In response to the shooting at the Family Research Council headquarters in Washington, D.C., the Log Cabin Republicans strike the right tone:
“As fellow conservatives, Log Cabin Republicans are often in the same room with the Family Research Council. Though we rarely see eye to eye, we absolutely condemn the violence that occurred today,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. “Keeping in mind that at this time we know little about the shooter or his motives, whatever our political disagreements, in this country, we use ballots, not bullets, to address them. We offer prayers for the injured security guard, his family, and everybody at the FRC building, barely a fifteen minute walk away from Log Cabin Republicans national headquarters. In many ways, this is a reminder that we aren’t so far apart.”
More. The shooter was identified as a volunteer at the DC Center for the LGBT Community. A coalition of 25 gay rights groups released a statement through GLAAD condemning the shooting.
Furthermore. Conservative pundit John Hinderaker blogs:
There seems to be no doubt that he wanted to shoot up the Family Research Council because he disagrees with the FRC’s position on gay marriage. It is also reasonable to suspect–although presumably more will be known about this in due course–that he was influenced by the many left-wing and gay activist organizations that labeled the FRC a “hate group.”
And a roundup from The Hill: Shooting spurs heated debate on gay rights, ‘hate group’ label.
The shooting plays into the narrative of intolerant gays, the same as the Chick-fil-A zoning blowback. And many LGBT gay progressive activists can be, in fact, hatefully intolerant — something this blog, gay Republicans and others have experienced first hand. But that doesn’t obscure the fact that the Family Research Council has earned our antipathy not simply because it opposes marriage equality, but because (as The Hill story points out), it has used extreme language and cast spurious allegations to demean gay people. This gets lost, however, just as the story became Chick-fil-A being targeted by liberal politicians instead of Chick-fil-A’s corporate donations to organizations—such as the Family Research Council—that work every day to deny gay people legal equality.
That being said, labeling the Family Research Council a “hate group” was never going to convince anyone of anything if they were not already in our camp. Too often, the left and the right turn to incendiary rhetoric instead of sound argument and debate. Emotions get inflamed, but little light is shed.
11 Comments for “The Right Response”
posted by Jorge on
Humph.
The guy was arrested with a Chick Fil-A bag, they say?
The LCR’s response reminds me of the embarassment I felt over that hateful anti-gay church protesting soldiers’ funerals. So there is a way to express it directly, eh?
posted by Doug on
I do not recall the LCR issuing a statement condemning violence when Scott Roeder shot and killed Dr. George Tiller. This was also a political act of violence.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… whatever our political disagreements, in this country, we use ballots, not bullets, to address them … and … we utterly reject and condemn such violence …
Exactly right.
posted by Houndentenor on
Every gay group in the country immediately released a statement denouncing the shooting. None of us condones violence.
posted by Jorge on
I do not recall the LCR issuing a statement condemning violence when Scott Roeder shot and killed Dr. George Tiller. This was also a political act of violence.
And of course you double-checked your memory before posting it.
But do you know who did? The Family Research Council! D’oh! *Critical Slam!* NEEEXT!
Oh, and everything after “Furthermore” is very well said, but to be honest this is all a little beneath me.
posted by Doug on
No critical slam because Stephan was talking about LRC not FRC.
posted by Doug on
Jorge, the Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council issued a statement today trying to link the Obama Administration to the shooting. So much for the Right Response.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tony Perkins is a notorious jackass, and his long history of statements asserting that gays and lesbians are pedophiles and child abusers are the primary reason why the SPLC designated the FRC as a hate group in the first place.
Mike Heath, Maine’s FRC statewide representative in Maine, came up with something even more ludicrous: ““If Maine doesn’t end this decades long conflict over the evil of sodomy with an overwhelming NO vote in November we can expect to see this sort of violence in Maine in the near future. Homosexuality can lead to the most horrific and violent consequences in individuals and society. The twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of it.”
Don’t you love it? God as a domestic terrorist.
While every major LGBT advocacy group in the country is demonstrating sanity about this incident, the FRC spews and stirs the pot. Just wait until September’s Value Voters Summit.
posted by esurience on
The FRC has not been merely *labeled* a hate group. The precise reasons have been documented and articulated… reasons that defenders of the FRC including Mr. Miller here have never bothered to read, I guess.
No, it’s not just their opposition to marriage equality that got them that label, as Mr. Hinderaker claims and Mr. Miller seems to endorse.
“Too often, the left and the right turn to incendiary rhetoric instead of sound argument and debate. Emotions get inflamed, but little light is shed.”
If you believe that, then how about you go familiarize yourself with why the SPLC labels the FRC as a hate group. They are actually giving *sound arguments* for that. You’re just choosing not to listen to them.
posted by S. on
Okay, let’s play Devil’s Advocate here… Why is it okay for some people to use guns, or the threat of guns, to keep a person from utilizing their property in whatever manner they wish–say by opening a chicken sandwich shop–but when someone fights back against that it isn’t considered defense? Where do you draw the line? First it may be chicken shops, but it could easily soon be jewelry shops, and then synoges or mosques. At what point is self defense, or defense of rights more broadly, justified? Do you wait for a KristalNacht or until they are pushing you into rail cars? Which?
posted by Doug on
It seems to me that it is the right that has a preoccupation with guns and violence if they don’t get their way. It was Sharron Angle who said if we don’t get our way we will have to resort to our ‘second amendment rights’. It was Sarah Palin who had political ads with targets on people. It was Sarah Palin who talked about blood feuds. I heard no Republicans repudiate any of this.