Coronavirus outbreak relief takes backseat to the Family Research Council's 'gay baiting'

Tony Perkins (bottom) and his group are exploiting the coronavirus to again attack LGBTQ people.

One would think that during this coronavirus pandemic, certain groups would cease their usual gay baiting. Yes, one would think and hope. But if one did so, he or she would be living in a fool's paradise. Particularly when it comes to Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council:

"We're going big." Those were the president's words heading into a Senate debate over the latest coronavirus response. In Congress, where the bills are changing faster than the infection map, the White House is racing to strike the right balance between protecting America's economy -- and helping yours. Unfortunately, fiscal matters aren't the only concern as liberals echo what Rahm Emanuel, the former chief of staff for Barack Obama, said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. 

Seizing the opportunity is exactly what Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and company tried to do by turning the virus package into a radical grab bag of abortion funding and LGBT messaging. Being in the minority Republicans had their work cut out for them. Thankfully, the White House was with them -- every step of the way. First, House Democrats tried an end-run around the Hyde amendment, the ban on taxpayer-funded abortion. "We got that back," a relieved Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) said. But it wasn't too long before liberals turned their fire on something else: the family. 

In what would have been the first time in federal law -- ever -- Democrats tried to equate "domestic partnerships" with marriage by adding benefits for anyone in "a committed relationship." Of course, as Congressman Biggs pointed out Friday, "the problem with that is that it's really hard to define a committed relationship... so they've tried to put in, in my opinion, kind of a [vague] definition. But that leaves it wide open -- and then, they [can] expand on that. So two provisions that have nothing to do with the coronavirus are basically thrown into this thing. And that's just par for the course for the for the activist Left." 

FRC worked through the weekend reading the evolving language looking for problems just like this. Understanding that in emergency situation, Emanuel's declaration is standard operating procedure for the Left. They're counting on the fact that with such a tight turnaround time, most members won't have the chance to give the language a detailed read. Fortunately, our team is reading the small print and warned the White House that liberals were using this bill to water down marriage. The president's staff took those concerns seriously, telling leaders at the negotiating table that the language had to go. It did. The section was fixed and sent on.

First of all, when it comes to abortion, FRC's entire narrative is a lie.

According to Politifact:

A website claims Pelosi was "caught trying to include abortion funding" in the bill. This is inaccurate. A section in the bill seeks to reimburse insurers for COVID-19 related laboratory claims. Concerns were raised that the bill’s language could inadvertently open up federal funds for abortion services, but it’s unclear exactly how. No draft of the legislation had funding for abortion in it. We rate this claim False.

Now the second claim from FRC with regards to the coronavirus bill is interesting. In a blog post which was published earlier today, I linked to an article detailing how Congressman Andy Biggs voted against the bill because he claimed it supposedly "redefined family."

FRC is openly bragging that it had a hand in pushing an objection to the bill for the same reason. According to The Hill, this is what Biggs and FRC objected to:

The bill defines committed relationships as a relationship between two individuals 18 or older in which they share responsibility for their common welfare as the other's sole domestic partner. The definition goes on to clarify that it includes individuals of the same sex whose relationship is granted legal recognition as a civil union or domestic partnership. "Child," meanwhile, was defined as any "biological, foster, or adopted child, a stepchild, a child of a domestic partner, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis."

The Hill goes on to say that Biggs called the provision "anti-family." The article also said that the bill was changed and now says paid family and medical leave is only allocated to parents whose minor children’s care facilities or schools are shut down due to the virus.

Biggs and FRC reminds me of that scene in the movie Titanic in which the passengers were told to head to the lifeboats because the ship was sinking. As they were going, one ridiculous woman asked would the seating in the lifeboats be dictated by class status? In the middle of disaster in which all lives, including hers, were at stake, this silly woman was more worried about maintaining her supposed status as a member of upper crust of society.

What was done here by Biggs and FRC was nothing more than ridiculous posturing not unlike that woman.  Apparently their need to designate a caste status is more important than unity or safety in the face of this pandemic.  They also seem to be more concerned with maintaining some conspiracy theory that Democrats and "the left" in general are exploiting this crisis to supposedly push more abortions and the so-called "gay agenda."   We've all been told that in spite of the coronavirus pandemic, we are supposed to carry on with our lives as normal as we can. Unfortunately to FRC, that means continuing to stigmatize the LGBTQ community and the Democratic party as boogeymen out to wreak chaos in American society.

It's sad and totally indicative of the singlemindedly selfish mentality which got us into this jam in the first place.