As Evan mentioned last week, Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage Discrimination challenged Dan Savage to a duel in a revealing moment of compensatory bravado. Brown’s challenge, written in a breathless blog post, came in response to a speech Savage made last month to attendees at a high school journalism convention in which he said that the Bible contains “bull***t. . . about gay people.” He noted (correctly) that Christianity’s holy book is chock full of authoritative pronouncements on a plethora of other topics (shellfish, dinner, farming, menstruation, virginity, masturbation. . .) that are emphatically rejected by every person, Christian or otherwise, living in the 21st century as opposed to the Stone Age. Savage also accurately pointed out that turning to the Bible for questions of morality is a dubious exercise at best, due to the fact that the Bible is “a radically pro-slavery document” that “got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong.”
Savage’s point — just in case it isn’t already abundantly obvious — is that it’s absurd to suggest that the Bible is infallible on the issue of homosexuality when it is so demonstrably fallible on a host of other issues. And he made that point, without disrespecting or slandering any religion, by simply describing what the Bible actually says.
According to Brown, though, accurately describing what the Bible says is tantamount to bullying. And he won’t stand for it:
Let me lay down a public challenge to Dan Savage right here and now: You want to savage the Bible? Christian morality? Traditional marriage? Pope Benedict? I’m here, you name the time and the place and let’s see what a big man you are in a debate with someone who can talk back. It’s easy to make high-school girls cry by picking on them. Let’s pick on someone our own size!
. . . I’m here, any time, any place you name, Dan Savage. You will find out out how venal and ridiculous your views of these things are if you dare to accept a challenge.
So yeah. Brown is man, hear him roar. Blah blah blah. Incidentally, if you’re currently unoccupied and have a couple minutes to spare, read Brown’s post in its entirety. It’s rather entertaining — what starts off as an indignant letter to NOM’s “marriage supporters” ends up reading, by the time the screed concludes, like a half-hearted mélange of great moments in presidential speeches: “With charity towards all, with malice towards none, we will fight for the right, as God gives us the power to see what’s right. God bless you and may God bless America.” I can’t tell if Brownie intended to re-purpose Lincoln’s Second Inaugural or deliver the State of the Union Address. . .
But anyway, lo and behold, last Friday Savage responded. His message to Brown? It’s on.
I will name the time and the place, per your offer, as soon as possible. Looking forward to it, NOMnuts.
Color me thrilled. As an LGBT activist and media-consuming American, I’ve seen a lot of both Dan Savage andBrianBrown on TV, YouTube, and the like. As such, I’m more than a little surprised that Brown challenged Savage in the first place, since I’m willing to bet NOM’s Bigot-in-Chief would get his you-know-what handed to him in any serious debate. Perhaps Brown, too, recognizes this: as of this writing, he’s made nary a peep in public about Savage accepting his offer. Stay tuned, folks; we’ll see what develops.
Oh, and in case either Dan or Brian happen to be reading: consider this my formal request for two front-row seats. I don’t want to miss a thing.
There comes a time in every Porno Pete’s life, when he sees the writing on the wall, sees that his life’s work will be officially a waste in a few years’ time, and comes up with a plan he thinks is clever, in order to stave off the inevitable for a few more days:
A strong voice for traditional marriage suggests President Obama should be honest with Americans and just come out and endorse homosexual “marriage.”
Over the last two days, two members of Barack Obama’s Cabinet — Vice President Joe Biden and Education Secretary Arne Duncan — announced, in so many words, their support for “gay marriage.” Biden stated Sunday he is “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex couples who marry getting the same civil rights and liberties as heterosexual couples. Then on Monday, Duncan stated for the first time publicly that he supports allowing homosexuals to “marry” in the U.S.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality tells OneNewsNow that he believes it is just a matter of time — and timing — for President Obama to endorse homosexual marriage.
He’s right. Probably just after the election.
“If you look at the swing states that Obama’s got to win, or he’s trying to win — Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana — these are places where same-sex marriage is not popular, and so I think Obama is holding off,” LaBarbera offers. “I think he really supports so-called same-sex marriage. And besides, he’s doing a ton already to help the gay side fight for same-sex marriage.”
Porno Pete is actually kinda right, but for the wrong reasons…
LaBarbera adds that a person would be “beyond naïve” to believe Obama would not come out in support of same-gender marriage after the election is over. “This is all about politics. He knows he can’t do it now because it might jeopardize some swing states,” state the family activist. “So the Obama administration is so phony on this issue it’s not even funny.”
So here is the problem for Porno Pete and others like him: regular Americans, even in those swing states, just aren’t that energized by hating gay people anymore. Nobody who lives his/her life, day in/day out, in seething Porno Pete-esque fear of gays, is ever going to vote for a Democrat anyway, at least not enough to count very much in the final tallies. Moreover, Barack Obama’s opponent really doesn’t have very strong credentials in the “hating gays” department, so an Obama endorsement of marriage equality really wouldn’t tip the scales like Porno Pete thinks it would. Sure, Mitt Romney is kowtowing to wingnuts right now, but based on his record, there is no evidence that he would give a DAMN about their concerns, if elected. Would a President Romney come out for marriage equality after the election? Hell no. But in all likelihood, he really doesn’t personally care.
Porno Pete is upset because he believes, erroneously, that if Obama were to reveal his true feelings on the issue [I do agree with Pete that Obama completely supports marriage equality, but is playing politics], that some sort of silent wingnut horde would rise up to vote him out. Not gonna happen. This isn’t 2004. A majority of Americans support marriage equality, and while it’s true that those percentages are spread unevenly across the states, only the most fervent of resentful wingnuts are clinging to their bitter hatred of gays as a political issue. Americans are still concerned with bread and butter issues like the unemployment rate, and really don’t have too much time to lose their minds over whether Bruce and Larry down the street have equal constitutional rights.
So, Porno Pete, take all the time you want, wishing and hoping against reality that if only the President would stop playing politics, that your side will ultimately win. But dude, your moment has passed. History books will record that moment with embarrassment.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League (of One) would like to explain why the rampant, systemic, decades-long Catholic priest sexual abuse problem just isn’t that big of a deal:
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on editorials that appear today in the New York Times and Washington Post:
Both of these newspapers misstate the facts, fail to mention relevant data, and then make unfair accusations against the Catholic Church on the issue of sexual abuse.
Both newspapers today editorialize on the subject of “pedophile priests.” It is one of the biggest myths of our time that the Catholic Church has had a problem with pedophile priests: as the John Jay College for Criminal Justice showed in its 2011 report on this subject, less than 5 percent of the abusers were pedophiles. In almost all cases, the victims were adolescent males who were inappropriately touched by homosexual priests.
So it’s the gays’ fault. Right. Also, apparently Bill is saying that it’s somehow not that big of a deal for priests to molest altar boys, as long as they’re teenagers?
Today’s Washington Post adds to the cover-up by pretending that the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) is a legitimate organization that is being harassed by the Church. But anyone who has read the report we issued last year on inside information that was obtained from a SNAP conference knows that it is driven by raw hatred of Catholicism and intentionally manipulates the media.
Nice. Victim-blaming is alive and well with Bill Donohue, I see. Also, even if it IS the case that members of SNAP have a bit of a problem with the institution that covered up the fact that they were sexually abused by people in positions of power over them, how does that tarnish their credibility?
Donohue finishes with this:
Moreover, 85 Orthodox Jews from Brooklyn have recently been arrested for the sexual abuse of minors and yet neither newspaper reports on this.
“I know you are but so did Jews.” That makes it all better.
Stick to your failing crusade against Jon Stewart, Bill. At least that one’s funny.
Remember a few weeks ago when I made fun of Pastor Ken Hutcherson for trying to “reclaim” the rainbow? Now he wants to reclaim the word “gay,” claiming that he is the gayest person he knows. I always had my suspicions, but it’s not polite to judge:
Dr. Ken Hutcherson, the pastor of Antioch Baptist Church in Redmond, Wash., posted an announcement earlier this week that many close to him – including his wife – have known for years. Hutcherson revealed that he is the “gayest man I know.”
“Coming out of the closet is a difficult decision to make, especially when close, personal relationships are at stake,” Hutcherson wrote in his column, Hutch Speaks Out, that was published on WorldNetDaily.
Bwahaha, this is going to backfire on him.
“Will my family abandon me? Will my friends still look at me the same? Will this announcement be worth the risk? These are indeed valid concerns that can make a person live like a double agent for years. And even though this decision is acutely personal, it does help to stand alongside someone else who is ready to announce the very same thing,” he continued.
The announcement of the burly NFL-linebacker-turned-evangelical-minister-and-author sent some initial shockwaves through the Christian community. He and James Hansen, one of his ministry leaders who is married with three children, are challenging others, especially evangelicals, to come forward and also admit that they are gay.
Haha, okay, Peter LaBarbera, you and Bam Bam do it next.
But the thing is Hutcherson is not a homosexual, nor does the happily married man have a same-sex attraction of any kind. He is, however, on a mission to take back words, phrases and symbols he believes groups, such as homosexual activists and other liberal organizations, have “hijacked” from the American lexicon.
Okay, next I would like Ken to publicly take back loving Madonna and the freedom for two dudes to make out in public. Because we gays have just cold hijacked those things. Go ahead, Ken.
“Seriously, I am the gayest guy I know,” Hutcherson reiterated in an interview with The Christian Post.
God, you don’t have to broadcast it.
“My frustration is that some groups have taken words and symbols away from the Church and from society in general. When I say I’m ‘gay,’ what I mean is that I am happy, that I am joyful and that I love people. That is precisely what a Christian ought to be so in my opinion we just need to be as gay as we can.”
It’s great to be joyful and love people. Tony Perkins, Ken Hutcherson is asking you to be as gay as you can. Do you have what it takes?
“Dan Savage (a pro-gay activist) says he is gay. He’s not gay, not anywhere close. Yeah, he may be a homosexual but he certainly doesn’t appear to be happy or joyful when he stands up in front of a classroom and uses profane language. Nope, nothing gay about that.”
To be serious for just a moment: why do wingnuts think Dan Savage is unhappy? He has a great husband, a great kid and a great life. The fact that he makes fun of wingnuts doesn’t mean he’s unhappy. It means he’s quick on his feet and knows how to laugh at people, like Ken, who would seek to destroy his family unit.
Anyway, wingnuts, you have your marching orders from Hutch. Come out of the closet and be super-gay, like he is! Here is Ken’s full column, if you want to subject yourself to that.
Since the theme of the week is The Bullies Are The Real Victims, I must ask you, dear Bam Bam Barber — are we bullying God?
Recently it dawned on me that so-called “same-sex marriage,” to use the term “marriage” isn’t even appropriate. It’s not same-sex marriage, it’s mock marriage because it’s not real marriage, it’s a mock marriage. And same-sex marriage and the attacks on marriage mock God and his design for the institution of marriage.
And God will not be mocked, Shawn, and as we turn our face from God, relative to marriage and our larger culture on a number of these issues of morality and sexual morality, why should be we surprised when God turns his face from us?
So if God is “abandoning” this nation or whatever, at least the wingnut version of God, why don’t people like Bam Bam go to a country that their version of God hasn’t abandoned? Just a question.
Anyway, here’s the video, where you can watch Matt Barber attempt to run away from the real world in real time:
Raising the level of discourse even further, here is a typical North Carolina conservative, using every word he knows to express his disdain for marriage equality:
Brad Dacus of the extremist Pacific Justice Institute is complaining about a bill in California which would prevent kids from being victimized by “ex-gay” therapy. Here is a brief overview of the bill:
The law does not outright ban all ex-gay therapy, but it does prohibit anyone under the age of 18 from undergoing sexual orientation change efforts. It also requires that any prospective patient sign an informed consent form that includes the following disclaimer:
Having a lesbian, gay, or bisexual sexual orientation is not a mental disorder. There is no scientific evidence that any types of therapies are effective in changing a person’s sexual orientation. Sexual orientation change efforts can be harmful. The risks include, but are not limited to, depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior.
Medical and mental health associations that oppose the use of sexual orientation change efforts include the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.
Bills like this are a reflection of the reality-based community, where we know with 100% certainty that “reparative” therapy is not effective, and is often harmful. This is why no adult medical or mental health organization supports it.
Here is Brad Dacus, screaming about it:
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), one of several groups who testified against the bill last week, said the bill’s anti-conservative bias was extreme even by California’s standards.
“I can honestly say this is one of the most outrageous, speech-chilling bills we have ever seen in California – and that’s saying a lot,” said Dacus, who told LifeSiteNews.com that the bill is “a child’s welfare issue.”
Dacus pointed out that clinical evidence has shown that sexual molestation and other trauma at an early age can lead to sexual confusion. “To deprive these young people of quality psychiatric counseling and therapy is a gross and outrageous violation against humanity,” he said.
If using proven facts to prevent people from hurting kids amounts to “anti-conservative” bias, so be it. Just as Christian Scientist parents can be held accountable for not getting their kids treatment for things like cancer, this is an important step toward protecting kids from being subjected to potentially life-destroying “therapy,” simply because their parents can’t handle the real world. The bill is indeed a “child welfare issue,” Brad — it’s protecting kids from people like you.
One more thing. Let’s take a moment to lambaste the shoddy journalism of Kathleen Gilbert, who wrote this article for LifeSiteNews:
Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was in charge of the DSM change, reversed his position on therapy for unwanted same-sex attraction nearly 30 years later to support such therapy based on his own research.
Yes, Kathleen, and just a few weeks ago, he retracted that study as being scientifically unsound and full of holes. One would think an honest journalist would want to inform her readers of that little tidbit of information.
According to Jeremy, this is one of the lead proponents of Amendment One in North Carolina. Here is the transcript:
“So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old and instead of squashing that like a cockroach and saying, “Man up, son, get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch, because that is what boys do,” you get out the camera and you start taking pictures of Johnny acting like a female and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it and the next thing you know, this dude, this kid is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed.
Can I make it any clearer? Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male. And when your daughter starts acting to Butch you rein her in. And you say, “Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.”
You say, “Can I take charge like that as a parent?”
Yeah, you can. You are authorized. I just gave you a special dispensation this morning to do that.”
That’s really sick and twisted. I was under the impression that parents were supposed to love their kids unconditionally rather than forcing them into some sort of predetermined mold. Then again, I’m not a wingnut and I want my kids to be happy and healthy, not beaten down and conformist. Of course, my way is much more likely to lead to intelligent kids who think for themselves, and wingnuts can’t handle kids like that.
Same old story. The Romney campaign hired Richard Grenell as a foreign policy spokesperson. Grenell is a wingnut who thinks John Bolton has good ideas. Grenell is also gay. So, of course, the frothing pitchfork gang on the Religious Right went after him, led by Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association hate group, whose mental health I am beginning to seriously call into question.
Richard Grenell, the openly gay spokesman recently hired to sharpen the foreign policy message of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, has resigned in the wake of a full-court press by anti-gay conservatives.
In a statement obtained by Right Turn, Grenell says:
I have decided to resign from the Romney campaign as the Foreign Policy and National Security Spokesman. While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama’s foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage, my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign. I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.
According to sources familiar with the situation, Grenell decided to resign after being kept under wraps during a time when national security issues, including the president’s ad concerning Osama bin Laden, had emerged front and center in the campaign.
At the above link, the official statement from the Romney campaign is posted, where they assert that they actually tried to persuade him to stay.
Never one to let a little detail such as that stand in his way — The Romney campaign probably was keeping him under wraps for a minute just hoping that the wingnuts would stop barking — Bryan Fischer is over the moon about how important he thinks he is now:
Today, during the second hour of Fischer’s daily radio broadcast, the news broke the Grenell had in fact resigned from the campaign and Fischer could barely contain his glee, declaring it a “huge win” for the Religious Right because it means that they have forced Romney to back down and taught him that he cannot do anything like this again.
Haha, okay, Bryan, keeping telling yourself that, at least until the next time the establishment GOP jams something in the Religious Right’s eyes, like they’ve been doing for decades, because they never really have respected you. Enjoy your little dance on the grave of Grenell’s job.
