No. Really. The Gay “Marriage” Movement is Deeply Fascist

So when some honest bisexual guy bares his soul about how tough it was growing up in that community, he is punished with draconian ferocity by the intensely intolerant bigots and thought police who constitute its drum majors, enforcers, and informants.

In other gay fascism news, some thug planning an anti-Christian Bloodbath for Tolerance gets a couple of shots off and hurts a guard at the FRC before getting stopped. Basic posture of the propaganda media machine is “It never happened and besides they deserved it.”

I sometimes suspect these people will enjoy a career something like Cromwell’s Roundheads. They will temporarily be hailed by our sexually deranged culture as liberators just as the Puritans were temporarily thrilling when England went through its spasm of Calvinist anti-monarchist zeal. But when they then go on to use the power we give them to really enforce all the ruthless, sleepless, unsmiling, joyless ideological rigor that stares out at the world from their Stalinist hearts, all the easy-going jolly pagans of American culture, who imagine they are are encouraging freedom by complying with these people will finally get a clue and start to resent their persecuting fury and joyless demand for conformity. Then will come the backlash. That won’t be fun.

  • http://gloriaromanorum.blogspot.com/ Florentius

    This is exactly on target, Mark. The movement has earned monikers like “Gaystapo” and “Lavender Mafia” for a reason. Apparently, the worst sin for the movement is being an ex-gay or a celibate homosexual. In true cult-like fashion, anyone who leaves and tells the world how screwed up the cult is, must be destroyed.

    But the “live and let live” crowd who enables this stuff won’t wake up until they realize that the Tolerance Police (as you put it) has no intention of letting *them* alone if they dare to disagree with any part of the agenda.

  • Truth

    Anti-Christian? What is anti-Christian, is to identify Christianity with a group like the FRC, whose top officials say that they want to “export” homosexuals from the US, and who want to see them jailed – and a group that worked in favor of a law in Uganda killing gay people.

    As for Stalinism, I’m sure you know that Stalin was as “pro-family” as you are.

    • Mark Shea

      I think that last line has to be about the stupidest thing written in English that I have read this year. As to the rest, why not just go ahead and say, “They had it coming” like a good fascist?

      • Truth

        Stupid or not, it’s true. “Pro-family” is synonymous with “anti-gay” for fundamentalists – and Stalin was very anti-gay.

        Why would I say that they had it coming? I deplore it whenever lunatics think that they have the right to attack others, because of mere words. The First Amendment protects hate speech, thankfully, and that should never lead to attacks.

        But that still does not mean that the FRC is not a hate group. Senior officials advocating jailing and “exporting” homosexuals – and lobbying against efforts to stop the anti-gay bill in Uganda show very clearly that the FRC is a hate group.

        • B.E. Ward

          “Stupid or not, it’s true. “Pro-family” is synonymous with “anti-gay” for fundamentalists – and Stalin was very anti-gay.”

          Thereforrrrre… wait for it.. Stalin was really a 21st century American Fundamentalist Christian!

          If you’d like to read more about eschewing euphemism, Mark has a few good pieces on this blog.

          “Senior officials advocating jailing and “exporting” homosexuals – and lobbying against efforts to stop the anti-gay bill in Uganda show very clearly that the FRC is a hate group.”

          As requested in comments below, here’s your opportunity to wow us with an accurate, contextual citation.

          • Mark Shea

            Actually, Stalin was really Truth since it is he who equates pro-family with anti-gay. Like Dan Savage, who ridicules people as “pansies”, Truth has a curious way of expressing his deep contempt for homosexuals in the very act of defending them.

            • Truth

              Isn’t pro-family the euphemism used as a cover for anti-gay activities?

              As for Dan Savage, not sure why you would cite him. He is a pansy himself. Have you ever heard his voice? He is also incapable of being in a monogamous relationship. I have more respect for some fundamentalists, than I do for this blathering idiot.

          • Truth

            Not at all. Stalin was a godless commie. But is it not curious how nearly all totalitarian regimes are anti-gay and anti-abortion?

        • Mark Shea

          Pro-family is synonymous with anti-gay in *your* mind, not in mine. So you are the Stalinist–which was my point. Nice to see you finally remembering to offer a word of condemnation for the shooting. Your concern is touching.

          • Truth

            If it is not synonymous with anti-gay in your mind, perhaps you would condemn FRC officials calling for gays to be exported and jailed, and the FRC president praising the Ugandan kill the gays bill. I’m waiting…

            • Mark Shea

              If the FRC has actually said this, then of course I condemn it.

              • Truth

                And if people are called bigots or haters merely for opposing same-sex marriage, of course I will condemn it.

                • Mark Shea

                  Good. Thank you!

                • Blog Goliard

                  Your statement is gracious…but forgive me for being ungrateful enough to say I’m troubled that you stated it as a hypothetical.

                  In the Chick-fil-A madness, I saw many many many people routinely called bigots and haters (myself included) merely because we opposed same-sex marriage, and/or were willing to keep eating in Chick-fil-A. This is not an “if” situation.

                  • Truth

                    It is not at all ungrateful. I think you have a right to expect people to do the right thing, as I expect you to do the right thing. By “if”, I meant “when”. I am aware of some troubling incidents. To me, most troubling was the Miss California mess.

                    But I also see people who are haters hide behind the issue of marriage when they are called out. It would very much help your cause, in my judgment, if fair-minded opponents of same-sex marriage called out the people who are truly hateful and bigoted. It would discredit Machiavellian attempts to delegitimize your position by identifying it with hatred and bigotry, and it marginalizes true haters. It’s doubly blessed, if you will.

                    • Blog Goliard

                      That’s fair enough.

                      I don’t have a lot of contact with people who are truly hateful and bigoted on this issue (to some degree, that’s by design); but I promise I shall have no problem calling them out when they betray an animus towards anyone on account of their sexual orientation.

                      (Heck, my own orientation is that I desire to sleep with every beautiful woman I see…and sometimes the only things that have saved me from complete moral disaster as a result have been my non-movie-star looks, and my ineptitude at and incomprehension of the process of seduction. It’d take a lot of nerve for me to refuse to associate with–or to abide others refusing to associate with–other people on account of their desires, knowing how disgusting mine can be when I’m honest about them.)

                      I also am perfectly willing to acknowledge that many reasonable people of good will support the redefinition of civil marriage to include same-gendered couples; and however misguided I believe that view to be, they are perfectly within their rights to not only speak up about that, but to fight for it using every legally and ethically permissible tool that our democratic system affords.

                      I do, however, reject any insinuation that I must, in addition, agree that certain sorts of sexual activity must be considered moral and licit and healthful. (Referring back to my earlier parenthetical, I don’t believe that indulging my desires even slightly is moral or licit or healthful…and I intend to show people with different orientations the courtesy of applying the same standards to their behavior that I apply to my own…on the rare occasions when it’s even remotely my business.)

                  • Truth

                    I’m glad to hear that, and I hope that decent people on both sides will be able to respect each other, and marginalize the extremes. I said that because I like to read the comments on news articles (which is a trash heap that is amusing but also alarming), and what I see is a whole lot of hatred, with very little pushback. If I didn’t know any better, I might assume that all opponents of same-sex marriage are like that. I think it would be very powerful if someone stepped up and said: “You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but what you are saying is really disgusting.”

                    You mention ‘where it is remotely your business’. That’s very important, bigots generally don’t know boundaries. What I also notice in ‘bigots and haters’, is that there is a great degree of hypocrisy in the way they deal with sexual matters. They purportedly oppose premarital sex and (sometimes) remarriage after divorce as much as homosexuality – but they consistently come down at least a hundred times as hard on anyone who is gay. That’s as hypocritical as it is convenient. Many an evangelical congregation in the South would be decimated, if they were to be consistent. On this matter, the Catholic Church has been very principled.

                    • http://www.likelierthings.com Jon W

                      I said that because I like to read the comments on news articles (which is a trash heap that is amusing but also alarming), and what I see is a whole lot of hatred, with very little pushback.

                      That is because, with all due respect, rational people stay away from news article comboxes. ;-)

                      I am sure I disagree with you on many things, but I have the exact same reaction whenever I read news article comboxes: I am amused and alarmed.

        • Ted Seeber

          Nothing about being pro-family is anti-gay at all. Gay people have the right to form families, like Josh and Laurel Weed were able to form a heterosexual marriage *despite* the fact that Josh is attracted to men.
          http://abcnews.go.com/US/gay-mormon-happily-married-husband-father-puts-faith/story?id=16806146#.UC50bd1lRPU

    • Irenist

      “What is anti-Christian, is to identify Christianity with a group like the FRC, whose top officials say that they want to “export” homosexuals from the US, and who want to see them jailed”
      Sure, that’s not very Christian at all. Neither is going into their offices with a gun hoping to shoot people. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

      • Truth

        Absolutely not. I was not mentioning it to say that the lunatic was right, but only to show that despite what people have argued, the FRC is not just an organization opposed to same-sex marriage, it is deeply anti-gay.

        • Thomas R

          Okay, but I think almost every organization opposed to same-sex marriage is deemed “deeply anti-gay” so it gets hard to tell when “deeply anti-gay” means “they want gays to be involuntarily committed” or just “they agree with the Gay Rights Movement less than 50% of the time.”

          But I do think “Fascism” is so overused and misused it should probably just be retired. Really Fascism is a form of totalitarianism that doesn’t even ostensibly favor egalitarianism. Movements to say require all churches accept Same-Sex-Marriage are, at worst, more accurately like Maoist. Going after “The Olds” and “Rightists” in favor, in theory at least, of an egalitarian notion. Because the idea all institutions, even marriage, must be gender-neutral I’d personally agree is more like a hyper-egalitarian Cultural Revolution than any kind of Fascism.

          • Truth

            Deemed by whom? Not in this case, Thomas. The SPLC won’t even deem Focus on the Family a hate group – and they go a lot further than simply oppose gay marriage. The FRC is really rather extraordinary. Take a look at the evidence yourself, and let me know what you think.

            • Thomas R

              I have some concerns with regards to them, but I had the sense their members vary a bit so I’m not sure what’s official position there.

    • Ted Seeber

      How can any communist be pro-family, when they are for depriving the family of all private property?

  • julian

    Wow, that is a sad sad article. If anything, the absence of joy and peace that he details ought to help put some of the anger and vitriol in perspective and perhaps help increase the level of compassion in how we respond. Sometimes all we think about is the fact that someone is pointing their rage in our direction, (not fun), but when you stop to consider how much pain they’re in it somehow it makes their anger seem a little less threatening. We are a broken people and very often, we really don’t know what we’re doing.

    • Irenist

      This is very true. We really must pray for these poor people.

  • John

    Yeah, for a moniker like “truth” it might be good to provide links to the actual quotes of FRC people who supposedly said such outrageous things… after all, them thar are serious charges to level at someone. But then it’d be nothing for “truth says” to back up the assertion with, well, evidence.

    And context. We all know how easily good people can be taken out of context. Why just the other day our Presidents words about businesses were supposedly taken out of context and we were all encouraged to reflect on the injustice of taking a man’s words out of context. So as we proceed with links to the actual quotes in question of the FRC leadership, I’m sure you, sir, will provide the full context.

    • Truth

      By all means, John. I hope you will not proceed to justify these horrendous comments.

      Export: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6JuKnXJGTc
      Criminalize: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTFEzzuj-VQ
      Uganda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqMxjklRyLE (see the link for the text of the law that he claims is not about killing gay people)

      • JohnDM

        Ummm….about the Uganda thing?

        http://www.nomblog.com/27175/

        …wonder if your other accusations need doublechecking, too? Just sayin’…

        • Truth

          John, it is obvious that you did not visit the Youtube-link regarding Uganda, or you would have known that your link addresses a completely separate issue. Frankly, I do not put much stock in their denial – seeing as their own president said that the Uganda law would “uphold moral conduct”.

      • Blog Goliard

        There’s a lot that I could say about these clips…but I think the only productive response is to acknowledge that this Mr. Sprigg, whoever he is (happy to say that I’d not heard of him before now), comes off as a real idiot and hack here.

        I don’t like making judgments based on YouTube videos, but based on these few clips, I’m deeply embarrassed to have him on my side of the same-sex marriage debate. I pray he’s better at expressing his views intelligently and tactfully via the written word–and that if he is, that he will in future confine himself to that medium.

        • Blog Goliard

          P.S. I see from posts farther up the thread that you do not wish to be held to what Dan Savage might say. I’m happy to let you exclude him from the discussion if you allow me to exclude Peter Sprigg from the discussion.

          • Truth

            I cited Peter Sprigg in order to make a point about the FRC, as he had a senior position within the FRC when he made these comments, and still does. Some people think that the FRC is labeled a hate group merely for opposing same-sex marriage, but that is not the case. I wouldn’t tar you, or any other person not affiliated with the FRC with his statements.

            Same way as Dan Savage has nothing to do with me, but if he had a senior position within a gay organization, you and I should be able to hold that organization accountable for employing the creep.

            • Blog Goliard

              Employing Sprigg does not necessarily make FRC a hate group. I’d further argue that “hate” isn’t the best term to use in describing Sprigg himself, even if these few YouTube videos are sufficiently representative of who he is and what he’s all about.

              “Hate” is such an emotionally charged word, is so presumptuous when used as a judgment of what’s inside a person’s heart, and is so promiscuously tossed about in this debate. It seeks to shout down rather than dialogue or convince. It generates more heat than light (when it’s not generating crazy people who turn up at the front desk with guns), and is usually employed not by way of description or argument but as a magical talisman of demonization, like the word “racist”, which simply by being employed both wins and shuts down the argument. For these reasons, I resist and question its use in almost all cases.

              But yes–getting back to the main point–choosing to retain Sprigg as one of their spokesmen does, at the very least, hint at a serious deficit of intelligence and savvy and classiness in the FRC leadership.

              • Truth

                There’s more evidence than just these two examples. My objection is to people who think that the FRC just stands for traditional marriage, and nothing more. That’s clearly not the case. As I have said before, lest anyone misinterpret this, it does not justify or excuse any crime. But neither should the crime make people whitewash their record.

                Your point regarding hate is a reasonable one, and the same can be said of ‘intolerance’. It’s been used against me, because I am critical of religions, and I notice that criticism of some religions tends to be labeled as “hate” much more often than that of others. For whatever reason.

  • Blog Goliard

    If the movement stood for what it claims to stand for…if these people were who they would have us believe they are…Professor Lopez would be one of their poster children, not one of their whipping boys.

  • Jay

    Your blog is correct that members of a group often chastise another for not adhering to what they, and the they are generally a misguided few sometimes many who shout over the rest of the group, believe to be the upheld values or rules of said group. I also see all sides looking for the bad behavior of these loudly spoken few to build a predetermined narrative of a group to bolster their world view. This is a disingenuous grouping whether applied to religion, race, gender, and most other factors that define us. It is unfortunate that so much brain power and talent are wasted on such an unfruitful practice. If I believed in a literal Jesus I think he would be disappointed.

    • Irenist

      “I also see all sides looking for the bad behavior of these loudly spoken few to build a predetermined narrative of a group to bolster their world view.”

      A fair diagnosis. We’re all sinners and hypocrites.

  • Gary Keith Chesterton

    He doesn’t need to provide proof. He knows it’s true, because he heard it from elsewhere in his echo chamber. Seriously.

    • Irenist

      I think Mark is commenting on the article he linked to. If Prof. Lopez is not to be trusted when he testifies to his own personal experiences, then I suppose the request for evidence should be directed to him, not Mark.

  • http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/ terry nelson

    I really think you are right about the backlash scenario – of course we agree on the brown-shirt term as well.

  • Irenist

    This line from the essay that started the brouhaha is important, I think:

    “I moved to the right wing because I lived in precisely the kind of anti-normative, marginalized, and oppressed identity environment that the left celebrates: I am a bisexual Latino intellectual, raised by a lesbian, who experienced poverty in the Bronx as a young adult. I’m perceptive enough to notice that liberal social policies don’t actually help people in those conditions.”

    Source: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065

    • Irenist

      On reflection, I should have included the sentences immediately following the ones I quoted, which are more concrete:
      “Especially damning is the liberal attitude that we shouldn’t be judgmental about sex. In the Bronx gay world, I cleaned out enough apartments of men who’d died of AIDS to understand that resistance to sexual temptation is central to any kind of humane society. Sex can be hurtful not only because of infectious diseases but also because it leaves us vulnerable and more likely to cling to people who don’t love us, mourn those who leave us, and not know how to escape those who need us but whom we don’t love. The left understands none of that. That’s why I am conservative.”

      • bob

        Well put! THank you.

  • bob

    What the author is talking about is flirting with *apostasy*. You don’t do that among gay people anymore than you doubt the prophet in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis might go a little easier on you than the Americans in this article.

  • Faith

    I have said it before and I’ll say it again, I think those who struggle with SSA and refuse to go along with the party line of gay rights are some of the bravest people in our culture right now. They have my admiration, sympathy and my prayers. Whenever I stumble upon their witness (I read this man’s statement a week or two ago) I thank God for their integrity, courage and ability to think deeply and for themselves and stand against the tide. I don’t think I would be able to in their situation.

    • Irenist

      “[T]hose who struggle with SSA and refuse to go along with the party line of gay rights are some of the bravest people in our culture right now.”
      Amen.

    • http://gloriaromanorum.blogspot.com Florentius

      “I have said it before and I’ll say it again, I think those who struggle with SSA and refuse to go along with the party line of gay rights are some of the bravest people in our culture right now.”

      Double AMEN.

  • Rachel K

    The gay rights movement can get unbelievably nasty to bis*xuals who end up with opposite-s*x partners. When I was in college and fully embracing my SSA (this was before I converted), I was in several gay groups and was quite open about the fact that I was bi, not a lesbian. When I got involved with a woman, everyone was congratulating me and telling me how cute we were. When we broke up and I started dating my future husband, I suddenly didn’t get invited to any of the gay parties anymore and got the cold shoulder at meetings. My bi friends had similar experiences–everyone was fine with the idea of us being bi, but Lord help us if we actually dated men. For a group that’s supposed to be about celebrating s*xual diversity, the GLT community can be unbelievably narrow.

    (Spam-bots really hate it when you leave the “e” in there, don’t they?)

  • Richard Johnson

    The guard, Leo Johnson, is a true hero here. After being wounded in the arm he fought with the shooter and subdued him, possibly saving the lives of others in the building. Thankfully his wounds are relatively minor and he will recover fully. And, thankfully, the crime is being treated as an act of domestic terrorism by the FBI instead of being immediately dismissed as a one-off by a nut and left to the local authorities. Hopefully this trend will continue with future acts of domestic terrorism.

  • Mark R

    Stalin was pro-family in a bad way…to the extent of mixing nationalities like Lithuanians and Uzbeks to create tenacious warriors.

  • John

    Sorry, ‘truth’ but it looks like your Uganda thing didn’t happen after all…

    http://www.nomblog.com/27175/

    …methinks your other accusations might have a ring of un-truth as well? Doublecheck next time, please and thank you.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X