Because when am I not calling up Fox News personalities to do my bidding?
Latest conservative theory about me, my power, and the one ten minute post I wrote about the Legatus Summit:
[Fringe talk show host Cliff Kincaid] later called on Shepard Smith to “come out of the closet,” accusing the Fox News host of secretly being “one of the most powerful homosexuals in the media.”
Kincaid speculated on his show Saturday that activist Jeremy Hooper, who first highlighted the anti-gay views of Legatus, had personally called Smith to get Baier in trouble.
“For what we know, this guy Hooper or one of his friends may have called Shep Smith, and said, ‘Hey Shepard, you know your buddy Bret Baier is speaking at this anti-gay conference,’” he remarked.
“Now, I’m not saying we know that for sure, but it’s entirely possible Smith could have then gone to Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, and said, ‘Oh, we can’t let this happen, you’ve got to bring the hammer down on Bret Baier.’ I’m not saying we know that, but I’m saying there is enough suspicion that there should be an internal investigation into this whole thing.”
FULL: Fox News is now too anti-Christian for some right-wing activists [Raw Story]
And then Megyn Kelly and I went to get our nails done.
Anti-equality conservative admits GLAAD CAP is 'smart' and 'effective'
Brandon McGinley, a senior staffer with the Pennsylvania Family Institute who also writes for a number of conservative (and largely anti-LGBT) publications, has admitted that GLAAD's Commentator Accountability Project (which I created with a small team at GLAAD) is "smart" and "effective" strategy:
When a people is as risk-averse in political posturing as we are, the movement most willing to exact a personal price for opposition will win. This explains the American elite’s newfound passion for LGBT rights. The movement carefully worked to make it socially embarrassing to hold traditional views of sexual morality. For example, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has created an Index Librorum Prohibitorum, but for public commentators. The point is to shame and marginalize their opponents. It’s smart, cynical, and effective.
If there’s one thing an elite hates, it’s embarrassment. (The second thing an elite hates is risk.) With the support of this elite, “homophobia” is becoming just as much a blasphemy as real blasphemy has ever been in this country.
And Brandon's quite right about the "smart" and "effective" parts. Although he's quite wrong about GLAAD CAP being "cynical."
As I've repeated ad nauseam in the years since GLAAD CAP launched, the project is made up of nothing more than the subjects' own words. The people who are in the project are there because they have made enough of a public profile for themselves that they either are or, in an increasing number of cases, were relevant media figures who popped up in statewide and national media outlets for the purposes of fighting LGBT rights. Each profile is a one-pager that contains a simple quote from the subject's own pen or lips, which is always linked out to its source material.
If the subjects are embarrassed by these words, then they shouldn't have written or spoken them. If the subjects feel "shame," then it's likely because their attack lines were shameful. If they find themselves marginalized—and I've made it clear that I do think many, if not most, anti-LGBT pundits are now operating on the margins—then it's their own doing. It is not cynical for an LGBT rights group to document the words that their often handsomely paid opposition uses to attack their freedoms. In fact it's the opposite. Documenting your opponents' own rhetoric means you do believe they are sincere and that they want to be judged by their own words and volume levels. What is cynical is accusing the LGBT rights group of being self-interested and contemptuous for doing little more than amplifying someone else's chosen messaging.
*NOTE: I stopped working on GLAAD CAP at the end of 2014. But when I made that choice in May of '14, my one request was for the project to go on. I trust that it will continue to thrive.
You know what's not presidential? Like at all?
Answer: Suggesting that vendors who have a problem with a minority population might put some form of poison in said minority population's baked goods if they get too uppity with their desire for nondiscrimination in public accommodation:
[Ben] Carson also criticized political correctness as he answered a question about gay marriage — and followed up by flaunting decorum with the type of comment that endears him with the base but could hurt his cross-party appeal.
"What I have a problem with is when people try to force people to act against their beliefs because they say 'they're discriminating against me.' So they can go right down the street and buy a cake, but no, let's bring a suit against this person because I want them to make my cake even though they don't believe in it. Which is really not all that smart because they might put poison in that cake," he said to chuckles from some of his staff and dead silence from the journalists in the room.
FULL: Ben Carson pulls crowd to its feet [The Hill]
HA. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha. You see, the kicker is that the loving lesbians just wanted peaceful service of the kind that the business owner put up a shingle to offer, yet the business owner opted to instead murder the couple. Via poisoning. Their wedding cake. Oh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....
Inevitable justice temporarily delayed in Alabama
In order to give Alabama's Republican Attorney General "time to present his arguments to the Eleventh Circuit so that the appeals court can decide whether to dissolve or continue the stay pending appeal (assuming there will be an appeal.), Judge Callie Granade has stayed her ruling in favor of marriage equality in the Yellowhammer State. The stay will remain in effect for fourteen days, unless the appeals court dissolves it earlier:
Annoying, frustrating, needless, and a disservice to the loving same-sex couples who have waited too long already. But at the same time, it's Alabama—AL-uh-BAMA!!—and it's on the cusp of marriage equality. If this is the game, then [:sigh::] so be it.
Read: Fed. judge strikes Alabama marriage ban; no stay on ruling
Breaking and huge:
The judge is a George W. Bush appointee. Amazing.
*UPDATE: Conservative US Senator Jeff Sessions, long against marriage equality and anything related to it, praised this judge at her confirmation. Having known her personally, Sessions called her "levelheaded, fair minded, trustworthy, and very smart." Let's see if he rolls that back now with the cheap "activist judge" lines to which we've grown accustomed.
Derisively remembering when full equality was in 'Jeopardy!'
Joe Jervis (himself working from a Slate story) tips us to this, a mocking answer from a recent edition of the high-minded game show Jeopardy!:
Jeopardy! Mocks Civil Unions [J.M.G.]
The pointed tone is clear. And it's just an appetizer of what history will do to the idea that certain American citizens should've accepted segregated, quasi-equality as the final word on this matter. It was just a few short years ago that even our allies—even our President, remember—felt like this was an okay thing to ask of us. It now seems downright offensive.
As of now, Wheel of Fortune doesn't seem to have so pointedly mocked inequality. But that makes sense; our opponents have always come off better in venues that thrive on spin.
When all else fails, demand your letters are capitalized
You guys, their truth is capitalized. For reals. A gay man who chooses both celibacy and anti-gay political activism has insisted so:
But you know what? Im actually going to concede that those of us who are writing history on this civil rights issue are not using capital letters. After all, the last word in an overlong sentence rarely is.
Major Iowa caucus player calls on next President to 'politely reject unjust SCOTUS opinions'
The article itself is un-bylined, but an embedded video features The Family Leader head Bob Vander Plaats delivering a truncated version of the same message. That message: Same-sex marriage is anti-God and everyone should just ignore the Supreme Court if it sides with civil equality:
Clearly, a law or court opinion recognizing so-called “same-sex marriage” as equivalent to procreative marriage violates natural law, the moral law, and the eternal law of God.
We will likewise urge our next President to consider whether or not to enforce such an unnatural and unjust opinion, should it happen. We will be asking candidates, if elected, whether they will be in favor of asking over 30 states to violate their own Constitutions, by requiring them to issue so-called “same-sex marriage” licenses.
While SCOTUS is the Supreme Court, it is not the Supreme Being, or even the Supreme branch of our government. Thomas Jefferson and others said it was the weakest branch, since it has no power of the purse, or of the military. It’s past time to politely reject unjust SCOTUS opinions, and govern this country according to the Declaration of Independence’s legal foundation of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
FULL: Marriage, MLK, and SCOTUS [The Family Leader]
It's a crazy rant filled with crazy ideas. But don't be tempted to see it as coming from some fringe group. This is coming from the organization that routinely brings governors and senators and conservative figures of all stripes to its annual events (Iowa's governor toasted the group at its 2014 soiree). This group is also a bigtimplayer in the important Iowa caucus. In the 2012 election, The Family Leader hosted most all of the GOP candidates in various events. The org. has already announced plans to do the same in 2016.
Mainstream media gives this org. the attention it seeks. Now it's time for the media to ask the questions that voters really deserve to hear. Like: "Do you agree with your host org. that God's Law should trump the Supreme Court?" Or, "Do you, candidate, plan to go through Supreme Court rulings on your first day of office and choose which ones you will unilaterally dismantle?" Or simply, "Do you think loving gay couples are violating the eternal law of God?"We never seem to hear these kinds of questions when major political players like Mark Halperin and John Heinemann interview Bob. But why not? When a political group's leadership tells me who it is and what it wants, I choose to believe them. And then I ask why.