Lopez: Pro-Equality Conservatives Being Blackmailed

Robert Oscar Lopez is one of the most extreme anti-gay bigots in the country, if not the world. He’d fit in perfectly in Pakistan. He often writes for the badly misnamed American Thinker and in his latest column he claims that pro-equality conservatives are being blackmailed.

While the vast majority of conservative Americans oppose gay marriage, the vast majority of conservative leaders have a vested interest in making sure gay marriage is legalized nationally. It is not the case that the latter group all support gay marriage in any intellectual sense, but they break down into diverse subgroups, all of whom share the same goal of making sure gay marriage becomes legal.

First, you have clueless conservatives who actually think gay marriage is about consenting adults loving each other, progress, and equality. These are rightists who read only the conservative news outlets that ban any editorials from dissident COGs, so they have never really seen the hard evidence that in fact gay marriage will harm children. They mostly don’t even think children are part of the issue at all.

Then you have scared conservatives who know that gay marriage is going to harm children but who do not want to face the blowback that is sure to follow a public stance against it. These folks will avoid discussing the topic. They must avoid being seen with people who have strong arguments against gay marriage – especially anyone who brings up the effects on children.

You also have compromised conservatives, who are being blackmailed or threatened by pro-gay people close to them, but behind the scenes. This is a much larger group than you know. These are people who mostly oppose gay marriage in principle and may even have a public identity as an opponent of gay marriage. I know of some cases where they are well-known television personalities, lawyers in charge of defending traditional marriage in court, or leaders of pro-family organizations. Even though they may technically be on “our” side, they have been bought off and are taking orders from bribers who tell them which arguments (the ones with a chance of winning) are off limits. They will go and defend male-female marriage in the public square, but mysteriously be tongue-tied after a career of sterling oratory. Such false Jeremiahs are consciously siphoning the energy and funding of anti-gay-marriage viewers toward dead ends that their controllers know will end in gays getting marriage and children anyway. This group of conservatives is actually the most dangerous, largely because you often discover their compromised status when it’s too late.

Notice what he doesn’t offer anywhere in this? Evidence. Not a shred of it, just a bare declaration. How unsurprising.

"Me previously:At some point conservative Christians may stop defending Roy Moore’s predatory behavior. Artor responds:No, ..."

And Two More Women Come Forward ..."
"He'll probably revive the War on Christmas rhetoric next year, knowing his viewers will likely ..."

Bakker Declares Victory in Mythical War ..."
"I'm always amused by the special species of troll that claims fake military service. First ..."

The Gateway Pundit Falls for Another ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • D. C. Sessions

    Nice. I’ll give him this, though: he has an answer to the “where is the evidence that kids are harmed?” question: all of the lawyers arguing for anti-SSM laws have been bribed to throw the case.

  • John Pieret

    they have never really seen the hard evidence that in fact gay marriage will harm children

    That’s hardly surprising, since no one else has seen it either.

  • Chiroptera

    …but who do not want to face the blowback that is sure to follow a public stance against it.

    Uh, isn’t this how democracy is supposed to work?

  • blf

    The nutters can now refer to the article as evidence: “Robert Oscar Lopez has pointed out…”. Manufactured facts for the win!

  • John Pieret

    They must avoid being seen with people who have strong arguments against gay marriage

    Feeling a little excluded, Bobby? Of course, if you really did have strong arguments against gay marriage, they’d be all over you.

  • blf
    …but who do not want to face the blowback that is sure to follow a public stance against it.

    Uh, isn’t this how democracy is supposed to work?

    Nah, that’s anarchy. In democracy the natural leaders do what their paymasters tell them. A minor glitch is 99% of the population, so a great lottery is run every few years, usually known as an “election”. The prize and prizewinners are never announced, but, rest assured, the lucky ones are no longer part of that filthy 99%. (In the past, they just used chattel slavery, but that proved too expensive, so the sooper-secret-winner “election” lottery was invented.)

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    Again and again the blame for their failure is on some “other.” The idea that the message my be at fault is never considered.

  • dingojack

    “You also have compromised conservatives, who are being blackmailed or threatened by pro-gay people close to them, but behind the scenes.”

    And about what are they being ‘blackmailed’, Bobby? Hmmmm? A little ‘down low’ pleasure? Having some nose-candy with the eye-candy, perhaps?

    I mean, presumably, you have far greater knowledge about such things…

    Dingo

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Us Conservatives know that we form a clear majority of the population. Therefore, the must be some reason why we appear to be outnumbered. Lopez gives some of them. And if those don’t convince me of our beliefs’ continued, rock-solid status as those of the Popular Majority, Lopez will be happy to get more of them from the same place he pulls these ones.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jason.criley jason the cripple

    His one argument seems to be, “Won’t somebody think of the children?”

    But, does he really think that gay people won’t have children if they can’t get married? Or does he think that straight people will stop having kids if gays can marry? Does he think people can’t have kids without being married?

    For shiggles, let’s say he’s right, and gay people make terrible parents, not letting them marry won’t stop them from having kids from previous straight marriages, or from using a sperm bank/surrogate, or adopting.

  • John Pieret

    Lopez does cite “evidence” … the bogus study by Mark Regnerus and some others by Douglas W. Allen and by D. Paul Sullins (a Catholic priest as well as a sociologist). All of them were criticized by the American Sociological Association in its Amicus Curiae brief in the SSM case now before SCOTUS.

    http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2015.03.05.-American-Sociological-Association.pdf

    As the ASA summed it up:

    The clear and consistent social science consensus is that children raised by same-sex parents fare just as well as children of different-sex parents. … Claims by Marriage Opponents about the wellbeing of children are unsupported by any social science study published to date [including those cited by Lopez]. Their claims neither undermine the social science consensus nor establish a basis for upholding the Marriage Bans.

    The bigots have learned well from creationists, such as the Discovery Institute, how to misrepresent the actual science and to phony-up pseudoscientific bafflegab.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    It’s always amazing to me how tough-guy conservatives explain their failures through cowardice. “The only reason we’re losing is that the queers and hippies keep bullying us!”

  • felidae

    I’m touched by their concern for children by gay marriage–but those real threats to children’s welfare: malnutrition, pre and post natal health care, unsecured guns, and poverty are not to be discussed

  • Michael Heath

    There’s 2148 comments attached to the article that Ed blogs about here.

  • Francisco Bacopa

    In defense of my state which used to be all proud and New South when I was growing up, a state which even elected Ann Richards in the 90’s, though we have since fallen into insanity, I have to say this: The University of Texas has issued amicus briefs denouncing any endorsement of the Regnerus study even though Regnerus was temporarily employed there when he published the study in every court case where anyone cited Regernerus.

  • LightningRose

    In fairness, Lopez *is* a child from a lesbian relationship and he turned out pretty fucked up.

  • gertzedek

    “No, guys, there are totally anti-gay-marriage arguments that will stand up in court and not sound like we’re making up lame excuses for something we know is unconstitutional! It’s just that EVERY CONSERVATIVE LAWYER IN AMERICA has been bribed into not using them!”

    Also, given that there’re something like 230,000 lawyers in the Supreme Court bar, and considering how much lawyers are paid, does this guy even realize how much it would take to bribe every one of them?

  • John Pieret

    gertzedek:

    Not to mention how rich the lawyer would become who, against all expectations, somehow convinced the Supreme Court to undo tens of thousands of gay marriages it has let proceed in the last year or so. S/he might become the most famous advocate in Supreme Court history.

  • llewelly

    Even though they may technically be on “our” side, they have been bought off and are taking orders from bribers who tell them which arguments (the ones with a chance of winning) are off limits.

    hmmm, let’s see here, Lopez is still promoting that Regernerus thing, which has been shown to have all manner of flaws, contradicts all other research, and, is clearly pseudoscience. All of his other arguments are much worse.

    Three possibilities here:

    (0) pseudoscience has a “chance of winning”.

    (1) There are no good arguments for Lopez to use.

    (2) Lopez is one of those who have been “bought off” !

  • abb3w

    To nitpick at one of the smallest but most overlooked problems with his column…. since when does being blackmailed count as a “vested interest”?

  • gshelley

    Well, it would explain why none of the possible candidates for Republican nominee have been talking about the issue

  • gog

    I have first-hand evidence that same-sex “marriage” does indeed harm children! A common party game at same-sex “wedding” receptions is to round up all the children and whip tangerines at them until they cry and cry. It was horrible.

  • parasiteboy

    also have compromised conservatives, who are being blackmailed or threatened…they have been bought off and are taking orders from bribers

    This is just incoherent (I know “Thanks captain obvious!!!”). You would have to bribe them first and then blackmail them, not the other way around (as it is written). To bad he didn’t name the one of the Koch brothers by name, since David Koch is supposed to sign amicus brief supporting gay marriage

    First, you have clueless conservatives who actually think gay marriage is about consenting adults loving each other, progress, and equality. These are rightists who read only the conservative news outlets that ban any editorials from dissident COGs

    Wouldn’t they be leftist, or am I missing something? I would also like to know which news outlets he is talking about. And what are COGs?

  • John Pieret

    And what are COGs?

    Conservatives Opposing Gays?

  • Trebuchet

    A COG is a gear, of course. The ones in Lopez’s head are stripped.

  • dingojack

    COG =

    a) Creepy Old Guy?

    b) Constant Orgasm Giver?

    c) Coalition of Ordered Governments?

    d) Centre of Gravity?

    e) Cognitively Disabled? (abbreviated)

    f) Penis? (slang)

    Dingo

  • mithrandir

    I think COG in this context may be Children Of Gays who supposedly have some story about how horrible it was for them, either at the time or in retrospect. I’d venture to guess most of their stories are about one of their parents coming out of the closet and divorcing the other, and they just ignore the fact that it’d have been just as difficult for them if one of their parents left the other over a hetero affair.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    Notice what else he doesn’t give us? These great arguments against gay marriage. I guess we’ll just have to trust him that they exist, while he focuses instead on the real reason that gay marriage is coming soon to a couple near you — i.e. because cowardly conservative traitors have stabbed traditional marriage in the back.

  • parasiteboy

    mithrandir@27

    That makes sense. You reminded me of this article Adults with gay parents say same-sex marriage isn’t good for kids. A quick read of the article, some of the issues aren’t unique to same-sex couples, and others would be made better by acceptance of same sex relationships.