Bryan Fischer, director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the religious, conservative American Family Association, had some words for Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) regarding his changed position on same-sex marriage. Fischer took to the Twittersphere in a series of tweets intended to expose the folly of Portman’s change of heart, mentioning that policy must be based on reason and not emotion. But in doing so, he actually exposed the folly of the religious right’s insistence on preventing marriage equality.

Fischer started out by saying, “Sen. Portman, if two gays want to make a lifetime commitment, no one will stop them. We just shouldn’t call it ‘marriage.'”

Of course not, because the word “marriage” will be irrevocably harmed if we apply it to same-sex unions.

He then revealed himself to be completely ignorant of the issue with the following tweet: “@ gay son: SSM: A father can still love a son who robs a bank without changing his mind about the morality of bank robbing.”





Here is a point that Mr. Fischer and his ilk refuse to attempt to understand: The man robbing the bank does so by choice. He makes a conscious decision to enter the building and use force against innocent people to take money that isn’t his. He makes the decision to stake out a likely bank, and makes careful plans before carrying out his decision. He was not born a bank robber, it’s not part of who and what he is.

A gay person, however, is born gay, and being gay is who they are, not what they choose to do. They don’t decide one day that being gay might be the way to go, and then start planning out how to become gay, and then declare that they’re gay. It’s inherent within them, it’s who they are born to be. On this basis alone, this comparison is invalid.

However, it’s not just invalid, it’s offensive, because the implication here is that Fischer and his ilk believe being gay should be considered both a moral offense and a criminal offense. He implies that being gay and allowing gays to marry will hurt innocent people. Being gay, and loving a member of the same-sex, does not put innocents at risk and does not hurt anybody, unlike robbing a bank.

Fischer didn’t stop with that offending tweet, however. He went on to say, “Having a gay son may be a powerful emotional argument for gay marriage, but policy should be based on reason, not emotion.” [emphasis mine]

Here, Fischer is absolutely correct. Reason should prevail, however, he is failing miserably at allowing reason to dictate his arguments. When the word “reason” is used as a verb, it generally means to think and form judgments of a situation based on logic. There is very little that is logical about religious faith.

Religious faith is illogical because it relies on a circular argument that something is morally wrong because God said that it is morally wrong. There often isn’t any further justification than that (and when there is, it’s based entirely on erroneous information, more circular arguments, and/or flat-out lies). It also tends to rely on the dogmatic argument, which refuses to consider any other side to an argument and is characterized by the idea that you are right, even, and maybe especially, when the majority disagrees with you.

By contrast, the emotion involved in having a gay loved one can actually open someone’s eyes to the truth of the situation. Portman’s son told him and his wife that he was gay two years ago. Changing his position on gay marriage was not an overnight occurrence, and he sought out the advice of other high-profile conservatives on the issue. He admitted to CNN that he hadn’t thought much about gay marriage until his son came out, and that his policy focus was primarily on the economy. When his son came out, the issue of marriage equality became personal for him.

It’s entirely possible, though CNN didn’t publish his innermost thoughts about it, that he saw his son’s identity and relationships had never hurt anybody. Perhaps he realized, like others, that it’s not, nor should it be, a political issue, but rather it’s a personal one for the people involved and it’s not up to him to stand in the way of that. Portman’s changed stance is very likely spurred by emotion, but based in a logic and reason that he may never have considered without the emotion.

If we’re to govern based on reason, then we would be well advised to stay away from allowing religious morals to dictate policy, as Fischer and his ilk would like. Thievery, murder, rape, assault and batter, etc., are crimes here because they overwhelmingly injure innocent people, not because some deity decided they were immoral. Gays, and the relationships they have, are not hurting anybody, and therefore, whatever morals Christians have surrounding the issue need to stay out of the policies surrounding the issue.

Rika Christensen is an experienced writer and loves debating politics. Engage with her and see more of her work by following her on Facebook and Twitter, and check out her blog, They Need To Go.