Yep, Kallman Lied About LGBT Groups and NAMBLA

A couple weeks ago my friend Justin Schieber debated David Kallman, a well-known anti-gay lawyer from Michigan, on the subject of same-sex marriage. I was rather shocked when, during the Q&A, Kallman declared that the “national gay websites” all supported NAMBLA and wanted to lower the age of consent. The video is now up on Youtube so I was able to get the exact quotes:

David Kallman: “Go to the national gay websites and stuff, they’re all in favor of multiple parent or mutliple partner unions and marriage and things like that. Gloria Steinem and others also. They support NAMBLA, who wants relations between older men and younger boys. They want the age of consent lowered.”

Justin Schieber: “If you could give me the name of a national LGBT organization that supports NAMBLA or supports lowering the age of consent laws.”

David Kallman: “I don’t have it off the top of my head, but if you go to that Harvard Journal of Law article that I mentioned, volume 34 in 2011, they cite the ones in there, it’s all cited there.”

The article he referred to, and from which he took virtually every argument he made verbatim, was entitled “What is Marriage?” and it was written by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson. He gave the specific citation early in the debate as volume 34, 2011. So I decided to look up that article to see if it did, in fact, cite all those “national gay websites” that supported NAMBLA and wanted to lower the age of consent to allow “relations between older men and younger boys.”

Guess what? He was lying. I mean flat out lying. Not only are there no citations to support that horrible accusation, the article doesn’t even mention NAMBLA at all. Or adult-child relationships. Or age of consent laws. To make things worse, this is one of the first things he said at the beginning of the debate:

“And I think that’s the first thing I wanted to mention tonight is that unfortunately it seems, on both sides of this issue a lot of times, civility is lost. And it seems that we can no longer agree to disagree. And it’s important that we have these discussions in our society, not just on this issue but on many different issues, and to do so in such a way where it’s not demonizing or going after the other side as just being hateful or despicable people.”

That was obviously a lie too. He certainly did not have any problem with demonizing gay people and the national gay rights groups by claiming that they “support NAMBLA” and want to lower the age of consent laws. He didn’t have any problem lying to claim that he could support such a vile allegation. This is precisely what demonization is, for crying out loud. And I think he owes those groups an apology and a public retraction of his disgusting comments.

Here’s the full Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy article:

What Is Marriage?

"Oh Sarah, don't you realise that in the age of Trump you're barely an afterthought? ..."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal
"Well, that could have happened too. Lord knows its possible"

Palin’s Pointless Appeal
"The "questions at hand" are whatever I want them to be.Spoken like a True Christian, ..."

Lively: Gay Judges Can’t Be Impartial
"Psst Sarah - a word in your shell-like about the Streisand Effect..."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • colnago80

    Kellman is a liar. What a surprise. In other news, fire is hot.

  • John Pieret

    But … but … if they can’t lie, what kind of argument can they make?

  • D. C. Sessions

    Remarkably timely, Ed. This post showed up just as the sun rose in the east.

  • caseloweraz

    This is just classic defamatory technique: make an outrageous accusation, then when your opponent asks you to back it up, throw out some random citation. It doesn’t have to be accurate; no one can check it during the debate.

    “Go to the national gay websites and stuff, they’re all in favor of multiple parent or multiple partner unions and marriage and things like that.”

    A vague statement like that is a good indication that the speaker is blowing smoke.

  • Hoosier X

    The conservative definition of civility allows them to lie but it doesn’t allow their opponents to point out that they were lying.

    They can be racist or misogynist, but this can not be pointed out.

    Ditto with homophobia.

    Nobody is more politically correct than your average conservative. When it is convenient for him or her. (And of course, it’s not civil to point out when a conservative is appealing to political correctness.)

  • Artor

    “And it seems that we can no longer agree to disagree.”

    Translation: “People don’t let me lie anymore without calling me on it!”

  • sinned34

    Granted, I don’t know much about debates, as I’ve watched maybe two of them in my lifetime, but there’s these really neat inventions that people can purchase these days called “smartphones”. Apparently, you can use them to access the internet from almost anywhere. Couldn’t somebody in the audience or the moderator take a few minutes to check audacious claims that get made during a debate?

    If they do Q&A at the end of debates (again, I don’t know anything about debating), somebody could ask about outright fabrications like that.

  • Hoosier X

    sinned34@7

    I think fact-checking DURING a debate would be considered the height of incivility and any conservative watching such a spectacle would quickly hit peak pearl-clutching and DIE!

    And the FOX headline: Liberal fact-checker massacres good-hearted citizens

  • weatherwax

    Not as easy as you seem to believe. The debate is not going to be put on hold while one party tracks down the given article and reads through it.

  • pacal

    It is true that during the 1970s and into the early 1980s SOME radical Gay organizations and SOME individuals said stuff in support of NAMBLA but those were always very much the minority among Gays and the Gay movement and further such “support” almost entirely died in the early 1980s. It turned out that some Gay organizations and individuals were just a little too enamoured with epater les bourgeois and other childish games during the early part of the movement. But even then it was a minority position and now it is so microscopic has to be invisible to an electron microscope. So this is just so much agitation propaganda.

    I read the article which was mis-referenced; it is actually pretty bad.

  • lorn

    A well-known anti-gay lawyer lied … I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.

  • dingojack

    David Kallman: “Go to the national gay websites and stuff, they’re all in favor of multiple parent or [sic] mutliple partner unions and marriage and things like that. Gloria Steinem and others also. They support NAMBLA, who wants relations between older men and younger boys. They want the age of consent lowered.” “

    Well – to be fair – Gloria Steinem does do an excellent Marlon Bando impersonation!

    @@ Dingo

    —————

    Note: According to Kallman all national gay websites (and ‘stuff’), as well as Gloria Steinem et al. support NAMBLA. The lattermost is an organisation that supports things that Kallman thinks are disgusting and immoral (and you should too) therefore all the former are evuull, disgusting and poopy-heads to boot! QED!

    Right-Wing logic at it’s very best.