October 23, 2007

Dear Chairman Shine,

I am writing concerning your October 19th letter addressed to Matt Kelty, the Republican nominee for Fort Wayne Mayor. As you know, that now widely reported letter concerns our radio commercial airing on a local Christian radio station.

I must say that I was surprised by not only the content and tone of your missive, but the implied action request as well. As an attorney and a longstanding political party county chair, you should know very well that Matt Kelty cannot instruct our political action committee as to the content or the airing of our ad. Such coordination is legally prohibited and could cause serious problems for both your party’s candidate as well as AFA of Indiana’s PAC, were we then to modify or pull the ad that you criticized. For this reason, I wonder why you did not address your letter directly to me, rather than send it to the
candidate.

I want to take this opportunity to respond to the content of your letter through which you imply that our radio ad somehow promotes intolerance. While you do not overtly point to the verbiage of our ad, it seems obvious that you are agitated by our ad’s pointing out Councilman Tom Henry’s authorship of a controversial sexual orientation ordinance adopted in November 2001.

I was first struck by your leap of logic as you intertwined messages of tolerance and diversity with race and implications of some sort of racism in our ad. This is a very controversial approach to homosexuality that makes many civil rights leaders cringe. I wonder if you would consider Jesse Jackson intolerant? When asked about the comparison between homosexuality and the legitimate civil rights struggles of the 60’s by the Boston Globe, Rev. Jackson bristled and said. “Gays were never called three-fifths of a person in the Constitution . . . and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.”

In reading your letter, one must conclude that you might also consider the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, one of the original five who started the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) with Dr. Martin Luther King and Ralph David Abernathy, to be a promoter of intolerance. Shuttlesworth was the Conference’s first secretary. He recently said, “I never took down anything in our minutes that addressed the issue of gay rights. The issue of gay rights was not our focus, and should not be confused with The Civil Rights Movement.” It is worth noting that not long ago this esteemed African-American leader cut a television commercial in opposition to a city ordinance in Ohio similar to the one that Councilman Tom Henry authored in Fort Wayne.

Our ad also mentions that one of the groups supporting Henry for mayor is a leading supporter of same-sex marriage. This may have been part of your disapproval of our issue ad. If you erroneously see intolerance akin to racism, then you obviously also do not understand the broad opposition to same-sex marriage that exists across racial and religious lines. For example, I wonder if you think that Dr. Alveda King, niece of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to be intolerant? Not long ago she traveled Michigan to campaign in favor of their marriage protection amendment.

Likewise,the Rev. Bernice King, the daughter of Dr. King, led a march on the Georgia state Capitol in support of their marriage amendment. Is Dr. Kind’s daughter intolerant? I wonder if you think that Walter Fauntroy is intolerant? He organized the 1963 march on Washington at which Dr. King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech. Dr Fauntroy serves of the board of the Alliance for Marriage, which was formed to promote a federal marriage protection amendment.

Your letter cites Fort Wayne as being a “melting pot of different beliefs and religions, and lifestyles.” You state that you are a person “whose roots come from a class of people once persecuted for its religious beliefs” and that “it pains me to hear even a hint of intolerance associated with a candidate of an organization you chair.” You then repeat your opposition to not merely intolerance but even “perceived intolerance” (whatever that means!)

Do you also consider the Rabbinical Council of America and their followers to be intolerant? Here is what part of their statement on homosexuality says: “The Rabbinical Council of America views with distress the condoning of homosexuality as a legitimate alternative lifestyle. Such an attitude rejects a fundamental moral pillar of the Torah. . . The Rabbinical Council of America
recommends that its Rabbis do their utmost to help those with homosexual tendencies . . . The Rabbinical Council of America rejects the proposition that a person’s sexual preferences be foisted upon the community.”

After reading your letter, I also wonder if you consider Pope Benedict to be intolerant? The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith statement titled, “Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons” is quite clear on its instruction to Catholics. It states, “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination.” “Such initiatives, even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society.” “Special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.” This document was signed by Catholic leaders in 1992 including Cardinal Ratzinger,
the current Pope.

One reason that we ran our ad on the Christian radio station pointing to the issues we chose is because listeners know that scores of evangelical leaders, from Dr. James Dobson, to Pastor Charles Stanley to evangelist Billy Graham all hold consistently similar views on the subject of special rights for homosexual behaviors. Do you think that those leaders and the listeners to WFCV who disagree with Mr. Henry’s record because they also hold to conventional Christian views, are intolerant?

One person who could be classified as an evangelical Christian with traditional religious views is Congressman Mark Souder. I wonder if you think that your own Congressman is intolerant? Is he worthy of similar chastisement letter, like the one you sent to your mayoral candidate? On the very day you were likely composing your letter, Congressman Sounder released a news release concerning his opposition to a bill authored by Rep. Barney Frank. Here
is part of Rep. Souder’s Oct 18th press release:

“U.S. Rep. Mark Souder led opposition in committee today to a Democrat bill that would add “sexual orientation” to civil rights law. During the House Education and Labor Committee’s consideration of the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007, Souder spoke out against the bill and tried three times to amend it. “In their quest to grant special rights to homosexuals, Democrats are trampling on the religious freedoms of all Americans,” said Souder, a senior member of the Education and Labor Committee. “If this legislation is enacted into law, there will be a proliferation of lawsuits against Americans whose religious beliefs do not condone homosexuality. This would be a radical change in the law, and its effect would be felt far and wide.”

[Today the White House announced that it would likely veto ENDA due to religious liberty concerns. It seems that even your party’s highest office holder might have philosophical disagreement with Henry’s sexual orientation ordinance. – See statement included.]

In closing, I would simply like to remind you that regardless of what you think of their views, a significant portion of voters are deeply motivated by the issues addressed in our ad. In fact, a poll conducted by our 501 C 3 organization (AFA of Indiana) found that the most important issues to our supporters are marriage protection, abortion, religious freedom, homosexual activism and pornography. Taxes and fiscal policy paled in comparison to these moral concerns. You might be interested to know that a new study of Republican voters by Rasmussen Polling [An Elephant Looks at Itself] found that “values voters” now make up 51 % of the GOP faithful.

While you and I may never agree on what constitutes intolerance because it tends to be a one way street in which only one view of homosexual behavior is allowed, I hope this letter helps you understand why we chose to run that issue ad. If you desire to be an effective leader, I would also hope that you do not write any further letters that imply that the base of your party is intolerant when they are simply following the legitimate dictates of their consciences or the principles of their religious teachings. (When one lectures on the virtue of diversity, he or she should allow for diversity of thought and opinion as well.) Our supporters and the listeners of WFCV, are neither bigots, intolerant, sexists, nor racists. They are good citizens who tend to vote and care deeply about families, society and the future of Ft. Wayne.

Best regards,
Micah A. Clark
AFA IN PAC President

If you find this article informative? Consider donating any amount you choose.

No related posts.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007 at 4:00 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.