Ohio Democrat Mike Ritter: Be Fair to Christian Homophobes
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports on a blog:
Directed at one of Ritter’s Democratic opponents, tenants organization Director Mike Foley, the piece said: “Mike Foley was asked [in an endorsement interview for the Sun Newspapers] if he was ‘For Gay Marriage?’ Mike said ‘Yes’ he supports gay marriage. UNLIKE MIKE this concerns me since I DO NOT want this to become a state law. I feel a Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. That is the WAY I WILL VOTE in Columbus! In FACT Mike Foley has been ENDORSED by the STONEWALL DEMOCRATS, who are a GAY/LESBIAN political action committee. His endorsement is largely because of His Support of Gay Marriage.”
So, Mike Ritter attacked a fellow Democrat for receiving support from gay voters and for supporting the equal rights of gay citizens. The negative reaction to this gay baiting was so bad, that Ritter lost his endorsements from the UAW; others have expressed great displeasure.
Ritter’s reaction:
“I’m getting harassed,” he said. “I’m getting hangup calls, ranting calls where people are calling me lewd names. What they’ve done is immediately go on the attack, as opposed to checking the source and the intent. That letter was in no way, shape or form bashing the gay community. My lack of support for gay marriage is simply this: I’m trying to also be fair to another segment of our populace who think this may not be religiously proper.“ [emphasis added]
The lewd calls are a bad idea and people really shouldn’t do it — I do hope he isn’t getting any threats. People have right to be angry and to express their anger, but there are better and worse ways to do that.
More important, however, is the part I emphasized. Mike Ritter thinks that opposing equal rights for gay citizens is simply a matter of being “fair” to bigots who want to impose their religious doctrines on everyone by having civil marriage laws reflect the religious marriage laws of just one group of citizens.
Imagine if he had said:
My lack of support for interracial marriage is simply this: I’m trying to also be fair to another segment of our populace who think this may not be religiously proper.
My lack of support for desegregation is simply this: I’m trying to also be fair to another segment of our populace who think this may not be religiously proper.
My lack of support for letting women vote is simply this: I’m trying to also be fair to another segment of our populace who think this may not be religiously proper.
My lack of support for liberal divorce laws is simply this: I’m trying to also be fair to another segment of our populace who think this may not be religiously proper.
Who cares if some segment of the population may not think that such things are “religiously proper”? Why does Mike Ritter think that one segment of the population has the authority to limit the laws of the land to their personal interpretations of their religious scriptures? Mike Ritter, I submit, has no real conception of what a civil, secular democracy is all about and is unfit to serve the government at any level — he certainly shouldn’t be allowed to keep his teaching job. If I had gay children, I wouldn’t trust that they would be safe around a “teacher” such as Mike Ritter.
Quick Poll: Should we 'be fair' by banning things that are contrary to some religious doctrines?
- Of course, it's discrimination if we don't.
- Of course not, civil law can't be constrained by religious laws.
- I don't know.
- I don't care.
Gay Rights & Gay Marriage:
- Marriage: Religious Rite or Civil Right?
- Gay Rights & Marriage News
- Gay Rights Polls
- Books On Gays, Homosexuality
- Gay Rights & Marriage Timeline
- Evangelical Christianity & Homosexuality
- Catholicism & Homosexuality
Arguments Against Gay Marriage:
Comments
I don’t agree with Mike Ritter’s position but I thought it was interesting that you said that he should not be able to keep his teaching job.
I’m not sure I follow that logic. I am a public school teacher and I’d like to think that since I keep my politics seperate from my job (teaching Biology) that a political position (generally speaking) should not affect my employment.
Your comment just made me consider the fact that some people would feel the same way about me if they knew I were an atheist.
Can you explain your logic for making this comment? or were you just stating your opinion regarding your desire for teachers to not be bigots?
Well, I do desire that teachers not be bigots; this, however, goes further. Mike Ritter is running a political campaign based at least in part on the idea that one segment of the population should be denied equal rights because another segment thinks such equality would be “improper” and contradictory to their personal religious dogmas.
If I were a parent of a gay child, I wouldn’t be able to trust Mike Ritter to treat my child equally and fairly. I don’t think that any parents of gay children would be able to trust Ritter - and if Ritter can’t be trusted to treat all kids equally, then that undermines any claim he has to being able to fulfill the duties of a teacher.
An analogy wouldn’t simply be to an atheist, but to an atheist who tried to run for political office and promising to support measures that would undermine or block the equal rights of Christians. Such an atheist I wouldn’t want to keep his teaching job, either.