RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

03/31/2008

What next, CWA -- gonna defend her on the basis of her Miranda Rights?

by Jeremy Hooper

If a lawmaker came under fire for rarely to never showing up for work, would her defenders hold a "Right To Bear Arms Rally"? No, of course not.

Or what about a legislator who was being scrutinized for campaign financing -- are those who stand with her going to use a woman's right to vote to vouch for her actions? Only if they are clueless.

Hitting a little closer to home: Did anyone try and use the freedom of the press to defend Eliot Spitzer? Well (a) few defended Spitzer on ANY grounds, but (b) such would be a stupid line of logic if they did.

And why are these rights not suitable lines of defense in any of the above situation? Well, because they are all guarantees that every American enjoys or at least tolerates, they are not apropos to the matters at hand. When defending a politician for something they did, one MUST challenge the situation that is truly playing out. They can;t just make up unrelated lines of defense and use that as a springboard for their rationalization of the elected official's behavior.

Well, someone REALLY needs to tell this to the Concerned Women For America, who have just announced that they and 50 or so pastors will be holding a rally on Wednesday in support of the OK Representative who made not okay comments, Sally Kern. For you see, they are trying to defend Ms. Kern on "free speech" grounds:

Free Speech Rally for Sally -- Over 50 Pastors organize rally to support besieged Oklahoma Rep. Sally Kern [CWA]

200803311648Only problem? NOBODY IS DENYING THAT SALLY HAD THE RIGHT TO SAY WHAT SHE DID! Nobody is saying that the American government should have in any way barred her from making her queer-hostile statements. What we are saying is that now that she did, those of us who find those comments to be reprehensible have a right, nay, COMMAND to challenge the bias that she has put on the table!

It is a complete red herring to use a "free speech" defense in this situation. The most disgusting thing? Many of them being lawyers, Matt Barber and some of his fellows at CWA have to know that a "free speech" defense is fallacious (and if not, they should be disbarred). But since there every action involves making gays look like the "militant" ones, they are trying to reframe the Kern debate in a way that makes gays seem like the ones who are trying to take away Sally's rights. And it's likely that they also know that many people in the American public have very distorted views of what truly is and is not free speech -- something you will witness anytime a controversial situation involving a company and an outspoken employee plays out in the public spectrum (e.g the Don Imus situation), and loads of people try and defend a corporate decision on the basis of this right. So with that knowledge in head, Barber * company stage a rally based on a completely fallacious idea, so as to create the illusion that those damn pesky gays are once agains trying to trample the freedoms of "good Christians."

Well guess what? We are never going to stop using our freedom to call them out on their bullshit. And in greater numbers every day, people are starting to catch on. Because the beauty of our movement versus theirs is that ours grows stronger with transparency. When you lift the curtain on our side, you see a man who is conveying the exact same message that he was before. Our motives are on the table and our goals are fully acknowledged, whereas their every agenda point is masked behind a veil of falsely compassionate/gay-demonizing rhetoric. So while we admittedly have a ways to go before fully connecting the dots for the American public, our burden is one whose answer is emboldened by actuality, progress, truth, reason, fact, humanity, fairness, American principles, and plain ol' decency. There burden is to stifle our movement behind cloaks like this "free speech" nonsense.

Lies have no way of winning in the end. Take comfort in that.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS".

Gandhi

Posted by: Joe Brummer | Mar 31, 2008 5:29:18 PM

If Ms. Kern were smart, she would let this situation go. The more she and her supporters keep at it, the more they begin to look bad

Posted by: a. mcewen | Mar 31, 2008 5:44:09 PM

START to look bad? That's the understatement of the week!

Almost as good as "If Ms. Kern were smart...." Similar to "If Niagra could flow backwards..."

Posted by: JWSwift | Mar 31, 2008 9:44:54 PM

The funniest part is how Matt Barber represents himself as a "concerned woman for America". Every time he says this, I think of him wearing a polka-dot dress with smeared lipstick all over his face, yapping about homosex to a crowd LOL

He should start showing up dressed like this - because Barber already TALKS like an idiot, might as well look like one too.

As for Sally, she needs to gracefully step back and do something more along her line of work.....like managing a trailer park.

Posted by: Scott | Apr 1, 2008 1:44:24 PM

Q: What is the shortest chapter in the Bible?
A: Psalms 117
Q: What is the longest chapter in the Bible?
A: Psalms 119
Q: Which chapter is in the center of the Bible?
A: Psalme 118
FACT: There are 594 chapters before Psalms 118
FACT: There are 594 chapters after Psalms 118
Add these numbers up and you get 1188.
Q:? Dose this verse say somthing significant about God`s perfect will for are lives?
The next time someone says they would like to find God`s perfect will
just send them to the center of His WORD!
Psalm 118.8 " It is better to TRUST in the LORD then to put confidence in man."
Now isn`t that odd how this worked out ( or was God in the center of it?)

Posted by: slm | Apr 2, 2008 10:47:33 AM

So, educate me WHAT exactly IS free speech? thanks

Posted by: Sherry Glennon | Apr 28, 2008 2:44:21 PM

Sherry: Free speech protects a citizen's speech and expression from government intervention. Nobody is denying that Sally Kern has a RIGHT to say whatever the hell she wants. What we are saying is that her speech as an elected lawmaker might come with some repercussions. And when gay folks lash out against her, all they are doing is expressing their own free speech!

"Free speech" is a catch-all term that people misuse all the time. In terms of Sally Kern, it's a way for social conservatives to flip the situation and make it sound as if gays are trying to stifle her rights.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 28, 2008 2:48:43 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails