Want Marriage Equality? Follow the Money
By Candace Chellew-Hodge
August 2, 2009
  • 7 Comments
  • Print

No matter what Welton Gaddy might hope, anti-gay religious groups are not interested in finding common ground on marriage equality—they need the conflict to fill their coffers.

Back in 1994, fifty-five fundamentalist Christian leaders met at the Glen Eyrie conference center near Colorado Springs, Colorado. The goal, according to author and activist Mel White in his book Religion Gone Bad was "to plan their 'short-term' solution for the problem of lesbian and gay Americans."

The group represented about 40 state anti-gay organizations with one goal, according to White: "to prevent homosexuals from ever being recognized as a 'protected class.'" White quotes Will Perkins, the man behind the success of Colorado's Amendment 2 in 1992 and convener of the secret meeting as saying, "If we lose this battle [against homosexuality and homosexuals], there are no moral absolutes left for this nation." The purpose of the meeting was not to energize the superstars of the anti-gay movement, but to bolster a grassroots campaign that would take hold - and some 15 years later - has put deep roots into political and religious institutions in our nation.

I am certainly not a buff of conspiracy theories, but just a gander at the sheer amount of grassroots organizing as well as top-down funding of campaigns to defeat marriage equality and pass anti-marriage equality amendments in many states, convinces me that the Glen Eyrie meeting was the beginning of a powerful cadre of anti-gay forces that continues its effective work event today. It is against this backdrop that the Interfaith Alliance, led by former Baptist minister C. Welton Gaddy, issues a "call to quiet conversation" about marriage equality for gays and lesbians in the form of a paper. Same Gender Marriage and Religious Freedom, calls for "common ground" between liberals and conservatives on the issue of marriage equality.

On its blog, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) gives a great summary of the paper that basically says law, not scripture, should rule the day but religious freedom would be respected:

All citizens should have equal access to civil marriage and to the benefits of marriage provided for citizens in this government. Couples who desire religious marriage can seek a house of worship in which to receive that blessing. But, as is the case now, no house of worship would be legally obligated to provide marriage for a couple whom it does not want to bless. All houses of worship should be free to advocate for, defend and perpetuate the view of marriage that is consistent with their religious traditions and convictions.

While I applaud Gaddy and the Interfaith Alliance on their paper and the arguments it brings forward, the paper's fatal flaw is the assumption that those who oppose marriage equality for gay and lesbian people are interested in finding "common ground." They aren't, and the Glen Eyrie meetings should prove it. Anti-gay groups are more interested in continuing the fight - in moving their agenda forward. Even though some polls may show increased support for marriage equality when "religious freedom" clauses are inserted, these groups aren't interested in such things. They're looking for the annihilation of gays and lesbians. Period. As White states: "It is a fatal mistake to see [the religious right] as 'kooks' and 'crazies' when in fact they have recruited, trained, equipped, financed, and mobilized millions of Americans who are also willing to take great risks to get the job done."

That's not to say that all Christians are militant in their opposition to marriage equality. Those in the pews may well be against marriage equality simply because they sincerely believe homosexuality to be a sin. But it's instructive to explore how they arrived at that decision. For the vast majority of Christians in the pews, they believe homosexuality is a sin not because they've done their own in-depth research into the subject. Most don't have the time, inclination, or access to resources to do that. Instead, they believe it is a sin because they've always been told that it is a sin. They've been told that the Bible condemns it and since the Bible is the final authority for many Christians, that settles it. Where do they get their information? They get it from clergy in the pulpit, many who are trained up in conservative seminaries that do more indoctrination than theological training. Or, for many more conservative congregations, the clergy are not trained in any seminary, but are raised up from the congregation and recognized for their "call." They also get it from organizations like Focus on the Family that reaches more than 220 million people in 155 nations (according to Focus' own numbers) through their radio shows, email alerts, publications, and other materials.

It's groups like Focus on the Family that drive the anti-gay machine. In 2008, FotF raised nearly $140 million of their $152 million in revenue through individual contributions. Much of that money was raised mainly on the backs of gays and lesbians through email (and snail mail) campaigns that demonized the whole community and played up their perceived threat to the family and society.

FotF is so dedicated to defeating the homosexual menace that they have even entrenched marriage between a man and a woman as one of its Guiding Principles, complete with a call to action:

Therefore, Christians are called to defend and protect God's marriage design and to minister in Christ's name to those who suffer the consequences of its brokenness.

Being "called to defend and protect God's marriage design" leaves little room for the kind of common ground Gaddy hopes to find. Defending marriage is a part of their identity and one they won't give up without a fight.

The bottom line is this: As long as the demonization of gay and lesbian people brings money into the church and right wing political organizations like FotF, marriage equality will always be fiercely opposed by many Christians. Not because it's a sin, not because it's an abomination, and not because it will be the end of all "moral absolutes" in the country - but because granting marriage equality will basically empty the coffers of their national and local organizations. To raise money, the religious right needs an enemy and right now that enemy is the gay and lesbian community.

As long as the lives of gays and lesbians are an effective wedge issue that further polarizes the right and the left in our country and inspires them to give generously to organizations sworn to defend their ideologies - there will be no "common ground" on marriage equality. These groups have no interest in ending the battle. They're making hay while the sun shines and they will fight with all their might to slow the rotation of the earth to lengthen their window of monetary opportunity.

They have everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose from continuing to vilify gays and lesbians. The only way FotF and its cohorts lose is to come to some sort of "common ground" with supporters of its current cash cow. The chances of that happening are slim to none.

The only hope, really, in finding any common ground, is by changing the hearts and minds of those who give money to organizations like FotF. If, indeed, Gaddy and those on the religious left and center who are allies of the gay and lesbian community can find common ground and work to convince individual funders of organizations like FotF to stop sending their money to fund anti-gay campaigns, then perhaps there can be progress. But, until the money dries up, don't expect any movement toward "common ground" from groups leading the fight against marriage equality.

Tags: church-state, constitution, gay marriage, gay rights, law, public religion, same-sex marriage

Comments
View:
Turn comments off sitewide
RE: same-sex marriage

The Bible is not the inerrant word of God, no; it is full of mistakes and contradictions. It was written and invented by men, spanning many centuries, to benefit themselves—the male species— and to subjugate others.
It is ironic that on the one hand they supposedly preach about “loving your neighbor as yourself” and on the on other they say, “lets hurt, kill, subjugate, and take away the rights of those whose views conflicts with ours.” Great way to love your neighbor, don’t you think?

RE: same-sex marriage

Oh, take you pick.
It is not a one size fits all. Christians pick and choose what scriptures they want to believe and live by. For instance, you (whodat) seem to believe and live by the bible edict that says that God hates or disapproves of same-sex marriages/relationships; consequently, they should not be allowed to get married, which in a sense takes away their right to marry a person of the same sex. You (whodat) seem to have forgotten the scripture that says stone the adulterer. You seem to have forgotten the scripture that says love your enemy and pray for them.

Other Christians believe and live by the bible edict that says that women should not preach in front of men, that women should shut up and sit in the back pews because it is so unbecoming for women to do that. They use this edict to restrict and hurt women who want to preach in church.

Which Christians kill those who don’t believe in their beliefs? Oh, it’s numerous: the kill-the-abortion-providers, kill-the-gays, kill-the-Jews, kill-the-Palestinians killers, kill-those-damn-liberals killers Christians.

RE: same-sex marriage

Oh, take your pick.
It is not a one size fits all. Christians pick and choose what scriptures they want to believe and live by. For instance, you (whodat) seem to believe and live by the bible edict that says that God hates or disapproves of same-sex marriages/relationships; consequently, they should not be allowed to get married, which in a sense takes away their right to marry a person of the same sex. You (whodat) seem to have forgotten the scripture that says stone the adulterer. You seem to have forgotten the scripture that says love your enemy and pray for them.

Other Christians believe and live by the bible edict that says that women should not preach in front of men, that women should shut up and sit in the back pews because it is so unbecoming for women to do that. They use this edict to restrict and hurt women who want to preach in church.

Which Christians kill those who don’t believe in their beliefs? Oh, it’s numerous: the kill-the-abortion-providers, kill-the-gays, kill-the-Jews, kill-the-Palestinians, kill-those-damn-liberals Christians.

Jesus said:

Matthew 22 (KJV):

"35 Then one of [the Pharisees], which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.'"

I don't see anything here that says, "love your neighbor only if he/she isn't in a same-gender relationship."

Rev. Gaddy responds

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I am under no illusion that everyone opposed to same-gender marriage is willing to find common ground, but also I am not convinced that there is no value in attempting to talk with those with whom we disagree. Their way is not our way. And, of course, no one said this would be an easy road to travel.

The over-arching goal of this paper is to shift the same-gender marriage debate from one of scripture to one of law. I have no interest in telling the followers of any one religion how to interpret their own teachings. However, I am very interested in pursing a debate based on the Constitution, a document that governs all of us. A discussion that respects the rights of each religion to determine its own path while also protecting the rights of the LGBT community is surely the way forward, at least, that is my opinion.

RE: ev. Gaddy responds

Thanks to Rev. Gaddy for your article and your response.

As for the Constitutional right to marry: in Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Virginia's laws against interracial marriage. In this decision, the Supreme Court justices stated that the right to marry whomever one wants is a Constitutional right. Note that the decision did NOT mention that marriage had to take place only between people of different genders.

The Court stated:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

I believe that this says it all.

Thank you

Rev. Gaddy, I am grateful for your response.

Please don't misunderstand my intent. I think your paper and your effort are both tremendous and I am happy to have you as an ally in this fight for LGBT rights. I am hopeful that your support and the support of other straight and religious allies will, indeed, move this issue forward.

I am merely sounding a bell of reality that for as long as vilifying gays and lesbians fills the coffers of anti-gay organizations, there will be major resistance to a reconciliation on the issue.

It is my sincere hope that your efforts and the efforts of others will change the grassroots and those giving money now to anti-gay campaigns will stop. Once the money dries up, anti-gay forces will have to find a new way to raise money for their hateful campaigns.

Again, thank you for your paper and your ongoing efforts. I'm merely playing the "devil's advocate" as our blog is named, in order to keep us moving forward, but with an eye on the obstacles that may hinder us.

I'm glad to be in the struggle with one such as yourself.

Candace

Login / Signup Join the conversation

Comments closed

The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.