RECENT  POSTS:  » 'WaPo' conservative columnist: 'Strident' marriage equality opponents have lost » If John Eastman's allowed to intervene in Oregon, I submit his endorsement of this very anti-gay book » I apparently can fly; cool, I've always wanted to! » Starving selves to stop others' happiness: Virginia edition » NOM-aligned organization claims God will soon punish us for pro-equality rulings » GLAAD: The rise of toxic terminology: Losing anti-LGBT movement turns to corrosive labeling » Founder of anti-gay Boy Scouts alternative links sexual orientation, adultery; earns merit badge in ill-intended comparisons » 'Playbill' to let the two previously unaware playgoers in on Broadway's love for gays » New record: Anti-gay activist Ralph Reed contradicts self in less than minute » Read: NOM's guide to pressuring lawmakers to ban marriages (while pretending you're doing something good and positive instead)  

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

06/29/2009

While we were away: Robert Knight again acted like opportunistic hearsay is same as fact

by Jeremy Hooper

6A00D8341C503453Ef01156Ff98733970C-Pi-1Since 2000, professional anti-gay activist Robert Knight has been running with the claim that a gay activist involved in the Clinton administration inadvertently revealed hate crimes legislation's "true agenda." And now that the debate is back on the table for another year, he is trotting out the unsubstantiated nonsense yet again. The familiar tune goes something like this:

"We're not going to win this case, but that's okay. Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the books, we're going to go after the Scouts and all the other bigots."

This was a remark made in the gallery by the Clinton White House liaison for "gay" issues during U.S. Supreme Court hearings on the Boy Scouts case in 2000. She had whispered it to the Rev. Rob Schenck, whom she mistakenly thought was one of those liberal clerics who think God is still making up His mind about sexual morality.

Proposed federal law would be a hate crime against America [ONN]

It's the exact same convenient claim that Knight made on WorldNetDaily back in 2004:

During the Supreme Court hearings in 2000 on the Boy Scout case, pro-life Rev. Rob Schenk was sitting in the audience next to the White House liaison for "gay" issues. Thinking the pastor was a fellow liberal, the woman whispered, "We're not going to win this case, but that's OK. Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the books, we're going to go after the Scouts and all the other bigots."
Like a bad penny, the proposed federal "hate crimes" law just keeps coming back. [WND]

And one that he used in his favor while spinning for Concerned Women For America back in 2005. In fact, that year he simply cut and pasted his earlier WND blip:

First, a revealing moment

During the Supreme Court hearings in 2000 on the Boy Scout case, pro-life Rev. Rob Schenck was sitting in the audience next to the Clinton White House liaison for “gay” issues. Thinking the pastor was a fellow liberal, the woman whispered, “We’re not going to win this case, but that’s okay. Once we get ‘hate crime’ laws on the books, we’re going to go after the Scouts and all the other bigots.”
The Federal Hate Crimes Bill: Federalizing Criminal Law While Threatening Civil Liberties [CWA]

Okay, first off: Get a new literary crutch, Mr. K! If variety is the spice of "culture war" life, then you are in danger of becoming a particularly bland strain of "pro-family" paprika.

But that out of the way: Even if this little anecdote were true (which is most likely is not), then so what?! One nameless person's nine-year-old thoughts constitute some sort of unsavory "proof"?! It's just ridiculous.

And lastly: Let's talk about merits. Because while we would never phrase it like this likely nonexistent speaker, and while we see little to no connection between hate crimes legislation and the Boy Scouts situation, that doesn't change the fact that both hater protections and Boy Scout fairness are worthwhile goals! Yes, most LGBT activists want both. Unapologetically. Unabashedly (and un-bashedly!). We have never and will never deny these goals. And if you are fighting against the same, then rely on the "why" we are wrong to seek as much, not why one uncited figure was wrong to whisper a certain comment back in an earlier century!

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails