Who’s Up For Signing the Family Leader Pledge?

Friday, 08 July 2011

Have you ever heard of the Iowa-based group FAMiLY Leader? Yeah, me either. Don’t worry, it’s not important.

However (you knew that was coming, didn’t you?), yesterday they released a document that they would like to have Presidential candidates sign. They are claiming that candidates need to sign this document if they wish to secure future endorsements from certain organizations.

HERE IS THE DOCUMENT.

You can read it if you want. It’s a boring pdf, though, so I’ll just highlight a few things. First, the document puts for a 14-point pledge titled “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family,” so even without reading any further, you already know it’s going to be homophobic and filled with scriptures. They begin by saying they want to ensure certain Jewish and Christian rights, such as gender equality. Because, of course, nothing says “gender equality” like the bible. To prove their point, they footnote three scriptures, including Genesis 2:25, where we read, “The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.”

They claim this pledge is needed because divorce rates keep going up, and children often suffer the brunt of these fissions. They note that lots of babies are born out of wedlock each year. Oh – and they also claim they wish to stem the tide of the “debasement of marriage,” including a popular bias that posits homosexual behavior optimizes individual health. I’m not sure where they go that one from – does anyone know of any source that claims that, in order to optimize your health, you need to behave gay?

Anyway, the pledge has 14 points, all footnoted. The only two I can really get behind are points 1, 2 and 5. But since I already pledged point #1 on my wedding day, I see no point in re-asserting it now. Point #2 also seems decent, but it’s a bit vague. There are some marriages that I wish did not happen. There are people who got divorced, and I’m glad they did (my parents are primary examples). So was I not respecting their union? I don’t know. Or maybe the point is just intended to get me to pledge that I won’t sleep with anyone else’s spouse. But since I already agreed to point #1, then this is also redundant.

Regarding point #5: sounds good to me. This is why we should legalize gay marriage.

I’d like to agree with point #3, that all judges be faithful to the Constitution but, again, this is a bit vague. Obviously the Constitution is not perfect, and the authors knew this by allowing for methods of amendment. So I think it’s fine if judges respect and are faithful to the Constitution, yet also feel that it is incomplete or fuzzy in certain areas. The footnotes clears up the meaning by noting that some judges have rejected heterosexuality (what? who?) and that Iowa voters have rejected three such judges (at the insistence of FAMiLY Leader’s leader, no less). It also says some judges are trying to interpret the Constitution to mean that gays can have equal rights, too which, in contradiction to their preamble, is not something FAMiLY Leader wants. Clearly, the Founding Fathers did not want same-sex marriage, just as they did not want women to vote or black people and Indians to count as citizens. Ahh…the good old days.

Regarding the last seven points… Rejecting all forms of pornography and prostitution? Again, this violates the documents preamble of human rights: If two people consent to sex provided one of them pays the other, then I see no problem. And pornography is free speech, man. How would we ban “all forms” of it, anyways? Is any movie with a nude scene considered a porno? I think Tim Pawlenty’s face constitutes a form of pornography, so… would he be banned from appearing in public without a burka? Oh – that brings me to…

Rejection of Sharia Law…I agree with that one, because I oppose all theocracies. However, we don’t live under Sharia Law here in America, so I’m not sure why I would need to agree to this. Shouldn’t I also state that I disagree with the Chinese system of government, and the Cuban one, and Libya’s, and Rwandas…

That last point sounds good on the surface, but it’s couched in such loaded language (anyone who tries to keep state and church separate is “undermining” and showing “intolerance”) that I could not sign it without suspecting ulterior motives. It incites a persecution complex; a tactic I’ve seen all too often in my time.

Fun fact: Michele Bachmann signed the pledge today.