In a spirited interview, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank defend
ed his stance that the antigay Family Research Council should not be listed as a “hate group” by the venerated civil rights group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, because they wear suits and “don’t wear white sheets,” and some of their founders and officials are “respected” individuals.
Milbank came across as a arrogant, Washington insider who needs to get out of the Beltway more often. He completely muffed his response and appeared unprepared to defend his column.
Open Letter to Dana Milbank, Anti-Gay Hate Group Enabler
(danamilbank@washpost.com)
On August 16, 2012, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank published an article in which he despicably alleged that the Southern Poverty Law Center is as bad for calling The Family Research Council an anti-gay hate group as the Family Research Council is for spreading the hateful lies and incitements that got it classified as an anti-gay hate group.
Milbank, furthermore, put his full faith and credit as a Washington Post columnist behind the following statement from the anti-gay-rights National Organization for Marriage:
“The National Organization for Marriage,” Milbank said, “which opposes gay marriage, is right to say that the attack “is the clearest sign we’ve seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as ‘hateful’ must end.”
NOM as well as the Family Research Council have been using Milbank’s advertisement for them all across the land as “proof” that they are not anti-gay hate groups.
Here is my Open Letter to Dana Milbank:
Mr. Milbank:
You wrote your column — Hateful Speech on Hate Groups — in apparent ignorance of the National Organization for Marriage’s incitements to anti-gay violence.
NOM sponsors anti-gay hate rallies where its chosen speakers yell through megaphones that homosexuals are “worthy to death.”
The NOM-sponsored anti-gay hate rally in that video took place on May, 2011 in New York City.
Since that date, there have been umpteen crimes of anti-LGBT violence in New York City, across American and beyond.
I’ll give you just one example for now, though.
Kardin Ulysse as an eighth grade student in 2012 was subject to a pattern of anti-gay criminal harassment and attacks in his public NYC school, attacks which school administration did not do enough to stop.
On the last anti-gay attack he suffered, Kardin was blinded in one eye by an attacker who yelled “f*****g faggot!” at him.
Mr. Milbank — I challenge you to look Kardin Ulysse in his one remaining eye, and to tell him that the National Organization for Marriage — whose speakers say that homosexuals are “worthy to death” — is correct when it says that “labeling pro-marriage groups as ‘hateful’ must end.”
When are you going to do that Mr. Milbank?
WHEN?
When are you going to look Kardin Ulysse in his one remaining eye, and tell him that even though his attackers yelled “f*****g faggot!” at him when they blinded him in one eye, you think that the National Organization for Marriage — (which sponsors anti-gay hate rallies where its speakers say that homosexuals are “worthy to death”) — is correct when it says that “labeling pro-marriage groups as ‘hateful’ must end”?
On the off chance that you would ever renounce your arrogance and ignorance in publishing the column you did, I want to propose a television show scenario during which you will be able to look Kardin Ulysse in his one remaining eye.
I’m sure that Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper and/or some other well-known figure would agree to broadcasting this scenario.
First, viewers will see the video of the National Organization for Marriage anti-gay hate rally where a NOM speaker yelled through a megaphone that homosexuals are “worthy to death.”
Then, the program host will ask NOM founder and mastermind Robert George — who also is on the board of the Family Research Council, and who wrote the anti-gay-rights NOM pledge signed by Mitt Romney — why nobody from NOM ever apologized for NOM’s anti-gay “worthy to death” rally, despite all the calls for an apology.
Next, both Robert George and Tony Perkins can explain why they campaign so hard against the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression” as protected classes in school anti-bullying policies.
After those two anti-gay hate group leaders explain why LGBT students shouldn’t be properly protected in schools, you will look Kardin Uylsse in his one remaining eye, and tell him that you think NOM is correct when it says that “labeling pro-marriage groups as ‘hateful’ must end” — even though NOM sponsors anti-gay hate rallies where its speakers yell through megaphones that homosexuals are “worthy to death.”
How about it Mr. Milbank?