Calling the commentators to task

It happens all the time. Some neatly dressed conservative is interviewed to represent the anti-equality side of the marriage argument.  They are reasonable sounding, quite earnest, and almost convincing that they  have nothing against gay folks, it's not personal, they just want to protect the traditional definition of marriage.  It's a matter of religious freedom.

But when they aren't on the main stream media--when they are talking to their own true believers, then the gloves come off, the vicious comments come out, the lies, the smears, and the slanders.  It's this behavior that has earned some of them "hate group" status at the SPLC, because they are knowingly, and calculatedly, attacking LGBT people.

GLAAD has started a great initiative called the Commentator Accountability Project  to link these two aspects of the common anti-gay commentators.  Interviewers need to KNOW that  Tony Perkins, frequent guest on MSNBC, calls gay people hateful, spiteful, pedophiles, and terrorists.    Interviewers need to KNOW  that Bryan Fischer considers gay people to be Nazis, and the single biggest threat to American survival.  They need to know that Peter Sprigg thinks gays should be imprisoned, or deported.

Of course, the commentators don't say admit on MSNBC or the BBC.  But they should be taxed with it nonetheless.

This isn't about censorship. This is about transparency.

Naturally the commentators are protesting.  But as ThinkProgress writes, 

In every case, these anti-gay voices are claiming to be victims, but they are only victims of their own quotes....The mere fact that they feel the need to respond by condemning GLAAD’s effort validates the value of this project. Now there is an accessible hub for these quotes — albeit not a full archive (by design) — to ensure that pundits don’t get away with being conservative standard-bearers without taking responsibility for the many dangerous lies and offensive values that define them. The jig is up. 

The genius of CAP is that it creates a lose-lose situation for these would-be pundits. They can try to compensate by doubling down on their most offensive talking points and how loudly and widely they share them. Or, they can proceed with their typical media appearances and attempt to use the victim mentality to obfuscate responsibility for their own views. Either way, they stand to lose public favor, and no matter how they condemn GLAAD, that’s surely why they’re so perturbed.