by publius
The Oklahoma GOP recently held their state convention. And judging by the party platform they adopted, it seems the GOP rebranding effort has a long road ahead. The platform is genuinely creepy – and apparently uninfluenced by Meghan McCain’s Twitter feed. (The blog Forever in Hell has multiple posts on the platform, and was my original source. The GOP platform itself is available here and here*).
Anyway, I know Kevin Drum has previously noted the looneyness of the Texas GOP platform. And the Oklahoma platform has a lot of similarities. You know, all the good stuff you’d expect like withdrawing from the UN, restoring the gold standard, requiring biblical creation education, and Taliban-like intrusions on all matters related to sex (e.g., abortion, pornography, indecency regulation, no-fault divorces, Gardasil vaccinations).
But what’s most scary about this platform is its obsessive focus with homosexuality. The level of hate and vitriol directed at homosexuals by this document – adopted by a state political party – is jarring. If the national GOP is curious about the source of its image problems, look no further than to the Oklahoma GOP platform. It’s legitimately frightening. (On an aside, I think the intensity of this institutional hatred further supports judicial efforts to protect equality).
What’s most disturbing is that the platform references homosexuality again and again in multiple sections. But of all these references, the section below takes the taco – it’s truly the worst thing in the entire document.
This passage comes from a section called “Commendations” (p.29):
Initial reaction was … huh? So I hopped on Lexis, and this story is hard to believe, even by the lofty standards of the rump of the Oklahoma GOP.
At the beginning of Oklahoma’s legislative session last February, the only openly gay Oklahoma legislator invited a gay pastor to give the opening prayer. In introducing himself before that prayer, the pastor had the audacity to say: “dear friends, my wonderful parents, and my loving partner and fiance, Michael.”
Well, that last bit crossed the line and several GOP legislators objected and wanted his subsequent prayer excluded from the official House record. They lost 64-20, but the Oklahoma GOP felt the need to formally commend the Fightin’ Twenty in its party platform for their efforts. Nice work team.
Note too the platform's quotation marks around fiancé. You can almost feel the Christian love and tolerance. (Also, Jones has a blog and wrote about the incident here).
This obnoxious provision, however, is far from alone. Below the fold, I’ve listed other provisions in the platform that explicitly reference homosexuality (I excluded hate crime stuff, but that should arguably be in too).
As you’re reading, note how many different sections of the platform reference homosexuality in some way. Note too the provision that would – by my reading – ban homosexuals from being teachers or interacting with children in any professional context.
It’s an eerie and creepy obsession. It’s more than that actually. It’s just hateful – and that’s about as precise an adjective as I can conjure to describe the Oklahoma GOP at the moment.
STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES (p.3)
As Republicans, we believe: . . . 5. In traditional marriage consisting of one man and one woman.
FAMILY (p.4-8)
Preamble: Traditional marriage, consisting of one man and one woman, is designed to provide for each family member’s physical, emotional, financial, spiritual, and social well-being.
. . .
A. Marriage, Children, and Adoption
1. We affirm the state’s recognition that marriage between one man and one woman is a covenant relationship, instituted by God, not to be entered into casually, and is fundamental to our very existence and survival as a nation. Therefore, we strongly support a U.S. Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. . . .
4. We support Federal and State legislation, which prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and/or domestic partnerships.
5. We oppose efforts to redefine marriage. Employers and taxpayers should not be forced to violate their convictions or to bear the cost of granting “same-sex marriages” the benefits that are due traditional marriages.
6. We believe that in order to encourage and protect family values, those promoting homosexuality or other aberrant lifestyles, should not be allowed to hold responsible positions over children which are not their own or over other vulnerable persons. [THIS IS THE ONE I WAS TALKING ABOUT]….
10. Except for adoption by a qualified relative (as defined by existing law), we support adoption only by traditional families.
. . .
F. General
1. We oppose the promotion of homosexuality, the elimination of laws against sodomy, and the granting of minority protection or special status to any person based upon sexual preference or lifestyle choices.
2. We believe that homosexuality is not a genetic trait but a chosen lifestyle. . . .
6. We support programs including faith-based organizations that promote traditional marriage, marriage enrichment, abstinence education, and encourage responsible parenting.
EDUCATION (p.9-12)
A. Philosophy
1. The traditional family unit, consisting of a (husband) man, (wife) woman and child(ren), is the foundation of our social structure. The Oklahoma Department of Education and various Boards of Regents should uphold and teach this definition of traditional family, at all levels of public school and higher education….
B. Curriculum
7. Any mandated sex education shall hold to the following guidelines:
a. Neither homosexual nor extramarital sexual activity shall be presented as safe, nor shall they be presented as morally or socially acceptable behaviors.
b. HIV shall be presented as incurable and fatal. . . .
9. We oppose the portrayal of homosexual or promiscuous behavior in a positive light in public schools.
FEDERAL (p.16-20)
A. Defense
7. We oppose the erosion of our military’s readiness through:
a. “Gender-norming” for training and promotion.
b. Co-ed basic training and housing.
c. “Sensitivity training” that supports or promotes the homosexual lifestyle.
d. Openly practicing homosexuals serving in the military.
(*Somewhat oddly, I couldn’t find the actual platform on pdf anywhere on the Google. Some people were posting a pdf of the Tulsa County GOP platform, but as I understand it, that’s not what the GOP adopted. If anyone has a pdf copy, please send along or provide a link in the comments.)
I'm a bit more qualified than a brief comment on a blog would indicate; Human biology was my second major in college. But what do you expect from blog comments, PHd dissertations?
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | May 07, 2009 at 02:21 PM
"But what do you expect from blog comments, PHd dissertations?"
No. Some authoritative cites on how "A behavioral trait which interferes with reproduction IS a defect in an organism" will do.
May I presume that use of contraceptives is equally a "defect" in a human being?
No confusing of "biological fitness and moral worth" involved, to be sure.
But what is your point about "biological fitness" in regard to homosexuality, exactly?, I ask as well.
And when you say, in the same comment, that you speak "[f]rom a standpoint of reproductive fitness, which is the only objective standpoint for measuring superiority vs inferiority for organisms?," could you explain, please, how you are speaking of "biological fitness" and not "moral worth," without use of tautology?
Again, authoritative cites will do the trick. Answers lacking them will not.
No dissertation involved. A few dozen words can contain the cites, and do the trick. Thanks.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 07, 2009 at 02:32 PM
So the AIDS rhetoric didn't work, and Brett has now jumped to the reproduction argument. What pseudo-scentific argument is he going to fling next?
I mean, we're talking about a guy who is unaware that anybody except gay men have anal sex. Presumably he also believes that oral sex is anti-Nature because you can't get knocked up that way?
Posted by: mythago | May 07, 2009 at 02:49 PM
Cites, cites cites. I expect any day now to mention that water is wet, and face a demand for a 'cite' from a chemist to prove it.
"I mean, we're talking about a guy who is unaware that anybody except gay men have anal sex. Presumably he also believes that oral sex is anti-Nature because you can't get knocked up that way?"
I'd be interested in any evidence you have for this conclusion about my views.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | May 07, 2009 at 05:03 PM
"Cites, cites cites. I expect any day now to mention that water is wet, and face a demand for a 'cite' from a chemist to prove it."
I didn't think so. Neither did you bother to reply to my own three cites.
Argument-by-assertion is ever so much more convincing. And quicker!
"I'd be interested in any evidence you have for this conclusion about my views."
I wouldn't draw any conclusions, but as support for a hypothesis, I'd note that you wrote this:
Note that your response didn't actually answer the question. The question was "Why can't homosexual and extramarital sexual activity be safe?"Since the answer is "no reason!," you went off into a non-sequitur assertion that "Male homosexual sex is pretty well established to be unsafe for fundamental medical reasons," while completely ignoring the fact that heterosexual sex is, in fact, pretty well established to be unsafe for fundamental medical reasons. This is why people use condoms, and (should be) practice[ing] safe sex.
Regardless of their sexual orientation.
You also attempted to reason that "Tab A is not 'designed' to be inserted in slot C," without regard to the number of heterosexuals who have anal sex.
Since you ignored these points, it raises questions about why.
You also, let me note, did a sleight of hand from your "view [of] homosexuality as a birth defect" to defending that claim as a "behavioral trait."
I'd still like to know what is your point about "biological fitness" in regard to homosexuality, exactly?
I'd still like to know your answer to "may I presume that use of contraceptives is equally a 'defect' in a human being?"
I'd still like to know when you say, in the same comment, that you speak "[f]rom a standpoint of reproductive fitness, which is the only objective standpoint for measuring superiority vs inferiority for organisms?," could you explain, please, how you are speaking of "biological fitness" and not "moral worth," without use of tautology?
Is there a problem explaining what you mean? Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 07, 2009 at 05:46 PM
I reject the claim that water is wet. The only water I ever encounterd was either dry and solid or a very thin and cold vapour. Now, methane on the other hand...
signed P.L.Uto, 666 Mi-Go city, Yuggoth
Posted by: Hartmut | May 08, 2009 at 05:36 AM
Brett: A behavioral trait which interferes with reproduction IS a defect in an organism, every bit as much as a missing limb or poor vision.
Being attracted to the same gender does not interfere with reproduction. As any lesbian mother or gay father would be able to tell you.
Being attracted exclusively to the same gender does interfere rather neatly with accidental reproduction, but most people regard that as a worthwhile benefit: people in mixed-sex relationships have to use contraception, people in same-sex relationships only have to refrain from using turkey basters. Comes cheaper. Pun intended.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | May 08, 2009 at 06:11 AM
Gary, I suppose I should be used to the fact by now, that at this site, when people read my comments, they first load the "stupid, evil conservative" 'include file'.
"Why can't homosexual and extramarital sexual activity be safe?"
They can be, that's just not the way to bet. At least, that's what STD transmission rates tell us. But maybe STDs are discriminating against male homosexuals and the promiscuous because they're bigoted.
Yes, Gary, I am quite aware that anal sex is neither an exclusively nor an obligatory homosexual activity. Again, you play the odds.
"Birth defect" and "behavioral trait" are not mutually exclusive categories, unless you're convinced that behavioral traits never have a biological basis.
"I'd still like to know your answer to "may I presume that use of contraceptives is equally a 'defect' in a human being?""
I would say that it is, in cases where use of contraceptives results from an innate drive, rather than a reasoned choice. I don't think that's too common, though.
"I'd still like to know what is your point about "biological fitness" in regard to homosexuality, exactly?"
The point is merely to establish why I use the "defect" in "birth defect", that homosexuality isn't a neutral variation, like hair color, or an attached vs detached ear lobe. But, of course, birth defects don't have any moral component, despite what that line in the 'include file' leads you to attribute to me.
"could you explain, please, how you are speaking of "biological fitness" and not "moral worth," without use of tautology?"
Could you explain what could possibly lead you to think, in the first place, that I believe biological fitness and moral worth to be even vaguely related? Am I a bad person because I'm near-sighted, with flat feet? I don't think so, which is perhaps why I wouldn't take offense to them being described as "birth defects".
Remember, I don't have a copy of that include file, maybe you could provide one, so next time I'll know what things I didn't say to expect folks here will assume I mean.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | May 08, 2009 at 06:53 AM
Brett, you still haven't managed to come up with any reason why sexual orientation should be regarded as a birth defect in any way at all... except inside the tiny mind of a stupid, evil conservative, who's got it in his include file that "homosexuality is not normal".
Posted by: Jesurgislac | May 08, 2009 at 03:15 PM
Speaking as a tiny-minded, stupid, evil conservative, I too am still puzzled by Brett's insistence (sans cite! "Darwin" does not constitute a cite) that homosexuality is a birth defect.
I'm really not sure why Brett thinks objections to this completely unsourced and unsupported assertion stem completely from ideological opposition, rather than from something more like "WTF?"
This isn't one of your better arguments, Brett, and I'm hoping that your defense of it isn't one of your better defenses.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | May 08, 2009 at 03:43 PM