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


Oh Regina: You need to learn from -- and we can't believe we're actually saying this -- Dick Cheney

by Jeremy Hooper

Most people who have actually lived the life of a homosexual will tell you that being gay is not a choice.

Most intellectuals who have studied actual science rather than biased water-muddying that the far-right has commissioned a stable of their own like-minded people to pass off as truth will tell you that the "ex-gay" notion is an odd political construct that's meant to demonize LGBT people.

Most parents who choose to embrace their child's reality rather than their own self-centric wishes and desires will tell you that having a gay child is actually a blessing, not a curse.

Most writers who understand acronyms/initialism will tell you that you don't shorthand the organizational name Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays as "PFOX."

Most former Vice Presidents with the surname of "Cheney" have chosen to accept rather than shun their gay kids.

Unfortunately, professional stigmatizer Regina Griggs has rejected all of the above, choosing to instead persecute both her own house and any other one that contains an LGBT person:

“Former Vice President Dick Cheney has stated that ‘people ought to get a shot’ at same-sex marriage and referenced his lesbian daughter, Mary. My heart goes out to Vice President Cheney. As the mother of a homosexual, I understand how Mr. Cheney feels.

But what I think is best for society, especially children, is for children to have both a mother and a father. As responsible members of society, we must look to what is best for our culture as a whole. Marriage goes beyond the individuals involved and affects society every day.

For example, children do best when raised by their Mom and Dad. When adults make a decision to enter into genderless marriage and deliberately deny a child a mother and father, it is about self-gratification. The forced restructuring of society and attempts to deny Americans the right to vote against redefining marriage will not provide approval for homosexual couples nor a Mom and Dad for children. Which one of you would deliberately forfeit your mother or father?

President Ronald Reagan never let his children’s liberal views get in the way of his running the nation according to his conservative philosophy. He did what he felt was right for his country, no matter how much it angered his children. Today they respect his legacy.

As the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), I believe parents do not have to approve of everything their children do. Responsible parenting is loving and respecting our children in spite of our differences. Most gay activist groups insist that parents love their children only when they affirm same-sex marriage. PFOX believes that parents and children should love one another unconditionally, by respecting our right to hold different views. Thus parents like Vice President Cheney and I can love our children without having to support genderless marriage.”

Children Need Freedom to Know and Love their Mother and Father [PFOX]

"Which one of you would deliberately forfeit your mother or father?" Why that's an interesting question coming from someone who encourages mothers and fathers to deliberately forfeit their gay kids.

And by "interesting," we of course mean "very, very sad."

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

Your thoughts

I will never understand how equating same sex marriage to children deserving a mother and a father, seems like a reasonable argument to these people.

What does one have to do with the other?

Maybe, if we were speaking of same sex parenting, I could understand where the argument is coming from. Not that I would agree with it, but at least it would be in the same ballpark. But since marriage is not tied in ANYWAY to procreation it's simply bizarre to me that they keep bringing it up over and over again, as a legitimate reason to be against same sex marriage.

I'm firmly convinced that most Christians have fundamental problem with logic.

Posted by: Taylor | Jun 3, 2009 1:58:33 PM

Nothing pisses me off more than the argument that children "need" two parents of the opposite sex to have the best possible life. I grew up in a single parent household (as did my gay best friend--so her single Catholic mother turned her gay, and my single faithless mother turned me straight? Am I missing something?), and I think it's hideous the way single-parent households, multiple parent households (think step-parents, grand-parents, etc.) are being shat upon by these people as inferior. This is how Florida (my state) keeps gays from adopting, saying that children need a mother and a father. Really?

I personally know a single Christian woman in Sarasota who has adopted 8 teenagers out of foster care, and at least three of them are a sibling set that hadn't seen each other in years. And those kids should languish in foster care until she finds a husband? Or until some straight couple comes by? FUCK THAT NOISE. Kids need someone to love them and care for them, that's all they need, and I'll never stop being baffled at how the pro-family movement can be against so-called "alternative families" made out of love.

Posted by: L.A. Fields | Jun 3, 2009 2:34:38 PM

I really like how she states her opinion ("what I think is best for society, especially children, is for children to have both a mother and a father..." and then goes on to give an "example" that just says "...children do best when raised by their Mom and Dad..."

Changing mother/father to Mom/Dad does not an example make. She provides nothing to back up this 'example,' but she somehow still sees this as credible without providing any proof whatsoever that children raised by same-gender couples are any worse off? I really just do not get it at all.

Posted by: Andrew Boutcher | Jun 3, 2009 2:42:56 PM

PFEGG?? And why are the lesbians underrepresented in the fundies' club? PFEGGELL?? Those wacky PFEGGELLing fundies. And, is that "& Gays" a recent development? Maybe an admission that the only "Ex-Gays" are the "Paid Actor Ex-Gays"?

PFEGG - pronounced pee-feg'. Sounds a bit like a slur; you pfegg, you!

PFPAEGGPAELL - pronounced peef-pa-egg'-pa-ell'. Has more of a ring to it.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jun 3, 2009 3:40:13 PM

Or worse, the dreaded:

PFEGGELL - pronounced pee-feg-ell. And more of a slur; You pefeggellot, you!!

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jun 3, 2009 3:46:12 PM

So much to respond to.

First, a small disagreement with you, Jeremy. While the structured political ex-gay groups have become indeed "an odd political construct that's meant to demonize LGBT people", I don't think that is true of ex-gays themselves.

Based on my observations, ex-gays are not particularly interested in demonizing their gay friends (or ex-friends) or in denying rights. Mostly they are just trying to achieve the impossible and become straight or find support groups to reinforce their efforts at living celibate. Even those who run local groups tend to say that they wish their community would quite politics and go back to ministry.

Their leaders, however, are willing to use these poor souls as an excuse to engage in blatant homophobia and anti-gay activism. It's disgusting, frankly.

And now back to agreement...

1. Regina doesn't know how Cheney feels. He has a good relationship with his daughter and feels pride and love for both her and her partner. He fees supportive and close and like they are all a family.

2. If Regina thinks that Reagan would agree with her then she's horribly misinformed. His "liberal" daugher Patty says that her father is the one who - in speaking about his friend Rock Hudson - first told her that "some men like to kiss other men instead of women". And Reagan opposed the Briggs Initiative, which is probably why it failed. He may not have been particularly pro-gay in his politics, but he was not the homophobe that Regina idolizes. There is nothing in his past or his politics that suggests that he ever tried to make his friends "ex-gay" and he had many gay friends (including the first gay couple to sleep at the white house).

3. It's clear that Regina does not see her gay son as an adult.

Posted by: Timothy | Jun 3, 2009 4:00:52 PM

I find this woman even more personally offensive then normal.
There are a lot of children whom would be better off with out one or both of their parents.
A mom and dad does not equate a safe home, anymore then anything else does. What a child needs is simply SECURITY, nothing more, nothing less. As long as a child has some sort of parental figure whom they believe will love them unconditionally, they will grow up to be fine. I'm sorry for the poor child this lady raised.

Posted by: Clicky the Fox | Jun 3, 2009 4:03:27 PM

Timothy: Just so we're clear, I would fully agree with you that most people who identify as "ex-gay" care to demonize gays. At all.

In saying that, I was meaning to speak to the identity of "ex-gay" as a whole. It is what is a construct. One who stops having gay relations may be a number of things: Bisexual, re-closeted because of their faith, gay but celibate, gay but making a choice to go against their nature, never really gay to begin with, etc. But they are not "ex-gay." That was the construct to which I was meaning to refer.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jun 3, 2009 4:09:43 PM

Genderless marriage? Never heard that before. Nevertheless, it sounds just as dumb as Miss California's 'opposite marriage.'

Posted by: KZ | Jun 3, 2009 5:02:22 PM

What's best for culture...? Collectivist rhetoric? In MY theocracy?!

Posted by: Chris | Jun 3, 2009 10:28:42 PM

Well KZ, these folks redefined dictionaries. Like homosexual means anal and ex-gay means straight. So it is no surprise they call married gays and lesbians people who have no gender. But that would mean gays and lesbians are asexual not homo. Damn. There goes another confused ex-gay.

Posted by: Yuki Choe | Jun 3, 2009 10:31:29 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails