James Dobson makes Dan Fessler’s point for him

The aggressively Christianist Dr. James Dobson doesn’t seem to have read his Bible very carefully.

The following is the full text of a press release from “Focus on the Family” about the House’s rejection of the already-dead anti-gay-marriage amendment to the Constitution.

Dobson Says House Betrayed People with MPA Vote

Vows to let every American know how their lawmakers vote

Colorado Springs, Colo — Focus on the Family Action Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement today after the U.S. House of Representatives failed to approve the Marriage Protection Amendment:

“Once again, the men and women representing their constituents in Washington have betrayed those who put them in power. Like the Senate did before them, the House has refused to protect the institution of marriage from activist judges bent on redefining it.

“Americans have made it clear where they stand on the traditional family, which has been the bedrock of civilization for 5,000 years. Twenty states, by overwhelming margins, have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage solely as the union of one man and one woman. That represents tens of millions of voters whose beliefs and desires have been disregarded by members of Congress.

“We are seeing increasing signs that many of those voters are fed up with Washington. We certainly intend to tell them how their senators and congressmen voted on the Marriage Protection Amendment. We believe many of them will ‘remember in November.’ “

As Dan Fessler pointed out, the people who talk about heterosexual monogamous marriage as if it were some sort of naturally occuring universal phenonmenon are talking through their hats. “5000 years” would cover Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, none of whom seemed to believe in the one-man-one-woman formula.

Footnote And what’s gotten into the AP lately?

The vote was 236-187 with one member voting ”present,” a slight improvement over the last House vote just before the 2004 election but still 46 short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment.

“Improvement”?!! There’s some liberal media bias for you.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

5 thoughts on “James Dobson makes Dan Fessler’s point for him”

  1. Perhaps it is time to say loud and clear that fundamentalist Christianity, like Mormonism, is a minority religion in the United States – and a new one, at that.. That there IS NO majority religion – only minority religions. Stop lumping all "Christians" together. That meme (that there is something called "Christianity") is unfavorable to progressives, because it supports the canard that the US was founded as a "Christian" nation. Episcopalians and Unitarians have more in common with Buddhists than they do with fundamentalists.

  2. Yes, Dr. Dobson, by all means, please let us know how the lawmakers vote. Please send a a fundamentalist christian challenger to every district that voted against the amendment. Let's have some Congressional fun.

  3. I'd say that 90% or more of self-proclaimed Christians would disavow Dr. Dobson's mouthings. He represents a loud and (self) mis-informed cult-like group which have little to do with mainstream American thought. I hope.
    Mike

  4. Now you ARE being paranoid, Mark. Obviously (or it should be obvious), by "improvement" the AP simply meant "increase". The word is often used in that sense, lest we forget…

Comments are closed.