About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Why are the media hosting anti-gay bigots to comment on DADT?

February 03, 2010 2:04 pm ET — 38 Comments

Media have turned to conservatives with histories of making bigoted, anti-gay remarks to comment on Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen's February 2 testimony on repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). Those commentators include Family Research Council (FRC) president Tony Perkins, who had claimed that the "real issue" regarding the scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley's (R-FL) interactions with congressional pages is the purported "link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse," and FRC senior fellow Peter Sprigg, who once said that he preferred to "export homosexuals" rather than "import them."

Media turn to FRC's Perkins, Sprigg for dubious DADT commentary

Sprigg on MSNBC: "[T]he presence of homosexuals in the military is incompatible with good order, morale, discipline, and unit cohesion." Appearing on the February 2 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Sprigg claimed that "the presence of homosexuals in the military is incompatible with good order, morale, discipline, and unit cohesion. That's exactly what Congress found in 1993. And that's what the law states."

Perkins repeatedly cites unit cohesion canard on CNN. In a February 2 appearances on CNN Newsroom and CNN's Larry King Live, Perkins repeated the talking point that repealing DADT would undermine unit cohesion.

Studies indicate that decisions to lift gay bans in other countries and allow open service have not undermined "morale or unit cohesion." In an award-winning essay published in the fourth quarter 2009 issue of Joint Force Quarterly -- which is "published for the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, by the Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University" -- Col. Om Prakash writes of DADT that "the stated premise of the law -- to protect unit cohesion and combat effectiveness -- is not supported by any scientific studies." Indeed, as Media Matters for America has documented, at least 25 nations - including more than a dozen North America Treaty Organization member countries - allow openly gay people to serve in their armed forced. Multiple studies of the impact of the decisions to lift bans on gays and lesbians serving openly in those countries have indicated that, in the words of one General Accounting Office report, "the inclusion of homosexuals in their militaries has not adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale."

Perkins previously made anti-gay comments about Foley scandal, Jennings

Perkins said "real issue" in Foley scandal was purported "link between homosexuality and child sex abuse." In an October 2, 2006, statement headlined "Pro-Homosexual Political Correctness Sowed Seeds for Foley Scandal," Perkins said that neither Democrats nor Republicans appeared "likely to address the real issue" in the Foley scandal, "which is the link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse." He added that "[i]gnoring this reality got the Catholic Church into trouble over abusive priests, and now it is doing the same to the House GOP leadership." Perkins reiterated the statement in an October 3, 2006, appearance on Hardball, in which he claimed that "there's clear research that shows that homosexual men are more likely to abuse children than straight men."

  • Experts disagree with Perkins' claim. In fact, a 1995 study released by the American Psychological Association found that "gay men are no more likely than heterosexual men to perpetrate child sexual abuse." Similarly, in a July 2002 article, USA Today noted numerous experts in psychotherapy, psychiatry, and child sex abuse who argued that figures showing "male pedophiles are more likely to molest boys than girls" are not evidence that gay men are more likely to abuse children than straight men, because they conflate men who abuse boys with gay men. The argument that homosexuals are overrepresented in such cases is based on what John Hopkins University psychiatrist Frederick Berlin has described as the "flawed assumption" that men who abuse young boys are also attracted to grown men.

Perkins piece calling for Jennings' appointment to be withdrawn peppered with anti-gay rhetoric. In a June 29, 2009, Human Events piece stating that Obama administration official Kevin Jennings is "unfit" for his office and calling for Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to "withdraw his appointment at once," Perkins referred to Jennings as "the homosexual founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network" and claimed that he was "undoubtedly chosen for this post ...  because the foundation of the homosexual education agenda is the concept of 'safe schools,'" a concept Perkins claimed "single[s] out homosexuals for more protection than others." Perkins also stated that Jennings "apparently believes in locking sexually confused kids into a 'gay' identity."

Perkins pushes falsehood that Jennings did not report a "15-year-old who meets sexual partners in a bus station restroom." In his Human Events piece, Perkins claimed "the most dramatic illustration" of Jennings' "unfitness" for his position is that Jennings did not report a "15-year-old who meets sexual partners in a bus station restroom," a claim based on Jennings' past statements about advice he gave to a student who told him about his relationship with an older man when Jennings was a high school teacher in the late 1980s. Perkins further wrote:

Sex between an adult and a young person below the "age of consent" (which varies from state to state) is a crime known as statutory rape, and some states mandate that people in certain professions report such abuse.

I do not know if "Brewster" was below the age of consent, nor whether Jennings was a mandatory reporter or violated mandatory reporting laws.

In fact, a 2004 letter from Jennings' attorney available at the time Perkins' piece was published, as well as a statement from the former student and his Massachusetts driver's license later obtained by Media Matters definitively show that he was at least 16 -- the legal age of consent in Massachusetts -- when he approached Jennings.

Perkins says "bizarre" Jennings seeks "to mainstream homosexuality in schools." On his radio show, Lou Dobbs stated, "There's suddenly a major political storm around him, charges that he has promoted homosexuality in schools, acknowledged past drug abuse, at one time demonstrating contempt for religion itself. Can any of that be true?" Perkins replied: "Well, unfortunately it is. I mean, this guy is bizarre, and it shows just how radical this administration is in pushing forward policies. ... This guy -- he established GLSEN ... to mainstream homosexuality in the schools." Perkins added, "This is an agenda that is being targeted all the way down to kindergarten. So this is -- the idea that this guy is heading up a safe and drug-free school program, and that he is advocating the expansion of homosexuality in the school and the curriculum" and that "people send their kids to school to get an education, and not to be recruited into a network of sexual behavior, whether it's homosexual behavior or heterosexual behavior." [United Stations Radio Networks' The Lou Dobbs Show, 9/24/09]

Sprigg once said he preferred to "export homosexuals" rather than "import them"

Sprigg apologized for comment that "trivialized the seriousness of the issue." In a 2008 interview with Medill News Service, discussing a bill that would make it easier for gay and lesbian Americans to sponsor their foreign partners' citizenship, Sprigg stated: "I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe that homosexuality is destructive to society." In a subsequent statement, Sprigg said he "used language that trivialized the seriousness of the issue and did not communicate respect for the essential dignity of every human being as a person created in the image of God" and apologized "for speaking in a way that did not reflect the standards which the Family Research Council and I embrace."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (February 03, 2010 2:13 pm ET)
      5  
      Well, I guess bigots are the only ones who oppose repealing it, and the Media love a catfight... so there ya go.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by southerngal (February 03, 2010 2:15 pm ET)
      9  
      If the media really wanted a substantive discussion on the ramifications of the policy in the military, then it would invite people who can speak intelligently and with knowledge on the aspects of DADT.

      Instead, because inflammatory nonsense for ratings with cheap headlines and soundbites is more appetizing, they bring on the same cast of Family Research Council characters who only vent their repetitive moral arguments against a lifestyle they personally find objectionable. Maybe in an Oprah-like setting where the discussion is on sexual lifestyles their opinions may merit some necessary balance. But not about the military. It's ridiculous.

      Good question, MMfA.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by kyblueLG (February 03, 2010 2:49 pm ET)
      2  
      Please export me! Please! I prefer Holland! The U.S.-Land of the free? Yeah right.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (February 03, 2010 5:14 pm ET)
        4 1
        Ya know what's funny about this? The same bigots who want to deny rights call themselves "tea baggers" and rock along with John Cougar Mellenkamp to "little pink houses for you and me"!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by coldteablues19577325 (February 03, 2010 6:35 pm ET)
          1  
          "Ya know what's funny about this? The same bigots who want to deny rights call themselves "tea baggers" and rock along with John Cougar Mellenkamp to "little pink houses for you and me"!"

          A MOST EXCELLENT response!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (February 03, 2010 2:53 pm ET)
      3 1
      Okay, I'll take exception to the fact that you referred to cable opinion networks as "the media." The purpose of 24/7 opinion networks is not to REPORT news, but to CREATE news where none exists. Consider the source.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (February 03, 2010 3:53 pm ET)
      2 10
      Many years ago while standing naked in a line with about 50 other junior high boys for the annual football physical the following occurred.

      As the local doctor was patiently working his way down the line with the "turn your head and cough" and "spread your cheeks" routine he suddenly uttered loudly "My gawd boy, does that thing ever go down?"

      We were startled to see the evidence of his statement...but I can honestly say that morale or team cohesion was not affected by the event because he was a pretty good football player.

      However, there was a big affect on the young lad a number of years later...he died of AIDS...and that's the travesty of the homosexual lifestyle.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by westla (February 03, 2010 4:04 pm ET)
        5  
        Wesley,

        I have no idea what your opinion of the "travesty of the homosexual lifestyle" has do with DADT? Everyone is entitled to their opinion of any lifestyle, the morality issue and all. But until that is demonstrated to be a relevant component of gay men and women serving admirably and being held to the same standards as straight men and women, then I see no usefulness of talking about how this young lad died of AIDS.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (February 03, 2010 4:08 pm ET)
        6  
        I remember hearing about a guy in junior high who got a boner in the showers and it never even occured to me that he might be gay. Not sure I even knew what that meant when I was 13. As far as AIDS goes there's a whole lot of other ways of getting it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (February 03, 2010 4:19 pm ET)
          2 7
          Sure there are...but the CDC reports that men having sex with men is the largest factor in the spread of AIDS.

          MSM (men having sex with men) accounts for 53% of all new cases of AIDS and 71% of all AIDS cases among adult and teenage males.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by vhw28672478 (February 03, 2010 4:28 pm ET)
            3  
            Media is a joke
            Report Abuse
          • Author by westla (February 03, 2010 4:32 pm ET)
            5  
            I still fail to see the relevance regarding DADT. Hauling out statistics about the health risks for sexually transmitted diseases has nothing to do with allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the US military. Besides, if your opposition to the repeal of DADT is because gay men are killing one another, then what is your argument about lesbians?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by wesley (February 03, 2010 4:56 pm ET)
              1 5
              -- your opposition to the repeal of DADT -- westla

              In the words of Pres.Reagan..."there you go again".

              I didn't express any opposition to DADT...you simply made that up in your haste. In fact, I'm pretty much on the fence about the issue.

              What I'm not on the fence about is promoting a dangerous lifestyle like men having sex with men as just another normal occurrence. And yes, I know that many believe that homosexuals have no choice in the matter...but that doesn't negate the deadly outcome.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by vhw28672478 (February 03, 2010 4:56 pm ET)
                3  
                so what
                Report Abuse
              • Author by nerzog (February 03, 2010 5:01 pm ET)
                3  
                It's also dangerous for men to have unprotected sex with women.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by westla (February 03, 2010 5:08 pm ET)
                3  
                So who is promoting a dangerous lifestyle? If you didn't express an opinion on DADT, then the entire point of your post was to say how gay men are recklessly killing one another through unprotected sex? What other point were you making? There is still no relevance, it's just a gratuitous swipe at gay men. Nobody advocates spreading a deadly disease, and gay men have done more to educate and raise money to fight AIDS than any other collective group. So sure, there is risk in any unprotected sexual activity, for anyone, anywhere, at any time. If you're promoting that, fine. For everyone.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 03, 2010 5:11 pm ET)
                4  
                As I see it, the only men who would have a problem with men having sex with men would be those that do. It's not about promoting a dangerous lifestyle, if one is not participating in that lifestyle. IMHO, it's about freedom of choice and civil liberties guaranteed to all in the Constitution.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by westla (February 03, 2010 5:18 pm ET)
                  3  
                  And along with that, don't you think it's a little unfair to paint an entire group of people with one broad brushstroke of "promoting a dangerous lifestyle" based on actions of those who don't engage in safe sexual practices? What about monogamous gay men living in committed relationships with families? They aren't "promoting some dangerous lifestyle", how incredibly insulting of you? Would you say straight people are promoting dangerous lifestyles because of a small percentage of them that engage in unsafe sex?
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by whatIthink (February 03, 2010 7:14 pm ET)
                1  
                Ummm, "promoting a dangerous lifestyle"? We're talking about soldiers, trained to kill and face death. Not sure how much more dangrous it can get.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by sensiblesue (February 04, 2010 9:53 am ET)
                1  
                Alexander The Great was the greatest conquerer in the history of the world. He rose to power in his teenage years after his father Peter The Great died in battle. This man led his army and amassed territory after territory. He had the allegiance of his soldiers, and was loved by countless women. He was bisexual. For those who insist that ones sexuality has anything to do with their performance in battle, I strongly suggest that you read up on your history. The homosexual lifestyle is not one that I would choose for myself, but I have wonderful friends who live the lifestyle.

                The American people are really standing on a slippery slope with this one because you can not legislate morality, for doing so somehow interferes with the duties of God. Only he has the right to pass judgment, and none of us are in any position to tell him that he somehow has it wrong. The words of God teach us about morality, but they also teach us about love, tolerance and acceptance. Are you willing to stand up and tell God that he has it wrong? Think about it!





                Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 03, 2010 4:31 pm ET)
        3  
        And this is relevant because...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 03, 2010 5:06 pm ET)
        3  
        That he died of AIDS is not proof that the guy had a homosexual lifestyle and illustrates your close-mindedness and tendency to draw erroneous conclusions based on inadequate information. One of my students lost his father because of AIDS contracted by engaging in heterosexual relations.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (February 03, 2010 5:28 pm ET)
        3 2
        This student may or may not have been gay - he might not even have known he was gay at the time if he ended up to be a homosexual.

        Unless he acted out, and physically assaulted heterosexual males, his sexual preference has NOTHING to do with this story!

        Gay men don't harass heterosexual men. They don't want to sexually force themselves on people who aren't interested in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex!

        If morale is affected, then the solution is to get rid of those people who adversely affect morale - the bigots and homophobes, not the gays. The first two listed above are the problem.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (February 03, 2010 8:51 pm ET)
        3  
        WTF Wes, did you get that anectdote out of the 1957 Reader's Digest?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by tman418 (February 03, 2010 11:43 pm ET)
        1  
        Look, Wesley, I know that in every thread regarding a gay issue, you have to bring up the issue of homosexuals and AIDS because you don't like gays. But, about this athletic organization you speak of

        Um...what type of "football physical" was this, Wesley?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (February 03, 2010 3:55 pm ET)
      4 1
      If there's a problem between gays and people who are afraid of what gays might "do" if they aren't forced out of the military, then it's those bigots who need to get out of the military, not the gays.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mookie von zipper (February 03, 2010 5:50 pm ET)
      1 1
      from the i-love-a-man-in-uniform dept:

      the policy back in my navy days wasn't much better than dadt... i seem to recall that gays simply weren't permitted to serve, so the ones that wanted in had to lie... the few that i knew over 4 years ranged from quite discreet to flaming, yet no one in positions to do anything about it seemed to care... the notion of them being bad for morale, then and now, by virtue of their sexual preference, is ludicrous... there are plenty of issues in the military that contribute to bad morale, and i suspect simply being gay is not high on the list... but there are plenty of valid issues regarding sex that are not relegated to the gay community, such as harassment, abuse, adultery or fraternization between the commissioned and enlisted ranks... so by virtue by sheer population, homophobes should be more concerned about hetero distractions to morale... so i think the policy should be dabtwyw: don't ask but tell whoever you want...

      as for the frc d**chetards, i find it interesting that sprigg's bio at the frc site makes no mention of military service, but he seems to be quite the expert on homosexuality, having authored 2 books on the deviant lifestyle... one can only hope, even pray, there's a ted haggard type incident in his very near future... as for tony perkins, a marine veteran, hopefully on more than a few occasions he was approached with the greeting "oh, i loved you in psycho, and i admire you for coming out!"...

      reporting from murderland ranch,
      i'm mookie von zipper
      massmurdermedia

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (February 04, 2010 4:07 pm ET)
           
        Learn how to use correct punctuation. You are using ellipses wrong.

        And it's not justified if you say that you KNOW you are using them in the wrong way. That doesn't make it 'right'.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dswynne (February 03, 2010 6:00 pm ET)
         
      What does Foley have anything this with the actual DODT policy? If anything, MM ought to refer to Pres. Clinton about this, since he was the one who signed the policy into law.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by coldteablues19577325 (February 03, 2010 6:31 pm ET)
      2  
      "Perkins repeatedly cites unit cohesion canard on CNN."

      I await the day he falls on said canard.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedREMF71 (February 03, 2010 7:12 pm ET)
         
      First post. I've been sitting on the sidelines for years reading all your discussions and I just gotta join in on this. I'll just relate my experience way back when. I worked as a clerk in a large personell office on the central coast and both the SSGs (office managers) in charge of the personnel management and personnel action sections were gay. It was accepted and nobody made a big deal about it. (When you're a 20 year old 11B draftee from Cleveland you don't question anything if you land in an office job in sunny southeast asia) What I'm trying to say is gays have always been in the services, always will. (They were excellent supervisors and what we call good people)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by okiepoli (February 03, 2010 7:35 pm ET)
         
      Same song, different verse - if you don't fall in with the anti-choice crowd, rampant liberals will be assaulting innocent pregnant women in the streets, forcing them to have abortions.
      If you allow gays in the military, (get a clue, they're already there) they will be leering at and raping their fellow service members, then they'll come after your children.

      Fearmongers know that fear of the "other" is a way of insuring a "herd" or "mob" mentality.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by latichever (February 04, 2010 8:23 am ET)
      1  
      "What I'm not on the fence about is promoting a dangerous lifestyle like men having sex with men as just another normal occurrence. And yes, I know that many believe that homosexuals have no choice in the matter...but that doesn't negate the deadly outcome."

      So you're all for lesbians who, for the most part, do not transmit STDs from any of their sexual practices? How about an all lesbian army--totally HIV free (except for the IV drug users)?

      MMFA, you left out the part of Sprigg's commentary in which he said he doesn't support DADT either. He added that the Supreme Court's decision overturning sodomy laws was wrongly decided, and that homosexual behavior should be a criminal offense not just in the military but everywhere.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.