News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.Cameronesque Award: The Family “Research” Council
Jim Burroway
May 15th, 2009
The Family “Research” Council is engaging in some downright Cameronesque “research” in its latest fundraising appeal. In an email blast with “Save America’s Future” in the subject line, the FRC is begging its members to donate online “to help us stop liberal attacks on life, marriage and your religious liberty.” And what is the greatest danger to your religious:
Repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act . . . special rights for homosexuals, lesbians, transvestites, and transsexuals . . . ultimately silencing both pastors in their pulpits and Christian and conservative broadcasters.
And they site a very prestigious name to back up their claim:
Religious freedom? Not for you, if the Harvard International Law Journal is right:
“[S]cholars [are] now suggesting that even core religious practices . . .
can be regulated in the name of equality . . .”
“Regulate” your religious freedom? We can’t let that happen!
But wait a minute, doesn’t the United States still have a First Amendment guaranteeing the free exercise of religion? How did the editors of the Harvard International Law Journal miss that?
It turns out, they didn’t. The article the FRC is quoting from was written by Carolyn Evans and Beth Gaze, scholars at the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies, Melbourne Law School, Australia.
That’s right. Australia. The relevant quote — without the ellipses — is this:
On the other side, there is an increasingly powerful movement to subject religions to the full scope of discrimination laws, with some scholars now suggesting that even core religious practices (such as the ordination of clergy) can be regulated in the name of equality.[6] At present, exemptions are given to religious organizations in many non-discrimination laws,[7] but the scope of those exemptions is being reduced in many liberal democracies.[8]
Now most people never bother to look at footnotes. But the relevant footnote are very instructive — as footnotes always are:
[6] See Pru Goward, Address at the Ordination of Catholic Women Annual Conference, Melbourne: Women, Human Rights and Religion (Nov. 5-6, 2005), available at http://www.ocw.webcentral.com.au/ articles.htm; Cass R. Sunstein, On the Tension between Sex Equality and Religious Freedom, Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 167 (2007), available at http://www.ssrn.com/ abstract_id=995325; Cf. Reid Mortensen, Rendering to God and Caesar: Religion in Australian Discrimination Law, 18U. Queensland L. J. 208, 219 (1994-1995).
[7] See, e.g., anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. and the U.K.: Civil Rights Act of 1964 §§ 702 and 703, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1 and 2000e-2; Equality Act 2006 (U.K.), §§ 50 and 57-60; Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (U.K.) §§ 7 and 25.
[8] For example, in 2000 a European Directive (Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000) was issued that created quite strict limitations on the ability of EU member states to grant exemptions from anti-discrimination laws to religious employers.
Notice what’s happening. There are three scholars (two in Australia and one in Chicago) who believe that the state ought to regulate “core religious practice.” There are, of course, other scholars not cited who believe the opposite, and can back up their beliefs as well. But that doesn’t mean a court will go along with it.
The authors also cite the European Union in as attempting to impose such regulations. But the authors cite the United States as holding a body of laws which preserve religious freedom.
And when the authors go on to examine “core religious practice” (i.e. “selection and training of clergy, the language and symbolism of ritual, and the determination of membership of the religious community”) they conclude that religion enjoys a special claim to being exempted from the kinds of regulation that the FRC would have us fear.
It’s been a while since we awarded a Cameronesque award to anyone. But it’s been a while since we’ve seen such an outrageous example of misuse of the professional literature. The Family “Research” Council is now a two-time winner.
Priya Lynn
May 15th, 2009 | LINK
Rather than Family “Research” Council, it should be “Family” “Research” Council. From what I’ve seen none of their “research” is about families, its all about oppressing LGBTs
Donna
May 15th, 2009 | LINK
How do they get away with this? It’s just so frustrating!
BTB: Family Research Council lies « Femlock:
May 15th, 2009 | LINK
[...] Council, known primarily for their obsessive anti-gay jackassery, haven’t a leg to stand on. So they fashion a makeshift leg out of parts of professional literature. They’re kind of like really annoying [...]
Tavdy
May 15th, 2009 | LINK
They get to be winners because they’re total losers? Sweet.
Christopher Waldrop
May 16th, 2009 | LINK
Sweet indeed, but I’m a little peeved. In another article I made a comment about how anyone in favor of marriage equality–actually I should have said all LGBT supporters and their allies, since fighting marriage equality is only part of the destructive “Family” “Research” Council’s mission–can never operate on a level playing field because our opponents are willing to lie. And I should have saved that comment for here.
So let me restate it as a challenge. Let both sides debate the issue honestly and openly, sticking to the facts. Although I think it says something that the “Family” “Research” Council is so insecure they can’t do that.
Leave A Comment