We have three (3) apologies of note to parse! Let’s get started!

1. “Minnesota for Marriage,” a conservative group, apologized on Friday for equating the idea of a genetic basis for being gay with Nazi eugenics theory. Wait, what? 

You see, one of the group’s partner sites, Pastors for Marriage, had been planning “Stand for Marriage Sunday,” on April 7th, a time for kindness and outreach to all humanity. Just kidding! It’s a time to preach anti-gay sermons! Pastors for Marriage published info to help spiritual leaders craft their sermons or for congregations to put into their church bulletins, saying that homosexuals frequently cited “old ‘gay gene’ studies” were to justify their gayness. According to TwinCities.com, the web site of the Minneapolis Pioneer Press, the material said of gays:

They essentially practice Joseph Goebel’s Nazi philosophy of propaganda, which is basically this: Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and eventually most mindless Americans will believe it.

Please note misspelling. Perhaps the preachers were confusing Joseph Goebbels with George Gobel of the Hollywood Squares.

They really don’t look much alike.

According to the Pioneer Press, when faced with criticism about comparing gays to the people who made a concentrated effort to kill them all, Minnesota for Marriage called the kerfuffle “a smokescreen.” After Minnesotans United (an organization “committed to ensuring that all loving and committed couples have the freedom to marry in our state”) held a rally attended by pro-rights religious leaders, where a local rabbi, Michael Latz, called the comments “shocking, disturbing and Un-Minnesotan” (and pointed out that his husband’s in-laws had escaped the Holocaust…and expressed horror that sacred texts were being used as “weapons of mass destruction”), Minnesota for Marriage took a more conciliatory tone. Sort of. Here’s the “apology.”

Minnesota for Marriage regrets that statements considered by many to be offensive appeared on the website of a separate organization, Minnesota Pastors for Marriage. Although Minnesota for Marriage is not responsible for the content of that website, nor the content on the websites of other supportive coalition members, we nevertheless regret any hurt those statements have caused.

In other words: It wasn’t us, it was them; we aren’t responsible; in case anyone else affiliated with our organization now or in the future compares LGBT rights-seekers to Nazis or people who have sex with livestock we’re not responsible for that either; but NEVERTHELESS, if anyone, in any solar system, feels “any hurt” by this one thing that happened that we will not name in this statement that we are not responsible for anyway, we regret it.

2. Moving on, African-American neurosurgeon Ben Carson issued an apology of his own on Friday. At issue:  On Sean Hannity’s show on the Fox network, Carson had said on Tuesday, “Marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are — they don’t get to change the definition.”  In an interview with the Baltimore Sun on Friday, Carson “apologized”:

I think people have completely taken the wrong meaning out of what I was saying. First of all, I certainly believe gay people should have all the rights that anybody else has. What I was basically saying is that as far as marriage is concerned that has traditionally been between a man and a woman and nobody should be able to change that. Now perhaps the examples were not the best choice of words, and I certainly apologize if I offended anyone. But the point that I was making was that no group of individuals, whoever they are, whatever their belief systems, gets to change traditional definitions. The reason I believe the way I do, I will readily confess, is because I am a Christian who believes in The Bible.

According to the Sun, Carson went on to say that The Bible “says we have an obligation to love our fellow man as ourselves, and I love everybody the same — all homosexuals. Everybody who knows me knows I would never say anything to intentionally hurt someone.”

This statement would practically fill a Bad Apology Bingo card: The statement was misunderstood! “Sorry if” language! “My POINT was”! Bonus: “I certainly apologize” (the words “certainly,” “absolutely,” or “of course” tend to accompany insincere apologies)…all in, not a good apology. (Also, from a pure logic perspective, saying “I certainly believe gay people should have the rights everyone else has” at the beginning of a sentence and only “a man and a woman” should be able to get married would make Mr. Spock’s head explode.)

Note: Given Dr Carson’s fervent cleaving to the literal word of the Old Testament, I am sure he abjures pork and shellfish and is very careful that his summer-weight suits do not contain a blend of wool and linen. I admit to being confused by his wee goatee, since The Bible is pretty clear that thou shalt not “mar the corners of thy beard.” And yes, having a giant woolly beard like a hasid or member of Mumford & Sons might make for a challenge in surgical hygiene situations, but God is pretty explicit about demanding it. Probably Dr Carson has some kind of follicular problem and his facial hair only grows in a perfect goatee shape. I’m sorry if I embarrassed him by pointing it out, and I certainly apologize if he took the wrong meaning from it.

3. Of course, consensus on social issues is a challenge. And even within the LGBT movement, not everyone is on the same page. Here’s a 2007 article about the transgender community’s longtime issues with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which leads to yet another apology from Friday. Apparently at the United for Marriage rally in front of the Supreme Court building on Wednesday, a member of HRC asked a man waving a transgender-equality flag to put it away; the man also felt that the HRC staffer denigrated trans issues. According to Jerame Davis of the LGBTQ blog The Bilerico Project, as the story gained traction on Facebook, HRC issued a statement, saying in part:

It was agreed that featuring American flags at our program was the best way to illustrate this unifying issue which is why when managing the area behind the podium, several people were asked to move who were carrying organizational banners, pride flags or any other flag that was not an American flag. Several people refused and they were allowed to stay. The coalition welcomed the variety of signs and flags that were throughout the plaza that demonstrated the wonderful diversity of our community.

It is a not true to suggest that any person or organization was told their flag was less important than another – this did not occur and no HRC staff member would ever tolerate such behavior.

The Bilerico Project blogger found this explanation “dubious, at best.” He pointed out that people with rainbow Pride flags weren’t asked to move, and that even though he was standing next to two of the rally organizers, no one mentioned this American flag agenda to him.

Two days later, the United for Marriage coalition (a group of 180 partner organizations including HRC) issued an apology — one that indicated that HRC’s earlier statement was less than truthful. It acknowledged that “several activists were asked to lower the trans pride flag in order to keep out of the scope of TV cameras” and went on:

We apologize for having caused harm to the individuals involved. Apologies are being made individually and collectively and we are working to make direct amends.

Adding, “We know that apologies alone are not enough,” the release went on to say that those who had asked others to lower their trans pride flags “are reaching out to apologize for harm caused,” and that “[o]pportunities for broader education on both trans and queer undocumented issues within the greater LGBT community will be taken.” (In addition to trying to hide trans flags, someone involved in the march also apparently asked an undocumented speaker not to mention his or her status or talk about immigration reform issues.) The statement concluded:

Moving forward as a coalition we will work to achieve a society where everyone can be their full selves in an accepting and diverse community. We know that the incredible power of our community stems from our experiences and stories, and that only when all are respected and included will we achieve our goals.

Right now, this is just words. Nice words, but words. SorryWatch believes the people who were asked to get rid of their flags and hide their identities should, if they wish, receive a public apology, not just a private one, from the people who hurt them. And the passive voice (“apologies are being made”) really has no place in good, ownership-of-the-offense apologies.

Happy Easter to all who celebrate.