« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
10/13/2009
FRC: Their cold onslaught is nothing new. But why the cold feet?
The following bit of text is an offensive, out-of-line, unwarranted attack on an entire group of human beings. So for the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, it's really nothing new. Accusing gays of "choosing their behaviors," intimating that Matt Shepard's sexuality had nothing to do with his death, comparing same-sex unions to those that exist between members of a high school football team, and generally stigmatizing certain people because they happen to be L, G, B, T, or supportive S is pretty much what this man does for a living. So when we first saw the piece that follows, we were just kind of like "meh."
But then something weird happened. After posting it to their site, FRC abruptly yanked the text. So now we (and presumably you) are more than curious. See if you can find any reason why this thoroughly disgusting walloping of LGBT people's lives and loves would lead Perkins & Co. to pull it:
**UPDATE, noon: It's back up on the site now. So now you can just go read it for its lack of merits rather than its yank-inducing content:
October 12, 2009
Homosexual Activists Go GaGa for Obama
On Saturday night, billing himself as the opening act for singer Lady GaGa, President Obama mustered all of his rhetorical skills to deliver a rousing speech to the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, America ’s largest pro-homosexual organization. It was an effort to pander to (and to some extent placate) one of the most radical parts of his liberal base – people who, despite Obama’s endorsement of 99% of their far-left agenda, are impatient with the pace of social and political change.
The speech was interrupted often by applause, but punctuated mostly by ironies – beginning with his praise for “progress sought by those with little influence or power” while speaking at a $250-a-plate black-tie dinner attended by federal office-holders and the Hollywood glitterati. He complained that “some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity” – yet it is “GLBT” activists themselves who do that. We consider them human beings, who like all human beings must be held accountable for the consequences of their chosen behaviors.
He celebrated an impending victory for the homosexual political agenda, the expected passage of a federal “hate crimes” measure this week, by paying tribute to the parents of Matthew Shepard, a homosexual college student who was brutally murdered in Wyoming. Yet the best evidence suggests this was not an “anti-gay” hate crime at all – and in any case, the murderers were vigorously punished even in the absence of a “hate crimes” law.
Media reports on the speech focused on the President’s pledge, “I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Obama declared, “We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need” – while failing to recognize that allowing homosexuality in the ranks is what would devastate recruiting and reenlistment rates. The roughly two percent of the population that is homosexual will never replace the ten percent of current military personnel who have said they would not re-enlist if homosexuals are allowed in the military.
President Obama continued his two-step on the issue of marriage, stopping short of endorsing same-sex civil “marriage,” but calling homosexual partners “spouses” and declaring that “I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple.” He said we should “recognize relationships between two men and two women as just as real and admirable” as heterosexual ones. Yet there are a lot of relationships – between parents and children, between siblings, between close friends and neighbors, between members of a high school football team – that are “real and admirable,” but that are never referred to as “marriage.”
Perhaps in a veiled allusion to his controversial “safe schools” czar Kevin Jennings, Obama said, “[I]f any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support.” Yet Jennings is being attacked precisely for what he believes and what he has said and done, not for “who he is.” (Perhaps the statement actually paves the way for Jennings ‘ departure.)
One thing was clear from Obama’s speech – his goal (like that of homosexual activists) is not simply equal legal rights. It is, rather, to overturn millennia of moral teaching that has acknowledged the harms of homosexual conduct and the unique benefits of marriage between a man and a woman. He dismissed those values as “outworn arguments and old attitudes,” while decrying the grassroots campaigns to defend marriage as “divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain.”
In other words, if you hold to traditional values, the ultimate goal is simple – to silence you. President Obama told HRC, “[D]o not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach.” That’s a warning the American people should heed.
Homosexual Activists Go GaGa for Obama (now pulled) [FRC]
Anyone?
Your thoughts
It seems to be back now. Maybe they originally felt that it was just too civil for a site like theirs?
Posted by: gonovelgo | Oct 13, 2009 12:16:23 PM
Must've been a glitch on their website - seems like it's back up.
Posted by: DN | Oct 13, 2009 12:21:48 PM
FRC should be classified by the SPLC as a HATE GROUP. They are the religious persecutors of our time and should be compared to the blood thirsty 11th century crusaders, who, under the banner of "GOD", slaughtered people, not merely because they wanted their lands, but because of ideology, greed, and a sense of superiority that they were entitled to kill humans and their culture for what they wanted. Today, they are killing us by getting racist, misogynistic, hate-biased, religion-based legislation passed that is clearly unconstitutional. "Traditional Values" has come to mean greed, hate, anti-family, anti-Constitutional, anti-American values.
Posted by: Mykelb | Oct 13, 2009 12:33:21 PM
"... He complained that “some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity' – yet it is GLBT activists themselves who do that. We consider them human beings, who like all human beings must be held accountable for the consequences of their chosen behaviors.
"He celebrated an impending victory for the homosexual political agenda, the expected passage of a federal 'hate crimes' measure this week, by paying tribute to the parents of Matthew Shepard, a homosexual college student who was brutally murdered in Wyoming. Yet the best evidence suggests this was not an 'anti-gay' hate crime at all..."
I don't know if the fact challenged FRC would ever pull a piece because they have grossly misrepresented the truth. But the writers of the play that you went to see last night, after extensively interviewing the murderers of Matthew Shepard, added this epilogue to the play:
McKinney, according to the play, reiterates his claim that the 1998 killing in Laramie, Wyoming, started out as a robbery, but makes clear that his antipathy toward gays played a role.
"The night I did it, I did have hatred for homosexuals," McKinney is quoted as saying. He goes on, according to the play, to say that he still dislikes gays and that his perceptions about Shepard's sex life bolstered his belief that the killing was justified.
The two statements in the FRC piece taken separately, just sound like more of the SOS for the hatemongerers. Taken in context, one right after the other, along with the actual statements from the convicted murder, sounds like the FRC is condoning the murder of LGBTs, as ".. the consequences of their chosen behaviors."
Maybe it's a stretch, compounded by the requisite assumption that the FRC would has some semblance of a functional conscience left, but that's all I could see.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 13, 2009 12:45:00 PM
The one other thing that the FRC should factor into their misguided vindication of murderers is this:
What's missing from the whole [Matthew Shepard] story is the fact that a Mormon tied him to a fence and a Baptist beat him to death. We always forget to mention the source of the hatred: Religion.
This comes from a comment on Queerty.com. While I haven't researched the voracity of the claims of the religious indoctrination of the murderers, I also have no reason to doubt them.
http://www.queerty.com/was-making-matthew-shepard-the-face-of-gay-rights-a-mistake-20090915/
Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 13, 2009 1:06:16 PM
comments powered by Disqus
