RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Voices from our pro-equality future (present?) » Anti-gay orgs continue to offend children of single parents, gay parents, more » Apple CEO gives 'substantial' sum to HRC's southern state project; may or may not have used ApplePay » Conservative proposes new way for vendors to tell gay customers they don't care for them » NOM versus David Koch » Anti-equality baseball player calls reporter 'a prick' for asking about his anti-equality advocacy » Audio: Josh Duggar defends discrimination, invalidates own point » Audio: AFA's Fischer names 'homosexual agenda' as 'greatest threat to liberty' in American history » Audio: AFA Radio caller calls for executing gays; FRC-employed host doesn't even challenge him, much less condemn » NOM president's other organization is 'in trouble' (his words) too  

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

10/15/2012

Weird, Chuck Darrell—why'd your new Op-Ed overlook how you're working against 'the killer' that is 'homosexual behavior'?

by Jeremy Hooper

Screen Shot 2012-10-15 At 8.36.41 AmChuck Darrell, the Communications Director For Minnesota for Marriage, has admitted that his fight is against gay people and our affirmation. In 2008, Chuck wrote: "[W]e oppose homosexual marriage, anti-bullying and sex education curricula that affirms homosexual behavior because the medical evidence proves it is a killer."

That is not the kind of thing one just slips up and says. When a "pro-family" voice has an unconditional moment of candor where he or she admits that his or her fight goes beyond the policy issue on the table, I always choose to believe said voice. When he or she works to position LGB people as innately marked for death simply of sexual orientation, I choose to focus on that, the clear root that is driving his or her advocacy. Call me a literalist.

But unfortunately, when we find ourselves in a ballot fight with its associated discussion about one specific matter, people like Chuck often get a pass. The fight—in most cases, marriage—is largely viewed in isolation, as if the team fighting for discrimination began their work on the day that this thing moved forward to voters. People, both lay and politically-connected, often overlook the years–decades, even—of work, words, and harmful actions that led to the current vote. Which is to say that people overlook the VERY HEART OF THE FIGHT AGAINST US. It's super annoying for those of us who have watched the build up and didn't just drop in when things got "exciting," since we've seen how nasty it can and does get when the brightest campaign lights are off.


Today, in a Post-Bulletin Op-Ed, Chuck Darrell puts on this campaign-typical mask of pragmatism, writing 821 words in which he pretends that he is (a) only focused on marriage and (b) the "victim" in this current conversation. Go read what he has to say…

Both Sides: Protecting children is the primary reason for traditional marriage [Post Bulletin]
...and then vow to work with me to ensure that the Minnesota public knows the truth about the overreaching, clearly animus-driven advocacy that Chuck and his colleagues (Tom Prichard, John Helmberger, Barb Anderson, et. al) have been pushing FOR YEARS:

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