In a startling turn of events, writer David Benkof – formerly David Bianco – has closed down his blog, Gays Defend Marriage, and vowed to stay out of the fight in California. In a statement to Truth Wins Out, Benkof said the following:
“I no longer feel comfortable being allied with the people running the Prop. 8 campaign, and the same-sex marriage movement in America in general, with a few exceptions – most notably Maggie Gallagher. I have made a tentative decision not to publicize the disturbing information that caused me to end my promotion of man-woman marriage in the United States. But there is very little that I know about those subjects that a journalist, blogger, or activist cannot find out through diligent googling and asking the right questions of the Prop. 8 campaign.”
Benkof had made waves in recent weeks with a string of high-profile anti-gay op-eds in major mainstream newspapers, including the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the San Francisco Chronicle.
We are pleased that Benkof has decided to do the right thing and step aside. It is also helpful that he has raised the red flag about the people running Prop. 8.
“Do you even know anything about me?”
Beyond your nuttery, no. And quite frankly, I don’t want to. If you weren’t so absorbed in homosex and kid-f*****g, it WOULD have been possible – but you have no other interests. Yawn.
Biankof wrote: Like, the fact that I have denounced ex-gay therapy and I have never been Christian?
Calling him an ex-gay seems to push one of his buttons, but it is hard to read his explanation of “Sexuality and Change” at his website: http://shemayisrael.com/isjudaism/sexualityandchange.shtml
without thinking that aside from the Jewish references, it could easily have been written by any number of US ex-gay leaders.
John-
You are quoting something I wrote five years ago, when I was undecided on the ex-gay movement and thought it may work in some cases. Since then, I have learned that it does not, and that the Jewish ex-gay movement is a front for Christianity. You will find no quote of mine since 2003 praising reparative therapy or JONAH or any other such nonsense.
Now here’s the really interesting part. I assume you argue against “ex-gay” ideology because you want to change people’s ideas. But then, in a case like mine, when my ideas have actually been changed, you keep beating me up for what I believed many years ago. Why should anybody in the future change their ideas to match yours if you have a demonstrated record or attacking people who change their ideas for having had the old ideas in the first place? Doesn’t that seem a little counterproductive? Emily K, can you help me out here?
Scott-
So you admit that you’re criticizing me even without knowing anything about me. Why should anyone take you seriously? You’re contributing almost as much to the conversation as the guy who thinks he’s making a salient point by misspelling my name.
Finally, your attitudes toward people with mental illness are appalling, and would be surprising if they didn’t come from a gay activist:
1. If you know someone who may be mentally ill, you have to approach it very carefully. Certainly in private, certainly respectfully, and certainly not in an attempt to win a debate. If someone who cared about me approached me and suggested my behavior showed paranoia, or mania, or psychosis, I would be very appreciative and discuss it with a mental health professional. Those symptoms carry as much stigma with me as a nosebleed, excessive urination, or a rash on my forehead. Mental illness is just another form of illness.
2. Do you know anything about Tourette’s Syndrome? I have only known one man who suffers from that debilitating illness, and he was really a terrific guy (and cute!). Why can’t someone with Tourette’s be involved with “the well-being of citizens”? In the Middle Ages, people thought such people were possessed by demons. Is that your attitude? Are you afraid mentally ill people have cooties? Why does someone’s verbal or facial tics affect his ability to contribute to society?
3. You really should read some LGBT history – the best book on this subject is Martin Duberman’s Cures. Gay people have been pathologized throughout LGBT history using precisely the same language you are using to attack the people you disagree with. The irony is, many of the psychiatrists and others using therapy, medication, and worse (ECT) to try to make gay people straight really thought they were helping. You don’t really care about the mental health or even the arguments of the people you are pathologizing – you just want to get them/us out of the way so you can have your way on public issues. It’s really, really sad.
David, the only thing I can help you with right now is suggesting that if you wrote that statement 5 years ago and no longer stand by it, perhaps even taking the OPPOSITE stance today, you should remove it from the internet, or publish a revised statement in its place. Otherwise, people like Scott will assume such statements are endorsed by you today. I’ve seen that section of your site before and I thought it was just as true today as it was when you first wrote it. I had no idea you no longer stood by it.
Also, I’d like to say that in all the years I’ve been a manic-depressive, not one time has anybody in the LGBTQ community stigmatized me or considered me a danger to society or something else uncalled for. But then again, my friends are a blend of LGBTQ and Straight – there’s no real line that I draw between my gay friends and my non-gay friends, and nobody I’ve ever engaged with who’s treated me like a friend has ever judged me for my mental illness. Additionally, the mental health community has never judged me for being gay. And since I came out as soon as I realized my sexuality, and never went through a “self-hating” phase, the two really have little to do with each other in my life. I don’t know where all this mental-illness-hating-gay-community thing comes from.
Emily K-
I have certainly considered finding a way to do what you suggest. But it’s complicated. First of all, that Web site is just the online version of a pamphlet that was printed five years ago, for which thousands of copies are in circulation and cannot be changed. It was work-for-hire, and my ideology at the time matched that of the person who hired me. That complicates things. Further, I would write it differently today but there is nothing I see in it that is technically false. For example, is it really false that reorientation therapy “appears to work in some cases”? I didn’t say it works, I say it appears to work. Surely even you will admit that with someone like Alan Chambers, it appears to work – whether it actually works or not. I would never say that again, because it implies hey – give it a shot. But I don’t actually say that so it’s not like I can contact the person who hired me to do the pamphlet and say “This is false.” Same thing with the following sentence “There are many people now in happy opposite-sex marriages who credit their therapy for helping them go from gay to straight living.” Well, there are many people who say that. If the sentence was “There are many people who used to be gay that are now straight because of their reparative therapy,” that would be a load of crap and I would be ashamed to have written it and I would be more eager to fix it. But on a technical level, it’s not exactly false.
You suggest I “publish a revised statement in its place.” I think that’s a good idea. I no longer have a Web site. Are my above statements here at TWO enough in your mind? Would ExGayWatch publish something I wrote explaining why I don’t agree with the implications of what I wrote in 2003, and why I think JONAH is not kosher and even a front for conversionist Christians? I’d be happy to submit something if you give me a word limit, even if you still ban me from commenting at your site.
Finally, thank you for sharing your mental health situation with the site. That’s not always easy to do. I imagine it wasn’t fun for you to read Victor attack me by alleging I’m bipolar – as if that were a bad thing. I did an Internet search and there are many famous LGBT bipolar people including Kate Millett, Sinead O’Connor, Drew Barrymore, and Stephen Fry. I’m glad you’ve never felt mistreated by the gay community for your manic-depression.
The website that I referenced appears to belong to Mr. Biankof. The email address that people are referred to is still the same one he uses today. The whole thing appears to the be the product and under the control of Mr. Biankof. But he tells us here that it was a work for hire and belongs to someone else and he has no control over it. Apparently it is not what it appears to be. That certainly has a familiar ring to it.
John
John-
There’s that phrase again – “appears to.” Three times. I do not own that Web site. I wrote the pamphlet in question in 2003 and do not have control over it.
I still stand on everything I said previously, and once again, it’s not an attack on the person – it’s an attack on their brain.
If America was smart (and it’s not) at this point in history, we would do a clean sweep of everyone involved in politics, and say goodbye to anyone with schizophrenia, dimentia, meth-fried brains, etc.
Beings terrorism is supposed to be our #1 concern, why add fuel to the fire by allowing unstable folks to stir up the public with their hallucinations?
I don’t think it’s endearing OR funny.
It’s s**t like that, that started up the holocaust. And it’s also why that queen Roy Cohn got so many innocent people imprisoned, for absolutely no reason. Contrary to what people think, Roy Cohn was no genius – he was just allowed to uncontrollably hallucinate – much like Janet Folger, Regina Griggs from PFOX, Sally Kern, and Bill O’Reilly.
For instance, America would move forward quite a bit, if we would grant Janet Folger her wish, and lock her away. Not in prison, of course – but a straight jacket would be appropriate.
And I’m not discussing this issue any further, because I won’t change my mind. People can think what they want about my opinion – but I will add that nobody’s perfect. Not even Alan Chambers, who believes he is.
I have waited five days to see if any of the pro-gay commenters on this site, including the one with bipolar disorder, would respond to Scott’s horrible, unfeeling tirade against people with mental illnesses. Nobody did, not to my surprise, because LGBT activists think nothing is more important than the fight for gay equality, and if claiming that enemies of gay equality are mentally ill and thus should be excluded from decision-making roles in society works, so be it.
Sad.
I love Scott’s criticism of people with “meth-fried brains,” given that gay men are far more likely to have used crystal meth (they call it “tina”) than any other subgroup.
Among the significant people who have suffered from mental illness:
‚Ä¢ Abraham Lincoln, who coped with occasionally crippling depression. Should America have been deprived of the leadership of the Great Emancipator because of prejudices like Scott’s?
• Winston Churchill, who was probably bipolar. Could we have even won World War II if we had purged everyone who was mentally ill from a position of power?
Many members of Congress have suffered from mental illness, including Ted Kennedy’s son Patrick (D-R. I.) and the Democratic Senator I grew up with here in Missouri, Tom Eagleton (D-Mo.). Democratic Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles (best known for having defeated Jeb Bush in 1994, which made George W. the Bush Republicans wanted to run for president in 2000 instead of Jeb) was also mentally ill.
Tipper Gore is mentally ill. And she got the most votes to be the First Lady in 2000. Had the Supreme Court ruled the other way, should she have been prevented from performing the important duties of that office?
I’m sure many readers of the above will sympathize with my point, especially since all my recent examples are Democrats. But I doubt anyone will call Scott out for his unacceptable bigotry against the mentally ill, becuase he’s using mental illness as a weapon against people who don’t agree that gays are equal in every way, and for most LGBT activists, taking down such people is a higher cause than the welfare of children, it’s more urgent than winning wars, and it’s more important than religious freedom. So why wouldn’t it be more important than treating mentally ill people with dignity and respect?
David,
Your intentional misquoting of Scott is reprehensible but unsurprising.
Scott said that people with severe mental illnesses should not be permitted in politics.
He’s right.
Michael-
Look again. The only quote of Scott I made was “meth-fried brains.” How is that a misquote? If it is, how do you know it was intentional? I cut and pasted. How could a cut-and-paste be an intentional misquote?
And do you believe that Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Tom Eagleton, Lawton Chiles, Patrick Kennedy, and Tipper Gore “should not be permitted in politics”? What about Emily K? What mechanism should exist to prevent such people from political service? Should we pass a law requiring all political candidates to pass a psychiatric screening? What mental illnesses are “severe” enough to disqualify someone? Anorexia? Dyslexia? Insomnia? How about Gender Identity Disorder? Many but not all transgender people have been diagnosed with a several mental illness. Should they “not be permitted in politics”?
Your comments are more proof of something I’ve long suspected: scratch an LGBT activist and you’ll often find a fascist. I believe that in a free society, people of all shapes and sizes should be allowed to vote, lobby, run for office, and serve in elected and appointed positions – and that includes people with disabilities of all kinds, including mental illnesses.
But at least we have some good news: it sounds like Michael Airhart and Scott will supporting the Republican opponent of Rep. Patrick Kennedy, the Democrat representing Rhode Island’s 1st district who is guilty of both having a severe mental illness and of suffering from various addictions, both apparently disqualifiers in their minds from political service. And I imagine you will support the recall of gay-marriage hero Gavin Newsom, who has sought treatment for alcoholsm.
Here we have more convenient misquoting re: “severe” mental illness. You’ve worn out your welcome again, David. Bye bye.
David, I did not respond to Scott or to you in this thread because I know how to pick my battles. You can’t just convince people that you’re right. People will believe what they want.
And I know what I’m like when manic, or when I’m not medicated.. It’s NOT pretty. I am NOT functioning member of society. The actions I take under that state fill me with shame and self-loathing because I end up burning every bridge I once worked so hard to build. When mental illness is self-evident, and it gets in the way of job and home life, that is when it’s time to pull the plug. Talk therapy and proper medication (in that order) can make a mentally ill person a healthy person in society and they should have all the same rights and benefits as anyone else. It’s very difficult to describe this without sounding like I’m advocating drugging and conformity – this is not the case. I am saying that when someone violently acts out in the workplace because they are in a manic phase – or is putting them in severe debt because of erratic behavior – it’s time to say goodbye. Just like Mike said goodbye to you.
I think the discussion has gotten off track. The original comment from Mr. Benkof was that he was quitting the pro-8 camp due to disturbing information about them. I find that statement quite manipulative in that he’s hiding his motivations while attempting to influence others’ opinions with his announcement. If there’s a serious problem he has with the pro-8 camp (and I’m only surprised that he didn’t see it sooner, considering they will go to any length to indulge their hatred!) then he can come right out and say it. He’s hardly bashful about any of his other observations. Manipulation is the result of trying to gain control without actually having any. Given the societally-induced self-hatred that so many gay people have, support for the religio-fascist right wing isn’t a surprise, though it’s a sad commentary on a person’s lack of self-respect and self-worth. But as another poster pointed out, Mr. Benkof’s political behavior seems to be guided more by a desire for personal retribution than any underlying value system. Once that process is exposed, he can hardly be surprised that his pronouncements aren’t taken seriously. One’s individual authority stems from one’s integrity, it is not conferred by association with any particular religious or political group, or even by God, as much as Mr. Benkoff might like it to be.
All the more confusing that his motivation is personal retribution is the fact that the Torah forbids revenge. Vengeance is for God alone. And he is a religious Jew, quick to declare who is and who is not Jewish. It IS personal retribution. Otherwise he wouldn’t make threats to further spite the gay community with his activism if we “insult him too many times.” SO mature.
Pauvre david,Tu es un hypocrite et danger pour notre societe LGBT.