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


Accurate assessments of LGBTs worth? Not so much. But as for Linda's ability to assess fallacious campaigns? Well...

by Jeremy Hooper

One of the things that infuriated us the most about the Stand For Marriage Maine coalition that recently duped Mainers into adopting bias is that behind the typical surface that Shubert-Flint advises these kinds of anti-equality campaigns to adopt in public, there was SO MUCH hypocrisy and eye-opening extremism bubbling underneath. Perhaps more than any other anti-equality campaign we've ever encountered (and that's saying A LOT!).

Linda-HarveyIn a new piece for WorldNetDaily, uber-far rightie Linda Harvey has helped our side more fully flesh out some of the SFMM coalition's most egregious bouts of hypocri-duplicity. For one, Linda highlights something we've said many times before, which is that the ridiculous school issue that both California's "yes on 8" and Maine's "yes on 1" were able to use to victory is almost wholly a creation of the SPLC-designated hate group, Mass Resistance:

The group Mass Resistance in Massachusetts, headed by long-time pro-family activist Brian Camenker, has been invaluable in researching, tracking and revealing exactly how school-based homosexual advocates shove the lifestyle down the throats of families in that state, a tactic that went on steroids following the homosexual marriage court ruling in 2003. The incidents with the Parker and Withlin families were revealed to the nation primarily through the efforts of Mass Resistance.

Linda's spot on with this. It was Brian Camenker who brought the Withlins, the ad stars uses by both the 8 and 1 campaigns, to public light. In fact, the Wirthlins and Mass Resistance were so close in the early days that the former actually gave the latter private emails for publication. Without Brian Camenker and Mass Resistance, there never would've been a public story involving the Wirthlins. A fact that segues perfectly into Linda's next point involving Camenker and his pals Pater LaBarbera and Paul Madore:

But despite the teaching moment that LaBarbera, Madore and Camenker took advantage of, and despite the excellent media coverage their statements received, the Stand for Marriage campaign did not embrace them. In fact, they did everything possible to discourage their efforts, both in public and behind the scenes. Scott Fish of Stand for Marriage told the Maine media he "disavowed" any association with these brave pro-family warriors.

This happened despite the fact that, in its campaign, Stand for Marriage Maine utilized research on school impact provided by some of these very people. No good deed goes unpunished, apparently

Again, she's telling the truth here. As a gay rights geek who follows this sort of thing with a fine-toothed comb, I can point to specific bullet points (beyond just the Wirthlins) that the "yes on 1" campaign lifted directly from the exact same people from whom they worked so hard to distance themselves. From the beginning, SFMM (probably on the advice of Schubert-Flint) knew they had to cut ties with many of the past peeps that had defined anti-gayness in Maine, because they knew that these people were too committed to the TRUE anti-gay cause to ever go along with the carefully workshopped, highly duplicitous "yes on 1" campaign. So even though key SFMM players like Charla Bansley and Bob Emrich were extremely connected to social conservatives like Mike Heath, the campaign immediately (and offensively, if you're sensitive to the "pro-family" side) thew Heath under the proverbial bus in order to seem "mainstream." The same goes for Madore/Camenker/Heath. They did the same exact thing in California with Randy Thomasson and a few others. You really have to wonder how these fair weather evangelicals can preach about "values" and "commitment," when they are so willing to cast aside their own peeps. In terms of "dancin' with the ones who brung ya," we're actually in full agreement with Linda (and some other social conservatives who have written us privately to express their grievances with their own movement).

And then for Linda's most telling point: That the"yes on 1" campaign's last-minute "oh but we like domestic partnerships" ad was an absolute crock of politically advantageous bullcrapola:

[The domestic partnerships ad] is a huge concession to the hopes and aspirations of "gay" activists. Are there indeed "rights" that need to be accorded to the behavior of homosexuality? No self-respecting Christian would take this position. This paves the way for the pseudo-marriage of "domestic partnerships." The big question is: Why did "conservatives" do this?
But the student endangerment message made no sense paired with the last-minute, "We're really tolerant" positioning of the campaign as cited above. Opponents would easily be able to see through the apparent hypocrisy: Why should parents worry about their children being indoctrinated into homosexual acceptance, if "gays" ought to be tolerated? If we ought to respect their "rights"? This sudden shift had a desperation tinge to it and leaves pro-family forces vulnerable in the future to accusations of lying through our teeth. Christians do not do well with hypocrisy. We need to tell the truth.

The Catholic Church in Maine made similar foolish accommodations. In reacting to the victory, Bishop Richard Malone said that the church upholds marriage yet "respects and accepts gays." Really? The Catholic Church accepts homosexual behavior? Two men having sex with one another? Women excluding men from their lives and shacking up as lesbians? This is respectable and acceptable in Catholic teachings? This seems to say there might be truth to the claim of "gay" identity, something homosexualists would love for Christians to embrace.

When that happens, they have won the war.

We knew it was a lie. The No on 1 campaign knew it was a lie. A few days after the campaign, the suddenly de-muzzled Charla Bansley pretty much admitted it was a lie. And now Linda Harvey, speaking on behalf of so many of those who work against our lives and loves, demonstrates what an injustice it was for the "yes on1" campaign to run with this abject fallacy. Unjust not only to the "No on 1" side, but also, apparently, to large swaths of evangelicals!

It's horrendous that we lost in Maine. But Linda is 100% right about one more thing: The Stand For Marriage Maine coalition did do considerable damage to their overall movement, in that they have left "pro-family forces vulnerable in the future to accusations of lying through our teeth." This, coupled with Linda and company's own willingness to bear out the lies, offenses, and hypocrisies within the "pro-family" movement, has provided us MUCH fuel for the next time that we face one of these referenda. If we don't use it to our full advantage (and hire campaign staff fully willing to do so), then we don't deserve to win!

When PR flacks take over moral messaging [WorldNetDaily]

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

Your thoughts

ok, so what I don't get is why the msm isn't picking up on any of this. the far right accuses the msm of being so liberal, yet no major news outlet seems to be willing to pick up on these tactics and make it public. Why?????

Posted by: keltic | Nov 9, 2009 11:14:39 AM

I wish that these people would come and say what they really advocate. They want us all dead. It all boils down to what they quote over and over, the passage in the bible that calls us an abomination. But they always, always stop short of quoting the entire passage which continues, "they will surely be put to death." They know that really won't play well in the civil forum so they conveniently leave it out.

Posted by: SammySeattle | Nov 9, 2009 12:38:42 PM

Keltic: Because so many within the msm wants to keep this seen as a two-sided "battle." I truly believe this.

With few notable exceptions, the so-called mainstream media has been H-O-R-R-I-B-L-E in how they deal with marriage equality. We, the ones who accurately assess these matters and back them up with verifiable facts, are considered to be "one-sided" or "biased or "fringe." So they take anything that our side digs up (or in this case, that Linda Harvey fully admits) and frames it in a form of a question/debate/whatever. It doesn't matter how easily they could do their own research and/or how easily they could refute the lies with tangible data. Out of either laziness or willingness, they choose to fall short.

Most msm outlets thrive on the divisive memes, and this is just another. It's ENRAGING!

Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 9, 2009 12:52:26 PM

The same happens with the 'debate' on evolution. The honest answer is that there is no such debate. One side has all the evidence, and the other side does not. However the media doesn't like such battles, and so they give column inches to arguments and ideas and assertions that were all debunked years ago.

Oddly enough, the creationists are just like the anti-gay side - hard-core religious Right. They use the same tactics as well. For example, 'Gay men are paedophiles' becomes 'Hitler believed in evolution.' Neither assertion is true.

And, of course, both creationists and the anti-gay crowd are capable of doing a lot of damage socially and intellectually.

Posted by: Baron Scarpia | Nov 9, 2009 1:47:55 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails