« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
01/04/2010
Dance with ones who brung'ya (*just not during campaign season)
Ir's simply fascinating to watch the fair weather allegiances within the anti-gay side. During campaigns like Maine's recent "yes on 1" effort, the "mainstream" groups like Focus on the Family and the National Organization For Marriage deliberately (and wisely, for their purposes) push outspoken activists like Mike Heath, Pete LaBarbera, and Brian Camenker to the outskirts, with the "official" campaigners/financiers acting as if they themselves know that some of their team's prominent players are too unabashed to ever help their fallacious campaigns. But in between election season, all is forgiven. When less independents are watching and the need to look moderate is of less concern, the "mainstreamers" routinely rely on the laser-beam focus and admittedly diligent research of the same set of activists that they'd relegated to the "fringe" pile just a few weeks earlier.
Those on the far-right totally recognize this popularity roller coaster for what it is. Frustration with the situation is exactly why Peter LaBarber and Brian Camenker held a rogue "yes on 1" presser after weeks of being denied by the Maine campaign. It's why Maine's most prominent anti-gay for the past many years, Mike Heath, wrote a blog post acknowledging the forced campaign exile that we had perceived months before. It's also why Linda Harvey wrote a piece rebuking Stand For Marriage Maine for being so quick to throw the more anti-gay (read: unfiltered and therefore more truthful) voices under the proverbial bus. And it's exactly why some of those on the far-right have written yours truly and confirmed my spot-on insight on this topic, and why some "pro-family" moderates have issued off-record comments that are not as much denials as they are justifications.
Yet the cycle continues, with the "mainstreamers" bearing out the B.S. that underlies their entire movement, and the "fringers" willingly signing up for another round of wishy-washy alliance. Latest case in point: Focus on the Family's assessment of Amanda Simpson, the newly appointed Senior Technical Advisor of the Bureau of Industry and Security who just so happens to be transgender. It's unclear whether FOF is still too busy licking their "War on Christmas" battle wounds to fight this needless "battle" against a qualified human, or if they're simply trying to bring some new blood into their predictable stable. Whatever the reason, they have decided to outsource this latest transphobic, anti-Obama attack to a pair of activists who they would NEVVVVVVVVER push front and center during any ballot fight. Namely: Peter "I personally attack gay people's individual marriages" LaBarbera and Matt "one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love’” Barber:
"Is there going to be a transgender quota now in the Obama administration?" asked Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth. "How far does this politics of gay and transgender activism go? Clearly this is an administration that is pandering to the gay lobby."
...
"We should consider what transgender activism is about," he said," which is essentially recognizing civil rights based on gender confusion."
Matt Barber, associate dean at Liberty University, said the appointment "boggles the mind."
"This isn't like appointing an African-American in order to try to provide diversity and right some kind of discriminatory wrong," he said. "This is about political correctness.
"President Obama, before he was inaugurated, told the world that he had signed off on every single demand of the homosexual-activist lobby."
LaBarbera said it's just another way to normalize homosexuality and transgenderism.
"It's always the incremental change that keeps moving forward and keeps getting more radical," he said. "It's hard for the American people to keep up."
President Appoints 'Transgendered' Individual to Federal Post [FOF Citizienlink]
Now, to many of you this is a big "so what?" You might think that discrimination is discrimination, and you are basically right. But the reason why this is important is not based on the question of whether Peter (pic., at left) and Matt's (pic., at right) words are more offensive or rights-stripping simply because they tend to be more hyperbolic. It's important because there is a marked pattern of groups like Focus on the Family shunning these exact same people whenever the anti-gay side needs to create a broad coalition to win. You have to ask yourself why that is. You have to ask why, if Focus on the Family (who tends to be one of the most major donors in any anti-gay campaigns) thinks Matt and Pete are worthy spokesmouths in January, then why not in November? If they trust them to decry a qualified presidential appointee, then why don't they put them front and center when they are hoping to convince a bare majority that "protecting traditional marriage" is not anti-gay?
And Focus staffers should ask themselves: If their new president Jim Daly is so supposedly focused on creating a more civil environment filled with "soft hearts," then why is his outfit bringing in voices who have never met a gay environment that they wouldn't muddy with incivility, or a heart that they wouldn't try to break if doing so might embolden the name of homo hostility?
Your thoughts
"This isn't like appointing an African-American in order to try to provide diversity and right some kind of discriminatory wrong," he said. "This is about political correctness."
It's pretty shocking that they would ever include a quote like that! Except, of course, that is strikes a certain cord with the white supremacist underpinnings of their entire movement. Certainly some of the candidates for some of those positions are picked because of political reasons, but the one thing that is absolutely certain about this president's appointees... THEY ARE PREEMINENTLY QUALIFIED to fill those positions. No "Good Job Brownies" here! No Bolton's appointed as Ambassadors to the UN! And, none of Obama's appointees are chosen merely to "right some kind of discriminatory wrong."
I don't know if Barber is in a position where he makes hiring decisions, but his comment does certainly beg the question that if Matt were to ever hire an African American, if it would be because they were qualified, or because of some "affirmative action". But, even more than that, if he doesn't hire African Americans that speaks volumes about FOF's point man. And highlights how thoroughly these people detest everyone who is different than they are.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 5, 2010 1:38:51 AM
Blech!
Posted by: Mykelb | Jan 5, 2010 9:33:23 AM
Dick Mills said:
"I don't know if Barber is in a position where he makes hiring decisions..."
Check out his title at the Liberty U Law School:
"Associate Dean for Career and Professional Development"
http://law.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=17261
So, he's giving lawyers-to-be "Strategic career guidance and counseling." Incredible... he's the living, breathing lesson in how to make a mockery of yourself and your career, ensuring that no credible firm or major corp wants to touch you or have you affiliated with them.
Posted by: Bose | Jan 5, 2010 12:40:14 PM
comments powered by Disqus
