 |
| Where was Peter Sprigg at Friday's DOMA hearing? |
Not because who was there as witnesses, but because who wasn't there.
Where was the Family Research Council? I find it bizarre that an organization which has spoken in front of Congressional committees in the past and has a webpage devoted to "Defending DOMA" was conspicuously M.I.A. during this hearing.
Not only that, but I couldn't find a word about the hearing on its webpage.
Now there could be a multitude of reasons the Family Research Council was missing during Friday's hearing, but since we don't know any of them, I am going to take advantage of the situation to speculate.
Where was FRC's chief witness, Peter Sprigg? Sprigg has crossed the country speaking in front of state legislators on the subject of marriage equality (opposing it of course), so one would think at this hearing involving a national policy regarding stopping marriage equality, he would make an appearance.
Perhaps there are two reasons why Sprigg was absent.
Reason 1: His belief that the United States should "export" lgbts:
Reason 2: His belief that "gay sex" should be outlawed
I can just imagine the fun Congressman Jerome Nadler (D-NY) could have challenging Sprigg on those statements alone.
Another good thing to speculate about is this - since FRC has taken a leading position - the lead position in fact - in challenging (rather poorly I might add) charges from the Southern Poverty Law Center that it and other so-called morality groups like it stoop to lies to demonize the lgbt community, I imagine that Sprigg would be questioned regarding that.
That's almost certain, especially when one takes a look at the material on FRC's Defend DOMA webpage. One of the items on the webpage, Q&A What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?, unashamedly makes the inaccurate connection between homosexuality and pedophilia - just one of the main reasons why SPLC has charged FRC with being an anti-gay hate group.
Is it conceivable that Sprigg and the FRC didn't testify in front of Friday's Congressional hearing because both are "damaged goods" whose appearance would do more to undermine the case against DOMA?
That is such a lovely thought to ponder.
My mouth is practically watering at the thought.
2 comments:
Those may will be the reasons that the FRC was not invited, not just the reasons why they might have declined. This whole hearing was nothing but a propaganda exercise and anyone that might make the hearing look like a farce (at least to those at whom it was aimed) would have to be excluded.
Hmmm... The validation word I have to type in is "sinsnit." Good thing I have a sense of irony...
Perhaps our leaders on the hill have gotten the message that their constituents can no longer tolerate hate groups "testifying" before Congress like they "testify" in church.
Post a Comment