Kill the Gays in CA

A California attorney has filed papers for an initiative that calls for the execution of LGBT people.  Of course, it would take over 300,000 signatures to put it on the ballot, so it's not actually going to be voted on.  But even in a relatively liberal state, this is the degree of animus against LGBT people.

A clear majority of Americans now are okay with LGBT people marrying, and with LGBT people generally.  But efforts to protect LGBT people from discrimination are lagging behind.  Just yesterday, we saw Charlotte, NC narrowly defeat a non-discrimination rule.

Why is it okay to discriminate against LGBT?  We would not for a minute accept someone who advocated against serving black folks, or Jews, or women.  But somehow it's okay to advocate to refuse service to LGBT.  And I'll bet you that they would also like to refuse service for practicing Muslims too.  God help a woman in a headscarf who asks a bakery for a cake for Eid, eh?

Why is it that only about 20% of Americans are Evangelical Christians of a certain political ilk, yet they manage to punch so far above their weight that they dominate the media description of "Christian"?

Meanwhile, it's best to remember that even in liberal CA, there are people who actively hate us and want us dead.

The FRC shooting (2): on hate speech and calls to violence

Following up on yesterday's post:  The Family Research Council is complaining that the fact the Southern Poverty Law Center calls it out for "hate speech" is a "license to kill". The SPLC responds that this is "outrageous".

For more than 40 years, the SPLC has battled against political extremism and political violence. We have argued consistently that violence is no answer to problems in a democratic society, and we have strongly criticized all those who endorse such violence, whether on the political left or the political right.

But this afternoon, FRC President Tony Perkins attacked the SPLC, saying it had encouraged and enabled the attack by labeling the FRC a “hate group.” ....

Perkins’ accusation is outrageous. The SPLC has listed the FRC as a hate group since 2010 because it has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people — not, as some claim, because it opposes same-sex marriage. The FRC and its allies on the religious right are saying, in effect, that offering legitimate and fact-based criticism in a democratic society is tantamount to suggesting that the objects of criticism should be the targets of criminal violence.

The Washington Monthly reminds us that "criticism is not persecution".

This is a group that wants to use the coercive power of the state to....tell churches and other religious organizations whose relationships they may honor. It also engages regularly in slurs of anyone who doesn’t agree with its agenda as secularist Christ-haters.....

Those determined to frustrate the Christian Right’s desire for total secular political power are neither Romans nor Communists nor Nazis, and it is far past time for smug powerful men like Tony Perkins to climb down from that cross and stop pretending they bear any resemblance to the actual Christian Martyrs who suffered and died—and still suffer and die—for their faith.

The Family Research Council is not a religion. It is a professional political advocacy group with an anti-gay agenda.  It does not represent Christians.  Plenty of Christians support gay rights, and plenty of gay people are Christian.

Here are some examples of what FRC folks say, that got it that SPLC designation. Now, if you don't see a problem with the quotes, under each one I've changed it to describe a different minority group. I don't think we'd consider the sorts of comments that they make about gay people to be acceptable to the mainstream if targeted towards other people. Would we?

Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the Roman Catholics. 

“[Homosexuality] … embodies a deep-seated hatred against true religion.”
Jews embody a deep-seated hatred against true religion. 

“[T]he evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.”
“[T]he evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of black men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.”

The FRC has the right to say what it wants.  But it does NOT have the right to do so without legitimate criticism.  And legitimate criticism is not a call to violence.

Finally, if you want to look at explicit calls to violence, perhaps NOM (the National Organization [against] Marriage [Equality]) should explain some of these events, duly noted by Rob Tisinai at Box Turtle Bulletin.  Here's some examples.

When Reverend Ariel Torres Ortega stood on your stage as your guest at your rally and proclaimed that gays are “worthy to death,” NOM was there. But you didn’t condemn it at the event, on your website, or on your blog..... 

When Fox News asked NOM founder Maggie Gallagher about a pageant contestant who said gays “shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them,” Maggie was there, not to condemn the call for violence, but to praise “her courage in coming forward.”

As Rob says,

The shooting at FRC was deplorable. Violence has no place in this debate. We can look at this shooting, as well as the people who are killed every year just for being gay, and agree on that. You certainly say you agree. So please, live up your own press release: stop supporting the very thing you claim to condemn.

The FRC shooting

By now you know that a disturbed man shot a guard at the Family Research Council in Washington DC. (Thankfully, the guard will be fine). News suggests that the shooter was opposed to the FRC's anti-gay policies.

Brian Brown of the National Organization (against) Marriage (Equality) immediately complained that this is because FRC is called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because FRC opposes marriage equality. in fact, he suggested that the obviously shooter was carrying out a political agenda.

No, Brian. It is you with the political agenda. The FRC is called a hate group because it tells lies and demonizes LGBT people.

The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Thanks to the GLAD Accountability Project, you can see exactly what people like FRC spokesmen Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg say about LGBT people.In fact, Sprigg thinks that gay behavior should be criminalized. And you can read more quotes from the FRC at the SPLC site.

Aside: you can also read posts here at my other blog (one, two, three) about the language of violence employed by so-called "Christians" against LGBT people.  And don't get me started on their claim that gay people are anti-Christian.  The right doesn't own the term "Christian" and there are plenty of gay Christians out there.

Meanwhile what about the shooter? He is no more representative of the gay community than the man who shot up the Sikh temple is representative of the Christian community, or the man who killed people at the Batman movie is representative of Neuroscience PhD students.

Although some conservative groups accuse the pro-gay blogosphere of "celebrating" this, the response was not that at all. In fact, 41 pro-gay groups immediately released a statement condemning the violence and sending their prayers and best wishes to the FRC and the victim for healing.

Funny, the conservatives ignore that, instead preferring to demonize the gay community further.

What is the conservative response to disturbed acts of anti-gay violence? In fact, 2011 saw a record high rate of murders motivated by anti gay bias. And what did this conservative pseudo-"Christian" groups have to say about that? what did they say about Bible-verse shouting street preacher  at Grand Rapids GayDay, who threatened to rape a woman attending?

::Crickets::

As Zack Ford writes at ThinkProgress,

Violence is not the answer to solving any conflict and nothing justifies the actions taken Wednesday by Floyd Corkins. But any attempt to use the shooting to justify reinforcing the inequality LGBT people experience everyday is intolerance at its most basic.

Update:  Excellent commentary from Pam's House Blend :

The fact is that the political discourse in this country is at rock bottom — dehumanizing people so that it is easier for those who are filled with rage to act out violently. We see it with the numerous rage-filled hate crimes against LGBTs all the time, race-based preposterous acts claiming to be religious freedom, and comments from public figures like Joe the Plumber’s recent guidance on immigration reform to “Put A Damn Fence On The Border Going To Mexico And Start Shooting.”

Transparency, and hate: the names in Washington are released

In the referendum on domestic partnerships in Washington state last year, there was a bitter signature gathering campaign. Our side was suspicious that bad guys were not fairly describing the petitions, and getting signatures under false pretenses. There was also concern about their validity. For these reasons, under state law, petitioner names are supposed to be public.

However, in the now-typical fashion, the anti-equality forces whined that they would be attacked by marauding gays if the names were released and asked to make an exception to the law to keep them hidden. This case has bounced up to the SCOTUS and back down again, and now the judge has issued a smackdown of the anti-equality forces in his ruling (H/T Pam's House Blend)

“Doe has failed to supply sufficient, competent evidence that the publically known donors–as active supporters of R-71–have experienced sufficient threats, harassment, or reprisals based on the disclosure of their information in connection to R-71 that would satisfy the reasonable probability standard that Doe must meet in this case.”

“Doe has only supplied evidence that hurts rather than helps its case.”

He details the descriptions, which include things like one man getting a mean email from his brother in law . Oh, the horror!

The FACT is that despite their desire to hide their bigotry, they can't.  And the consequences have been mild.  Some rude remarks.  A business boycott.  (Remember that the anti-gay forces ROUTINELY boycott pro-gay businesses.  Goose, gander?)   Yes, there have been some glitter bombs.

But remember the aftermath to Prop8 in California, hate crimes against LGBT people went up by nearly 17%.  Crimes against whining religious rightists, not so much.

Let's be clear on what real hate looks like. Let's be clear on which side is doing the hurting. And let's be clear on which side is doing the hating.  

Update In California, state law requires that the names of donors of >$100 be public. There was much fussing over the website that had the donor names on it (note that this includes donors on both sides). In a bid to keep Prop8 donors secret in retrospect has also been denied. Yes, the election was three years ago, but the Prop8 supporters consider that this is such a volatile issue that their donors are "at risk".

The judge read from a batch of declarations in which people claimed yard signs were stolen, that they received harassing phone calls, or, in one case, that people protested outside someone's business. "That's the extent of what happened," he said.

Get over yourselves, H8-ers! If "defending marriage" is so important to you, show the courage of your conviction.