line with what I described. And of course, anyone who has actually read the Gospels and listened to the politicians disguised as preachers knows that the two are not even remotely the same.
Your other point is well-taken, and is one of my assumptions, which is why I’m generally careful to differentiate between “Christians” (Tony Perkins, Timothy Dolan, the pope, Linda Harvey, etc.) and Christians (the real ones).
It’s not just about overpopulation per se, but limiting the population growth would also raise the standard of living for the existing population. Not having to feed children they can’t afford would be a huge benefit to families in Africa and (on a large scale) drastically raise the wealth of their whole country.
Those aren’t “most Christians” but minority sects that have been on the decline for years