I would like to start out by stating categorically that I utterly despise Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. I think he is an utterly poisonous individual, and his desire to inject his particular, narrow brand of Christian fundamentalism is anathema to me. That he is a despicable opponent to equality for gays, lesbians and their families (or, in other words, me, the Better Half and the Critter) cranks up the gas on my contempt, but I find his entire worldview pretty much the exact opposite of everything I admire and support in American politics.
I do not like the man.
But this (via the Dish) is wrong:
Questions surround what appears to be the censoring of a Christian leader by the U.S. military.
Nearly four months ago, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins received an invitation to speak at a national prayer luncheon held, Thursday, at Andrews Air Force Base.
It was not an unusual request. Perkins is an ordained minister and veteran of the Marine Corps.
But he's also a vocal opponent of rolling back the military's "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy that prohibits gays from serving openly in the military.
Two days after President Obama's State of the Union speech, in which he announced plans to repeal "Don't ask, Don't tell," Perkin's received a letter from the chaplain's office at Andrews rescinding the invitation.
The letter cited Family Research Council statements calling them "incompatible in our role as military members who serve our elected officials and our commander in chief."
Oh, this makes me feel oily and gross. I think the Administration was wrong to rescind this invitation.
In case you're new to this blog (and welcome, if somehow you just found us), being a Gay Homosexual myself, I am thoroughly in favor of the repeal of DADT, as well as just about every other piece of discriminatory nonsense that helps to keep me a second-class citizen. But I also expect Our Side (on which I include the POTUS) to be better than Their Side.
One of the trillions of things I hated about the Bush administration was its stifling of dissent. You weren't allowed to ask questions, speak your mind, or even show up at their events unless you had signed with the blood of your firstborn that you supported them on every single agenda item. It was an anti-democratic, narrow-minded and frankly dangerous way of running the country, and one I opposed vociferously.
I didn't like it then. I don't like it now.
I can understand why the Administration rescinded the invitation. Hell, let's be honest, I would probably have been pretty damn annoyed if I had learned about the invitation after Perkins had spoken. But I can't support having a dissenting voice cast out after an invitation has been sent because the opinion expressed is unpopular, even if it's one I would personally like to throttle with my bare hands.
Now I need to go shower.