Skip to main content

The Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg is a master at cherry-picking legitimate science to demonize the lgbt community. I know this well because I have caught him committing this offense on more than one occasion. I would like to think that it is my constant monitoring of him which led him into the following ridiculous convolution of logic.

 In a post on the FRC webpage, Sprigg was attempting to explain why discrimination against interracial marriage isn't the same as discrimination against marriage equality. To say that Sprigg fails miserably is an insult to all failures in the history of mankind.

I'm serious.

There has to be a new definition of failure invented to describe just how off-base Sprigg went.

The following is the gist of his piece:


Laws against interracial marriage served only the purpose of preserving a social system of racial segregation. This was both an unworthy goal and one utterly irrelevant to the fundamental nature of marriage.

    Bridging the divide of the sexes by uniting men and women, on the other hand, is both a worthy goal and a part of the fundamental purpose of marriage, common to all human civilizations.

    Ironically, this means that in one key respect, it is the supporters of marriage redefinition who resemble the opponents of interracial marriage. Both merely exploited the institution of marriage to advance a social goal that has nothing to do with the purpose of marriage, which is to promote responsible procreation. Virtually everyone now opposes the goal of one (racial segregation), whereas society remains sharply divided on the other (the forced affirmation of homosexual relationships), but this is ultimately irrelevant. Neither of these goals is related to the public purposes of marriage. Allowing a black woman to marry a white man does not change the definition of marriage, which requires one man and one woman.  Allowing two men or two women to marry would change that fundamental definition.

That's some serious Cheech and Chong logic there. Allow me to break down the errors.

1. Just who decided that the purpose of marriage was procreation. To make this point omits children born to unmarried couples as well as married couples who don't have children.

2. Sprigg is implying that marriage equality would upset the social order and pollute marriage. His implication is ironic. Earlier this year, Howard University School of Law submitted a brief to the Supreme Court making the case that those who opposed interracial marriage and those who oppose marriage equality have made similar illogical arguments. Number one on their list was how the opposers of both marriage situations claimed that they (i.e. interracial marriage or marriage equality) would upset the social order.

3. And the largest refutation to Sprigg's argument is simple. He does not say just how allowing gay couple to marry would "redefine marriage." He does not say how allowing gay couples would damage the marriages of heterosexual couples.  That so-called fundamental purpose of uniting heterosexual couples Sprigg mentioned would still take place. No one, Sprigg included, has ever accurately spelled out just how would allowing gay couples to marry damage heterosexual couples. And I don't mean some hypothetical, metaphysical point thought up in a boardroom. I mean concrete evidence. And let's face it. Neither Sprigg nor his bunch have any.

This hot mess of a post by Sprigg reveals something more than a man literally talking out of his ass. It reveals that if one was to take away the religious right's tendency to rely on junk science and cherry-pick legitimate science, this disgrace of a column is all you have left of their arguments against the lgbt community.

It's nothing but hot air propelled by bigotry.

Originally posted to The Author on Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 10:46 AM PDT.

Also republished by Kossacks for Marriage Equality.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Still fighting over custody of the word, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    se portland

    'marriage'.  Let's agree that the term 'civil union' or some such word/phrase, is what the state requires for two people to be legally bound.  Then, if you want, marriage can be what you want it to be.  Church, no church, whatever.

    Time is a long river.

    by phonegery on Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 10:58:48 AM PDT

  •  Excellent first post, Alvin (5+ / 0-)

    I've been reading you at your site for years now (lurking, of course), and I'm really happy that you decided to post this here as your first diary. I hope you'll favor us with contributions like this again!

    Republished to Kossacks for Marriage Equality.

    -7.75, -8.10; . . . Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall (h/t cooper888)

    by Dave in Northridge on Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 11:34:36 AM PDT

  •  since FRC has forgotten history, the reasoning (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    se portland, art ah zen, NancyWH

    behind the racial laws struck down by Love v VA was that Man exists as different breeds instead of as a single species.  Next was the assumption that some races are superior to others (ref: Bell Curve for most recent attempt to prove this) and that if the races mingled, the same result would occur if you permitted a street mutt to breed with a purebred canine.  The progeny are considered mongrels.

    Racial laws were intended to prevent mongrelization of white race.  Problem is race is an artificial contrivance and really does not exist in nature.  Any breed has a continuum of what is considered acceptable, even in purebred stock (BTW incest laws would seem to contradict these racial purity laws as purebreds are developed through line breeding).  In mankind, the variances are really quite small compared to the variances in other species.

    Of course the idea that one race is superior is fallacious as well as is the idea that there is a "pure" race anywhere.

    The problem for FRC is their logic is as flawed as the logic of the authors of the racial mixing laws to prevent miscegenation.  Their logic (which is that of the RCC BTW) is that marriage is only for reproduction which means post-menopausal women, women with a hysterectomy, men with a vasectomy and a great number other people are also not eligible for  marriage in their eyes.  If FRC wishes to be consistent, let them advocate fertility tests for couples before marriage licenses can be issued.  Wonder what they would say to that?  

  •  The 'logic' I have been seeing goes like this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Laws banning interracial marriages is discriminatory because it creates two separate pools of eligible marriage partners. Black men can only marry black women and white me can only marry white women. That is discrimination. But because a white gay man has the same pool of eligible marriage partners that a black straight man has, there is no discrimination.

    The pursuit of happiness apparently has no place in the equation. As long as everyone has the same restrictions, it is all fair. So, with this 'logic', a law that states that an American can only marry another American citizen is perfectly fine. Or, I assume, a law stating that a marriage is only between to people of the same sex. Women are not discriminated against because, regardless of race or creed, they have the same pool of people to marry.

    It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America. - Molly Ivins

    by se portland on Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 11:40:35 AM PDT

  •  not to mention (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    after God created Adam and Eve he told them to be fruitful and multiply without any bother over the niceities of marriage. It is evident from the bible that marriage is about continuation of the family lineage rather than procreation per se.

    •  The exact words were, I believe, ... (0+ / 0-)

      "Go fuck like rabbits, you crazy galoots, and be sure to call me when it starts to get good because I can't really be watching everything all the time ...."

      [In my experience, women seem to recall the latter half of god's directive more religiously than men, who for some reason prefer "Oh shit" to "Yes! God!"]

      Too late for the simple life, too early for android love slaves - Savio

      by Clem Yeobright on Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A question. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the purpose of marriage, which is to promote responsible procreation
    Do the standard marriage vows say anything about making babies?

    -- We are just regular people informed on issues

    by mike101 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 12:48:22 PM PDT

  •  I don't think logical persuasion is their goal. (0+ / 0-)

    It's just verbal masturbation.  They're just coming up with new hot air to pass around amongst themselves.  Like George Castanza said, "Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it."

    "The light which puts out our sight is darkness to us." Thoreau

    by NancyWH on Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 01:36:37 PM PDT

  •  I was trained as a medieval historian, and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a gilas girl

    that covered the time when the state and then the church took up jurisdiction of marriage. IIRC, at least in Northern Europe, what marriage and celibacy were both about was not so much the devolution of genes but the devolution of property rights, and marriage was not as now a choice of individuals but a determination between families as to the intergenerational disposition of property and various sorts of property like rights, sealed with the bodies of the married, who had little to say in the matter.

    Celibacy in particular for clergy was to make sure that a cleric's wife and children never got their hands on Church property.  Civil marriage was a tiny bit less strict, but there was often a place like Gretna Greene in Scotland where those who were determined to marry could go and do it, families be hanged, until the deed was done since divorce was not a material option, but disinheritance was, and the disinheritance was the sanction. Certainly lgbt folk who had property were tied into this system, because of the property.

  •  Nice 1st diary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    navajo, lostboyjim, smileycreek
    Welcome to Daily Kos, The Author. We're happy to see by your first diary on the Family Research Council and marriage equality that you're getting your feet wet here. You have joined an amazing community that is so much more than it may seem on the surface.

    While the site's stated purpose is electing more and and better Democrats, you'll find the community is filled with an array of non-political interests as well. Community-building is a major part of what we do, and we're made up of overlapping communities, some serious and some playful. Many members have joined one of the several hundred specialized Daily Kos communities we call Groups. The only limit on how many you participate in depends on the flexibility of your personal clock.

    There are some basic rules we follow here in seeking to keep discussions civil and productive. You can learn more at the Knowledge Base. If you have questions, diaries labeled "Open Thread" on the front page are great places to ask. Don't be afraid, we were all newbies once.

    We look forward to your contributions. Dive right in!

    "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey

    by nomandates on Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 06:53:07 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site