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


It's odd Peter Sprigg won't put gays in camo since he clearly doesn't wanna see us

by Jeremy Hooper

Screen Shot 2010-07-22 At 9.58.10 Pm-1When reading this Op-Ed from WorldNetDaily, be sure to note the one group that the Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg leaves out of his societal portrait:

Elena Kagan, Supreme Court nominee, has endorsed the principle that "[a] society ... that tolerates discrimination [based on sexual orientation] by its members ... is not a just society."

Let's think this through. Who are society's "members"? Most fundamentally, the "members" of a society are the individual human beings who make it up. In the broader sense, though, the "members" of a society could also include all the mediating institutions within it, such as families and churches.

Who is guilty of "discrimination" that is "based on sexual orientation"? Under the Kagan-esque view, anyone who thinks that homosexual conduct is morally wrong "discriminates." Anyone who believes that homosexual conduct should be discouraged because of its health consequences "discriminates." Anyone who believes that homosexual conduct is a sin before God according to Scripture "discriminates."

And what is Elena Kagan's attitude toward such people? They cannot be tolerated. Not just that their views should not be affirmed and enshrined into law. No, if we even tolerate such "discrimination," we have ceased to be "a just society."

This is quite a switch. Usually it is the liberals who are calling us to practice greater "tolerance." Usually tolerance is seen as a liberal virtue. We are to "celebrate diversity" and "tolerate" even those with whom we sharply disagree.
But according to Elena Kagan, there is one group of people whom we cannot tolerate – not if we want to remain "a just society." That group is people who think that men should not have sex with men, and women should not have sex with women.

*And so on and so on...: Elena Kagan's intolerance [WND]

It's startling (read: dolefully impressive) the way far-right social conservatives manage to talk until they're crimson in the face about issues affecting LGBT people, yet never acknowledge the actual LGBT people at the center of the conversation! In this snippet and in the full piece, Sprigg goes on and on about how victimized he and his less-than-accepting peers supposedly are and will increasingly be if any LGBT rights protections pass. But he never talks about WHY gains for LGBT people are needed in the first place! He never talks about the discrimination that makes the gay rights fight necessary. There's no willingness to concede that LGBT people really aren't gunning for anyone's religious freedom or heterosexual existence in any real or demonstrable way. And of course there's never even remote admittance of the fact that if his side would just drop these silly "culture war" games and let all citizens live with dignity, then these conversations could end overnight. O-VER-NIGHT!

It's of course easy to understand why Peter dances around the loving couples who are dehumanized by bans, the soldiers who constantly self-check so as to not be forcibly fired, the qualified workers who are shut out because of the orientation or gender identity, the kids who are bullied, or the binational couples whose love and determination still can't conquer the policy roadblocks that keep them apart. Acknowledging these realities would be writing his own pink slip. He may not care if gays are fired in an ENDA-less world, but Sprigg presumably does care about his own employment and general conservative relevancy.

But ya know what? We. are. sick. of. it! So this writer would say to Peter Sprigg: Look me in the eye and tell me why I cannot live in peace! Look me in the eye and tell me that I should feel sorry for you for not being to discriminate against me as fully as you might like! Look me in the eye and tell me that my irises are a lovely, incandescent shade of blue I am lesser than.

But if not that, Peter Sprigg: Then at the very least: Admit that "society" is not some portrait that you purchased at a Heritage Foundation charity auction and can therefore hangup in whichever way you see fit! There are many god and decent people trying to live, love, and progress here.


*But then again, we are talking about someone who is on record suggesting that gay people should be either exported or criminalized:

*SOURCE: Gays seek immigration reform [Medill Reports]


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