HRC debunks new homophobic TV ad

A hate group called the National Organization for Marriage has been running an ad, called Gathering Storm, which is spreading lies and distortions about the alleged consequences of gay marriage.

In the ad, actors portray "victims" of the "gay agenda". They include:

(1) A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job

(2) A member of New Jersey church group that is punished by the state because they cannot support same-sex marriage

(3) A Massachusetts parent who must helplessly stand by while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is OK

And they contend that they are the ones whose rights are being violated.

Fortunately, we have wonderful organizations like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), who can logically and rationally debunk this craziness.

And the HRC goes to town with this Gathering Storm nonsense, outlining the real facts of each case:

The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.

All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.

The real facts of each case are:

• The California doctor entered a profession that promises to "first, do no harm" and the law requires her to treat a patient in need - gay or straight, Christian or Muslim - regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith - it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.

• The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions - concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments - but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization's beliefs about homosexuality - it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.

• The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son's public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family's religious traditions.

In other words, it's about enforcing legal rights for all -- even for those people whose sexual orientation might make the bigots uncomfortable. You're free to have your beliefs, but you cannot force your beliefs onto others in the public square.

And remember: It wasn't too many decades ago that bigots were spreading similar kinds of propaganda in opposition to interracial marriage.