RECENT  POSTS:  » No, you really don't seem to know what tyranny is, Jerry Cox » Vatican's #Humanum event meant to paint gay families as 'evil' and 'obscene,' admits invited guest » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years  

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

06/23/2008

Don Feder: Who Fed'em such lies?

by Jeremy Hooper

Picture 1-176Back in July of 2006, when an Israeli-Gaza conflict was raging in that area, we were shocked/repulsed when anti-gay activist Don Feder (a) implied that violence was in that region because God was angry at gays for planning a Pride parade in Jerusalem that summer, (b) mockingly suggested that gays instead hold the parade in the middled of battle-raged Gaza, then (c) tried to pass off his crass suggestion as "humor." In fact, we were pretty convinced at that time that Mr. Feder would never be able to top his own appallingly unpalatable rhetoric.

Well, fast forward two years. In a new anti-marriage equality piece that is currently running on One News Now, Donnie presents heated vitriol that, if not trumps some of his earlier words of ill repute, at least matches them. Here are but three choice passages:

(1) After the courts delivered a series of body-blows to marriage over the past four decades -- with no-fault divorce, abortion, the de facto legalization of pornography, and legitimizing cohabitation -- the justices thought: Oh, what the h_ll, what harm can there possibly be in opening the honorable estate to members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association and Dykes on Bikes?

(2) Pardon my hate-filled rhetoric, but when exactly did homosexuals become a division of humanity instead of a sorry collection of individuals (connected only by their carnal appetites) caught up in a perverted lifestyle?

(3) Conscience and intimidation aside, gay matrimony will turn marriage into a free-form institution. If two men or two women can tie the knot in California, why not two women and two men, or a woman and her brother, or a man and a chicken, or Al Gore and the ozone layer?

Wow, likening man-boy love to same-sex marriage? Reducing gays to a "sorry collection of individuals (connected only be their carnal appetites)"? And let's not forget the "gay marriage will lead to man-poultry love" implications. Geez, no wonder Mr. Feder wanted us gays to hold a parade in the middle of gunfire. After all, through his lens, there doesn't seem to be much point in our existences, nor a reason why their well-being should be encouraged.

Fortunately for us, however, Mr. Feder's lens is a broken, offensive, cruel liability for a movement that's so desperate to seize the moral high ground. With every one of his disturbing attempts at dehumanizing a rich, vibrant population sect, he's only helping to raise the consciousness of those who've previously been on the fence about whether or not to support gay rights. The portion of the populace that wants to be associated with this sort of nastiness is much less sizable than the contingent who favors compassion (even among those who don't fully support LGBT equality). So when someone like Don Feder more clearly reveals the dark, discriminatory, even frighteningly macabre truth that lies behind the "protect the sanctity of marriage" movement, he's really helping to move the conversation from a place in which some citizens vote against gay rights solely because they think such is the "traditional" thing to do, to place where the majority votes against anti-gay wrongs because they've finally seen them for what they've always been. We've hit a tipping point, and unscrupulous attacks are no longer the anti-gay gravy train that they used to be (even if nobody's told folks like Don Feder yet).

A sledgehammer instead of a gavel [ONN]

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


Your thoughts

When you read the article, it becomes clear that Don and his supporters offended by the existence of gay people, and the notion that gays can or should be equal to them.
This is, and always has been, about classism. It's about straight privilege.

These folks who get mad about the Supreme Court decision don't seem to understand that the constitution trumps any law. The constitution is the whole reason the people have any voice at all in government, yet they want to ignore it when they write up stupid things like Prop 22.
Of course the constitution overrides the will of the people, that's one of reasons it exists in the first place. People, especially large groups of people, are not always good at making decisions. What a majority of people decide is not always the right thing to do.
Yes, people have a say in their government, but that doesn't mean they get to say, "Screw the Constitution, no gay marriage!"

Posted by: Jason D | Jun 23, 2008 10:57:52 AM

Yes, but can a chicken marry the ozone layer?

Because that would be the height of perversion, in my gay book.

Posted by: Evan | Jun 23, 2008 12:01:40 PM

Yes, but can a chicken marry the ozone layer?

Because that would be the height of perversion, in my gay book.

Posted by: Evan | Jun 23, 2008 12:01:48 PM

In ten years, what the guy says will be read as comedy, "gay marriage leading al gore to marry the ozone layer" will be the elaborate punch line of a hick comedienne.

If this is the rhetoric used against LBG people and their loves, we can only win. Its about as good as the men in dresses argument that went before in europe.(which led to a gender non-discrimination act across europe, and inclusion into the declaration of human rights for trans people)

Posted by: Corvidae | Jun 23, 2008 12:21:26 PM

In Feder's cacophony of protestation he not only pisses on us, but on everyone else that he feels superior to. He just took aim at everyone who has divorced in the last 35 years (or 75 years if you want to be truly honest about it.)

His urine splatter also hit everyone who has ever lived with a non-married sex partner, and every woman who has ever had an abortion (or even just considered having one.) Not to mention every male college student with a stack of porno under the bed, and that by itself is a sizable segment of the population (no pun intended.)

I like it when these whack-jobs start pontificating, because they show everyone just what sort of world order they really want. And for most, Feder's ideal world just isn't a very compatible fit.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jun 23, 2008 12:52:15 PM

Ozone layer? Please. The troposphere is a WAY better catch, and it doesn't have a big hole in the bottom. (wink wink, nudge).

I'm not sure what that means.

Posted by: Larry | Jun 23, 2008 1:32:21 PM

Is it just doing this for me, or does the link redirect you to a video on YouTube entitled "Rick Roll"?

Posted by: PSUdain | Jun 23, 2008 1:32:54 PM

I would also like to add this little quote from the article:

"In an interview shortly after the edict was pronounced, George was asked how he thought the people of California felt about the revolutionary ruling. The justice replied that he really didn't know. He could have added that he really didn't care."

Isn't that a good thing? I mean, shouldn't judges issue rulings based on legal opinion and law, instead of public sentiment? That is why so many judges (especially in higher courts) are appointed instead of elected, isn't it? So they're not bound by public opinion, but by the law?

Posted by: PSUdain | Jun 23, 2008 1:39:54 PM

thanks to mr feder for hitting another homerun. deviancy should not be celebrated. just because a certain number of people engage in a particular activity, does not give that activity a pass. homosexuality is wrong--period. i know it exists, but so does cannibalism. thats wrong too. i realize that homosexuals are born that way, but if thats the case, isnt it logical to assume that all sexual natures are born that way also? so, i guess sex with the dead is ok too. as is sex with animals. and with children. calling homosexuality natural and beautiful is like putting lipstick on a pig. at days end one still has a pig.

Posted by: bill chartier | Aug 26, 2008 2:01:30 AM

It's ridiculous how your side, when comparing inborn homosexuality to other things, eschew its logical counterpart on the orientation spectrum -- heterosexuality -- and instead link it to behavior-based things like cannibalism, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. It's just wrong--period.

Mr. Chartier, if you consider Mr. Feder's words a homerun, then remind me to never hire you as an umpire.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 26, 2008 9:13:42 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails