RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: NOM's guide to pressuring lawmakers to ban marriages (while pretending you're doing something good and positive instead) » Full trailer: 'The Normal Heart' » Vintage Clinton era oppo memo perhaps even more relevant today » Concerned Women For America advises churches to lockdown exclusionary marriage views » Video: What does conservative columnist Cal Thomas see as America's biggest threat? Take a guess. » Correcting NOM's fallacious fear graphic » Gee, Bryan, can't understand why federal courts are rejecting you gay = incest view » Former NOM sr. associate admits shift: Moving away from intellectual arguments, focusing on spiritual » Prop 8 defense attorney now planning lesbian daughter's wedding » If you can't afford your event, NOM, perhaps you should just cancel  

« 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