Connect with us

Southern Baptists Offer ‘Modest Proposal’ — Ban Same-Sex Marriage

Published

on

Richard Land, one of the top figures among the Southern Baptists — which boasts a membership so large they have become the second largest Christian body in the United States, after the Catholic Church — today published an editorial titled, “What Relationships Should Be Called Marriage: A Modest Proposal,” in which he likens same-sex marriages to platonic family relationships; for example, “two maiden or widowed sisters who were living together or a mother and a devoted son or daughter who were living together in a platonic relationship.”

READ: Land: The Devil Is Happy ‘The Homosexual Lifestyle’ Causes ‘Destruction’

Land, who serves the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) as president of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) — despite losing his radio show after admitting to plagiarism –is, conveniently, also the executive editor of The Christian Post, where he writes:

I propose that as Americans we declare heterosexual marriage as the only relationship in our society that is to be defined by its sexual nature and that it will continue to be defined as a legal relationship between one man and one woman consummated by sexual intercourse.

If two men or two women are living together in a relationship and they want to ask the state legislature in their state to grant some of the special legal privileges accorded marriage to their relationship the state legislature should respond in the following fashion: “We will consider your request, but the sexual nature of your relationship will be irrelevant to our discussions because marriage is the only relationship in our society that is defined by its sexual nature. Why should other people who are living in committed relationships that do not involve sexual activity be discriminated against or left out?”

In other words, the state legislature would not discriminate against two maiden or widowed sisters who were living together or a mother and a devoted son or daughter who were living together in a platonic relationship. Why should such households and relationships be left behind when legal privileges and recognition are being passed out just because they are not in a sexual relationship?

If this weren’t so condescending and offensive, it would almost be comical.

Land, wrongly, adds:

Marriage has been defined in Western civilization for at least two millennia now as being a sexual relationship between one man and one woman. Christianity has defined it so historically, most often coupling it with life-long permanence and monogamy. As an Evangelical Christian, I certainly embrace that definition.

Dr. Land is greatly mistaken, ignoring the fact that marriage was more often about uniting kingdoms or bestowing property rights than about raising children and monogamy. Also, the even more-obvious fact is that Christians don’t own the concept of marriage, and not everyone is Christian.

“However, how do we deal with those who would choose to extend some of the legal privileges our society has accorded marriage to same-sex relationships without shattering the definition of marriage or discriminating against people outside the heterosexual definition of marriage?,” Land asks, smugly, not interested in helping same-sex couples and our families.

How do we protect society against those who would extend the special status of marriage to homosexual, lesbian or polygamous relationships? How do we protect time-honored titles, like “husband” and “wife,” from being attacked as homophobic or sexist terms to be replaced by spouse #1 and spouse #2 or “Mom” and “Dad” from being reduced legally to caregiver #1 and caregiver #2? Such legal assaults on these time-honored family terms seem inevitable if “same-sex” marriage becomes equal with heterosexual marriage.

If Land’s “modest proposal” sounds almost mild and harmless, consider this:

In April, as The New Civil Rights Movement reported, the Religious Right released a short film that attacked Hillary Clinton for supporting the rights of gay people as “human rights,” and advocated for the criminalization of homosexuals in this country and abroad. Top anti-gay activists, some from Southern Poverty Law Center-certified anti-gay hate groups appeared in the film,  Is Our Government Promoting Immorality?, and called homosexuality a “deadly lifestyle” while showing a video of Hillary Clinton discussing the Obama administration’s mandate to  protect LGBT rights around the world.

The film featured Family Research Council (FRC) “researcher” Peter Sprigg, Southern Baptist Convention’s Richard Land and right-wing author Michael Brown, along with hosts from Truth in Action Ministries (formerly Coral Ridge Ministries) Jennifer Kennedy Cassidy and Jerry Newcombe.

And also this spring, another Religious Right film portrayed heterosexual, righteous, “moral” Christians as the Titanic, and homosexuality, aka the “radical homosexua agenda,” as the iceberg. The Truth that Transforms short film featured some B-list leaders of the anti-gay movement, including Jennifer Kennedy Cassidy and Jerry Newcombe of Truth in Action Ministries, Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, right-wing historian Bill Federer, radio talk show host and author Michael Brown, and pastors Harry Jackson, Robert Jeffress and Erwin Lutzer.

Here’s my modest proposal: Keep the Church out of marriage. Remain, as NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, and others now call it, “neutral.”

Via Right Wing Watch

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

JD Vance Dismisses Taylor Swift’s Harris Endorsement: Voters Won’t Be Influenced by ‘Disconnected Billionaire’

Published

10 hours ago

on

September 11, 2024

By

Senator JD Vance (R-OH) dismissed Taylor Swift’s endorsement of the Kamala Harris/Tim Walz campaign, saying that it wouldn’t sway voters because they wouldn’t be “influenced by a billionaire celebrity.”

Vance appeared Wednesday afternoon on Fox News’ The Story With Martha MacCallum. MacCallum brought up Swift’s endorsement in her interview with the vice presidential candidate.

“But it was interesting last night, that Taylor Swift gave her endorsement of Harris and and Walz right after [the debate]. She has 283 million followers on Instagram, and I’m sure that someone brought your attention that she signed it ‘Childless Cat Lady.’ This is a phrase that you are going to hear in your in your dreams and your nightmares, probably for many years to come. How do you speak to women voters, who, obviously, care about what she thinks?,” MacCallum said.

READ MORE: Trump Refuses Debate ‘Rematch’, Says Harris ‘Was Beaten Badly’

“Well, look, we admire Taylor Swift’s music. But I don’t think most Americans—whether they like her music, are fans of hers or not—are going to be influenced by a billionaire celebrity, who, I think, is fundamentally disconnected from the interests and the problems of most Americans. Look, when grocery prices go up by 20%, it hurts most Americans. It doesn’t hurt Taylor Swift. When housing prices become unaffordable, it doesn’t affect Taylor Swift or any other billionaire. It does affect middle class Americans all over our country,” Vance replied.

Swift announced her endorsement of the Harris campaign last night shortly after the debate on Instagram. Alongside a photo by Inez & Vinoodh of her cuddling a fluffy cat, she urged fans to research the candidates. She also called out former President Donald Trump and his fans sharing AI-generated pictures appearing to show Swift endorsing him.

“Recently I was made aware that AI of ‘me’ falsely endorsing Donald Trump’s presidential run was posted to his site. It really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation. It brought me to the conclusion that I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter. The simplest way to combat misinformation is with the truth,” Swift wrote.

“I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election. I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them. I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos. I was so heartened and impressed by her selection of running mate @timwalz, who has been standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, IVF, and a woman’s right to her own body for decades,” she continued.

She did indeed sign the caption “Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady,” in reference to a comment Vance made in 2021 that the country was run by “childless cat ladies” like Harris who “want to make the rest of the country miserable too.” The quote was resurfaced shortly after Vance was named Trump’s running mate. Vance says the remark was “sarcastic” and “willfully misinterpreted” by Democrats, according to The Hill. Harris has two stepchildren.

As for Swift’s net worth, she is indeed a billionaire with $1.1 billion, according to Forbes. The same outlet places Trump’s net worth at $7.5 billion. The majority of that is due to Trump Media, the parent company of Truth Social. However, Trump Media has been losing money recently, causing Trump to fall off Bloomberg’s list of the top 500 wealthiest people.

Continue Reading

News

Asif Merchant Faces Additional Terrorism Charge In Hitman Plot to Kill Politicians

Published

11 hours ago

on

September 11, 2024

By

asif merchant

Asif Merchant faces additional terrorism charges over a plan to hire hitmen to kill government officials or politicians, according to a new indictment filed Tuesday.

Merchant was initially arrested in July for the assassination plot. Originally, Merchant was only charged with murder for hire. The new indictment keeps the murder for hire charge, and adds one count of attempt to commit an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries. Merchant is from Pakistan, but has ties to Iran, the Department of Justice says.

“The Justice Department will not tolerate Iran’s efforts to target our country’s public officials and endanger our national security,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement.  “As these terrorism and murder for hire charges against Asif Merchant demonstrate, we will continue to hold accountable those who would seek to carry out Iran’s lethal plotting against Americans.”

The Department of Justice says that he flew from Iran to America in April, and reached out to someone he thought could help him find someone to kill either politicians or government officials. That person reported him to law enforcement.

In June, he allegedly met up with the person again to discuss the plot, and confirmed he intended to orchestrate a chain of assassinations in the United States. Merchant asked the person to put him in contact with potential hitmen who would also be tasked with stealing information from targets, planning protests at political events and, ultimately committing the assassination at the end of summer, the DOJ says.

READ MORE: Leaders of White Supremacist Group Terrorgram Charged, Face Up to 220 Years in Prison

Merchant was put into contact with undercover FBI agents posing as criminals. He paid them $5,000 in cash on June 21, and when one of the undercover agents said “Now we know we’re going forward. We’re doing this,” Merchant replied in the affirmative.

Merchant stayed in the U.S. for another three weeks, booking a July 12 flight out of the country. The day he was scheduled to leave, he was arrested.

The complaint doesn’t mention any names of potential targets, but a senior law enforcement official told NBC News in August that former President Donald Trump was a potential target. Iran was said to be plotting to kill Trump in revenge for the assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, NBC reported.

Merchant faces a life sentence if he’s convicted of the charges. The case is being heard in the Eastern District of New York.

Continue Reading

STILL A COWARD

Trump Refuses Debate ‘Rematch’, Says Harris ‘Was Beaten Badly’

Published

13 hours ago

on

September 11, 2024

By

Former President Donald Trump has declined Vice President Kamala Harris’ offer of a second debate. He compared himself to a top boxer, declaring himself the winner and wondering why he should bother with a rematch.

Trump and Harris had their first debate Tuesday night on ABC. Shortly afterward—less than an hour, according to ABC News—the Harris campaign asked for a followup debate in October. Fox News offered to be the host, which should have appealed to Trump, considering he wanted Tuesday’s debate to be hosted on the conservative-leaning cable news outlet. But apparently, he’s changed his mind.

“In the World of Boxing or UFC, when a Fighter gets beaten or knocked out, they get up and scream, ‘I DEMAND A REMATCH, I DEMAND A REMATCH!’ Well, it’s no different with a Debate. She was beaten badly last night. Every Poll has us WINNING, in one case, 92-8, so why would I do a Rematch?” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday.

READ MORE: MAGA World Threatens to Boycott ABC After Trump’s Disastrous Debate Performance

Though Trump declared himself the winner, that is not a common belief. Many networks declared Harris the winner, including Fox News. Trump is correct that one poll did have him winning 92% to 8%, but that was an online poll from Newsmax. Newsmax is a far-right media outlet. It came to prominence during the 2020 election when Trump turned against Fox News for becoming the first outlet to declare President Joe Biden the winner in Arizona, a battleground state. Newsmax promoted Trump’s unfounded claims of voter fraud.

Trump shared a number of other polls on his Truth Social account shortly after the debate, but most were from explicitly pro-Trump outlets like the Daily Caller, or were taken on X, formerly Twitter, which has skewed right following Elon Musk’s takeover of the social media platform.

Polls from more mainstream outlets, however, told a different story. Newsweek’s reader poll showed Harris ahead nearly 2 to 1. CNN’s poll had a similar spread, with Harris declared the winner by 63% of viewers. In the Washington Post’s poll of 25 uncommitted swing-state voters, 23 said Harris did better. YouGov’s polling was closer, but Harris still pulled ahead 43% to 32%.

Pundits and experts also awarded the win to Harris. NPR said the debate “wasn’t close.” The New York Times said Harris “rattled” Trump.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.