Another GLAAD Misfire

(Update: If you read to the “final update” at the end, A&E announces Phil Robertson is back and filming will resume as normal. GLAAD’s strong-arming proved not just ineffective, but has made the LGBT community look authoritarian and censorious. Just as with GLAAD’s anti-Chick-Fil-A campaign. Please, let’s pull the plug on this organization!)

Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the redneck “Duck Dynasty” unleashed a torrent of benighted views about gay people in an interview with GQ, not on the family’s megahit A&E reality show.

In response, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation issued a statement with a thinly veiled call for sponsors to boycott the show. Said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz: “Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

Aside from addressing Robertson as “Phil” (are they buddies?), Cruz’s suggestion that sponsors reexamine their ad buys isn’t likely to garner much traction. So why call for it, except as an auto-reflex meant to gin up donors? In particular, given that Robertson’s views were not expressed on the A&E show (but in a sophisticated men’s style magazine, where no doubt the editors expected they would be met with derision), the best response would have been to rationally counter his arguments publicly, rather than engage in an impotent attempt to drive his brood off the air.

Update 1: A&E has suspended Phil Robertson indefinitely from filming “Duck Dynasty.” [Added: But will air a “Duck Dynasty” marathon that prominently features him.] I maintain my position that debate is preferable to silencing the opposition.

Update 2: I’m not the only one who had this response. Brandon Ambrosino writes, “Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them?”

Update 3: Sponsor responds, “It’s a free country and Phil has a right to his opinions.”

When your first impulse toward somebody who says something anti-gay is to try to get them fired, something is very wrong. And let’s not forgot the hypocrisy factor. Progressives never tire of telling us that those who cooperated with the Hollywood blacklist were terrible, horrible, unforgivable people for pressuring the movie studios to fire those well-meaning liberals in a hurry who joined the Communist party and supported Stalin.

Let me clarify for those who seem determined to willfully misconstrue, the issue is not whether A&E has a right to fire Robertson for not being the sort of person it wants to be associated with—of course it does. The issue is whether GLAAD’s immediate response should have been to try to pressure A&E, through its sponsors, to fire Robertson.

Not so very long ago, before the proverbial worm turned, religious conservatives would routinely target sponsors of TV shows with gay characters. This could be effective, leading to script changes that prevented open displays of affection between same-sex couples, for instance. Now, those campaigns have lost their teeth, as shown by the failed attempt to intimidate Penny’s after the retailer hired Ellen Degeneres as a TV pitchwoman. And now that the power has shifted, gay activists are deploying the same tactics against religious conservatives. You’d think that would make them at least queasy, but it doesn’t. Again and again, yesterday’s victim becomes tomorrow’s inquisitor.

Update 4: Cultural critic and open lesbian Camille Paglia weighs in:

“To express yourself in a magazine in an interview — this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades,” Paglia said. “This is the whole legacy of free speech 1960’s that have been lost by my own party.”

“I speak with authority here, because I was openly gay before the ‘Stonewall rebellion,’ when it cost you something to be so. And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech.”

And yes, Ted Cruz and other conservatives are making hay out of this. If you open the door for them (as was also done with the misguided Chick-fil-A fiasco), don’t be surprised if they walk in.

Update 5: Log Cabin Republicans suggest mediating this dispute with a “Moonshine Summit.” There was a time when those on the left also thought changing hearts and minds was important. Now it’s about power and punishment.

Update 6: A broad overview of the controversy from Da Tech Guy:

“Apparently A&E didn’t realize that the ‘Duck Dynasty’ customer base were not the same audience as Will & Grace. … Nor did the cultural elites figure out that the advertisers know who is actually buying their products.”

GLAAD will only succeed in getting “Duck Dynasty” merchandise off the shelves in liberal jurisdictions, while customers in areas GLAAD views as benighted are flocking to purchase said merchandise in a show of support for the Robertsons. But then, it’s always been about fundraising and appealing to the base.

Update 7. Via James Kirchick, writing in New York’s Daily News:

All of the comments in question were uttered in forums other than the TV show, rendering the accusation that A&E or its corporate sponsors somehow endorse Robertson’s views even more preposterous.

Nevertheless, the remarks set off an avalanche of righteous outrage from gay rights organizations. You’d think that with India rebanning sodomy, Uganda reinstituting lifetime prison sentences for gays and Vladimir Putin leading a crusade against homosexuality, that America’s relatively comfortable gay establishment would have bigger homophobic ducks to fry.

But in the minds of many of America’s leading gay activists, the barely literate comments of a Louisiana yokel rise to the level of national crisis.

Indeed!

Final update? A&E announces “Duck Dynasty” will resume filming in the new year—with Phil Robertson. GLAAD bet it all on having enough muscle to strong-arm A&E by threatening to pressure sponsors, and lost. What a foolish, impotent, and counter-productive effort. Shame on GLAAD and (let’s take a page from the GLAAD playbook), those who support it. Let’s boycott ’em.

Also worth noting:

Before joining GLAAD [Wilson] Cruz worked for The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. This same NGLTF honored Raul Castro’s daughter Mariela at the New York Public Library in May 2012 with a forum to spout her regime’s anti-American propaganda. Needless to add, Raul Castro’s daughter–an official of the only regime in the history of the Western hemisphere to herd gay men and boys at Soviet bayonet-point into forced labor camps and torture chambers–received a standing ovation at the event sponsored by this gay rights organization.

In brief, according to Wilson Cruz, Phil Robertson simply cannot be allowed to express his views (which happen to coincide with a majority of Americans’) in a free-market venue. This amounts to “pushing lies.” But Mariela Castro must be allowed to spew Stalinist propaganda at New York taxpayer’s expense. Apparently this amounts to spreading the enlightenment as reckoned by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Any questions why so many flyover Americans question the agenda of outfits like GLAAD and The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force?

As I shared from commenter Jared123 in my November 2013 post “GLAAD Needs a Mission Update“:

Groups like GLAAD attract LGBT progressives who want to work to advance a partisan left-liberal agenda. Unfortunately, when your message to conservatives isn’t “we think you should support civil equality and social inclusion of gay people,” but rather, “we think you’re wrong about everything and should become liberals,” you’re not going to accomplish much, although your fellow progressives will invite you to their parties and tell you that it’s wonderful you’re advancing the cause (of progressivism).

COMMENTS CLOSED. THIS PAGE IS AT ITS LIMIT AND ADDING ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WILL CAUSE EXISTING COMMENTS TO DISAPPEAR FROM VIEW.

139 Comments for “Another GLAAD Misfire”

  1. posted by Doug on

    Rush Limbaugh lost a ton of sponsors so it seems to me that if enough people complain to A&E as well as the shows sponsors it could drive Duck Dynasty off the air. A&E needs views and this kind of crap doesn’t help them. It may not be your method of dealing with this, Stephen, but it can be effective.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      I realize my data may be skewed, but I have yet to hear from a single person who watches that show who is appalled and wasn’t planning to watch any more. What I am hearing from is people outraged that they are taking it off. Do you really think people who watch this kind of thing aren’t anti-gay (and racist) as the star of the show?

      • posted by Jorge on

        That, too.

      • posted by Doug on

        I’m sure none of the viewers of Duck Dynasty will stop watching because of Robertson. However, A&E has a lot of other programming and a lot of relatively liberal, or whatever word you choose, views they cannot afford to offend. If enough A&E viewers express their outrage and express that outrage to sponsors it can have an affect.

        If A&E wasn’t worried about that they wouldn’t have quickly removed Robertson from the air. It’s simple economics. Why do you think Coors hired Mary Cheney to polish their image. . . the boycott was hurting the bottom line.

      • posted by Betsy on

        Yes you are a freaking common fairy who will go straight to hell no doubt about it you are so freaking in denial!!

  2. posted by Jorge on

    Well, they wound up suspending him. So much for no traction. Rarely do you fall on the naive side, Mr. Miller.

    My response to that story: “Are you NUTS!?”

    Isn’t Duck Dynasty one of those shows whose whole premise is

    1) “Reality” TV?
    2) Barkwards southern fried goodness? (Yes, I said barkwards)
    3) About a family?

    *And* he’s 67 years old?

    What did A&E expect? Disappointed my butt! Do you seriously think you’re NOT going to find anti-gay remarks somewhere along the way? Then judge him for the entirety of his record.

    So he chooses to say, in this day and age, “A vagina is awesome” (eww! eww! eww!) “But I don’t judge anyone. It’s still sin that we’re going in the wrong direction on.” I have no interest in associating with such a vulgar person, and worse, a male heterosexual one, but on the rest I think it is enough to dissent.

    • posted by Betsy on

      I would not be caught with a nasty pervert deviat homo period, so disgusting pew wee pew weeeeeee nasty filthy vile and on your way to get aids you disgusting pedifiles in the making!!

    • posted by Ken on

      He’s back on the show, Cracker Barrel folded in 2 days, etc.

      The other side in this debate, long silent, has found the same type of intimidation GLAAD uses works for them as well.

      As a straight man who supports gay marriage, but thinks straight soldiers should be able to choose not to shower with gays, I think GLAAD should change it’s tactics.

      With both sides screeching, no one is listening.

  3. posted by Houndentenor on

    I can honestly say I’ve never watched this show. I’d heard of it and the only people I knew of who watched it were people whose recommendations for entertainment wouldn’t carry much weight with me. I don’t get the attraction of the Kardashians or Honey Booboo or any of the rest of the ignorant trash that populates television these days. Cable networks have elevated the lowest common denominator to celebrity status and this is what you get. Yes, I read what he said. It sounds about like people like that talk when the cameras aren’t rolling. I’d be offended except that I’m not the least bit surprised. It’s up to A&E to do whatever they want on this. I wouldn’t watch this crap anyway so I’m hardly their target audience. I did notice the local Christian bookstore had all their Duck Dynasty merchandise up at the front of the store last week so I guess that’s their audience. If anything what he said will make the ratings go up with that crowd, not down. I’m afraid that all we are doing is giving these assholes free publicity and that will just make more money for everyone. But A&E has suspended one of them so I guess he can use the free time to schedule his martyrdom tour because the religious right eats that shit up with a spoon.

    This really was the year of the stupid. Miley Cyrus, Ted Cruz and now this. #facepalm

    • posted by Don on

      I believe you meant to says “eats that up with a front loader”

  4. posted by Houndentenor on

    I’m surprised we aren’t hearing more about his statement that he never saw black people mistreated (in Jim Crow era Louisiana!) and that African Americans were perfectly happy before the civil rights movement. I’d have pulled him off the air just for that. Does that sound like someone we can have a civil conversation with about civil rights issues? I see Stephen’s point about trying to have a dialogue rather than just shut people down. It feeds into the right-wing martyr complex and hardens them on issues like gay rights. However, I grew up in East Texas and am very familiar with (and unfortunately related to) people with the same views. It’s not as if no one has ever tried to have a dialogue with them. It’s just that you’d be better off with the nearest brick wall.

    • posted by Carl on

      There’s no real way to win with addressing these types of comments. Yes, they will be made into martyrs, but I don’t know if ignoring them would have been any better, because he said some sick, sick things. He spoke the language that reminds me of Paul Cameron-types – all sorts of things about anatomy, delivered in a crude, vile way. And he essentially compared gays to terrorists.

      I agree that his racist comments were as bad, or even worse.

      Fox News will eat this up and make him the hero of the ages, but what can you do? Society rewards and deifies men who say these types of things.

  5. posted by Lori Heine on

    His comments are about what you’d expect from this crowd. A juvenile obsession with private body parts, and sexual crudity that passes for virtuous — as long as it’s heterosexual. This is what functions, for these people, as porn.

    As a gay Christian, I resent having garbage-heads like this drag my faith through the muck.

    One thing you won’t hear these people talk about is “Thou Shalt Not Steal.” The Commandment they’ve broken by rigging the tax code to bribe them to stay with their spouses. (Oh, I forgot — that’s not theft here). They definitely have a cafeteria-style, cherry-picking way of reading the Bible.

    • posted by Betsy on

      You are garbage the bible plainly states that no homo will enter into the gates of heaven, you will by the way go straight to hell! You will not tell me how to think so shut your stupid mouth up you freaks!!

      • posted by Lori Heine on

        Garbage is as garbage does, Betsy. Thanks for coming over here and giving us a demonstration of how garbage behaves.

    • posted by Pam Loftin on

      Gay christian—-?? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

  6. posted by Kosh III on

    “I don’t get the attraction of the Kardashians or Honey Booboo or any of the rest of the ignorant trash that populates television these days.”

    Curse you Red Baron….er…..Houndtendor. You said all the things I would’ve said before I got to it. LOL

    Yeah, I hear this garbage all the time here in the homeland of the Southern Bigot Convention. They should just follow the GOP health care plan: get sick and die.

    I miss the good old days when conservative talking heads were intelligent and thoughtful like Bill Buckley whom I watched regularly even though I’m somewhat to the left of Bernie Sanders. Now THAT was civil dialogue.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I miss the good old days when conservative talking heads were intelligent and thoughtful like Bill Buckley whom I watched regularly even though I’m somewhat to the left of Bernie Sanders. Now THAT was civil dialogue.

      I miss the days when the Republican Party, and the conservative movement in general, was dominated by men of ideas, too. I think that a lot of people do.

      I hate to sound like the old man I am (“The world has gone straight to hell, Sonny …”), but I do remember a time when intelligent, thoughtful political dialog, rather than ignorance and buffoonery, was held in esteem. Bill Buckley would be aghast at the current state of the conservative dialog, as would Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, Everett Dirksen and, I think, Ronald Reagan.

      The conservative movement has been dumbed down to the point where it is almost unrecognizable to those of us who remember what it was once like. Can you imagine someone like Sarah Palin (“Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.“) being taken seriously 30-40 years ago?

      Having said that, I don’t think that Phil Robertson’s remarks (either his opinions about horse-forking gays or step ‘n fetch it kneegroes) are worth all the uproar. The point of so-called “Reality TV” is to celebrate ignorant buffoonery, with a side dish of middle-school fart and f*ck jokes tossed in for good measure, the more outrageous the better. Robertson fits the mold, and it is all part of the entertainment package.

      Phil Robertson of the world don’t bother me. Robertson is, as Jorge pointed out, as old as I am and his opinions reflect his times and upbringing. I don’t think that even G-d can do much to change him. What bothers me is that the conservative movement has been reduced to the level of Reality TV, playing to the ignorant and amplifying it. That’s what we need to fight.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        In particular, given that Robertson’s views were not expressed on the A&E show (but in a sophisticated men’s style magazine, where no doubt the editors expected they would be met with derision) …

        GLAAD should stick to its stated mission vis a vis entertainment media, which is to “bring LGBT characters and plotlines to movie theaters, television sets and even comic books — working with writers, producers and studios to ensure accurate and diverse representations of LGBT people on the big and small screens”.

        Going after Phil Robertson for his personal opinions is like going after a pro wrestler for his. He’s a buffoon, and ignorant beyond contemplation, but his opinions were not expressed on the show.

        … the best response would have been to rationally counter his arguments publicly, rather than engage in an impotent attempt to drive his brood off the air.

        Why bother? Robertson’s ignorance speaks for itself. GLAAD should stay on mission.

        • posted by Carl on

          Unfortunately ignorance like Robertson’s is widely celebrated and endorsed. Not saying anything at all in response just suggests such vile comments are acceptable.

          Robertson and his family are involved in politics, and are activist-minded. They aren’t just cliched yokels. That’s one of the reasons why his bigoted comments concern me. They have tons of power over a lot of people today.

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            Robertson and his family are involved in politics, and are activist-minded. They aren’t just cliched yokels. That’s one of the reasons why his bigoted comments concern me. They have tons of power over a lot of people today.

            I’ve been looking into Duck Dynasty today in response to all the comments, yours in particular, and I’m rethinking.

            A&E markets the Robertson family as representing conservative Christians, with intent, trying to draw in an “under served” audience of religious Christians of the fundamentalist, evangelical variety. And you are right about the Robertson family being involved in far-right Christian politics.

            But I still wonder about the relevance of this to GLAAD’s stated mission.

            Thinking about it, I look at the dissimilarities between the Robertson flap and Mel Gibson’s intense and repeated anti-Semitism.

            The difference, it seems to me, is that Gibson produced “The Passion of the Christ”, which selected out, highlighted and amplified anti-Judaic texts of the Gospel of John. The movie was justly criticized for that by a number of Jewish watchdog groups, it seems to me.

            It also seems to me that Gibson’s personal anti-Semitism is relevant because it was given expression in the movie, taking it from the sphere of private bigotry into the public sphere.

            I’m not sure that is the case with the Robertsons. A&E has apparently edited out the worst of Phil Robertson’s private opinions, sanitizing the show and keeping the show from becoming overtly anti-gay.

            So, as I said, I’m rethinking. I don’t know where I’ll come out. But the shit has hit the fan, in any event, so I think we have to stand up and point out that Robertson “hasn’t heard the pop yet”, as it is said about folks who haven’t extracted their heads from their butts.

  7. posted by Jim Michaud on

    I’ve never heard of the show until this brouhaha happened. I haven’t watched much TV in the past 2 years (been on this dang computer all the time). All this will do is feed the martyr complex that soc cons have. A “Chick-Fil-A” moment if you will. I have the same attitude about this. This dude has his free speech rights. So does A&E. I still won’t watch the show. And the FOX interviews, books, t-shirts, rallies, bumper stickers and whatnot will be seen. Same story, different cast.

  8. posted by Don on

    I say let ’em holler whatever they want. Using them as a bellweather, Duck Dynasty is the dying generation and Honey Boo Boo is the coming one. I have to hand it to the right for staying relatively quiet as Lil Miss Boo Boo declared “ain’t nuthin wrong with being gay. everybody’s a lil gay!”

    I think it was a poor choice to attack the guy and his advertisers. I prefer to know what people think publicly. And I’m extremely libertarian in the marketplace of ideas. Good ideas always win out over bad ones, even if things get worse before they get better.

    The biggest mistake social conservatives ever made was banning gay marriage. It was unthinkable and undiscussable. Thanks to them, they thrust us into the discussion at every holiday gathering. Until then, we were completely unthinkable. And that is why the pubic is shifting as quickly as it has.

  9. posted by Don on

    I don’t think we can say for sure what Buckley or Reagan would say today. There was an understanding of noblesse oblige during that era. Less because it was so much more humane but because they knew if capitalism went too far communism would be a lot more appealing.

    Now that communism is not seen as a viable political option, the political will from the plutocracy to subsidize the masses to avert full communism is evaporating in this country.

    The entire point of the New Deal and support for the minimum wage by Republicans, or at least much more muted opposition, was the real fear that we could swing the other way. Our particular hybrid of the two ideologies strengths built this country. Now we have to tear it down because of Freedom! Jeebus! Constitooshun!

    I’m having more and more hope for this Pope. He is emerging as the most powerful voice to mitigate turning the 1st world into the 3d world.

  10. posted by Mike in Houston on

    First, Stephen, making anti-gay comments isn’t “debate”.

    Second, speech is free but not without consequences… I have no doubt that this suspension was as much about the contractual obligation to not tarnish the show’s brand as anything else.

    Third, GLAAD is ‘on mission’ for issuing its statement – I seem to remember some gnashing of teeth on this blog (and elsewhere) about them not making a strong enough statement about Alex Baldwin.

    Fourth, and finally, since when is it inappropriate to use the only language that media companies understand – namely sponsorship dollars – to express disapproval? The LGBT community’s buying power in the US is about $800 billion annually – as large as the Hispanic community, but concentrated in fewer hands. Exercising that muscle in the marketplace is something one would think would be applauded around here.

  11. posted by Kosh III on

    Why is a “misfire” by GLAAD and not by Robertson?

    O I forgot—Libtards are always wrong.

  12. posted by Doug on

    Even worse than Robertson’s comments is the fact that the right wing of the GOP is rushing to defend him.

    Somehow it’s a violation of Robertson’s free speech when he is criticized for making antigay remarks but it’s not a violation of LGBT community free speech when we are criticized for saying something they consider anti-christian. A little one sided don’t you think?

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Somehow it’s a violation of Robertson’s free speech …

      “Somehow” being the operative word. The right of free speech is a guarantee against government suppression of speech, not a guarantee that other private citizens might take you to task and hold you accountable. The folks who yap the loudest about the Constitution seem to understand it least.

  13. posted by Patrick Smith on

    Hi Stephen,

    In your update you called him Phil, are you buddies?

    Been reading IDGF for about 10? years, It has really gone down hill and the articles are boring. It just seems like any chance you get you attack anything left of center.

  14. posted by Houndentenor on

    Isn’t it odd the hypocrisy revealed among so many who just a month or so ago were defending or criticizing Martin Bashir or Alec Baldwin. For the record I refused to defend either of those and supported msnbc’s firing of both. You can’t keep your job after making your company look bad. Wasn’t Stephen up in arms over GLAAD’s failure to chastise Baldwin (which they should have) but now just wants a dialogue with the Duck Dynasty guy. (I have no interest in learning the names of bigots. I have too much trivia in my head as it is.) The biggest hypocrite of all (not surprisingly) is Sarah Palin who demanded that Bashir be fired and is now bemoaning the same fate for Duck Douche.

    one final thought: I’ve always been for free speech and freedom of expression but I’m sick (and have been for almost two decades) of being asked to defend people who have nothing worthwhile to say or express. This latest round was just a bunch of regurgitated bigotry of the sort I heard my whole childhood in Texas. There was nothing in that interview worth printing or repeating or debating. Nothing. There was a time which First Amendment discussion revolved around the works of Oscar Wilde and James Joyce. Those were the days. This is what we discuss now? How sad for humanity that these are the “ideas” that intelligent people are stuck debating in the 21st century. Excuse me I’m going to go listen to some Mozart now and try to knock the crap from my brain. Wish me luck.

  15. posted by J. Bruce Wilcox on

    Dear Stephen H. Miller, no matter what you think- this is not a misfire by GLAAD. GLAAD gets to do exactly what they did even if they do it a bit wrong from your perspective. Pull your head out of your own ass. Anybody who expresses the crap this jerk expressed is gonna get slapped by me- free speech rights or not.

    The duck die-nasty dickhead diva opened his stupid christian mouth and spouted beliefs so many people hold that when I looked last night there were almost 45 thousand comments on the yahoo post abut this- the one page I could tolerate reading all in favor of his right to espouse his biblical christian beliefs against me.

    I guess I’m just too gay for my own good- even though- at 60 I’m way more post-gay than gay- because I despise the lowest common denominator- reality tv- ignorance in general- and men who’ve never seen the inside of a barber shop and think their unkempt long hair and beard looks good on them. Sorry.

    I don’t watch any tv that expresses at this level and think the fashion police should have locked these idiots up forever- long before they became a fashion statement- because what I look like still means something to me.

  16. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Amidst all the uproar over Jesus and Ducks, the New Mexico Supreme Court rule unanimously today that marriage equality is the law of the land in The Land of Enchantment.

    The Court ruled that New Mexico’s marriage law, taken as a whole, prohibited same-sex marriage, but that the state’s constitution mandated marriage equality. The Court rejected the now-standard losing argument that marriage is all about procreation, and employed the “substantially related to an important government interest” test, which is an intermediate level of scrutiny falling between “rational purpose” and “compelling government interest”.

    The case is important not only because New Mexico becomes the 17th marriage equality state, but because the case was decided under the state’s constitution. Because the case was decided on constitutional grounds, rather than on statutory construction, social conservatives will not be able to repeal marriage equality without a constitutional amendment, which is unlikely.

  17. posted by SHadow Chaser on

    Am I the only who remembers that A&E stands for Arts and Entertainment television? Whatever happened to the arts programming? or even entertainment programs?

    I remember when cable executives promised customers a whole spectrum of programming, including fine arts programs. Now, it is “reality” (as Steve Martin would say “what a concept.”) programs and Law & Order reruns.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Well, I wish Law & Order reruns were the worst of it. There are rainy afternoons when a Jerry Orbach episode of L&O is just the thing. I get a lot of channels and not much watchable content. I don’t have any more things worth watching now that I did when I was a kid and we only got 4 channels. It’s the same crap spread over 100s of channels now.

    • posted by Lori Heine on

      In much the same way, the History Channel became The Hitler Channel. A&E was, I believe, originally intended to be a commercial-channel version of PBS. As 85% of PBS’s support comes from viewers, one would think those same people could support A&E — but they haven’t.

      The average TV viewer has the I.Q. (and the taste) of a donkey. This is why even though I have cable, I watch little besides PBS. Feel free to tell me the free market doesn’t work. I prefer to maintain that, as the A.A. slogan says, “It works if you work it.”

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        There is a German-French channel caught arte that I would love to get in the US. It has real arts programming not the muzack crap that PBS loves to show ad nauseum. And some of the British and Canadian channels. The problem with our media is the monopoly that a few conglomerates have over what gets shown. We may have hundreds of channels but they are all owned by about a half dozen companies. That is not a free market and it’s not really much choice.

        • posted by Lori Heine on

          No more Andre Rieu! Do you promise?!

          I would love to hear more actual symphonic performances — and (please?) least occasionally see ballet.

          Agreed that a half dozen mega-conglomerates owning all cable programming is a terrible idea.

          • posted by Houndentenor on

            You would love arte. Granted it’s mostly in German (or some other language with German subtitles) but you’d get to hear the symphony or watch the ballet. It is a best of what’s going on in central Europe smorgasbord of cultural programs. I just checked. You can’t get the live stream online from the US. Like there’s anything in the US competing with this. *sigh*

  18. posted by Clayton on

    “I maintain my position that debate is preferable to silencing the opposition.”

    In what sense is the opposition being silenced? In what sense is debate being stifled?

    Phil Robertson expressed a view, as is his right. GLAAD expressed a view, as is their right. A&E, a private entertainment corporation (not a government agency), through its suspension of Robertson, expressed a point of view, as is A&E’s right. Today Sarah Palin and a whole host of conservative and Republican pundits, politicians and journalists, came out in favor of Robertson’s right to his opinion, thereby exercising their own rights. Meanwhile, many liberal and Democratic pundits, politicians and journalists are expressing plenty of opposing views. I have heard everything from “Firing Robertson was the only responsible action,” to “Robertson should be reinstated as soon as possible.”

    It seems to me that there is plenty of debate.

  19. posted by Mike in Houston on

    Step 1: A media personality or politician says something incredibly anti-LGBT, because, Jesus.

    Step 2: Individuals and organizations weigh in and call them out for being anti-LGBT.

    Step 3: The person in question is called upon to explain and apologize.

    Step 4: damage control non apology apology (if I offended anyone… I respect everyone…)

    Step 5: the anti-gay industry gins up ‘in defense’ and Stephen pens a blog post excoriating GLAAD or HRC and generally everyone on the ‘intolerant left’ – in essence telling folks to shut up and let these things pass.

    Seriously, the so-called religious liberty crowd should familiarize themselves with Voltaire.

    • posted by J. Bruce Wilcoox on

      Hi Mike- thanks- I loved your post here…

      Robertson made no apology for his own ignorance- he opened his christian mouth- stuck his christian foot in it- and then tried to dance his way out of his own stupidity about both sex and gay men (because none of his comments were directed at lesbians) because he saw his gravy train crashing off the tv track he still wanted to be on…

  20. posted by Houndentenor on

    Given the speed of A&E’s reaction, I find it highly unlikely that GLAAD had anything to do with their decision process. Once again, the insistence from Stephen the GLAAD (or HRC) has any real clout or power is laughable.

  21. posted by Jorge on

    Why is Duck Dynasty getting so much attention (comments) on this site?

    I *hate* having that show and its bearded characters pop up on my internet News every two days.

    …..

    I have no quarrel with Alec Baldwin, other than him being an egotistical, tempermental demon. So it turns out I think more highly of such people than heterosexual male vulgar people?

    As a gay Christian, I resent having garbage-heads like this drag my faith through the muck. . . . They definitely have a cafeteria-style, cherry-picking way of reading the Bible.

    🙁

    What I have to say is not about Duck Dynasty. It is partly about anti-gay religious enforcers.

    A couple of months ago, I came to the conclusion that the most accurate word for my belief system would be “heretic.” I did not like that thought.

    Lately I’m beginning to see why the Holy Spirit wants me to be a heretic! That the people who wind up being pushed forward as torch-carriers of the public faith are the people who are among the most unethical! We need people who can speak truth to power to the dispossessed and the oversmug.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      As a nonreligious person, I still sometimes meet people who I think are true believers. They are for the most part too busy volunteering at the local food pantry or organizing relief efforts for the latest natural disaster to be publicizing themselves. they don’t care about the publicity, after all. You won’t find them on cable tv, especially not living in a mansion while begging seniors for donations. Any decent person would be repulsed at the thought. It’s not that there aren’t any faithful, it’s that they are never going to be represented well in the media because they could care less about becoming media darlings.

      Also, I laughed today because the few people covering this story on cable news couldn’t actually read the quote on the air because it’s so vulgar. I know quite a few fundamentalist Christians and I’ve never heard any of them use that kind of language. I’ve heard it, but not usually from that crowd. Does anyone else find that strange?

      • posted by Jorge on

        I’m not really watching TV much these days.

        The language is what I would call ghetto talk, were he from the ghetto, but that just shows a narrow-minded perspective on my part. People with lower education and from lower social classes are a little more likely than most to be anti-gay. I don’t know that it has anything to do with religious fundamentalism, maybe it does. It’s not quite the same.

        Let me clarify for those who seem determined to willfully misconstrue, the issue is not whether A&E has a right to fire Robertson for not being the sort of person it wants to be associated with — of course it does. The issue is whether GLAAD’s immediate response should have been to try to pressure A&E, through it sponsors, to fire Robertson.

        Given the extreme multitude of objectionable actions by GLAAD, that does not even cross my radar. I think the issue is rightfully A&E’s decision to kowtow to such a shrill and hateful group, and why it has done so.

        • posted by Jimmy on

          “People with lower education and from lower social classes are a little more likely than most to be anti-gay.”

          Phil Robertson holds a Master’s degree in Education.

          • posted by Jorge on

            And he’s filthy rich, too, which just goes to show you can’t buy class.

  22. posted by Kosh III on

    “I know quite a few fundamentalist Christians and I’ve never heard any of them use that kind of language. ”

    I have. If your stomach can take it, look at the gay-hating stuff in the forum at theologyonline.com
    ——————
    Lorie
    I’m with you. BBCAmerica shows hours and hours of Star Trek and very little British programming aside from that obnoxious cook and the dumb car program. Why no Catherine Tate?

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Oh, I’ve heard people from that part of the country talk in those terms, just not that actual church-going folks. What you heard was a white trash moron who uses religion as a blunt weapon to beat up on other people while doing all kinds of things the Bible says not to do. Did I see a tattoo on one of them? I think I did. (See: Leviticus. I forget the chapter and verse but it immediately follows the ban on man-man sex.) Now of course the fundies can be pretty nasty, but the kind of language Duck Douche used in the GQ interview? I have never heard anyone use that kind of language that went to church more than twice a year. Maybe things have changed in that area. I also remember when no fundamentalist type Christian would show up in public looking like a hippie. LOL

  23. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Let me clarify for those who seem determined to willfully misconstrue, the issue is not whether A&E has a right to fire Robertson for not being the sort of person it wants to be associated with — of course it does.

    I’ll grant you that this is the issue you have raised, but I think that the Duck Jesus flap has gone well beyond “of course it does” point. Heavy-weight Republican politicians have entered the fray, misconstruing A&E’s actions as an offense against free speech and religious liberty.

    I’ve noted Sarah Palin’s foolish reaction. If it were just Palin, I’d dismiss it. She revels in her ignorance, and it is part of her entertainment package. But real political heavy weights are now weighing in.

    Take Ted Cruz, for example:

    “The reason that so many Americans love Duck Dynasty is because it represents the America usually ignored or mocked by liberal elites: a family that loves and cares for each other, believes in God, and speaks openly about their faith.

    “If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you should be deeply dismayed over the treatment of Phil Robertson. Phil expressed his personal views and his own religious faith; for that, he was suspended from his job. In a free society, anyone is free to disagree with him — but the mainstream media should not behave as the thought police censoring the views with which they disagree.

    “And, as PC enforcers often forget, tolerance is a two-way street.”

    Or Bobby Jindal:

    “In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment. It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended.”

    I don’t think that either Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz have a fifth-grader’s understanding of the Constitution, based their past statements, but Bobby Jindal is bright, and he must know that the First Amendment is not applicable in this situation.

    So the flap has escalated to the point where Republican politicians are using it as political cannon fodder against gays and lesbians yet again, and that takes it into a realm where gays and lesbians need to respond.

    The issue is whether GLAAD’s immediate response should have been to try to pressure A&E, through it sponsors, to fire Robertson.

    That’s a tactical question, and not one about which I’ve formed a firm opinion, as noted above.

    I continue to think that GLAAD should stick to its stated mission, and not exceed it by venturing out into arenas where celebrities are expressing personal opinions, no matter how objectionable, unless there is a more or direct line between the personal opinions and the media work of the celebrity, as is the case with Mel Gibson. But I’m given pause by Carl’s observation that the Robertsons purport to speak for Christians and are politically entangled in Republican politics.

    But I do not buy the idea you have been hammering on that somehow gays and lesbians have been trying to “silence” the Robertsons. Although I recognize that is the current social conservative line, I think that it is overstatement, to say the least.

    My qualms about GLAAD’s mission aside, I have no problem whatsoever with gays and lesbians raising a hew and cry about Robertson’s comparison of us and our relationships with pedophilia, bestiality, adultery, prostitution and the like. Phil Roberson’s opinions are vile.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      It’s laughable to think that anyone has been silenced when we’ve talked about him so much over the last 48 hours.

  24. posted by J. Bruce Wilcox on

    There was a time when not/equal white against black racial slurs were as common as white bread. It still happens today- but far less than it used to.

    There was a time when women were so repressed by a patriarchal culture that after a lifetime trying to change things- Susan B. Anthony died before women got the vote. Repression of not/equal women still happens- but far less than it used to. That wage gap comes to mind…

    There was a time when not/equal gay men were put in prison for just existing. Oh that’s right- there are places on Earth (India- anybody?) where that can still happen today. Sport killing of gay men is still sanctioned (underground) by religion- in the name of jesus.

    The darling Mr Duck Dick still ‘believes’ what he believes- and doesn’t respect my right to exist at all. That was a blatant face-saving lie.

    As we’ve just seen- not only do huge numbers of humans agree with him- they still ‘believe’ my total Being is subjugated to some specific sex act- and my choice to have whatever kind of sex I want is still seen to be a topic of derision and discrimination. STILL.

    There is no possibility of silencing this ‘belief structure’ in my lifetime. It’s going to have to die off. That will likely still take hundreds of years. But I- (and every other not/heterosexual male on the planet) in my own best interest- MUST STAND UP AND PUSH BACK. We must NEVER allow this crap to be put forward without challenging it.

    If you are a complacent homosexual- you are a fool.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      If you are a complacent homosexual — you are a fool.

      Dead on.

      We are one Supreme Court Justice away from overturning Lawrence and and Windsor.

      Lawrence v. Texas was a 6-3 decision, but one of the six has since been replaced by Justice Samuel Alito. If the decision were rendered this term, the vote would likely be 5-4. If Breyer, Ginsburg or Kennedy is replaced with a social conservative of the Alito/Scalia/Thomas variety, the Court could easily flip.

      United States v. Windsor was a 5-4 decision with Ginsburg in the majority. Similarly, if Breyer, Ginsburg or Kennedy is replaced with a social conservative of the Alito/Scalia/Thomas variety, the Court could easily flip. Even if Windsor were not overturned, at a bare minimum our hopes for a Loving-type decision would effectively stop.

      I don’t see pressure from social conservatives abating any time soon, and the pressure on the next President, if Republican, to appoint another Alito/Scalia/Thomas clone will be intense.

      Social conservative opposition to gays and lesbians has grown more intense, if anything, rather than moderating, in the last two years. Consider this sentence from the “Christmas Prayer List” from the FRC (which claims credit for the 2012 Republican Platform planks on “family values”): Pray for the activist agenda to end [with failure to pass ENDA] and for future Congresses to turn back the clock on the legalization and celebration of what the Bible declares to be sinful and destructive to society.

      Don’t think for a second that these folks don’t mean what they say.

  25. posted by Doug on

    So GLAAD does not have the same rights to free speech as Robertson? Stephen, you seem more concerned with Robertson’s free speech rights and GLAAD’s right to respond in their own way.

    To quote a phrase “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

  26. posted by Mike in Houston on

    Call me cynical, but the following scenario seems to be as plausible as Stephen’s contention that GLAAD misfired or somehow caused this kerfuffle…

    A&E, which runs several ‘reality’ shows, decides to go with the Duck Dynasty clan as a concept… pretty much as a copy of another channel’s succesful “Swamp People” series.

    Producers are sent out to do interviews and get contracts signed. Said cable channel knows full well of the views of the people that they are contracting (TMZ has videos with even more vile stuff)… but also knows that this will be enough of a hit to risk it.

    The show is on for about two years before it becomes a “hit” — but the cable channel execs also know that as soon as a show becomes a “hit”, the troubles really begin — contract renegotiations, slipping ratings, all of that. They also know that any future investments have rapidly diminishing returns.

    So… they let the ‘star’ of the show blow himself up in an interview (remember, they knew of his views). They then use that as an excuse to put the show on hiatus — and gin up ratings and talk… thereby increasing the value of the property — just in time to “sell” it to a sister cable channel where the lower ratings on A&E are still higher than what they could get on the new home channel (Outdoors, Country Living, or whatever.) Ad revenues go up on the new channel and a new spin-off or other reality show is put into the old slot. And the finance department books losses on the show to offset the tax implications of the transactions.

    Howard Beal would be impressed.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Not only that, but the A&E decision to suspend whathisface was so fast that they would have had to have had the meeting BEFORE GLAAD’s statement. There’s point in there somewhere that it might be more productive to attempt to have a discussion with someone who said such things. In many cases I think that might be true. In this one, I rather doubt it. This is how people talk in that part of the country and Stephen would know that if he left the liberal bubble that he obviously lives in but pretends to hate. This is the GOP base and they are doubling down on the anti-gay rhetoric. Has even one Republican leader said anything against this? Or the racist part? (There has to have been at least one!)

      There are a lot of people like Mike who think this is a publicity stunt. If so, it’s working , because the DD fans and even occasional viewers are very supportive now and there will likely be a run on DD merch just in time for Christmas! I don’t think the show will even be moved to another channel (A&E is co-owned by Hearst Co. and Disney-ABC so there are plenty of options), but I’d be willing to bet that it will just be back on the new channel with lots of publicity about the “controversy”.

      But I’m still laughing that Stephen things GLAAD has any real power to influence much of anything. People who had never heard of this crap are now talking about it. You can’t buy that publicity. And I have yet to hear from a single regular viewer of the show in opposition of their views. I suspect that the “patriarch” speaks for them loud and clear which is why dialogue was unlikely to do anything except some sort of “I’m a better man” nonsense.

  27. posted by Lori Heine on

    I see a difference in the way gay conservatives are reacting to this brouhaha and the way too many did in the past. We can’t simply go along to get along with social conservatives. They hate us as much as they ever did, and they’re no less determined than ever to destroy us.

    Making nice with them (something I was basically run off of the commentary thread of Gay Patriot for refusing to do) turns out not to be a very productive idea. Not that the toadies and lickspittles at Gay Patriot aren’t still trying it…

    The people who attack A&E on Constitutional grounds are constitutionally illiterate. They can’t tout the right of an employer to fire someone for being gay — then turn around and cry foul when someone is disciplined by an employer for making anti-gay remarks.

    No one has marched the Duck Dynasty clown off to prison. He’s perfectly free to go right on spouting his hateful and ignorant nonsense. But if his employer has no right to discipline or fire him for doing so, then the bigots have just lost their argument for claiming that any employer has the right to fire people for being gay.

    What the toadies on the gay Right fail to realize is that these people will NEVER like them, will never accept them, hate them just as much as ever and are no less determined than ever to destroy them. It makes absolutely zero sense to call oneself a gay conservative (or libertarian, for that matter) and defend horse-hockey like this.

    I believe in speaking out, in fighting and transforming. I’m glad to see that there are other gay conservatives who are becoming more like the genuine libertarians who never bought into the myth that social conservatives were really nice or trustworthy people.

    They’re snakes. They lie. And they’ll resort to any dirty trick they can. I hope this Duck Dynasty business will prove to be a wake-up call to at least a few people who (unlike the Gay Patriot crowd) are not beyond reach.

    • posted by Doug on

      “They’re snakes. They lie. And they’ll resort to any dirty trick they can.”

      My sentiments exactly. Stephens seems to want free speech for the anti-gay bigots but not for the LGBT community which fits right in with the right wing GOP crowd. Stephen must have a lot of internalized homophobia coursing through his veins.

    • posted by Jorge on

      I see a difference in the way gay conservatives are reacting to this brouhaha and the way too many did in the past.

      Okay.

      The people who attack A&E on Constitutional grounds are constitutionally illiterate. They can’t tout the right of an employer to fire someone for being gay — then turn around and cry foul when someone is disciplined by an employer for making anti-gay remarks.

      But that is the same thing, Lori. In both cases we have the right to judge.

      I am not so blindly wedded to principle. Employment non-discrimination laws say: You shall *not* judge an anti-gay firing. That is the right decision. But when you take it too far and say, you shall *not* judge religious persecution of people who dissent from affirming homosexuality, that is not the right decision.

      Much as I love legislating morality, I still think legislation follows from social morality.

      What the toadies on the gay Right fail to realize is that these people will NEVER like them, will never accept them, hate them just as much as ever and are no less determined than ever to destroy them. It makes absolutely zero sense to call oneself a gay conservative (or libertarian, for that matter) and defend horse-hockey like this.

      Mmm-hmm. I cannot agree with your argument that toadies should not defend horse-****ters. Let people stick with their own kind.

      Even if it must be in exile. What is wrong with being in exile? I’m in estranged from my church. I will never be anything but a Catholic. You are on more solid ground when you point out their arrogance and viciousness in people who dissent from them when they are themselves a highly exclusive group, not by choice.

  28. posted by Houndentenor on

    Yesterday, New Mexico. Today, Utah! Utah (who’da thunk?) They can have their white trash faux-reality show. Who the hell cares?

    • posted by craig123 on

      Exactly! So, why do you keep knocking Stephen for criticizing GLAAD, which worked to turn this into a cause celebre?

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        A cause celebre for whom? GLAAD had no impact on A&E’s decision to suspend whatshisface. The decision was clearly made before their statement. As for it being a cause celebre, it seems to be a huge marketing tool for the Teavangelical martyr complex. GLAAD didn’t turn it into anything. That’s my point. Nothing would be any different if GLAAD had issued a different statement or no statement at all. Stephen likes to blow up GLAAD and HRC into an importance they don’t have so that he can use them as a strawman to make excuses for the crap that goes on in the GOP. That’s my point.

  29. posted by Houndentenor on

    Stephen, Stephen, Stephen. Camille Paglia? Now you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Of course Ted Cruz and company are coming to the defense of a man who in the same interview proclaimed that black people were happier before the civil rights movement. Note that he grew in an area where lynchings were common, but oh no, those people were HAPPY with the way things were. If I were a Republican I’d be running away from that racist douchebag as fast as I could. But so far not one Republican seems to be doing so. Huh. Wonder why?

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Stephen, Stephen, Stephen. Camille Paglia? Now you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

      Now we’re down to playing the “Fascist, Stalinist” card in the Republican’s latest anti-gay mud-slinging contest, are we?

    • posted by Jorge on

      There is, if one tries hard enough, an intellectual argument to be made from Beard Robertson’s HAPPY crack. (I will not dignify that man with an honorific.)

      But I will let him twist in the wind.

  30. posted by Lori Heine on

    There are more aspects to this story that the social conservatives and their toadies are ignoring. Did this guy not sign a contract — with A&E, the producer of the series, or whomever? If so, a clause stipulating that he not bring disrepute on the network was almost certainly part of the deal.

    Was a gun held to his head to make him sign it? Do conservatives now consider reneging on a contract to be honorable behavior?

    Was he not already wealthy when he inked the deal, and could his high-priced team of attorneys not have pointed out to him that — because it’s sooooo important (to this super-moral Christian guy) that he shoot his mouth off about gays — he might not sign anything restricting his precious freedom of speech?

    The behavior of this guy, and that of his defenders, is so despicable, so disgraceful and so childish, it beggars belief. These people have lost any right they ever might have had to be taken seriously.

    I also find it very interesting that when it comes to A&E’s right to fire its employees, or those contracted to do business with them, the free market rules do not apply. No, A&E, you didn’t build that.

    • posted by Lori Heine on

      And as an addendum, I do remember that the post’s original intent was to express disapproval about GLAAD’s supposed role in the firing. I agree with those who argue, here, that GLAAD had little to do with it. They may have demanded it, and I think little of GLAAD, but I doubt that was why A&E made its decision.

      The network was looking out for its bottom line. When a business decision social conservatives like is made, then rah-rah for free enterprise. But when it makes one they don’t like, it somehow gets convoluted into being censorship.

      This was NOT censorship. The government had nothing to do with it — as well it shouldn’t.

      Was it a smart idea for A&E to fire the clown for breach of contract (which is, I think, why they did it)? That’s another question. Perhaps not. If the show is very popular, then it will probably be returned to the air. Bottom line and all. And if that happens, A&E is going to look foolish. Because it demanded that the firing take place, GLAAD will look bad, too — regardless of whether it really played much of a role in the firing.

    • posted by Jorge on

      I also find it very interesting that when it comes to A&E’s right to fire its employees, or those contracted to do business with them, the free market rules do not apply.

      Is anyone arresting their CEO?

      Is anyone filing an anti-discrimination lawsuit?

      No, it’s just a grass-roots word-of-mouth campaign to tell them “correct your actions, or we will not buy your product.”

      That *is* the free market.

      • posted by Lori Heine on

        Then why are so many social conservatives referring to public disapproval of the anti-gay speech as “censorship?”

        The free market has been the arena in which this battle has been fought since its very beginning.

        If enough yokels and bigots can be found to support any anti-gay enterprise, of course the free market permits it to succeed. I have, in the past, argued in commentary threads on this very blog that this is how it should be.

        The tragic boo-hooing from the NASCAR and moose-antler-on-the-wall crowd aside, they will probably get their way here.

        Any elected official, however, who has referred to the firing as “censorship” is a Constitutional illiterate utterly unfit for public office and unworthy of the public trust. The Constitution is a document written at eighth grade level. If social conservative-pandering Republicans cannot read it, they should bone up in an adult remedial reading course before running for office.

        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          Any elected official, however, who has referred to the firing as “censorship” is a Constitutional illiterate utterly unfit for public office and unworthy of the public trust. The Constitution is a document written at eighth grade level. If social conservative-pandering Republicans cannot read it, they should bone up in an adult remedial reading course before running for office.

          Most of the Republican politicians (Palin, possibly, aside, since she is one of the most ignorant people I’ve ever seen rise to such heights) falling all over themselves to denounce A&E’s action, and the underlying criticism of Robertson by gays and lesbians, as “silencing” and “infringement of free speech” are not so much ignorant as they are simply cynical, self-serving cads, taking the opportunity to use anti-gay bias to stir up the Republican base for political gain.

          It is nothing new. Bush, Rove, Mehlman and the rest of the gang certainly were neither ignorant nor stupid enough to believe that marriage equality would “destroy the institution of marriage”, or even pose any real danger to it, while deploying the anti-marriage amendment strategy in 2002-2006. The strategy was a cynical manipulation of anti-gay bias for short-term political gain.

          Republican politicians need to find something to stir up the base and get them to the 2014 election cycle polls in the wake of the government shutdown fiasco, which fell flat on its ass. The Republican base remains solidly anti-gay, and we can be used as convenient fodder for the Republican political cannon, once again.

          Believe me, this is going to get more ugly as we move forward toward the 2014 and 2016 election cycles. The hard-core anti-gay social conservatives are losing (Utah, for G-d’s sake?), and getting more and more desperate and angry.

          The rhetoric from the likes of Bryan Fischer and Tony Perkins is getting more strident rather than less. FRC’s “Christmas Prayer List” calls for Congress to roll back “legalization and celebration of what the Bible declares to be sinful and destructive to society”, a not-so-subtle call for a return to sodomy laws. We haven’t heard that in a while. Pat Buchanan, who popularized the term “culture wars” in a 1992 Republican Convention speech, practically nominated Vladimir Putin for sainthood last week. The likes of Fischer and Perkins are barely able to contain themselves in expressing their admiration for Russia’s crackdown on gays and lesbians. The former head of the KGB, the very heart of the “Evil Empire”, as a model of Christian moral values? That’s how desperate social conservatives have become.

          I’ve commented on the Republican Party’s cynical anti-marriage strategy many times on IGF over the years. We are in for another round, I think.

          The fact that Stephen and other gay/lesbian Republican apologists have been reduced to deploying the “Facist, Stalinist” card is an indication of where this is headed. When the “Facist, Stalinist” card is played, it invariably means that rational discussion has ended and mud-slinging begun.

        • posted by Houndentenor on

          In a word: privilege. I hate to use that word. I think it’s overused, but white, heterosexual protestant people grew up in a world where they streamrolled over the rights of others and no one was powerful enough to stop them. They never heard anyone complain (see: Duck Douche on blacks in the Jim Crow south) because they didn’t dare. Who could stand up for gay rights pre-Stonewall? Or for civil rights when that got you lynched? For decades they got away with the weakest arguments against civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, etc. because there wasn’t much opposition. And now that there is, they feel victimized. It still doesn’t occur to them that all those groups will push back if they are pushed. This is partly because in their church, among their friends, and even in their media landscape it’s still 1955. Never mind that they have to lie about what it was like for black people before the Civil Rights Movement. Sadly, I know people like this. Only a gay Republican living in a liberal bubble like Stephen would think that such people can be won over with a sit down meeting. GLAAD may have overreached but it’s insane to think that their statement had anything to do with any decisions at A&E. In fact, it’s unclear what’s happening. When Paula Deen was fired, they pulled her show off the air. That hasn’t happened with DD. They’ll be back early next year with the full cast to even higher ratings. As someone else pointed out, this is going to get worse before it gets better. The next two election cycles are going to include more vocally anti-gay TOP candidates than 2004. And as usual our so-called Republican friends will stay silent while it happens. With friends like that, who needs enemies. Those folks are the problem. I expect idiotic nonsense from a redneck reality star. I expect the moderate Republicans and the economic conservatives to stand up to the bigots. I’m not holding my breath. They didn’t do it in 2004 and they aren’t going to do it in 2014 either. They’ll vote for the bigots and then express their anger at their gay “friends” and relatives for accusing them of agreeing with the bigots they are empowering with their votes. I’d love to be wrong about this so keep me posted with any examples of someone who is still on the payroll as a pundit or an elected official willing to stand up against the dumbass wing of the GOP next year.

        • posted by Jorge on

          Then why are so many social conservatives referring to public disapproval of the anti-gay speech as “censorship?”

          The free market has been the arena in which this battle has been fought since its very beginning.

          Sure. There is a basic unfairness when one group exercises a disproportionate power over another. If the situation is not rectified soon, the second group declares war, and it gets bloody. The grievance is legitimate, and it is being solved through legitimate means.

          Any force which prevents the grievance from being so solved should, in my view, be exposed and held suspect.

          Any elected official, however, who has referred to the firing as “censorship” is a Constitutional illiterate utterly unfit for public office and unworthy of the public trust. The Constitution is a document written at eighth grade level. If social conservative-pandering Republicans cannot read it, they should bone up in an adult remedial reading course before running for office.

          I have to object that you are being extremely obtuse. They are attempting to right a great wrong. That you don’t like their diction does not show their lack of literacy. You especially overreach on the “censorship” crack. Look up the definition of the word. They are using it accurately.

          Update 5: Log Cabin Republicans suggest mediating this dispute with a “Moonshine Summit.”

          Call me uncultured but I can’t take anything with the word “moonshine” in it seriously. That’s before you get to the fact it’s promoting drunkenness.

          • posted by Lori Heine on

            My problem is not with “diction.” The word “censorship” is being dishonestly misused, because it does not apply to the private-sector disciplining of an employee/contractor by a private enterprise. Censorship is a governmental attempt to police speech.

            Jorge, I believe you are the one who needs to look up what censorship means.

          • posted by Jorge on

            Ah, but it is.

            Among many possible explanations for a person or group promoting an argument that is different than yours, you choose the two that are the most sinister, and also two that are mutually exclusive: stupidity and dishonesty. You refuse to consider that there may be other possibilities, like, there are other legitimate uses for the words “censorship” and “free speech” than the ones you define. It’s a pattern so typical of Bush Derangement Syndrome and other partisan/ideological logic disorders. The common thread is that you get to define the truth based on nothing more than your own personal code of right and wrong.

            Well, and you do. But so do I. Best you revise.

        • posted by Houndentenor on

          No one has been fired. He was suspended indefinitely. I expect he’ll be back on the show before February sweeps.

          • posted by Lori Heine on

            Jorge, It is not a “legitimate” use of a word to twist it to mean something other than what it means.

            As for “Bush derangement syndrome,” that is nothing more than cheap caricature and canned cant.

            Best you revise.

          • posted by Jorge on

            As for “Bush derangement syndrome,” that is nothing more than cheap caricature and canned cant.

            Among many possible explanations for a person or group promoting an argument that is different than yours, you choose the two that are the most sinister, and also two that are mutually exclusive: stupidity and dishonesty. You refuse to consider that there may be other possibilities, like, there are other legitimate uses for the words “censorship” and “free speech” than the ones you define. It’s a pattern so typical of Bush Derangement Syndrome and other partisan/ideological logic disorders. The common thread is that you get to define the truth based on nothing more than your own personal code of right and wrong.

            I do not believe you are a cheap caricature or a cant in a can.

  31. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    And yes, Ted Cruz and other conservatives are making hay out of this. If you open the door for them (as was also done with the misguided Chick-fil-A fiasco), don’t be surprised if they walk in.

    Why don’t we just be good boys and girls, praise Putin as a model of morality and join the FRC in calling for a return to the sodomy laws?

    If we’d cowered in 2002-2006, the last time that Republican politicians used us as political cannon fodder, we would be 17 states short of a sandwich right now. We need to keep fighting, every day, on every front, if we are going to win this thing.

    • posted by J. Bruce Wilcox on

      To add to your sarcasm… good boys and girls? We never will win until all who are presently holding onto their dysfunctional belief structure that says (religiously/politically) we have no right to exist- have died off- as I said before. But we may be able to hold our own- because not/conservatives can now see the level of discrimination being put on us not/heterosexuals..

      Raised a Mormon- I got attacked the first time at the age of 8 (52 years ago) for not being male enough (I’m an artist). Growing up with torrential hatred being directed at me for the next 10 years- until I was able to escape my parent’s reality- being a bad boy became my mission in life. Assimilationists want to fit in- to be part of the norm- the whole- whatever… The last thing I want to do is fit in. I have acceptance for myself- so I don’t need anybody else to accept me. That has freed me to BITE BACK. HARD.

      For fun!

      So I do. I found myself being in a position able to challenge everybody on everything- because living through the 1980s required a tremendous amount of healing work- and I made an evolutionary spiritual leap. I’ve written a book about it- in case anybody wants the file.

      But as an artist- I’ve finally come to accept that without a sugardaddy- I’ll likely never actually make it- because my gayness keeps getting in the way of full cultural acceptance. For a long time I thought I could get beyond it- but I haven’t.

      So gay conservative seems like an oxymoron to me… conservatives may want fiscal restraint- but gay is the opposite of conservative and always will be. My outsider status is just fine with me.

      Straight men think vaginal intercourse IS sex. So they mostly have no clue what it feels like to have their prostate massaged. Society judges against anal sex because of cultural taboos and an inability to deal with the concept of cleanliness. While this may seem like TMI- I’m more oral than anal- and I’VE NEVER BEEN VAGINAL- so when some stupid straight male makes comments like duck dick did- even his gaysex comments don’t reflect my reality. I’ve always found that annoying.

      So if you’re all too afraid to stand up for yourselves- and your sexuality- whatever it is- in the vast possibilities that are human sexuality- then kowtowing to the status quo will be your life. It’s NOT my life.

      • posted by Jorge on

        Well, that kind of vulgarity is much less objectionable to my ears than talking about female body parts, though no more interesting–I’m like to think you left out the most important body part of all. And both you and Beard Man leave out the epic wonders of skin and muscle, or even flab. I mean no offense to women for such careless denigration.

        Anyway, otherwise I can’t really relate to you. The force that encourages you to find your place in the world seems to be very different than mine. To me it is important that I have a role relative to society and its advancement. Yet it is also important to me that I be left alone. I would go to great lengths for any force that can offer both things, even if it would be under protest. For protest, too, serves a purpose. It must be allowed.

        I sometimes worry that I’ll be stuck in some Muslim conservative country like Afghanistan, attempt to commit suicide by coming out to a local hard-line imam, and he will instead force me to veil myself in black for the rest of my life.

  32. posted by Mike in Houston on

    So, Stephen is now positing the LCR as white knights in this situation… typical.

    Did the LCR condemn the racist and anti-gay comments immediately? No. But now that they can bolster Stephen’s false equivalent BS, he throws them out as ‘the reasonable alternative’ to what he deems the fascist left.

    Problem is? Stephen never requires accountability for the antigay side… instead, we’re supposed to “counter” their speech with rational debate – but of course, without actually calling BS… Because, I don’t know, Jesus.

    I don’t advocate trying to change attitudes, only behaviors… and that’s the only thing that GLAAD did. Stephen has yet to espouse anything that would lead to a behavioral change. I will even challenge Stephen to a debate on this.

  33. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Log Cabin Republicans suggest mediating this dispute with a “Moonshine Summit.”

    ROTFLMAO: Moonshire: empty or foolish talk, ideas; nonsense; language, behavior, or ideas that are absurd and contrary to good sense. Synonyms: applesauce [slang], balderdash, baloney (also boloney), beans, bilge, blah (also blah-blah), blarney, blather, blatherskite, blither, bosh, bull [slang], bunk, bunkum (or buncombe), claptrap, codswallop [British], crapola [slang], crock, drivel, drool, fiddle, fiddle-faddle, fiddlesticks, flannel [British], flapdoodle, folderol (also falderal), folly, foolishness, fudge, garbage, guff, hogwash, hokeypokey, hokum, hoodoo, hooey, horsefeathers [slang], humbug, humbuggery, jazz, malarkey (also malarky), moonshine, muck, nerts [slang], nuts, piffle, poppycock, punk, rot, rubbish, senselessness, silliness, slush, stupidity, taradiddle (or tarradiddle), tommyrot, tosh, trash, trumpery, twaddle

    That’s one of the standard definitions. I won’t go into commonly used slang definitions; most are crude.

    Coming up with labels like “Moonshine Summit” is what happens when a bunch of urban smarties decide “go rural”. Actually, now that I think of it, one of the slang uses of the word is apt.

  34. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    There was a time when those on the left also thought changing hearts and minds was important.

    I sincerely hope that if anyone on the left makes a similar sit-down offer to the Robertson family, they will have more sense than to label it a “Moonshine Summit”.

    Phil and Si Robertson both have histories of alcohol abuse, according to readily available interviews the family has given about alcoholism. Neither drinks. Both belong to churches that forbid alcohol use, and attribute their recovery to Jesus.

    Leave it to the guys in $800 suits to step right into it, trying to be cute.

    • posted by Doug on

      Log Cabin is approaching this like it’s a corporate merger . . . “Let’s work this out”. IMHO that ain’t gonna happen. There is about zero probability of Robertson changing his views on gay people. You are asking him to do a 180 on his religious faith, however misguided it may be, and that isn’t going to happen. This is one of the reasons I dropped my membership in LC many years ago, they seems to have a problem with reality and only talked about tax cuts.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Log Cabin is approaching this like it’s a corporate merger . . . “Let’s work this out”.

        I was a partner in a top-tier corporate law firm, and I was a political volunteer for many years, and have managed state-level legislative campaigns. The most basic rule in the book (Negotiation 101 in both cases) is never enter into negotiations with thorough background due diligence.

        It took me less than two minutes of internet searching to identify Phil Robertson as a minister in the Church of Christ (which is death on alcohol use) and find two interviews, one with Phil and one with Si, in which the Robertsons discussed their history of alcohol abuse, their conversion to Christ and recovery from alcohol abuse, and their personal abstinence.

        And yet LCR came up with the moniker “Moonshine Summit”. To me, that suggests one of several possibilities: (1) LCR didn’t do a background check; or (2) LCR’s back ground check was incompetent; or (3) LCR chose to mock the Robertsons’ history of alcohol abuse and/or religion; or (4) LCR’s “offer” wasn’t intended as a serious prelude to negotiation, but instead was a political stunt.

        If I were Phil or Si Robertson, I’d tell LCR to stick the “Moonshine Summit” where the moon don’t shine.

        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          The most basic rule in the book (Negotiation 101 in both cases) is never enter into negotiations with thorough background due diligence.

          This should read: “The most basic rule in the book (Negotiation 101 in both cases) is never enter into negotiations without thorough background due diligence.”

  35. posted by Lori Heine on

    I agree with the general consensus that “Moonshine Summit” is a stupid and insensitive idea. To any recovering alcoholic, it would be a slap in the face. To one who’s also a very hardline conservative Christian, it would be two slaps.

    What idiot at LCR thought this up, anyway? Some clueless, A-list corporate droid?

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      What idiot at LCR thought this up, anyway? Some clueless, A-list corporate droid?

      I know. I honestly thought that “Moonshine Summit” was an Onion-style media put-on until I checked, and found the LCR press release.

      Any organization with half a brain would have vetted it before putting out a press release. It isn’t as if there aren’t any number of labels available that LCR could have used to express disdain and condescension toward rural Southerners — “Cracker Summit”, “Redneck Summit”, “Hillbilly Summit”, “Ridge Runner Summit” and so on — without insulting the Robertsons on such a personal level.

      I’ve always wondered why LCR, after years of work, has made so little progress in bringing change to the Republican Party. Now I know. LCR is completely tone deaf to the culture of social conservatives and conservative Christianity.

      In any event, let’s hope that LCR doesn’t decide to organize a “summit” on women’s issues or issues of race or ethnicity. I shudder to think what they might come up with for a moniker on those issues.

      Well, let’s sit back and see how Stephen finds a way to turn LCR’s stupidity into an attack on left/liberals in a “Furthermore”.

      • posted by Jorge on

        I’ve always wondered why LCR, after years of work, has made so little progress in bringing change to the Republican Party. Now I know. LCR is completely tone deaf to the culture of social conservatives and conservative Christianity.

        Can’t argue with that.

        I sincerely hope that if anyone on the left makes a similar sit-down offer to the Robertson family, they will have more sense than to label it a “Moonshine Summit”.

        The local LGBT group in the Bronx (which is about a year old after the previous one closed down) made such an offer while at the same time expressing very grave concerns over a Catholic school’s decision to invite to speak to parents a spokeman for the Church’s ministry to gays. That is, they did both LCR and GLAAD’s moves at the same time, only much more reasonably on both. Negotiation probably actually happened. The school “delayed” its invitation and said this isn’t over, but the tone cooled down very quickly. I once said it was interesting going to a Catholic school in a liberal city.

        The local group really had no choice but to act, though it recognized the need to be delicate because “It’s a Catholic school inviting a Catholic group.” It was surprised at such an invite coming so soon after Pope Francis’ positive comments on gays, but really I think the invite was intended to be in the same spirit, different from saying and doing nothing. It was simply done poorly. The resolution probably played into the school’s real intent. Instead of a silence of complicity, there is now a silence of consent.

        So looking at the LCR’s press release in comparison, it’s a little too brief for my liking. It’s too neutral. It does not go in the right direction. It’s clear they’re going to drop the issue.

  36. posted by kosh iii on

    LCR? Please, what a joke they are.
    I dare Steven and the LCR to come sit and talk reasonably with the GOP in Mississippi or Alabama or with Tennessee Senator Stacey Campfield(allegedly a straight male) who is a total idiot whose only legislative efforts are the most extreme gay-bashing imaginable.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I don’t know if LCR is a joke, but they are certainly pretentious, imaging a “summit” in which they forge an amicable agreement with hard-core social conservatives. T’aint goinna happen that way. The rest of us, those living outside the urban bubbles, are making progress, talking one-on-one with social conservatives, getting the job done without all the self-puffery.

      I won’t reiterate the stupidity of naming the proposed “summit” the “Moonshine Summit”, but the arrogance and tone-deafness floors me flat. If the rest of the LGBT movement had been that stupid over the last 30 years, we’d still be, well, at zero.

      • posted by Jorge on

        I don’t know if LCR is a joke, but they are certainly pretentious, imaging a “summit” in which they forge an amicable agreement with hard-core social conservatives.

        Now, now, Homocon is GOProud’s specialty. They’re in on the joke.

        And there’s no need to come to an “amicable agreement” with anybody except the Duck Man. And what is the amicable agreement? Remember, he was already invited to some place to have an amicable conversation. And with regard to gays at least, he tried to be amicable and say he doesn’t hate or somesuch like that. So what’s missing? Invite someone else to speak with him and say, “Huh!?” Or frown. Or harumph. That’ll set an “amicable” enough agreement–to disagree. People are watching. You have to show that you won’t forsake them, you’re still with them, even if fighting is wrong.

        If there’s really some big earth-shattering social harm in something he has said, then you do three more things. One, you move to protect. Be very clear about that. Two, you enlist the Duck Man to protect. You don’t try to convince him gay sex is good. You ask him to chip in for or bless your own efforts to protect people who have gay sex.

        Then whatever token help or nice word he gives (and this guy will give it, there are others who never will), you RUN with it and hammer the nutso-wacko hard core social conservatives with it over and over again.

        • posted by Jorge on

          Although come to think of it, the way the audience “harumphed” at Ann Coulter at Homocon was someone heckling about a certain sex act she likes to denigrate.

  37. posted by Kosh III on

    It could be worse. Since this duck dude made racist comments and is a former drunk, it could have been a “Coonshine” conference.

  38. posted by Doug on

    This piece should be retitled “Another Log Cabin Republican Misfire”.

  39. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    GLAAD will only succeed in getting Duck Dynasty merchandise off the shelves in liberal jurisdictions, while customers in areas GLAAD views as benighted are flocking to purchase said merchandise in a show of support for the Robertsons.

    The same was true, of course, when the ADL protested about the Mel Gibson’s scriptural cherry-picking in making The Passion of the Christ, turning the Gibson account of the crucifixion into an anti-Judaic screed, and ADL’s subsequent exposure of Gibson’s serial anti-Semitic outbursts. People of good will, including many Christians, turned their back on Gibson’s screed, and perhaps learned something about the history of anti-Judaism in Christianity, and the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism in our society, in the process. On the other hand, many conservative Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, doubled down on the anti-Judaic passages in Christian scripture, turned Gibson into a Christian martyr, and contended that any criticism of Gibson was anti-Christian. Among many conservative Christians (roughly the same crowd that is now defending Robertson), going to see The Passion of Christ became a religious obligation, an act of faith and fidelity, and an act of defiance toward those of us who do not believe that every Jew who ever lived is personally responsible for the death of their Christ.

    That’s what always happens when you poke the the cows held sacred by conservative Christians. It happens again, and again, and again. We are seeing it now.

    I think that the uproar over Phil Robertson has telling parallels to the uproar over Mel Gibson, which is why I raised the latter in earlier my earlier comments.

    Robertson paraphrased a standard and oft-used conservative Protestant proof-text (1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.“) in his statement, and did it with reasonable accuracy:

    “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers – they won’t inherit the kingdom of God.”

    The fact that Robertson was cherry-picking a proof-text from Christian scripture to support his clearly homophobic statements, however, doesn’t make is homophobic statements less objectionable.

    GLAAD jumped in with both feet, wisely or not, with the predictable result from conservative Chrisiians.

    You started this thread with a post criticizing GLAAD’s tactics. In your various updates, you seem to be digging deeper. Are you now suggesting that GLAAD should not have raised hell about Phil Robertson’s statements, just because it was predictable that conservative Christians would turn him into a martyr, as they did Gibson? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

    But then, it’s always been about fundraising and appealing to the base.

    No, it is about standing up for what is right. Jews are always right when they expose and protest genuine anti-Semitism, and gays and lesbians are always right when they expose and protest genuine anti-homosexual screeds. It makes no difference that the anti-Semitism or the anti-homosexual screeds are cloaked in Christian scripture.

    Whether or not GLAAD’s tactics (or ADL’s, for that matter) were wisely chosen in the cases noted, it is not about fundraising and appealing to the base. It is about standing up.

    • posted by Jackson on

      Tom, your memory may not be matching up with the actual chronology. The Passion of the Christ made a slew of money. It was unquestionably a megahit despite the criticism (which I agree was justified). It was only later, when recordings of Gibson’s drunken, threatening phone calls to his girlfriend were made public by her, and there was an anti-Semitic outburst against a cop that was also recorded, did the public finally turn on him.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        No, I had the chronology in mind, which is why I used the phrase “ADL’s subsequent exposure of Gibson’s serial anti-Semitic outbursts”.

        The movie did made a slew of money. A lot of it was made because ADL’s criticism and boycott calls stirred up conservative Christians, who might otherwise have given the movie a pass. I think that we are seeing a repeat performance with GLAAD and Phil Robertson. The conservative Christian reaction was entirely predictable.

    • posted by Jorge on

      For the record, I still do not believe Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic, and think the whole controversy over The Passion of the Christ was completely manufactured. It was just a very Catholic movie.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        For the record, I … think the whole controversy over The Passion of the Christ was completely manufactured. It was just a very Catholic movie.

        As you point out, the movie was a “very Catholic movie”, reflecting the Catholic Church’s fierce anti-Judaism (not anti-Semitic, Jorge, but anti-Judaic) over the centuries. I was careful to make the distinction (which you missed or ignored), using “anti-Judaic” to characterize the movie and “anti-Semitic” to describe Gibson’s personal outbursts, because I respect the Catholic Church, which itself, in modern documents, makes the distinction between the two, using those terms.

        Gibson’s movie reflects the traditional theology of the Church concerning “the perfidious Jews” (in other liturgies, “the murderers of God, the lawless nation of the Jews”), highlighting texts from which the traditional theology of collective guilt arose.

        But traditional Catholic theology concerning the collective guilt of the Jews for the death of Jesus was in part repudiated by the declaration Nostra Aetate, which held that even though some Jewish authorities and those who followed them called for Jesus’ death, the blame for this cannot be laid at the door of all those Jews present at that time, nor can the Jews in our time be held as guilty. Nostra Aetate changed traditional Catholic theology concerning collective guilt, a development that Gibson missed somewhere along the line.

        And I should note that Pope John Paul II, together with Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict, went much further in rethinking Catholic anti-Judaism. Several years ago, that work came to fruition when Pope Benedict repudiated traditional Catholic theology of Jewish deicide entirely.

        Gibson is a traditional, perhaps traditionalist, Catholic, who, like his father, rejects most of Vatican Council II and its progeny. I hope that your praise of the movie does not mean that you are in his camp in this respect.

        As you know, I try to stay clear of intra-Christian and inter-Christian theological disputes. I’ve found over the years that the inevitable result is anger, and responses which are, to be blunt, anti-Judaic and/or anti-Semitic. I am wary, from experience, about stirring up Christians.

        My partner is a retired Catholic theologian, and I spent several years engaged in a Jewish-Catholic dialog group at a Catholic university in Chicago, so I am know a reasonable amount about Catholic theology. Catholic theology with respect to the Jews is, in comparison to that of conservative Protestants, enlightened. Gibson and his movie reflect Catholic theology, but it is a theology repudiated.

        • posted by Lori Heine on

          The Catholic view of Jews, at least today, is indeed light years ahead of the evangelical Protestant view.

          Incidentally, the Greek term used in Paul for “homosexual” was probably translated more likely as “soft,” or “effeminate.” Gay Christians regard automatically assuming it as applying to homosexual men as stereotyping. In any case, as the ancients had no concept of a committed love match between two men or two women, they obviously would not be referring to “homosexuality” as the term is understood today.

          Happy holidays to you, however you and your partner choose to celebrate them. Unlike Bill O’Reilly, I don’t think it wise to say “Merry Christmas” to everybody, as I know not everybody sees the holiday the same way. It’s the greeting I prefer given to myself, but being a libertarian I’m open to differing religious viewpoints.

          The whole Duck Dynasty/Sarah Palin/one-view-fits-all, let’s-find-the-easy-kill-switch concept of religion I find tiresome. I regard their view of God as monstrous. Then again, I only graduated from a Southern Baptist college — where Bible study was mandatory — and went on later to teach adult catechism in the Catholic Church for several years. As far as Sarah and Phil are concerned, I immediately lost all credibility when I started telling the truth about being gay.

          So hey, what the hell do I know?

          • posted by Jorge on

            Happy Holidays.

            I agree more than I disagree with Bill O’Reilly on this one. In unknown company I think the ideal is to act as if it’s 80-90% likely Merry Christmas (and anything associated with Christmas) is correct. Also I think Merry Christmas is a little intimate. That means I should only say Merry Christmas to one person at a time. In a group it should be both Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

            There are things at my job that I think run afoul of this.

            After all, do not the rest of us have to at least acknowledge Hannukah and Kwanzaa? Then why not wish us a Happy Holidays on those occasions, too?

        • posted by Jorge on

          You are both reading too much and too little into my post.

          When I say the controversy over the movie was completely manufactured, I am not conceding any agreement with you that it was anti-anything related to Jews, whether anti-Semitic, anti-Judaic, or any other connotation toward a class of Jews, historical or past. I am saying that all such accusations are completely manufactured. False. Made-up. Misleading. Deceptive. I believe this because by memory the movie portrays some Jews quite favorably. It is possible I remember wrong.

          It would be more productive if you stuck to the subject of what I stated and what I responded to.

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            I am saying that all such accusations are completely manufactured. False. Made-up. Misleading. Deceptive.

            We are like that, Jorge. Perfidious, you know.

  40. posted by Carl on

    This piece seemed to go way off track. Are we using Glenn Reynolds and NRO to tell us about Duck Dynasty backlash? Why?

  41. posted by tom jeff 3rd on

    First of all: Happy holidays

    I generally dislike all reality tv shows, and I suspect that this ‘duck-gate’ was carefully managed for reasons that have little to do with faith or the bill of rights. Money and more money would be my guess.

    I know gay and bi men who might be seen as ‘rednecks’ or would claim to be. If u grow up in certain conditions – geographic and class-based – u probably know the milieu, even if u reject its racist and sexist and xenophobic aspects.

    I love the first amendment, but it’s not violated when someone dislikes what someone else says about religion or politics or sexuality or sports or whatever.

    A&E knew what it was ‘buying’ when it helped propel this family into celebrity status. The family and the magazine had to expect that these sort of comments about gays people and black men would get more response then just praise.

    Remember the t.v. show the ‘book of Daniel’? Was the bill of rights violated when the show got cancelled? No. But it was a shame it got pulled after a few episodes.

    In America it seems that Faith is right-wing on t.v. or else it gets attacked by religious conservatives. When faith is a central theme it seems like it’s got to be ‘7th heaven’ show – if not the 700 club – or else it likely going to die young.

  42. posted by Jorge on

    In America it seems that Faith is right-wing on t.v. or else it gets attacked by religious conservatives. When faith is a central theme it seems like it’s got to be ’7th heaven’ show – if not the 700 club – or else it likely going to die young.

    Hmm. You know Pope Francis? “Church as field hospital”, “who am I to judge?”, the Church risks collaping its moral edifice by talking only about gays and abortion, 80% approval from Catholics, yet still “a man of the Church”?

    The Book of Daniel came across like Pope Francis on crack. It was too much too soon. They needed to sneak it in beneath a very strong foundation. I’ll give an example. I’m on a kick reading about Xena: Warrior Princess. The show came to have a very campy, bizarre reputation. It didn’t start out that way… except that in the very third episode they snuck in a couple of scenes about a dagger that fits between Gabrielle’s and Xena’s cleavage. It was a terrific episode that gave excellent character development. And it had a breast dagger. You have to give a light touch on the unorthodox stuff and strengthen the foundation. Even Pope Francis was at risk of becoming Daniel’ed at first, he had to remind people that he was stating simple doctrine.

  43. posted by Jorge on

    Completely forgot the reason I came to post.

    It’s over. Thank God.

  44. posted by Houndentenor on

    And now it’s clear the whole thing was a publicity stunt. DD will have record viewers, Evangelical Christians got off on their persecution complex (just in time for Christmas…thanks A&E!) and the ad rates will be drastically increased. And the hillbilly version of Keeping up with the Kardashians is now known to everyone. It’s a win for A&E. Everything according to plan. We were played. Merry Christmas!

  45. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    You’d think that with India rebanning sodomy, Uganda reinstituting lifetime prison sentences for gays and Vladimir Putin leading a crusade against homosexuality, that America’s relatively comfortable gay establishment would have bigger homophobic ducks to fry.

    I’m glad you quoted Kirchick (although it makes me wonder why you posted the thread in the first place). Several observations:

    (1) American anti-gay religious conservatives (e.g. Scott Lively) provided aid and comfort to anti-gay forces within Grenada, Russia, Uganda and other countries in shaping anti-gay laws.

    (2) American anti-gay religious conservatives political social conservatives (e.g. Pat Buchanan) have been nearly unanimous in loudly praising Grenada, India, Russia, Uganda and other counties that have adopted anti-gay laws as moral paragons.

    (3) A number of prominent anti-gay religious conservatives (e.g. Tony Perkins) have issued statements directly or indirectly calling for the return of similar (e.g. sodomy) laws to the United States.

    All of that is their right, of course. Christians are as free as anyone else to do and applaud evil. But it is our right (and I would suggest, duty) to call them out, and we should do so.

  46. posted by Carl on

    Not to be rude, but does “boycotting” GLAAD mean that this site will no longer write about them?

    Please?

    • posted by j.d. on

      So, Carl, “Duck Dynasty” is the big story all over the media and GLAAD’s “strategy” proves a disaster, and your comment is Stephen shouldn’t be talking about it because….because…. Oh, you know, it makes the LGBT left look bad. I see. The last thing the LGBT left needs, after all, is anyone to criticize them and point out their mistaken tactics.

      So, please explain to us, why you come to this blog that you make it a point to tell us you loath? We’re all waiting to hear your explanation.

      • posted by Jimmy on

        Disaster? Really? Your concept of what constitutes a disaster is bizarre. You can’t really un-ring a bell, and time will tell. Have you heard the latest from the video of Phil saying how all the fellas need to be sure they marry the girls when they’re 15 or 16, because by the time they are 20 they won’t listen? Yeah, real disaster for GLAAD. As long as GLAAD looks bad is all that matters, right?

        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          Have you heard the latest from the video of Phil saying how all the fellas need to be sure they marry the girls when they’re 15 or 16, because by the time they are 20 they won’t listen?

          Robertson’s advice is both legal (the marriage age in Texas is 14, with parental consent) and a practical solution to a Biblical problem — the older the wife, the more likely she is to be willful and headstrong, refusing to submit to her husband as to the Lord, as required by Ephesians 5:22-23.

          Believe me, we’ll step into a hornet’s nest if we get into this one, running afoul of both traditional Texas culture and fundamentalist interpretation of Christian Scripture. Conservatives are already saying that criticism of his advice is persecutes Robertson for expressing his Christian beliefs and censors Robertson for fulfilling his Christian duty to instruct young men in obedience to the Word of God.

          If you think I’m being sarcastic, read the conservative Christian comment boards on the issue.

  47. posted by Mike in Houston on

    I don’t know which is worse — A&E’s playing us or Stephen’s crowing over what he percieves as a loss by GLAAD.

    I’m guessing that since Stephen likely lives in a safe gay enclave — with employment protections and marriage equality — this is all an academic exercise… an abstraction.

    Unfortunately, it’s not.

    The real losers here are the LGBT kids and others who will have to endure the “victory lap” that Stephen and other homocons are cheering.

    Can you imagine if one of the extended DD clan actually was gay? Or other gay kids that come from the viewing demographic for this show?

    You know — the ones that will be kicked out of their homes or “have the gay beat out of them” — or the ones that will be bullied to depression or death.

    Or the LGBT adults who will have to be that much more circumspect as they go about their daily business — lest they be targeted for violence or lose their jobs or homes.

    That’s the world that the rest of us live in and are working to change.

    That’s why GLAAD spoke out… and regardless of what A&E does or doesn’t do, these unexpurgated bigots won’t be able to hide any longer.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      … and regardless of what A&E does or doesn’t do, these unexpurgated bigots won’t be able to hide any longer …

      Exactly. Americans — the reasonable, sensible middle — needs to know how extreme the anti-gay religious and political conservatives are, and what they are saying. That’s why it is important to call them — Brian Brown, Scott Lively, Pat Buchanan, Tony Perkins, Brian Fischer, Pat Robertson, and all the rest — out.

      Whether or not GLAAD’s boycott’s tactics were wise, the uproar over Phil Robertson exposed ordinary Americans to the ignorance and mean-spirited odium that many of us hear daily or weekly, and LGBT kids heard us push back.

      That’s important, too. We need to do it every single time.

      • posted by Houndentenor on

        I’m trying to imagine if I were 9 yrs old raised in the kind of churches my parents attended when I was a child. Of course the current fundamentalist environment is far more political and vocal on these issues than it was when I was a child. I think the message from this is that gay people tried to get someone fired for saying what as in the Bible (their point of view, not mine) and that if “Christians” stick together they can defeat the “Homosexual Lobby”. This might have had some positive impact for children of less religious or more liberal families, but in the fundamentalist world I think this actually (at least for the short term) made things worse, not better, for gay kids. In fact, I think the fundamentalists are emboldened by this series of events crediting themselves for “standing strong against the homosexual lobby”. Look for the rhetoric from the pulpits to grow more vile. It makes me sick just to think about it. I don’t think this was handled well by GLAAD, A&E or anyone else. We need new and more effective strategies so that we can talk about this to people who are not up on the latest laws and legal battles. We make too many assumptions about what to us is perfectly obvious but about which most people just aren’t that paying that much attention to. The media gets these stories wrong almost all the time and even when they seem to be attempting to be fair to gay rights often do more harm than good in bungling the message. We could use some better leadership at HRC and GLAAD, perhaps people from backgrounds that many here seem to share who understand what we are really up against in the culture wars. So much of the messaging seems tone deaf and leaves us open to the “look those mean all-powerful homosexuals are bullying Christians again!” That would be a laughable point of view if I hadn’t been hearing it nonstop for the last week.

  48. posted by Bricks from the Brooklyn Bridge Here! | Born on 9-11 on

    […] as Houndentenor, an occasional commenter on this blog, noted in an Independent Gay Forum thread, “It’s a win for A&E. Everything according to plan. We were played. Merry […]

  49. posted by Lori Heine on

    There’s a reason why the social right keeps using the term “censorship” to describe the suspension of Duke Duck. Of course it is now clear it was nothing but a PR stunt, and of course A&E doesn’t care if people think they “caved,” because the A&E executives are laughing all the way to the bank.

    As is Duke Duck.

    Social cons have access to dictionaries. They know that what happened — even if it could be taken seriously — was not “censorship.” What they are really doing is laying the groundwork for “justifying” the use of government force to achieve their ends. They are preparing a strategy that says “Their side did it, so we should be able to do it, too.”

    If we needed any further proof that (A) social conservatives are utterly despicable and total enemies of the Constitution and of everything America has ever stood for and (B) the statist left blindly plays right into the soc cons hands — because both sides are really playing the same game — we have it here.

    A most instructive episode.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Meanwhile, right wing groups are back to calling for boycotts of things they don’t approve of. What a hilarious show. It seems to me now that Stephen was right about GLAAD but for the wrong reason. There was no hope of a constructive dialogue with this guy, but it’s clear now that GLAAD got played as the villain in this little drama. It’s hilarious because it’s hard to imagine a less effective advocacy group (well funded and connected but with no track record of accomplishments other than lavish star-studded events to their credit). People on the right have figured out how to play liberals for fun and profit. Ann Coulter built an entire career on it. It’s time to stop playing. Denouncing anti-gay bigots just makes them richer and more popular as they play the victim card for their adoring bigot fans. All we do is enable them. It’s a waste of time and energy when there are more moderate people who could become allies with a little education/information/outreach.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        People on the right have figured out how to play liberals for fun and profit. Ann Coulter built an entire career on it. It’s time to stop playing. Denouncing anti-gay bigots just makes them richer and more popular as they play the victim card for their adoring bigot fans. All we do is enable them. It’s a waste of time and energy when there are more moderate people who could become allies with a little education/information/outreach.

        I think that gays and lesbians have, individually and in person, done a tremendous job of educating, informing and reaching out to our family, friends, neighbors and co-workers. The available surveys and studies suggest that knowing a gay/lesbian is the single most critical change agent for reasonable, moderate Americans.

        I continue to think that the conservative Christian crowd needs to be confronted. I think that in part, I suppose, because of the experience I’ve had (and been aware of) confronting anti-Semitism. But perhaps you are right — the ADL model of always confronting anti-Semitism does not and will not work well for us.

        A tactic we might consider is to agree with conservative Christians, in a sense, by responding to “homosexuality leads to horseforking” Christians like Phil Robertson by saying, “Yes, that is the Christian view …”, and seeing if the so-called “moderate” Christians, a group that has been notably absent from the discussion (if even existent), will actually speak up to confront the far-right anti-gay conservative Christians. If there is to be a debate among Christians about whether or not homosexuality is an abomination punishable by death, let the Christians have it.

        We can, it seems to me, take a different tack — working on issues of equality, fairness, protecting children, and so on, appealing to the reasonableness that marks the American culture.

        • posted by Lori Heine on

          They are not necessarily “moderate” Christians, Tom, they are simply Christians who disagree that six random snippets from the Bible actually condemn committed same-sex love. Some of them are quite orthodox theologically.

          They are “absent” because they are not asked to participate. They muddy the waters that the mainstream media want to keep clear.

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            They are “absent” because they are not asked to participate. They muddy the waters that the mainstream media want to keep clear.

            You are probably right. But the fact remains that anti-gay, conservative Christians are the only Christians heard in the United States, and therefore are the voice of Christianity in this country. Perhaps we should accept that, and let it go. If other Christians don’t like that, then let them raise their voices and demand to be heard.

            Straightening out Christian theology is not our fight. Equality under the law is.

  50. posted by Jorge on

    Everything according to plan. We were played. Merry Christmas!

    Nonsense! Not even the greatest powers of corporate.com America can control whether the people arm themselves with petitions, pitchforks, or garrotes. Our choices, and those of others, make a difference.

    That’s why GLAAD spoke out… and regardless of what A&E does or doesn’t do, these unexpurgated bigots won’t be able to hide any longer.

    …but it’s clear now that GLAAD got played as the villain in this little drama. It’s hilarious because it’s hard to imagine a less effective advocacy group

    Ehsh! GLAAD is GLAAD. A gay pride organization that has been shrill, myopic, and hypocritical for years, which has only recently been able to ride the rising awareness and acceptance of gay marriage and its longstanding name recognition to exercise greater clout. I would welcome it if anyone could argue differently.

    It is not GLAAD’s fault it is suddenly more influential at everything it has always been trying to do. The fault was beginning in the first place. It is a “defeat” long overdue for GLAAD. In which sense, GLAAD did get played, because the more proximate issue is that it is a timely backlash against the “increasing persecution of Christians for expressing their religious beliefs”. Oh, dear, maybe I am agreeing with you guys.

    • posted by Lori Heine on

      Jorge, if you truly believe that this is a great crusade against religious persecution, then you have indeed been played. Houndentenor is absolutely right about what’s been happening here.

      And Tom as for pro-gay Christians raising their voices and being heard, they are trying to do exactly that. When the media refuses to cooperate, there’s only so much they can do to make them louder.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        And Tom as for pro-gay Christians raising their voices and being heard, they are trying to do exactly that. When the media refuses to cooperate, there’s only so much they can do to make them louder.

        Minority Christians could do what minorities have always done when ignored by the mainstream media — work outside the mainstream media. Talk to neighbors and friends. Write letters to the local newspapers. Talk to others in their congregations. Talk to their ministers. Deploy Facebook, Twitter and other social media. In other words, create controversy, which is what the media reports.

        I don’t spend my time worrying about what Christians say and do, so I might be missing it, but I haven’t seen much evidence that minority Christians are doing any of those kinds of things when majority Christians pound the pulpits in opposition to equality.

        The only time I see any media coverage of push-back is on the rare occasion that Catholic lay groups stand up to the Bishops by staging a public protest of some sort. That does get media attention, because Catholics are supposed to be meek and obedient, standing up is out of character, and the Bishops (at least the Bishops in this area) can be counted on to stomp on it, creating controversy. But I don’t see much of anything coming from the Protestant side.

        Can you point to any significant minority Christian push-back to Robertson’s “horseforking” theories? I can’t, but then again I might be missing it because I don’t look for it.

        I think most minority Christians simply don’t care, so long as they can sit in the pews without being bothered, and get away with apologetically telling their gay and lesbian “friends” that “We aren’t all like that …”

        When I hear the “We aren’t all like that …” line from minority Christians (often enough, but usually only after I’ve raised the issue), I ask them why they don’t say something if that is the case. That makes them uncomfortable, but it doesn’t result in anything happening.

        • posted by Lori Heine on

          Tom, I happen to write frequently on the subject you claim gay-positive Christians never speak up about. Have been for years. I don’t think you need to inform me of the importance of doing that.

          I can’t answer for what Protestants do or do not do, because I’m not a Protestant. I’m an Ecumenical Catholic (independent of Rome) and a member of Dignity, who is also loosely affiliated with the Episcopal Church. Protestantism is such a mess that I don’t think I can answer for it.

          I think there is actually some truth to the social conservatives’ charge that the mainstream media is hostile to Christianity — though the conclusion I draw from this does not flatter social conservatives.

          The media usually only portrays Christians who make fools of themselves and make their faith look ridiculous. Hence will Phil Robertson be a star for years to come. Unless there’s a big to-do in which somebody intelligent, like Desmond Tutu or John Shelby Spong, takes a newsworthy stand, the media portray Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell, or Billy Graham’s bratty kid, as typical representatives of the entire faith.

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            The media usually only portrays Christians who make fools of themselves and make their faith look ridiculous. Hence will Phil Robertson be a star for years to come. Unless there’s a big to-do in which somebody intelligent, like Desmond Tutu or John Shelby Spong, takes a newsworthy stand, the media portray Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell, or Billy Graham’s bratty kid, as typical representatives of the entire faith.

            Yup. The media reports on Christians who are speaking out and speaking up about controversial issues. The Christians who don’t speak out or speak up aren’t covered. That’s the nature of the media.

            I’m not sure that I agree about the media’s portrayals of the far-right conservative Christians as “typical representatives of the entire faith”. I think that the impression is given, to be sure, but that it ‘s the indirect result of the coverage, which is about that group almost exclusively.

            I don’t fault the media for that, though, and certainly not on our issues.

            Anti-equality Christian denominations comprise the majority of American Christianity right now in sheer membership numbers, anyway, make a lot of noise, actively pursue so-called “citizen initiatives” that are anti-equality to the bone, dominate the politics of a major political party, and are exporting anti-gay politics to other countries.

            That’s newsworthy. I’d rather have the media throw the spotlight on them than let them sneak around in the darkness.

      • posted by Jorge on

        Jorge, if you truly believe that this is a great crusade against religious persecution, then you have indeed been played.

        I believe this is part of what Bill O’Reilly describes as a culture war. I am too tired to think of the exact words of how I interpret this particular front, so I choose to use the language of the right, because it at least recognizes the battle lines. The quotation marks were meant to signal that. Next time I’ll bold them to make sure you see them.

    • posted by Jimmy on

      “Ehsh! GLAAD is GLAAD. A gay pride organization that has been shrill, myopic, and hypocritical for years, which has only recently been able to ride the rising awareness and acceptance of gay marriage and its longstanding name recognition to exercise greater clout. I would welcome it if anyone could argue differently. ”

      GLAAD called out the anti-gay defamation, and then some stuff happened. It’s odd how you imagine things happen in a vacuum. GLAAD’s efforts over the years, and the growing acceptance of gay marriage are not mutually exclusive. How does criticism constitute persecution. Do Christians no longer have hegemony in this country? Do Christians who don’t go around defaming people feel as persecuted as those that do?

  51. posted by Jorge on

    GLAAD called out the anti-gay defamation, and then some stuff happened. It’s odd how you imagine things happen in a vacuum. GLAAD’s efforts over the years, and the growing acceptance of gay marriage are not mutually exclusive.

    Actually I believe there are causes and reasons why gay marriage has become increasingly accepted, in spite of GLAAD.

    As for the rest see my comment to Lori Heine.

    • posted by Jimmy on

      I don’t mean to suggest GLAAD is solely responsible for the changing views on gay marriage and gay rights. GLAAD is an anti-defamation organization. They have been true to their mission, like it or not. You seem to think gay people should shut up and take it. Others disagree.

      This episode has caused Americans to debate what it means to have free speech in the private sector. Can one be irresponsible with their speech and expect to face no consequences? Can you sign a contract as a brand representative and still get to publicly defame certain groups you don’t like?

      Let’s see if Robertson, and by extension, anyone at that network, does it again.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Let’s see if Robertson, and by extension, anyone at that network, does it again.

        Of course Robertson will do it again. He’s become the latest conservative Christian folk hero, another Joe the Plumber, rough-hewn but truth-speaking, standing up for the Constitution, Freedom and the American Way. The new Rosa Parks. We’ll see him standing up on political podiums all over the country for the next year, mark my words.

        • posted by Jimmy on

          “Of course Robertson will do it again.”

          What I meant to say was it remains to be seen if another instance of defamation in a public forum will be tolerated by the network. Of course, he is free to publicly espouse that brand of conservatism, but does he want to be an A&E TV star and continue to defame groups of people in the process?

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            Well, so far he’s defamed gays and lesbians, insulted African-Americans, and demeaned women, to loud applause from social conservatives and conservative Christians.

            As far as I know, he hasn’t gone after Hispanics yet, and he hasn’t opined that Catholics aren’t Christians or Mormons a cult, so I guess he has some running room for the future.

            Let’s see what happens.

    • posted by Lori Heine on

      Jorge, I believe it is a war between elites, which has been marketed to the populace as a culture war. If people mind their own damned business and behave themselves, they don’t need to “go to war” with other ordinary human beings about how they live their personal lives.

      Gay marriage is increasingly coming to be accepted because — when they’re not letting themselves get whipped up into a frenzy about one media-manufactured crisis after another — most people are essentially fair, and have a live-and-let-live philosophy.

    • posted by Lori Heine on

      I think the culture war is a manufacture of the corporate elite, half of which sides with the Right and half with the Left. Both sides toady to it.

      Most people are beginning to recognize they are being played as suckers. They’re becoming warier and more skeptical. I find this very encouraging.

      One of the main reasons gay marriage is increasingly being accepted is that more people are adopting a philosophy of live-and-let-live. They hear somebody like Duke Duck, and they think, “Why doesn’t he just mind his own damned business and behave himself?” And they are right.

      • posted by Doug on

        Additionally, after some 7+ years of same sex marriage in MA, the base which was whipped into a frenzy that same sex marriage would be the end of the world, is finding and realizing that same sex marriage has not really changed anything and are slowly realizing that once again they have been lied to.

        [EDITOR: COMMENTS CLOSED. THIS PAGE IS AT ITS LIMIT AND ADDING ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WILL CAUSE EXISTING COMMENTS TO DISAPPEAR FROM VIEW. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED.]

Comments are closed.