« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
07/06/2009
Her name is Candi but her agenda couldn't be less sweet
When it comes to anti-gay advocacy, this writer reserves a special ring of detestation for those who militantly push for yet another generation to be brought up in a homo-hostile world. Because since we all know that acceptance could be an easy, natural instinct if not for the outside intervention of biased guardian, it's particularly disheartening to see those who've chosen to narrowly focus their form of discrimination on those impressionable children who WANT to love and WANT to peacefully accept. And it's absolutely disgusting for me, a married family man with many underage children in his life, to hear about grown adults who are genuinely dedicating their lives to the purpose-less purpose of keeping "smear the queer" a popular schoolyard sport.
It is for these reasons that I can barely stomach to even look at the mugshot of one Candi Cushman.
With an unrighteous goal of seizing Anita Bryant's tried and true tired and untrue "gays recruit children" mantra and applying it to modern day, Candi spends her days toiling away at Focus on the Family's Colorado Springs headquarters, devising new and unique ways to mask a very simple idea (namely: "we simply don't care for gay people, so we don't want kids thinking such kinds of humans are okay") behind overwrought language (namely: "we want to protect children"). When there arises a program that's meant to curb school bullying, Candi jumps in to convince folks that it is the "agenda" and not the harassment that is truly unsavory. When an author pens a children's book that's meant for a pro-gay audience, Candi rushes to the scene to condemn any representation that doesn't exalt Cinderella and Prince Charming above all else. Or when any school determines that children have a right to know about the numerous gay parents that raise some of their classmates, Candi grabs her torch and rushes to tell the kids of same-sex parents that their homes are simply not good enough for her "pro-family" liking. When it comes to schoolyard acceptance, Candi acts like the bully who takes not only a pro-gay kid's lunch money, but also their right to form their own opinions about the world's (or even their personal home's) reality.
Which leads us to Candi's latest bit o' indoctrination. In a new commentary that she has aggressively titled "Capturing Children's Minds," Ms. Cushman attacks everything from gay guinea pigs to anti-bullying laws to "the consequences of cheapening the value of the traditional family and of man-woman marriage in this society." And of course she does it all with reckless non-concern for the millions upon millions of gay people that she is directly, unabashedly, unscrupulously hurting through her discrimination propagation:
But let’s think carefully about this. Can we really afford to teach the next generation that there is nothing distinctive or particularly beneficial about having a mother and a father? That a family is nothing more than a group of individuals — no more unique than a herd of elephants in the jungle?
Haven’t we already reaped enough of the consequences of cheapening the value of the traditional family and of man-woman marriage in this society?
But the latest news is that we’ve moved beyond penguins to guinea pigs: There’s a new book cropping up in elementary classrooms called "Uncle Bobby’s Wedding." For kids as young as 4, the book shows two male guinea pigs wearing bow ties, celebrating their "wedding."
And if you assume this is just a problem in California, think again. The nation’s largest homosexual-advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign, is piloting a pro-gay curriculum, “Welcoming Schools,” in several elementary classrooms across the land. It radically redefines the meaning of marriage and family.
The Obama administration has just appointed one of the nation’s most radical gay activists — Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network — to a senior staff position in the U.S. Department of Education. So expect this sort of thing to be coming soon to a school near you.
So what can we do about it? It’s much easier to be proactive and protect your local schools than it is to get something out once it’s inside the system. So the first thing we can do is learn lessons from recent events in Alameda and elsewhere in the nation about what red flags to look for...
Capturing Children’s Minds [FOF]
Then she proceeds to detail the "red flags" that really mean to say: "dread f*gs!" She is quite unapologetically telling any and everyone to dislike/protest/stay away from gay people. There is no other fair or reasonable takeaway message. Her every word is dripping with hostility for the concept of benign LGBT acceptance. And while her periods and questions marks might on the surface be intended to stop her sentences, we quite understandably see them as hoping to sentence us to a life of shunned inequality.
It's one thing to take on adults who have already gone through the motions of opinion formation. Attack our lives and loves: We can take it. But when it comes to the little cubs who still have the joy of living in a mind unobstructed from "culture war" bullsh*t, these corruptive campaigns take on a whole other level of disgust. Regardless of her accomplishments as a wife, mother, or human (and there's no reason to assume that she is devoid of merit in these areas), Candi Cushman should feel nothing but shame for the targeted hostility that she calls a career.
*When asked to pass this on to Ms. Cushman, Focus on the Family's Gary Schneeberger called this post "name calling." Please, tweet him @gschneeberger to remind him of the difference between calling names and responding to another "culture war" personality's work!
Your thoughts
Good it is about time we take this head on. They are bigots teaching discrimination and should be faced down, blogged down, shouted down.
Lets get GLSEN and GLAAD' s new 'cyber crew' on this, asap.
Posted by: LOrion | Jul 6, 2009 11:59:10 AM
Haven’t we already reaped enough of the consequences of cheapening the value of the traditional family and of man-woman marriage in this society?
I couldn't agree more! Yet, Britney Spears, Liza Minelli, Hue Heffner, et all are STILL ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED.
This whole article screams idiocracy. We could deal with gay penguins, BUT NO NO, GAY GUINEA PIGS ARE JUST TOO MUCH! THEY'RE MAMMALS!
Anita 2.0
Posted by: Stef | Jul 6, 2009 1:51:50 PM
This whole "The children" thing is the utmost in ridiculousness.
Kids are resilient if anything. A M/M, or F/F set of parents doesn't mean the kid will be gay. If anything parenting is about consistency and love than anything else.
Posted by: Tony P | Jul 6, 2009 1:56:18 PM
I honestly don't understand how FOF gets any funding. Who are these nimrods who want to pay the salary of someone obsessed with gay guinea pigs?
Posted by: Ted | Jul 6, 2009 4:33:54 PM
"Can we really afford to teach the next generation that there is nothing distinctive or particularly beneficial about having a mother and a father"
ANYONE who claims 'needing a mother and father' as their reason for discrimination but does nothing about the millions of single parents is a lying bigot and nothing more. Some of those single mother end up living with their mothers, yeah, two women raising a baby. But their not dirty queers so the 'family values' bigots dont give a damn about that supposedly destructive enviroment.
Posted by: penguinsaur | Jul 6, 2009 6:29:58 PM
This makes me so sick! My father died when I was 7 and my brother was a baby. Therefore, we grew up with a single mother most of our lives. We found the attitudes of people like Cushman incredibly stigmatizing. Make no mistake, she and her organization are just as much against "good heterosexual Christian" widows who don't want to remarry just anybody as they are against LGBTs. Just as much against kind-hearted singletons who want to foster needy children, just as much against formerly abused spouses who grab the kids and run to a new life, etc. It's so clear in the "mother and father" rhetoric. But they go after LGBTs. LGBT parents are the first; they are not the last.
When I was younger and more interested in engagement, I asked people at Focus and other right-wing groups how they seeked to address the issue of kids in public school who have LGBT parents. They're there, I asked, so how do you address them if you don't like these methods? How do you keep kids from being bullies about it, how do you let them know they're as welcome as anyone else? They didn't, that was the answer. I got a bit of obfuscation, no more. They do not have their own anti-bullying resources or their own resources for dealing with, say, the nice neighbor kid with two moms. What they have is a whole lot of hateful rhetoric that seeks to make others' lives as miserable as possible.
I am not a parent, but have friends who are. Their kids are unique and wonderful little people whom I love very much. It breaks my heart when they say things like they don't feel bad about their families until someone tells them they should feel bad. It pisses me off that this gets done to children, and that some people make a *living* out of stigmatizing children and families, even passing off their efforts as a pro-family, pro-child ministry. At least the women at our former church who glared at my mom for being an attractive young widow weren't organized as a group.
My mom used to tell my brother and I not to make fun of another kid for something they can't help, like who their parents are. It was a helpful guideline. Candi Cushman and others at FOTF were obviously never taught that lesson. And now they want to ensure that another generation grows up to be as cruel as they are.
Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | Jul 6, 2009 6:47:01 PM
"I honestly don't understand how FOF gets any funding."
I would imagine they are desperately worried about this. For years they have been getting by on the back of James Dobson's name. He was a luminary with the older generations.
But what now? They have no younger "hero," and obviously history's not in their favor. They are all scared -- mark my words.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 6, 2009 7:14:30 PM
Those who practice homosexuality have the same civil rights as every citizen. Homosexuals can marry, hold jobs,etc., just like all Americans. For opponents of same-sex marriage the issue is ALL about protecting the institution of marriage, standing up for what we believe is best for children AND society, NOT denying benefits. As for conservatives like James Dobson, they are consistent in that they also oppose heterosexual abuses of marriage such as adultery, divorce, pornography, and sex outside of marriage.
Posted by: Obam Amabo | Jul 7, 2009 12:20:03 PM
"Obama Amabo": Next time, please identify yourself as a Focus employee. It would seem pertinent to the discussion.
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/07/hey-focus-on-the-family-employees.html
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 7, 2009 1:04:24 PM
So why is it that Focus on the Family isn't trying to get propositions on the ballot regarding adultery, divorce, and sex outside of marriage? Also, since they point out that homosexuals CAN marry (someone of the opposite sex) then they apparently do not see "loveless" marriages as a problem. If they would drop the whole "protect marriage" BS and just call it "keep the gays from marrying" I would at least have a little respect for their honesty.
Posted by: Larry P | Jul 7, 2009 1:40:25 PM
comments powered by Disqus
