Dear Preserve Marriage:
While there is nothing wrong with affirming what you deem to be traditional family value, it is a problem when you characterize those of us in non-traditional families as some dangerous other, and then seek to have legislation enacted to give effect to your beliefs without regard to the broader implications of doing so.
Your campaign contains numerous misstatements about LGBT families that cannot go unaddressed, and you cannot play the victim when people challenge you on them.
Your marketing materials suggest [among other things] that non-traditional families place children at a heightened risk of dropping out of high school, somehow lead to the exploitation of women, and also undermine the fabric of society. You have produced no credible evidence to support those unfounded assertions.
Chen Foley 160207
Children will do best when they live in an emotionally and economically stable family unit, regardless of whether they live in a single parent household, or in a household headed by mixed-sex parents, or in a household headed by a single-sex couple.
It is antithetical to advocate for legislative action that undermines the emotional and financial stability of non-traditional families in the name of protecting the interests of children. Doing so places all children at risk.
If you were genuinely concerned about standards in education your ire would be directed at the lack of funding and support for public schools, and you would be organizing a march on Cabinet to demand that public education be ring fenced from future budget cuts.
Moreover, if you were legitimately concerned about the exploitation of women, you would advocate for effective steps to be taken to ensure equal pay in the workplace.
Those of us who you regard as being outside the bounds of traditional relationships don’t pose a risk to the future of our country. Spiraling healthcare costs, the absence of a coherent governmental policy for supporting seniors [particularly those with dementia] and those who care for our seniors, rising costs of fresh produce which discourages economically vulnerable parents from buying healthy food for their children all pose a risk to our country’s future.
For you to suggest that I or any other LGBT person is responsible for that state of affairs is fanciful.
Saying that your statements aren’t bigoted is akin to telling me there is an apple tree growing in my backyard when I can see for myself that it produces lemons. Your campaign is clearly an American export, which is designed to attempt to achieve an end that was unsuccessful there.
More importantly though, from one believer to another, the baseless claims that your campaign makes [despite the gloss and high resolution graphics] serves to do little more than alienate and repel people from the radical Gospel of Christ. We should be seeking to speak up for those who are poor and vulnerable, not focusing our efforts on making life harder for people because of their family circumstances.
Not all communities of faith support your aims or the means that you have adopted, and it is important to acknowledge the work that is being done to create positive dialogue between people on both side of the marriage equality issue that has not resorted to the publication of sensational, headline grabbing, baseless soundbites. If you genuinely want to be part of such a discussion then please get in touch.
Whether a limited liability company like Preserve Marriage Bermuda Limited possesses a right religious freedom is a debate for another day. It suffices to say that those who support the work of the organization have the right to their religious views; however, they cannot seek to escape criticism by hiding behind that right when spreading bad information.
Yours sincerely,
- Chen Foley
