Statement by Peter Sprigg
by Peter Sprigg
March 27, 2008
In an interview with Medill News Service that was posted on the Internet last week, I discussed FRC’s opposition to an immigration bill that would allow foreign nationals who are the same-sex partners of American citizens to immigrate to the United States on the same basis as foreign spouses of American citizens. FRC does not believe that homosexual relationships are the equivalent of marriage, and we therefore oppose any legislation that would treat such relationships as the equivalent of marriage.
In response to a question regarding bi-national same-sex couples who are separated by an international border, I used language that trivialized the seriousness of the issue and did not communicate respect for the essential dignity of every human being as a person created in the image of God. I apologize for speaking in a way that did not reflect the standards which the Family Research Council and I embrace.
Family Research Council is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. If this post has been helpful to you, please consider a gift to help us continue to advance Faith, Family, and Freedom.
Comments
Does this mean that the Family Research Council is now endorsing the UAFA (Uniting American Families Act).
Awesome.
I just don’t understand the backward thinking that some Americans have against gay people? I’ve been in a gay relationship with the same person for over 5 years now, because of the backward thinking of the Bible thumping section of this country I can’t be with my lover. The question is why? All men are equally. That’s my given right as a US citizen. As a US citizen I do have rights and this president and the right wing do not see that all men are equal.
This country was formed to keep the church out of the government.
“I apologize for speaking in a way that did not reflect the standards which the Family Research Council and I embrace.”
Huh? Why would it not reflect the ‘standards’ of the FRC? Since when did it ever show respect for the ‘essential dignity of every human being’? I’d say Sprigg’s rhetoric was pretty tame, considering the previous lies and distortions this organization continuously makes concerning the lives of gays and lesbians. That this mishap even occurred indicates what truly lies within your hearts, regardless of latter regret.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t listen, because the next generations have already seen the damage you have caused to the Christian faith.
“FRC does not believe that homosexual relationships are the equivalent of marriage, and we therefore oppose any legislation that would treat such relationships as the equivalent of marriage.”
Well, what if we just give it a different name? Why call it marriage? Other countries name it “civil union” for example. The point is that UAFA is just a bill that lets an American citizen or permanent resident sponser his/her same-sex foreign partner, so they can live together.
If we’re all equal, then why not treat us equally, the same way any heterosexual American is treated? Besides that, isn’t this country all about “liberty and justice for all”? How long will the U.S. government tolerate this form of discrimination based on sexual orientation?
“I used language that trivialized the seriousness of the issue…”
Gee, do you think? Why in the world did it take Sprigg a full week to apologize for his awful comments? If someone from a prominent gay rights group said that he’d rather have anti-gay Christians “exported” (actually, the correct word would be “deported.” Sprigg apparently does not know the difference between “export” and “deport”) out of America, the FRC and other Religious Right groups would use said person’s statement as a representative of the thinking of homosexuals in general.
I recently sent FRC an email directed to the attention of Mr. Sprigg objecting to and condemning his recent comment. This is the reply I received today. Much as we might hope, I regret to tell you james, that FRC’s position has not changed.
Dear Mr. Marlink,
Thank you for your reply clarifying Peter Sprigg’s recent comment and his subsequent apology for his thoughtless remark but which does NOT change the anti-gay stance that he and FRC have taken with respect to this important issue.
Peter has clarified his remarks on FRC’s blog at: http://www.frcblog.com/2008/03/statement_by_peter_sprigg_1.html. in which he stated: >”I apologize for speaking in a way that did not reflect the standards which the Family Research Council and I embrace.”
Absolutely, Mr. Marlink. We must observe the ‘standards’ that FRC, Focus On The Family and like-minded fundamentalist religious organizations have labored so diligently to embrace. You’ve explained your disapproval of us eloquently. If you truly understood and realized that trivializing the seriousness of this issue is wrong, than how can you continue to oppose any legislation that would treat such relationships as the equivalent of marriage?
Stating it even more personally, how can you sleep at night, knowing that organizations like yours and the people who support them are responsible for the heartbreak and misery that tens of thousands of innocent victims of your hate campaign must endure and one that is based on an instrument and religious beliefs that not every American shares? Does that make you feel good about yourselves?
Is your ‘ideal’ version of marriage so weak and in danger of collapsing that you need to shore it up by preventing gays from getting married? Given the dismal statistics that some 50% of all “normal” marriages end in divorce, I fail to see what gay people could possibly have to do with that? If your marriages are not working, then YOU need to work on that, not blame us. And if you do not believe in gay marriage, then DON’T marry someone of the same sex!
Please enlighten me because I am confused by the double-speak. If you really want to preserve the “sanctity of marriage”, then pass a law making it illegal to obtain a divorce. That will do far more to strengthen the institution of marriage, than barring homosexuals from getting married.
It would appear from Mr. Sprigg’s “clarification” of his comment, that it is still perfectly ok for FRC and like organizations to continue denigrating us, keep campaigning to keep us second-class citizens, and keep us separate us from our families by denying us our fundamental, basic, civil-rights. I would beg one favor of you, however.
Just remember to do it in a politically correct manner…and all will be forgiven.
Sincerely,
Charles J. Mueller
Tampa, Florida
Why should Sprigg apologize? This is what is truly in his heart. He actually would like us to be exported out of the country to some type of re-education camp.
These type of christians are always the same. They were wrong about slavery, civil rights, evolution and now gay rights.
(1) “…FRC does not believe that homosexual relationships are the equivalent of marriage…”
The point of the UAFA is to recognise comitted relationships between gays precisely in a way that does not assign them the same status as marriage. Mr Sprigg and the FRC should consider this: if God made anything in this world it is love, and to advocate for the separation and thus suffering of people comitted in love is itself sinful.
(2) When Mr Spriggs talks flippantly about ‘exporting’ homosexuals, he might be mindful of the terminology used by the Nazis to refer to extermination. That word was ‘evacuation’. One wonders if that what what he was really thinking about.
As an American Citizen, Military Veteran and Gay man all I have to say is that your views and statements are reprehensible to me. You would seek to take away my citizenship because we disagree about the nature of sexual orientation.
However, no matter how vile yuor views are to me, as an American you have the right to espouse these opinions. And I as your fellow countryman, I will continue to fight to the death for your right to say them.
My reply:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg
I am not a neurologist, but those who are qualified to read those scans, and interpret the EEGs, said she couldn’t possibly recover. My limited ability to tell the difference between ‘brain’ and ‘hole’ is enough to agree with them.
I think that the attitude of FRC towards gays was best exemplified byt their representative, Kari Simpson; in Vancouver, Canada. Several years ago a widely respected gay man was beaten to death by young thugs, in a crime that shocked the city and that police immediately called a hate crime. She demanded to know why they were calling it a hate crime; thus earning the disdain of the entire region .
By: francis | March 27, 2008 at 8:03 pm
it doesnt go far enough really,hes apologising just to protect the image of his organization.his former statement represent his deep rooted hatred and bias towards homosexuals