Even Fred Phelps has his useful points

[pecunium]

What..!?! I hear you cry.

Trust me, or rather trust Slacktivist

We could go through a point-by-point refutation of the ad's innuendo about the Big Gay Stormtroopers menacing California doctors, Massachusetts parents and tax-free beach-front property managers in New Jersey, but it would be wrong to dignify such brazen BS by pretending that anyone shoveling this crap might even slightly believe it to be true.

So instead we'll just stick with the two-word rebuttal of everything this ad darkly hints will come to pass down the slippery slope of equality: Fred Phelps...

So it turns out that the litigious old bastard has at least one useful social purpose. The unimpeded, undiminished work of his infamously evil anti-gay "ministry" emphatically disproves every Scary Story promoted by anti-gay religious groups who claim that recognizing marriage equality or including sexual orientation in existing hate-crime or anti-discrimination legislation will lead to Christian ministers being thrown in jail for saying they believe homosexuality is a sin...

[T]he point here is that Fred Phelps is a free man. His only legal troubles stem from instances of direct physical assault -- not from the hateful content of his beliefs. So when the folks at NOM insist that their opposition to same-sex marriage is a matter of "religious liberty," the liberty they're talking about has to be the liberty to exceed the Fred Phelps standard -- the liberty not just to restrict membership on religious grounds, or just to preach against homosexuality as a sin, or to condemn and denounce homosexuals as people hated by God, but the liberty, apparently, to go beyond all that, beyond anything even Fred Phelps has imagined.

Fred Phelps is a free man, so if you think your freedom is going to be restricted, you must be planning to outdo Fred Phelps.

So there's the two-word answer for every Tony Perkins or James Dobson or Damon Owens who makes up some dubious claim about being persecuted or punished or threatened or jailed or whatever for their anti-gay beliefs.

"I'm a California doct-- " Fred Phelps! He's a free man. Are you worse than him? No? Then shut up, 'kay?

"I'm part of a church group in ..." Fred frikkin' Phelps, buddy. I don't wanna hear it.

Fred Phelps... force for good.

Heh.

Comments

[iclysdale.livejournal.com]

I've argued for ten years that if Fred Phelps didn't exist, the progressive movement would have had to invent him. I think he's the best unwilling ally that we have.

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

Wow.

Laura Hale makes sense.

And Fred Phelps is of some use in the universe.

*peers outside in case world is coming to an end*

Thanks!!!

[barelyproper.livejournal.com]

That rocks.

[shadowcat48li.livejournal.com]

I really hate Fred as much for his desecration of the US Flag, during various demonstrations, and the way he treats our war dead. would it be bad karma to hope his church gets leveled by a good old fashioned kansas tornado? kinda hard to blame your detractors for an act of god, then again maybe we could call it a message from his biggest detractor.

couple of years back Fred was here in my hometown, not 4 blocks from my house. protesting at the US headquarters of Electrolux, Fred must have been harkening back to his roots. the building Fred was protesting in front of used to be a hospital, and for many years the American Nazi Party used to parade in front of the building on the birthday of George Lincoln Rockwell, who founded the American Nazi Party, George was born in that hospital.

I pointed this out to Fred that day, I dont think he believed me. then a local reporter told him I was right.

[amberite2112.livejournal.com]

"rainbow coalition"???? co-opt much?

[hamadryad11.livejournal.com]

Giving same-sex couples the same rights that others enjoy is going to take away other people's rights? What complete nonsense. It hasn't happened here. Same-sex marriage was made legal in Canada, and there haven't been any priests or pastors forced to marry people. In fact, religious officials can't be forced to marry a couple if it goes against their religious beliefs, and that includes divorced people and interfaith couples, as well as same-sex couples. However, the churches that do want to marry same-sex couples (United, Unitarian, Quaker, some Lutheran and Anglican churches) are free to do so. Same-sex couples also have the option of a civil marriage, which is just as legal as a religious marriage (as opposed to a civil union, which is a watered-down version).

I don't even understand the bit about doctors. What are these hysterical nutbars raving about?

[nenya_kanadka]

Oh I think the thing about doctors has something to do with some doctor who refused to provide fertility services for a lesbian couple. Can't remember if they got sued for it or not.

(I was going to say I thought it was related to the whole thing with pharmacists not wanting to provide birth control, but then I realized this was a gay-specific attack ad.)

[hamadryad11.livejournal.com]

Huh. Seems to me that a person who is unwilling or unable to do their job should get fired. Unless it's for medical reasons, natch.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

And, for most things that's the case. But there are a number of attempts being made to carve exceptions for, "cases of religious conscience."

It's a trick to make it possible to futher restrict access to birth control, by making it possible for a pharmacist to refuse. This is really nasty when it's a case of EC.

Because you know the pharmacist ought to totally be able to stop a woman, and her doctor, from coming to a decision; just because it offends his delicate sensibilities.

The actual examples of it in practice are anger-making.

[hamadryad11.livejournal.com]

But there are a number of attempts being made to carve exceptions for, "cases of religious conscience."

And in a few (very few) cases, it's valid to make exceptions. A Catholic priest should not be forced to marry you if you are divorced, or if you are a gay couple or an interfaith couple. That is clearly a matter of religious freedom, and that's precisely why such provisions have been made here. BUT, a magistrate cannot refuse to preform a civil marriage for a couple just because it goes against his religious beliefs. He is acting in a purely secular capacity. A nurse or doctor can't take a job in an abortion clinic or hospital and then refuse to perform abortions because it's against their religious beliefs. And I can't imagine a pharmacist here refusing to give someone birth control, or any other prescribed drug, simply because of a religious whim. That would be completely outrageous.

Mind you, our fool of a Prime Minister was trying to pass legislation that would allow people in precisely those kinds of situations to be protected from job loss or other penalties, so I can't say my country is completely free of idiots either. One of them is in the highest political office a Canadian can hold.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

And in a few (very few) cases, it's valid to make exceptions. A Catholic priest should not be forced to marry you if you are divorced, or if you are a gay couple or an interfaith couple.

That's not an exception. Churches are not required to marry anyone. They are allowed to. This works because marriage is a civil ceremony. We have religious aspects of marriage too, but the civil side is what the brouhaha is about.

There are any number of churches performing same-sex marriages. They just aren't recognised by the state.

More to the point (and part of why it isn't an exception) the priest/reverend/imam doesn't get a certification from the state, allowing him to make a living doing a thing. He gets his certification from a secondary body, and the state recognises it, and grants the privelege of solemnising legally binding marriages.

If he, or she, doesn't want to perform weddings, he, or she, doesen't register with the state.

A doctor, pharmacist, phlebotomist, occupational therapist, can only work in exchange for promising the state they will adminsister aid to anyone who comes to them for help.

[hamadryad11.livejournal.com]

There are any number of churches performing same-sex marriages. They just aren't recognised by the state.

See that's the thing, here they are. If a church official performs a same-sex marriage, it's just as legal as if the couple gets married in a civil ceremony. But the church official can refuse to marry a couple, whereas a magistrate cannot, as far as I know (as long as there is no legal impediment to the marriage). I think some magistrate-type did refuse to marry a gay couple, and there was a big kerfuffle over it. I can't remember what happened to him, though. He was disciplined, and raised a stink over it, but I doubt he got very far with that.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's the case here (where same sex marriages are legal), but there aren't any doctors/nurses/OTs/PTs/Pharmacists who are able to just set up shop. Where same sex marriages (or polygamous) aren't legal a church can perform them, but they aren't binding on the state.

A priest can elect to marry no one. Ever. There are other priests. There isn't the same option with medical personell. In a lot of small towns, there's but the one pharmacy.

The Magistrate is in the same position. The power to marry there is granted by the state, and the state alone. The magistrate promises to provide the services of law to one and all. If they won't, they don't get to.

If a church refuses, then one can go to another one. It may not be Second Baptist, but then again churches, (unlike states) are associations of voluntary membership (Quakers get a lot of requests to perform marriages, requests they refuse. Most of those are from non-quakers/attenders, but some are from members of the meeting; they are an odd case. They refuse because they don't think that couple, at that time are ready to be married. Since a Quaker marriage entails a Meeting taking the couple into their care, that matters a lot, but I digress).

Because the association is voluntary (a church ban anyone from being a member, at any time, for any reason) it would be a moral wrong to insist they had to accept someone, in this limited (and potentially offensive) case.

So consistency demands they be allowed to refuse any sacrement (I can't wander into a Mormon Temple, no matter ho curious I am about the service).

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

"Good sometimes has allies who look evil on the surface, and evil oft-times does good that it does not intend."

I thought that was from LOTR, but I can't seem to find it there. Might it be C.S. Lewis, in one of the Planet trilogy books?

[micheinnz.livejournal.com]

Sounds like something from one of the middle books of the Narnia series, to me. A Horse And His Boy, maybe?

[nenya_kanadka]

The last half sounds very JRRT, but I don't know from where. A quick google gives me these tho (Gandalf):

Often does hatred hurt itself!

and

A traitor may betray himself and do good that he does not intend.

[midnitewolf.livejournal.com]

I figured you might be interested in Nate Phelp's recent speech about his father, given to the American Atheists convention in Atlanta earlier this month:

http://atheistnexus.org/page/nate-phelps-2009-aa-speech

It's not directly applicable to your post, but an interesting insight on what it was like to grow up as one of Fred's kids.

[nenya_kanadka]

I would propose Internet marriage to Fred Clark, except the Slacktivixen might object ever so slightly. :D I am so using the Fred Phelps argument next time I have this discussion with someone.