FRI Lies Continue Unabated

Julaine Appling of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin (FRI) has gotten her shorts into a bundle over a recent Capitol Times op-ed questioning the "truth" of the FRI's recently published tract entitled "Is Marriage in Jeopardy?" A February 10 FRI email to the faithful (among whom are many fair-minded moles), outlines the group's response to the editorial.

The FRI response is the fodder for my first new Reality Check column in some time. But to whet your taste, here's the original 2003 column. The points are as valid for the proposed Wisconsin Marriage Amendment to the state constitution as they were for the DOMA bill, vetoed by Governor Doyle in November, 2003.

Reality Check: The Lies The FRI Tells About Same-Sex Marriage

Originally published in Wisconsin IN Step September 25, 2003

Given their "virtuous" sounding name, it may seem almost impossible to believe. However, the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin (FRI) is attempting to mislead the citizens and lawmakers of Wisconsin through scare tactics, glittering generalities, circular logic, half-truths and outright lies about the need for its so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." Let's look at the FRI "Fact Sheet" taken from their own website most recently updated in late August 2003. Then let's look at the real truth of the matter. The "bullet points" below are taken in order verbatim from the FRI site. My rebuttal follows.

FRI "FACTS" ON MARRIAGE AND WISCONSIN MARRIAGE LAW

• Wisconsin's current law refers to marriage being between a "husband and wife." Opponents of AB 475/SB 233 claim that these words are sufficient to protect one-man/one-woman marriage. However, a liberal, activist court could determine because the law doesn't specify that "husband" means "man" and "wife" means "woman," and because there is no clear statement of the intent of Wisconsin's public policy about marriage, that the current law is broad enough to include something other than one-man/one-woman marriage.

SCARE TACTIC & OUTRIGHT LIE: The word "wife" comes from the 11th Century Middle English. For almost 1,000 years it has meant the female partner in marriage. No court in U. S. history has interpreted the word "wife" to mean anything other than that nearly millennium old, gender specific definition. Moreover, every court decision to date that supports same-gender marriage refers not to redefining marriage but to extending equality of opportunity to having unions legally recognized to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation. AB475/SB233 replace one heterosexual definition with another and thus in reality change nothing. However, the bills do perpetuate ongoing prejudice against LGBT people -- the real intent of the FRI.

• Throughout history, all civilized cultures have recognized marriage between one man and one woman as the norm.

OUTRIGHT LIE: Even the Bible refers to the plural marriages of some of its greatest heroes. Plural marriages, the same gender marriages and communal marriages have been recorded throughout world history in multiple cultures. The "norm" has been a diversity of unions, the majority of which have been heterosexual.

• Throughout history, all civilized cultures have understood that the best environment for children is to have both a physically present mother and a father, that is, a man and a woman married to one another.

GLITTERING GENERALITY: A classic propaganda technique that makes a seemingly important statement using vague language that states nothing factual. If "understanding" means written documentation, there are numerous historical and contemporary documents that show a diversity of environments can produce well-adjusted children. Well-constructed scientific surveys have repeatedly demonstrated that quality parenting involves consistency, boundary setting and other characteristics. These skills can be performed by any number of individuals, couples or even groups of adults. The findings by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association simply trump Bible-based bigotry.

• Throughout history, all civilized cultures have recognized that children growing up to be stable, contributing citizens is the guarantee of that culture's future. These societies have therefore historically protected marriage.
  

GLITTERING GENERALITY COVERING AN OUTRIGHT LIE: Cultures that permit quality parenting are a product of the stable social systems that result from the acceptance of naturally occurring diversity of race, ethnicity, religious belief, etc. Religious intolerance is one of the most pervasive and destabilizing forces in recorded human history. Such intolerance has lead to such things as religious wars, pogroms, Inquisitions, heretic burning and - most interestingly - the settling of the majority of the colonies that formed the United States, whose founders wisely created a "godless" Constitution. The FRI of WI is just a contemporary example of such religious intolerance.

• Marriage is not just about "love and commitment." It is the union of the two sexes and the union of two families, and the means by which families are built and maintained and family names and lineages are perpetuated.
  

OUTRIGHT LIE: Apparently the FRI hasn't read the traditional marriage vow that expressly asks each party to "love and honor" and to commit to do same "until death us do part." If family names and lineages were important to those other than royalty, there would not be a hobby known as genealogy. Tracking lineage has uses a variety of records and tracks not only traditional marriages but "unsanctified" unions.

• Marriage is not discriminatory. All citizens have the same right: if they meet the other statutory requirements, they can marry if their intended spouse is someone of the opposite sex.
  

HALF TRUTH: Marriage is not discriminatory, as long as anyone can participate in it with the adult they choose to commit to. Categorically limiting the civil marriage definition to reflect a particular version of a religious dogma is in fact the very dictionary definition of discriminatory. It also violates both the Constitutional principles of separation of church and state and of equal treatment under the law.

• Research has shown and continues to show that monogamous, life-long marriages between one man and one woman result in, among other things, fewer abortions, safer homes for both women and children, safer communities, less poverty and welfare, less premarital sex and out-of-wedlock children, fewer divorces, a healthier society, more revenue and a broader tax base, and more citizen involvement in civic activities.
  

GLITTERING GENERALITY AND HALF-TRUTH: With the exception of abortion and tax revenue, the same can be said for same-gender unions that are lifelong and monogamous. And if same gender couple's relationships are legally recognized, the tax revenue issue will be true as well. The statement also begs the question: with over 10,000 heterosexual divorces disrupting families in Wisconsin in the last decade, why isn't the FRI working to strengthen the above mentioned "lifelong" marriages?

• Because monogamous, life-long marriage between one man and one woman brings order and numerous benefits to society, there is a legitimate "state interest." Governments, therefore, should protect and strengthen this institution in public policy and programs.
  

CIRCULAR LOGIC COVERING AN OUTRIGHT LIE: In order to ask for the force of law, you have to prove your case. As the above rebuttals show, the FRI has woefully failed to do so. Inclusion of same-gender civil marriages will also bring greater stability to the LGBT community that makes up anywhere from 4-10% of the entire population. Is such enhanced stability not a legitimate "state interest"? (Just a side note to the FRI folks: you put your summary argument last, not next to last.)

• Marriage encourages the sexes to complement each other's strengths and weaknesses. It is the way that men and women, with all their differences, have been united to bring out the best in the individuals and therefore in the children and in society at large.

HALF TRUTH AND GLITTERING GENERALITY: All working relationships between two people - marital or otherwise - work best when the parties bring complimentary skills and deficits to the union. All people are unique and our society in its advancement of full gender equality has demonstrated that beyond basic biology, most of the so-called "differences" between men and women result from sexual stereotyping and cultural conditioning.

In theory at least, individuals and organizations make decisions after coldly reviewing all the facts and weighing all the risk-versus-benefit arguments. When it comes to its "facts" to prove the need for its so-called "Defense of Marriage" law, the FRI simply hasn't made its case. However, the reality of contemporary American and Wisconsin partisan politics is that all decision-making occurs with foresight that extends merely through the next election cycle.

Balanced perspective comes only from retrospect. History will not be kind to either the legislative supporters of Wisconsin's DOMA or its prejudiced primogenitor, the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin.