As Box Turtle Bulletin's Jim Burroway writes:
By all accounts from those who have met the reclusive Doug Coe who heads the group, Coe is a very quiet and charming man. With this New Yorker article, it is evident that [The New Yorker's Peter] Boyle has fallen for Coe's charms. Boyle describes The Family as little more than a "frat house", composed in equal parts of Democrats and Republicans, Christians and Jews. In fact, he appears to have fully bought the line about The Family not being a Christian organization at all, but merely a group of people whose sole mission is to influence powerful political and business leaders "to follow Jesus." One wonders exactly how one is supposed to define Christianity better than that, and to impose its tenets, if not its theology, from the top. Boyle's description of events in Uganda are equally naïve.
When Uganda's Parliament took up a bill last year that would have punished some homosexual acts with death, ["Family" member Bob] Hunter and his friends in the Fellowship felt they had the standing to urge the proposed measure's defeat. [Uganda President Yoweri] Museveni appointed a commission that studied the matter and then recommended that the bill be withdrawn.
One wonders how Boyle managed the dexterity to write those two lonely sentences with his hands over his ears while singing "lalalala" to drown out the noise.
Nowhere does he mention that it was MP David Bahati, a key "Family" man in Uganda — a guy who organizes Uganda's version of the National Prayer Breakfast that the Family is best known for in the U.S. — who proposed the bill, stands by it, and still insists that the bill must be passed in it entirety so that they can begin "to kill every last gay person." Boyle would have you believe that the Family was responsible for the bill being dead when in fact the bill, while stalled, is still very much alive. It is currently in committee, and MP Bahati and other Ugandan Family members continue to push for its full enactment. Others however recommend that the bill be dismembered with different provisions attached to other bills with less flag-waving titles, and passed surreptitiously.
As Metro Weekly's Chris Geidner points out, Jim Burroway and Jeff Sharlet are required reading for anyone interested in covering or learning more about the secretive group and, perhaps most notably, its ties to the horrific anti-gay activity happening in Uganda:
If you don't follow Jim Burroway and the work of the folks at Box Turtle Bulletin on Uganda's anti-gay activity -- most notably the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill -- you're missing out on one of the important stories about international inequality faced by LGBT people.
If you don't follow Jeff Sharlet's work on the Family (or the Fellowship, or the folks behind the C Street house), you're missing out on great journalism about the extraordinary influence of one religious organization in American public life.
For a primer on C Street and why this story matters, check out some segments from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show after the jump.
As he attempts to rebrand himself as a spiritual leader, Glenn Beck has surrounded himself with religious and secular figures who share a fervent opposition to the "homosexual agenda."
The battle between WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah and Ann Coulter over the right-wing author's decision to keynote a gathering of gay Republicans is set to take a different path on September 17.
GOProud -- the gay GOP group Coulter will be addressing -- put out the following press release indicating its board chairmen will be debating Farah, the right-wing's homophobic birther king:
Today, GOProud, the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies, announced it has accepted World Net Daily's offer to participate in a debate at their "Taking America Back" conference on September 17th in Miami, FL. Christopher R. Barron, Chairman of GOProud's board, will square off against World Net Daily's Joseph Farah.
"Since we announced that conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter would be headlining our Homocon 2010 in New York City, Farah has attacked GOProud, attacked Ann, and challenged our work almost every single day," said Barron. "I look forward to standing on the stage with Mr. Farah to defend GOProud, to debunk the misinformation he has spread, and to make the case for GOProud's conservative mission."
Farah and Barron have agreed to debate the thesis, "Is GOProud Conservative?"
"I welcome the opportunity to debate whether GOProud is really a conservative organization. Our work on behalf of conservative policies and conservative candidates speaks for itself," continued Barron.
The war of words between right-wing author Ann Coulter and WorldNetDaily birther king Joseph Farah just keeps raging.
It all started when Coulter agreed to headline "Homocon," a gathering of gay Republicans in New York City on September 25. GOProud -- the group sponsoring the event -- described the pundit as, "the right wing Judy Garland!" in promotional materials despite her long history of homophobia, gay baiting, and name-calling when it comes to the LGBT community.
As the real Judy Garland was spinning in her grave somewhere over the rainbow, Farah was gearing up for an attack on Coulter over the appearance.
In mid-August, Farah announced that Coulter had been axed from her role as keynote speaker at his "Taking America Back National Conference" scheduled for later this month in Miami because she had agreed to headline "Homocon."
Speaking exclusively to WorldNetDaily, his own publication, Farah revealed details of private emails between Coulter and himself.
In those emails, Coulter purportedly indicated that she was only speaking to GOProud because she was being paid and that she regularly speaks in front of audiences with which she disagrees.
Furious that details of their private email discussions had been released, Coulter attacked Farah both online and on television.
In an email to Tucker Carlson's conservative Daily Caller, Coulter wrote that Farah was going after her for "publicity alone," that she believed her emails with Farah had been "private" and that he was a "swine" and a "publicity whore" for using them. She also said that Farah, "could give less than two sh-ts about the conservative movement -- as demonstrated by his promotion of the birther nonsense."
Ultimately she reiterated her opposition to gay marriage (and her "like" of gays), concluding that Farah hadn't canceled her keynote at all – he just couldn't come up with the money to pay her booking fee.
Then, appearing on Fox News' Red Eye, Coulter went a bit further. Speaking at times in the third person, she called Farah and WorldNetDaily "fake Christians trying to get publicity."
Farah responded in a statement -- again to his WorldNetDaily -- saying, "Coulter called me a 'publicity whore' for my decision. But look who is on television talking about this – throwing mud, name-calling, smearing not only me but my entire staff. I will not engage in the kind of ad hominem attacks that have made Coulter so famous and that are making her even more of a media darling in this age of reckless anger and character assassination for the sake of entertainment. Every day, since we made this decision at WND, I thank God for giving me the clarity of mind and discernment to make the right choice."
Seeing Farah take Coulter to task for "ad hominem attacks" in an "age of reckless anger and character assassination" is pretty funny considering it is one of the many similarities the two share.
After a few days off, Farah decided to launch some "ad hominem attacks" of his own against the LGBT community in an effort to breath new life into his spat with Coulter.
In a column this week titled "The homo con continues," Farah writes that since Coulter accepted the "Homocon" headlining role other "Republicans and 'conservatives' [were] now lining up to support" GOProud.
Farah went on to say that the event "literally represents the homo conning of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and that we are "witnessing the destruction of Washington's conservative establishment before our eyes." He sees those supporting GOProud as tacitly supporting such things as "liberty-destroying hate-crimes legislation" and "special government perks for homosexuals."
It may sound funny but it is no laughing matter for Farah -- in his eyes, he's the only one in "the Republican Party or the conservative movement standing up to this wholesale retreat on some fundamental conservative issues." He's "the only one willing to stand up for liberty as a gift of God."
Thus far, Coulter hasn't seen fit to further extend her back and fourth with Farah -- despite the birther king's best efforts.
Jeff and Heidi Wilke have a bone to pick with the Omaha World-Herald. It seems the Wilkes attempted to purchase a wedding announcement for their lesbian daughter's wedding and were flatly rejected by the paper's publisher personally.
The proud parents aren't taking the rejection lying down -- instead they have launched a Facebook group to take on their local newspaper. The group's profile description reads:
Our daughter Kristin Wilke will wed Jessica Kitzman August 20, 2011, in Northern Minnesota. We are so proud we asked to buy an announcement ad in the Omaha World Herald to share our glorious news with our friends. I am disgusted to say that the publisher himself, Terry Kroeger, called me personally to say same-gender couples are not allowed to buy announcements in the Omaha World Herald. Please call 402-444-1328 or write firstname.lastname@example.org if this action disgusts you as it does us. Over 1500 papers sell such ads in the US. Including the NYT.
A note from Kristy and Jessica:
Since starting this group, we have realized that this is now an issue much bigger than the two of us. We have heard from numerous couples who have experienced the same discriminatory policies of the OWH. Moving forward, please understand that this effort is for ALL same-gender couples seeking this right - not just our family. In that light, we ask that you keep this a positive pursuit for change, and not a personal attack on any one member of the OWH. This is about changing a policy - not destroying an organization.
Thank you for your support. We look forward to continuing this fight for equality with you!
Kristy and Jessica
Thus far the Facebook group has more than 2,250 members.
Last year a male couple was similarly rejected. The Reader reported at the time:
Marc Volenec and Peter Hamel's marriage began with a fairly typical wedding story. They had the cake, photographs, a picturesque ceremony by the ocean and a reception packed with friends and family. Everything went smoothly until the relatively minor task of posting their announcement in the daily newspaper.
Volenec said that when he called the Omaha World-Herald to post the announcement, an advertising manager told him the publication would not print announcements of same-sex marriages because they didn't want to offend subscribers or advertisers; to which Volenec replied "Well, I've been subscribing for 12 years."
"As a business decision, the Omaha World-Herald does not print same-sex marriage announcements." company spokesperson Joel Long told The Reader. He said the company's decision is not based on Nebraska's law banning gay marriage or a specific corporate policy. "We decided we're not going to do it."
What do you think? Should newspapers be in the business of deciding who gets to announce their nuptials and who doesn't?
UPDATE: World-Herald will print announcements for same-sex "legal weddings, engagements for legal weddings or anniversaries of a legal marriage"
Facing mounting criticism over his decision to refuse printing a same-sex wedding announcement, Omaha World-Herald publisher Terry Kroeger announced this afternoon a change to his newspaper's policy on the issue:
There has been quite a lot written online recently about a practice of this news organization to not accept same-sex marriage announcements.
Today we are changing that practice and setting the record straight on our approach generally toward gay and lesbian issues.
The "Celebrations" page of the Omaha World-Herald has provided a place to buy space to celebrate weddings, engagements, anniversaries and birthdays. It will continue to be just that. Celebrations announcements regarding legal weddings, engagements for legal weddings or anniversaries of a legal marriage will be welcomed, regardless of the genders of the couple. We will not run announcements regarding commitment ceremonies, partnerships and other non-marriage unions, again regardless of gender.
Some will criticize this action because they would prefer that same-sex announcements not appear in their newspaper. Others will say it doesn't go far enough. Our sense is that this change will provide for a public "celebration" of important milestones in the lives of people who take the significant steps toward legally sanctioned marriage. Iowa and four other states as well as the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriages. We will publish Celebrations announcements of marriages from those jurisdictions.
Last week, Omaha businessman Jeff Wilke called me about placing an announcement for the planned union of his daughter, Kristy, and Jessica Kitzman. Unfortunately, the conversation ended before we had a chance to fully discuss the matter. Instead, the matter went public on Facebook and generated a firestorm among folks who care passionately about the issue.
So, given that Kristy and Jessica's plans were the genesis of this controversy, let me pause here to congratulate them on their plans. Kristy, Jessica: I wish you a long and happy life together, and congratulate you and your families.
The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer is still mad at Glenn Beck for not being sufficiently anti-gay. Remember, Beck recently told his Fox News colleague Bill O'Reilly that there are "bigger fish to fry" than same-sex marriage.
Yes, Beck has a long history of pushing anti-gay misinformation, but Fischer wants more out of the right-wing host. Fischer scolds Beck in a post filled with homophobic lies and misinformation, writing:
Glenn, Glenn, wake up and smell the arsenic, my friend.
[Marriage equality is] a threat to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and worst, represents a clear and present danger to children. What were you thinking?
Glenn, Glenn, Glenn: if special rights are given to people just because they want to use the alimentary canal for sexual purposes, no social conservative will be able to criticize homosexual behavior on biblical or moral grounds without running the risk of legal punishment.
Goodbye freedom of speech and goodbye freedom of religion. You, Glenn, will have aided and abetted those who are out to destroy two of the inalienable rights God has given to men, and you don't think that's a threat to this country? Wake up and smell the toxins, my friend.
Glenn, Glenn, Glenn: what about vulnerable children who are deliberately being stuck in households headed by people who engage in unnatural sexual behavior and in households where they are going to grow up missing either the love of a mother or a father or both? Your laissez-faire view of marriage consigns such children to a deprived childhood. Do you not care about that? Do you not believe the state has a legitimate interest in their welfare? How can children suffer such damage without harm to our republic and its values?
This of course comes from the AFA and Fischer who think too many Indian-Americans are winning spelling bees and wants to deport all Muslims. Seriously.
Beck must be shaking in his boots -- imagine if he really did become a champion of LGBT equality (he hasn't) -- Fischer's head just might explode.
When it comes to reporting on the hypocrisy of public figures it seems everything is fair game except hypocrisy dealing with sexual orientation.
Sure, no reporter would have a problem disclosing that a politician who has railed against corruption is taking bribes but what about anti-gay politicians living closeted gay double lives? Good luck finding a mainstream reporter willing to break that news unless the figure is involved in some sort of sexual scandal.
In early May, National Public Radio, a supposed bastion of liberal media bias, found itself in the crosshairs of the lesbian and gay community over an online review of Outrage, a documentary chronicling the hypocrisy of prominent, purportedly closeted politicians with staunchly anti-gay voting records.
What sparked the controversy was not the documentary itself, but the fact that NPR's review failed to name names. In fact, while Nathan Lee, the review's initial author, had included the identities of those fingered in the film, NPR editors took it upon themselves to censor the review prior to publication.
That is why it was refreshing to see these comments from Marc Ambinder in Howard Kurtz's Washington Post column:
Marc Ambinder, the political junkie who writes for the Atlantic, says he suspected, like lots of insiders, that Ken Mehlman was gay.
In fact, years before the former Republican Party chairman acknowledged his sexuality to Ambinder in an interview published Wednesday, the reporter tried to find out. And, says Ambinder, he would have outed Mehlman if he had evidence.
"I would have reported it because he was in power at a time when the Republican Party was whipping up anti-gay sentiment to get votes," Ambinder says in an interview. "I'm very squeamish about outing anyone. That squeamishness certainly would have gone into the equation. But there would have been a clear and compelling reason. Even though outing would have encroached on his personal dignity, which would have made me uncomfortable, it would have been the right thing to do to hold someone in power accountable."
Ambinder is precisely right -- the fact that Mehlman helmed the Republican Party during an era when it "was whipping up anti-gay sentiment" made questions about his sexual orientation fair game.
Of course, if the issue of Mehlman's sexuality had been the chatter of "lots of insiders" as Kurtz writes, I'm curious to know if anyone other than Ambinder bothered to attempt reporting out the story.
If reporters are "squeamish" about "outing," they need to push through those feelings and do their job, just like Ambinder indicates he did before finally getting Mehlman on the record. Failure to move beyond those feelings only prolongs the current media climate where LGBT issues are seen as controversial and sexual orientation is something to be embarrassed about.
The notion that "lots of insiders" heard chatter about Mehlman being gay during his tenure at the Republican National Committee and apparently failed to practice their craft makes me squeamish.
Media Matters noted Wednesday that WorldNetDaily (WND) had announced the cancellation of right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's keynote speech at the fringe outfit's "Taking America Back National Conference" next month in Miami because Coulter agreed to headline a gathering of gay Republicans.
WND's report on the cancellation of the keynote apparently included details from a private email exchange between Coulter and Farah and that didn't please the right-wing author one bit. As Capitol Hill Blue's Doug Thompson writes (emphasis added):
The homophobic Farah blasted Coulter, saying "there is simply no room (at his conference) for compromisers or for people who accept money from those determined to destroy the moral fabric required for self-governance and liberty."
Coulter fired back at Farah, calling him a "publicity whore" and a "swine" for publishing an email exchange between the two.
Farah, Coulter said in Tweets and emails, "could give less than two shits about the conservative movement as demonstrated by his promotion of the birther nonsense. He's the only allegedly serious conservative pushing the birther thing and for one reason — to get hits on his web site."
Coulter writes a column for WorldNetDaily and said of her planned appearance before the conservative gay conference:
"They hired me to give a speech. So I'm giving a speech. I do it all the time."
Coulter added that she isn't losing any money over Farah's decision to drop her from his conference because he couldn't afford to pay her anyway.
Farah later responded to Coulter defending his role as the reigning Birther King while also saying he was sad to lose her "as a friend" but that he had "no regrets" over dumping her from the WND confab in Miami.
This is just too funny.
Apparently right-wing pundit Ann Coulter and Fox News host Glenn Beck aren't sufficiently anti-gay for the fringe American Family Association (AFA).
In a blog post titled "Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck go AWOL in the culture war" the AFA's Bryan Fischer makes the case:
Count Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck as the latest deserters in the culture war and in the battle for sexual normalcy. They have flinched at "precisely that little point which the world and the devil....are attacking," and so have forfeited the right to consider themselves any longer culture warriors.
Ann Coulter is the headliner at "Homocon 2010," a September 25 gathering of so-called gay "conservatives." And Glenn Beck has folded his hand and cashed in his chips on the issue of gay marriage. Even Rush Limbaugh, who supports counterfeit same-sex marriages in the form of civil unions, won't go that far.
Coulter justifies her Benedict Arnold impersonation by saying she speaks all the time in hostile environments, such as Harvard. Okay, Ann, how exactly is this a hostile environment? You're being welcomed as a heroine, as the Joan of Arc of homosexuality, literally the poster child for "Homocon 2010." You are the goddess of gayness for the moment.
Glenn Beck has completely and shamelessly surrendered on the issue of gay marriage, and did so on Bill O'Reilly's program, only the most watched cable news program in all TV land.
Beck said "we have bigger fish to fry" than protecting natural marriage, which, outside of being the bedrock and foundation of any healthy society and the cornerstone of Western civilization, is apparently not that important to Mr. Beck. He's done this even though the members of his church, the Mormon church, were willing to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune to defend natural marriage in California.
You can retract your surrender at your "Divine Destiny" event at the Kennedy Center on August 27. If you do, all is forgiven.
Coulter has also earned the wrath of World Net Daily for agreeing to appear at GOProud's Homocon -- a gathering of gay Republicans promoting Coulter as "the right wing Judy Garland." The right-wing outlet canceled Coulter's keynote address at an upcoming Miami conference.
As I noted when news broke about Coulter headlining Homocon, the right-wing pundit is notoriously anti-gay.
The same goes for Glenn Beck -- he has a long history of anti-gay commentary and has been extremely hostile to marriage equality.
Maybe Coulter and Beck aren't sufficiently nutty for the AFA's Fischer
After the jump, check out some research on the AFA from Political Correction, Media Matters' partner organization.
A little over a week ago, Media Matters noted that right-wing author Ann Coulter is scheduled to speak at an upcoming gathering of gay Republicans:
Right-wing author and noted homophobe Ann Coulter is slated to headline "Homocon 2010" on September 25 in New York City benefiting the gay Republican group GOProud. On the event's invitation, GOProud refers to Coulter as, "the right wing Judy Garland!"
It now seems not everyone on the right is as excited about "the right wing Judy Garland's" scheduled appearance as the event's sponsor.
Earlier this evening, WorldNetDaily (WND) announced that Coulter had been axed from her role as keynote speaker for the right-wing outfit's "Taking America Back National Conference" being held next month in Miami:
Conservative superstar Ann Coulter today was dropped as a keynote speaker for WND's "Taking America Back National Conference" next month because of her plan to address an event titled "HOMOCON" sponsored by the homosexual Republican group GOProud that promotes same-sex marriage and military service for open homosexuals.
Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, said the decision was a gut-wrenching one for his team because of their fondness for Coulter as both a person and writer-speaker.
"Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about 'taking America back' when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very 'unconservative' agenda represented by GOProud," said Farah. "The drift of the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning."
GOProud may want to rethink its decision to host Coulter as she appears to make it clear to Farah in the WND piece that she's only attending the event because she's being paid:
Asked by Farah why she was speaking to GOProud, Coulter said: "They hired me to give a speech, so I'm giving a speech. I do it all the time."
Farah then asked: "Do you not understand you are legitimizing a group that is fighting for same-sex marriage and open homosexuality in the military – not to mention the idea that sodomy is just an alternate lifestyle?"
Coulter responded: "That's silly, I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don't endorse their views. I've spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion. The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference. I'm sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences. But in any event, giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I'm speaking to. I was going to speak for you guys, I think you're nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!)."
If you thought for a moment that this was a matter of Farah's convictions, you'd be wrong. WND may be canceling Coulter's appearance at its conference but it will still be running her column:
Coulter will remain a weekly columnist for WND.
"There's a different standard for columnists and speakers at our conference," Farah explained. "We boast the broadest ideological forum of commentators in any news or opinion publication or website anywhere on the planet – and we will continue to do that. We think people should hear all points of view discussed openly and honestly. However, this conference is a serious event designed to provide some real leadership for those who are serious about changing the direction of this country. There is simply no room there for compromisers or for people who accept money from those determined to destroy the moral fabric required for self-governance and liberty."
Perhaps Coulter's column is less expensive to WND than her speaking fee?
Rush Limbaugh's wedding photos have been making the rounds online and while Limbaugh and his new bride look positively happy in each and every shot (why wouldn't they?) one particular photo stood out to me:
Yep, El Rushbo with the Rocket Man himself.
When it was reported earlier this summer, I found myself thinking, "Why on earth would a noted homophobe like Limbaugh invite Elton John -- a gay man -- to play at his wedding?"
Well, according to Zev Chafets -- the Limbaugh biographer who has made a living of late heaping glowing praise on the radio talker – Rush doesn't hate gay people at all, in fact, he even supports "gay civil unions."
Earlier this summer, Chafets wrote in the Wall Street Journal (emphasis added):
A lot of people were unpleasantly surprised to learn that Elton John, one of the world's most proudly prominent gay entertainers, played at Rush Limbaugh's Palm Beach wedding to Kathryn Rogers last Saturday night. Evangelicals voiced dismay that a pious fellow like Rush would give legitimacy to the libertine Sir Elton. Limbaugh-haters jeered at what they considered el Rushbo's hypocrisy.
On some social issues, like abortion, Limbaugh is a conventional conservative. On others he sounds a lot like Barack Obama. In an interview last summer he told me that he regards homosexuality as most likely determined by biology, considers other people's sex lives to be none of his business and supports gay civil unions. I'm pretty sure that Elton John's sexual orientation never even crossed Limbaugh's mind.
Chafets goes on to pin John's hiring on such issues as the age of Limbaugh's latest bride and the radio host's bad hearing.
So, is Chafet's characterization of Limbaugh's views on LGBT people demonstrated by the host's on-air comments?
You tell me.
Would someone who "regards homosexuality as most likely determined by biology, considers other people's sex lives to be none of his business and supports gay civil unions" so regularly gay-bait and demonize LGBT people?
Check out some of the worst from Limbaugh when it comes to the LGBT community after the jump.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger has apologized after launching into a racially charged rant, during which Schlessinger, in her own words, "articulated the 'n' word all the way out -- more than one time." Schlessinger's rant followed her attacks on homosexuality as "deviant" and "dysfunctional behavior," for which she also apologized.
Last night on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Glenn Beck indicated that he doesn't oppose same-sex marriage:
That would be news to anyone who hasn't been watching and listening to Beck over the years when he's said marriage equality was a slippery slope to polyamorous marriage, allowing siblings to marry, and really all about attacking churches:
In an August 11 Washington Times op-ed, Robert Knight wrote that "[p]retending that a brideless or groomless union is a marriage is a fantasy cooked up in hell." Knight added: "The devil is laughing, but not at marriage defenders, who still irk him. He's convulsing with mirth at the lengths to which the intelligentsia will go to deny the obvious."
Knight further compared homosexuality to incest, polygamy, and bestiality, writing: "Marriage as the union of a man and a woman predates all other human institutions. It was not created to annoy homosexuals. Marriage laws exclude all but one man and one unrelated woman. Yet I have not seen any media report the demise of the 'incest ban,' or the 'polygamy ban' or the 'bestiality ban.' "
The Washington Times has frequently featured Knight's anti-gay op-eds as part of its extensive history of promoting anti-gay smears, falsehoods, and distortions.
From Knight's op-ed:
The liberal media are crowing that the death knell of marriage as we know it is a sweet, sweet song. The Washington Post called the Prop. 8 campaign "mean-spirited," and said "It is hard to quarrel with the conclusions of the federal judge" that, as the Post phrases it, traditional marriage serves no "legitimate public policy purpose."
Really? That would be news to millions of voters and legislators in 45 states who have worked hard to strengthen their marriage laws. Or to the 342 congressmen and 85 senators, plus President Clinton, who enacted the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. They all did this out of hatred, according to Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who writes triumphantly: "Bigotry has suffered a grievous blow."
Well, something has suffered a grievous blow. That would be truth itself. Pretending that a brideless or groomless union is a marriage is a fantasy cooked up in hell. The devil is laughing, but not at marriage defenders, who still irk him. He's convulsing with mirth at the lengths to which the intelligentsia will go to deny the obvious.
Marriage as the union of a man and a woman predates all other human institutions. It was not created to annoy homosexuals. Marriage laws exclude all but one man and one unrelated woman. Yet I have not seen any media report the demise of the "incest ban," or the "polygamy ban" or the "bestiality ban." Just because homosexual activists have led the assault is not an excuse to pretend that marriage has only the purpose of excluding them.
When I first heard that Greg Gutfeld wanted to open a gay bar catering to Muslims right next to Park51 (better known in right-wing circles as the "Ground Zero mosque"), I tried to convince myself that the very idea was offensive. But I couldn't, which was strange, since my opinion of Gutfeld is that he's the sort of clown who says needlessly offensive and determinedly unfunny things under the borrowed banner of "satire."
Make no mistake -- Gutfeld's motives are offensive. He thinks the way to justify his own religious intolerance and that of his conservative cohorts is to mock Muslims and gay people. But as for the actual project itself, I'd go so far as to call it an interesting experiment in the sort of tolerance that Gutfeld & co. dismiss as PC thuggery.