Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Tony Perkins: “I Wrote” GOP Platform

Jim Burroway

August 21st, 2012

The Log Cabin Republicans yesterday were all kinds of proud over the impact they had in helping to shape the Republican platform this week. LCR chief R. Clarke Cooper told BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner that the draft platform’s preamble approved yesterday morning includes the statement, “We embrace the principle that all Americans have the right to be treated with dignity and respect,” which they took as some kind of an olive branch to the gay community. Bless their little hearts. And they also sold themselves a little short. I managed to find another reference to dignity and respect in the main body of the draft platform. Maybe you can find it too.

Marriage

The Institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, and are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, are less like to to engage in crime, and are less likely to get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic wellbeing of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also more government control over the lives of its citizens in all facets. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting along, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as a national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.

There’s more:

Marriage and the Judiciary

A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundation of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.

Defense of Marriage

That is why congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. An activist judiciary usurps the powers reserved to other branches of government and endangers the foundation of our society. We oppose the Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle — in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts — makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and those State Attorneys Generals who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other states to do so.

That doesn’t sound like a platform influenced by the Log Cabin Republicans. It sound much more like — actually, virtually identical to — something that would have come out of an email blast from the Family “Research” Council:

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins told BuzzFeed: “You should read the entire plank on marriage, which I wrote. I feel very happy about it. I feel pretty optimistic about the outcome here.” [Emphasis added]

Ordinarily, whenever you read someone claiming sole credit for something, you can usually be safe in ignoring the boast. But when you go back and read these sections again, especially the first one, Perkins’s boast appears to be well-founded. Just try to find one iota of difference between these platform statements and the daily blasts from the Family “Research” Council. I mean, hell, even the FRC can include a throw-away line about dignity and respect for all Americans.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

David in Houston
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

You know your entire political party has “jumped the shark” when you allow the leader of an actual hate group to make policy decisions for you. Thanks to Tony Perkins, the Republican Party is now officially THE anti-gay platform. ANY gay organization that aligns themselves with them is simply devoid of humanity, and has zero respect or concern for their own civil rights. One can only hope that within a decade or two, Republicans will have alienated so many gay people and their straight supporters, and women, and minorities, that it will be impossible for them to ever hold a majority ever again.

Lindoro Almaviva
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

Well, they do mean the whole dignity and respect part of the line. What they forgot to add was the asterisk * at the end and the explanation at the bottom of the page:

*Godless libtards need not apply, nor do atheists, women on the pill, Homosexuals, Muslims feminists, or democrats. Catholics on a case by case basis, same for Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbiterians, and baptists (except southern ones). Unitarians are out; call us if you are a Mormon, jury is still out on that one.

Timothy Kincaid
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

“The Log Cabin Republicans yesterday were all kinds of proud …”

I don’t think that claim can be substantiated in the link provided.

Yes, as I predicted, this platform is not at all supportive. It’s terrible. But I’m disappointed that this commentary parrots the anti-Log Cabin rhetoric trumpeted by Stonewall and other extreme partisans.

Actually, I’m very disappointed. I can find no rational reason to turn the platform and its horrible language into an attack on Log Cabin and an encouragement for the type of hate and hyperbole that David in Houston trotted out. I think that it’s probably best if I just not participate further today. I’m pretty pissed off.

Lucrece
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

Log Cabin is GOProud but rationalized in a more sophisticated manner. Still the same sell outs who will put party access ahead of community interests.

Watch as they endorse Ryan and Romney despite both supporting constituional marriage amendments and the presidential nominee giving a scathin speech to Liberty University.

Cooper will do a great job spinning that endorsement so as not to lose more partisans to the splinter group that is GOProud.

Priya Lynn
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

“Cooper, however, told BuzzFeed that the language proposed would, if adopted, be substantive part of the platform. Additionally, although he expected the platform to continue to support “traditional marriage,” as he put it,”.

I think Log Cabin Republicans have their place in the fight for equality but I’m really offended to see them using the euphemism “traditional marriage” and thus assisting the bigots in advancing the idea that they’re about supporting heterosexual marriages rather than the reality that they’re solely about opposing same sex marriages. LCR gets an “F” on this one.

esperando
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

If the FRC “can include a throw-away line about dignity and respect for all Americans”, I have yet to see any evidence. In fact, I’ve never known them to condemn a single act of anti-gay violence. When Uganda started considering their bill to impose the death penalty for sodomy, they spent 25,000 dollars lobbying the US congress NOT to condemn it. When pressed on why they had opposed the resolution, they claimed that they didn’t support the bill, it was just that they objected to the idea that LGBT people have a right to live.

Priya Lynn
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

“When pressed on why they had opposed the resolution, they claimed that they didn’t support the bill, it was just that they objected to the idea that LGBT people have a right to live.”

Are you serious?! If you could provide a link to them saying that I’d greatly appreciate it.

Mark F.
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

Did anyone seriously think the Republicans were going to put a pro-same sex marriage plank in their platform?

Ben In Oakland
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

Clarke cooper says that he has been focussed on the republican Platform, according to an article over at Huffpost.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Focussed on the Republican platform? The one the focusses over gay people bigtime?

The one that says that marriage benefits individuals, children, and society, and therefore it is imperative that gay people be denied the right to marry, and thereby denied the right to make their lives better through the same legal means available to any man and any woman– murders child, molesters, atheists, and congressmen included?

That platform?

The one that says that the children of gay people– 70,000 in California ALONE– are not worthy of the legal protections that having married parents would give them, and deserve the consequences of not having married parents and stable families as detailed in the antigay part?

That platform?

The one that says that the religious freedom of heterosexuals and conservative churches is the only one that actually matters, and should be enforced by law?

That platform?

The one that says the benefits of marriage should only flow to heterosexual people, because through some mysterious means never explained, allowing gay people and their families, children, churches, and denominations access to those benefits means that there are just less freedoms and benefits for heteros?

That platform?

The one that essentially claims that recognizing my family, and giving it the legal benefits and protection called marriage is an attack on YOUR family?

That platform?

The one that says that enshrining antigay prejudice into our constitution, re-writing the 3/5 of a person provision with a new victim, is a GOOD idea?

Yup. That platform.

Steve
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

This isn’t any different from any of their other platforms in the past 15 years:
http://www.stonewalldemocrats.org/node/1529

The crap about freedom, rights, respect and dignity isn’t new either.

I don’t get why they don’t just take the Texas GOP platform and slap a national label on it. That would be perfect. You know, the one that is against the teaching of higher order and critical thinking skills and against anything that challenges people’s beliefs.

esperando
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

@Pyria Lynn

Here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council#cite_note-HR1064-22

The FRC said it opposes the resolution (that condemned the death penalty in proposed Ugandad anti-sodomy legislation)”to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.”

If gay people don’t have a right to private, consensual sexual conduct, then any government is therefore within its rights to criminalize that conduct and punish it however they see fit, including with death. FRC’s post-hoc and unverified explanation of their opposition to the house resolution posits a distinction without a difference, in other words.

Priya Lynn
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

Thanks Esperando.

Coxhere
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

So, Miss Perkins writes planks for the Repub Party and he is also the leader of a certified, hate group. Hum. Seems to me, then, that the Repub Party is now a certifiable, hate group as well!

Mark F.
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

Miss Perkins? He had a sex change?

Mark F.
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

“The one that says that enshrining antigay prejudice into our constitution, re-writing the 3/5 of a person provision with a new victim, is a GOOD idea?”

The Southern slaveholders wanted slaves counted as full persons for purposes of Congressional representation. The 3/5 provision was a compromise with the free states, who didn’t want slaves counted at all.

Ben In Oakland
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

I’m aware of that, Mark. I’m not as much interested in the history as i am in the idea.

CPT_Doom
August 21st, 2012 | LINK

You know, the GOP protestations of wanting to protect marriage for the sake of children wouldn’t ring quite so hollow if 60% of the party’s Presidential nominees in the past 30 years hadn’t abandoned their wives for younger, hotter women. It wouldn’t ring quite so hollow if the party held its own candidates for President – including both Rudy Guiliani and Newt Gingrich – to the same sexual and moral standards with which its platform expects the rest of us to comply. And it really wouldn’t ring so hollow if the very organization that wrote the “marriage pledge” signed by every significant GOP candidate (including Gingrich, who currently is married to a woman he paid to have sex with him for 6 years while married to another woman) hadn’t been founded by a woman who had a child out of wedlock, who nonetheless expects her marriage to her second baby daddy to be treated the same as a “traditional marriage.”

The hypocrisy would be funny if it weren’t so appalling.

TampaZeke
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

It’s a good thing that Timothy wasn’t the LCR representative for the RNC platform consultation! If his feelings are so delicate as to send him screaming from this thread based on one statement that was essentially true I can’t imagine that he would have lasted more than one minute in the room with the kinds of lying, hateful assaults that Mr. Cooper was subjected to. There again it’s pretty clear that Timothy has a much stronger stomach for conservative attacks on gays than he does for gay attacks on conservatives. Apparently even when the former are bogus and the latter are true.

Richard Rush
August 22nd, 2012 | LINK

TampaZeke siad,

There again it’s pretty clear that Timothy has a much stronger stomach for conservative attacks on gays than he does for gay attacks on conservatives. Apparently even when the former are bogus and the latter are true.

I don’t know about Timothy, but that applies perfectly to B. Daniel Blatt, the most prolific blogger at GayPatriot. It applies to the vast majority of their commenters, too.

Carlo
August 23rd, 2012 | LINK

Boy do they give marriage WAY more credit than it deserves. Newer studies are showing that this so-called stability (especially economic benefits) from marriage is highly variable when comparing white middle class marriages to marriages between working class people of color. In some cases showing it to do more harm then good economically. But then, leave it to a group of predominantly white people to ignore that bit of detail.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.