Sure to drive LGBT progressives to new heights of frenzy, A Fox News Contributor on Being Gay, the GOP, and Religious Liberty (via BuzzFeed). Media Matters, save us!
Guy Benson’s new book, co-authored with fellow Fox contributor Mary Katharine Ham, is End of Discussion: How the Left’s Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun). As BuzzFeed puts it:
The book will be published as the debate over religious liberty protections continues to dominate the presidential conversation around gay issues, something that Benson and Ham are aware of and tackle in the book. (The chapter of the book in which Benson comes out is titled, “Bake Me a Cake, Bigots.”)
Many conservatives have argued there must be a legal process for exemption from laws on the basis of religious belief. For his part, Benson argued that exact space between existence and participation is what has helped accelerate acceptance for marriages. The idea that same-sex couples’ marriages wouldn’t affect straight couples’ marriages was “a very effective argument that won over a lot of people,” he said.
“I’m for civil marriage, I’m for nondiscrimination laws — but I think there should be broad carve-outs for religious organizations, in particular, and narrow carve-outs for closely held businesses that serve the wedding industry,” he said.
Defending freedom of conscience and the right not to be compelled to act in ways that violate religious faith, once liberal values, now signal that you’re a reactionary.
More. Benson is interviewed by Megyn Kelly, here, and says:
I just want to acknowledge quickly that I recognize that I am so fortunate to live in a country and an era where we can be having this exact conversation on national television, and I recognize that a lot of that is due to the fact that I’m standing on the shoulders of people who worked very hard for a very long time, who probably don’t share my political persuasions. …
But I think when that crosses some threshold into punishing and purging dissenters and trying to exact punishments on people for not agreeing, that is not what we should be about in this country. I think we’re better than that in this country.
As to the charge that he’s just a Fox News lackey, during the 2012 Romney campaign Benson took social conservatives to task for opposing Romney’s appointment of an openly gay man, Richard Grenell, to be his spokesman on national security and foreign policy issues (Grenell, alas, resigned shortly afterward when Romney failed to stand up for him.).
41 Comments for “Counterculture”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“Gay rights is not something that dominates my attentions — or my passions — and that may seem incongruous, that may seem counterintuitive to a lot of people,” he said, “but the issues that I care about most undergird the reasons why I’m a conservative and have been forever and will be a conservative moving forward.”
What’s so shocking about that? We’ve known that for years.
GOProud didn’t mention marriage equality as an issue until after the 2012 election, and them promptly imploded.. LCR endorses a social conservative — pledged to support a federal constitutional amendment banning marriage equality nationwide — in 2012. Gay GOP candidates told us that marriage equality was unimportant — that tax reductions were what counted. Gay conservatives are now pounding the drum for special discrimination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone, under the guise of “religious freedom”, with respect to SSM, but won’t even discuss broadening the so-called “religious exemption” to include other kinds of marriage that might be objectionable to religionists.
We’ve been on to the game for years, Stephen, and we don’t count any of you for support.
But shocked we are not.
Sure to drive LGBT progressive to new heights of frenzy, A Fox News Contributor on Being Gay, the GOP, and Religious Liberty (via BuzzFeed). Media Matters, save us!
I think you guys live in a drama-queen bubble of your own creation.
posted by Anastasia Beaverhausen on
This is why I prefer to stay Libertarian instead of defect to the Republicrats (or the Demopublicans). The LP is consistent about wanting to get the government OUT of marriage, not just add more categories of people to official state marriage.
posted by Houndentenor on
So if the government gets out of marriage, would that make all the legal rights and responsibilities that come with legal marriage evaporate? Marriage is very much a legal matter and affects thousands of laws, not to mention contract law. You would eliminate that?
posted by Anastasia Beaverhausen on
“Marriage is very much a legal matter”
Only because the government says so. Free your mind.
“and affects thousands of laws”
You think this is a *good* thing?
Government need not – and must not – interfere in private relationships. Laws can be abolished as well as created, and the overwhelming majority (>99%) aren’t needed. I know that’s a challenge for status-quo thinkers, but I prefer freedom wherever and whenever possible. This Libertarian will never crawl to the government for a permission slip to get married.
posted by JohnInCA on
You know, I could argue the merits here. But frankly…
If you feel that strongly about the abolition of civil marriage in the United States, take it to the straights. They outnumber us somewhere between 9-1 and 99-1 (depending on your preferred statistic). So if abolition of all civil marriage is your goal? We’re the small fry.
All *we’re* asking for is equal access to an already-existent institution. And chastising us for such, when your real beef is with the other guys? That just comes across as… well, it comes across as a great many things. Very few are complimentary.
posted by Francis on
@JohninCA
I imagine you’re trying to be charitable when you say “very few”? As to Beaverhausen’s “Only because the government says so” remark, she seems to be under the delusion, disturbingly common among a number of libertarians (particularly the doctrinaire sort), that society can function in a stable manner without governance. Sorry, missy, but anarchy always leads to chaos. Pass that message along to Lauren and Smegpot, would you kindly?
posted by Doug on
Please show me in the Bible where Jesus said you should discriminate against anyone? Jesus would be horrified by the actions of many right wing evangelicals today.
posted by clayton on
Who drank the wine Jesus made from water? All the guests at the wedding. Who got to eat when He performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes? All who were present. Whom did jesus heal? Anyone who asked. There were no morals clauses, no litmus tests, and no narrow exceptions.
posted by JohnInCA on
“Many conservatives have argued there must be a legal process for exemption from laws on the basis of religious belief.”
Perhaps many conservatives have argued that, but many, many *more* argue against such laws (when it comes to gay people) existing at all.
But when they actually go to the table to argue for such exceptions, as in Utah? They largely get them.
Not surprisingly though, when you’d rather kick the table over instead of meeting at it you don’t get any of the things your apologists say you want.
posted by Jorge on
Please show me in the Bible where Jesus said you should discriminate against anyone? Jesus would be horrified by the actions of many right wing evangelicals today.
Lev–oh, wait, that’s the Holy Spirit.
There were no morals clauses, no litmus tests, and no narrow exceptions.
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”? “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”? “Go now, and sin no more”?
Jesus discriminated against the saintly class. Usually politely, sometimes not.
“A free-thinking, free citizen of a free country is not obliged to be confined to a bedazzled ideological straitjacket because that’s how they ‘ought’ to think and ‘ought’ to vote and ‘ought’ to rank their priorities,” he said. “It’s not true, it shouldn’t be true, and I think part of liberty and tolerance and coexistence is understanding that, ‘Hey, I might have something in common with this person over here, and they have every right under the sun to disagree with me on this whole panoply of public policy questions over here.’”
All well and good, and of course I agree. I’d like to keep wearing strange jewelry and doing other odd things at work.
I also think it’s important to maintain the low priorities you claim to have. If you’re a liberal to moderate on the environment, you should let the environmentalists lead every once in a while. There is a political force that allows you to be comfortable. You should monitor it every once in a while.
posted by Houndentenor on
Gay rights issues don’t have to be front and center for homocons because they sat back and let the liberals and leftists they so despise fight those battles for them. now they comfortably live in deep blue cities and enjoy the rights championed by the candidates and organizations they continue to demonize. He belongs on Fox with the rest of the idiots, hypocrites and sociopaths.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Gay rights issues don’t have to be front and center for homocons because they sat back and let the liberals and leftists they so despise fight those battles for them. now they comfortably live in deep blue cities and enjoy the rights championed by the candidates and organizations they continue to demonize.
At least Benson is awake enough to acknowledge that fact, at least somewhat:
Before he launches into the attack:
That’s something you won’t see on IGF, which is attack, attack, attack.
hadn’t heard of this guy (no pun) before yesterday, but I read a few of his articles at Townhall this morning. He’s yet another gay conservative who doesn’t much care about gay rights but goes bonzo about “coercive Left’s End of Discussion mob”, “the gay outrage machine” and “the progressive silencing brigade”, while putting just about everything except “equal means equal” on his priority list.
He and Stephen sing out of the same hymnal.
posted by Mike in Houston on
It’s the only way for them to troll for dollars… now that Americans are past the tipping point, we’re seeing the last gasps of the right-wing noise & money-making machine when it comes to LGBT rights. The pastors screaming about religious liberty know that the well is running dry… Ted Cruz knows it, why else nuzzle up to the homocon money trough? NOM’s Brian Brown has almost reached Eugene Delgado insanity in his money begs — and why he’s trolling Eastern Europe for his next gig.
This will likely be the last national cycle where LGBT equality plays a wedge role — in exactly the opposite way it played in 2004 & prior… so the hucksters like Benson are dancing as fast as they can while the getting is good.
posted by Houndentenor on
I can’t imagine much more bizarre than the now-common spectacle of a right-winger giving a press conference to complain about how he or she is being silenced. America has the loudest “silenced” people in the history of everything.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I think it has to be pointed out that this person is a political editor for Town Hall — a pretty viciously anti-gay web site that regularly pumps out dreck from Matt Barber, etc. .
I wonder why Stephen didn’t include this quote from the Kelley interview though (head exploding?!)…
Entirely consistent with the Clarence Thomas wing of the GOP — I got mine, thank you, now buzz off — but at least (grudgingly) acknowledges that the progress made that allows him to bloviate in the GOP/homocon bubble.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Lev–oh, wait, that’s the Holy Spirit.”
Someday, Jorge, Berlitz is going to publish a guide so I can translate whatever the hell you mean when you say some of the stuff you say.
You seem to be indicating that you think these people are genuine Christians. I think they’re antichrist-worshipping frauds. You say tomato, and all of that.
A rapidly dwindling minority of “Christians” are viciously anti-gay, and believe with passion that their highest calling in life is shaming and abusing LGBT people. A rapidly increasing minority believes exactly the opposite. Most people who consider themselves Christians are largely indifferent to LGBT people, but can be swayed one way or the other. Anti-gay lunatics, left to their own devices, can only drive them in the opposite direction.
Leviticus is an interesting book. I’m enrolled in an Episcopal seminary-level program, and we’re now studying it. It confirms what I remember from the Southern Baptist college from which I received my B.A., which mandated Bible study, and the studies I later did when becoming an adult catechist in the Roman Catholic Church, in that it doesn’t say a damned thing about “homosexuality.” It condemns certain sexual practices, but it condemns them in opposite-sex application as well as same-sex. No one in their right mind (who actually bothered to read it) would interpret that as condemning “heterosexuality.”
I know, Jorge…you’re a priest, or something. So you can make casual references to Leviticus, or to the Holy Spirit, and few commenters here are going to know what you’re talking about. But a few of them do demonstrate that they know, and to them, I doubt you sound especially learned.
I want to wipe the floor with the anti-gay “Christian” crowd, in the open arena of ideas. I don’t want them to be able to hang onto their false claims of theological expertise anymore. I only hope the government stays the hell out of the way and stops meddling so that can be accomplished.
posted by Lori Heine on
In the last comment, I meant to type “are going to THINK YOU know what you’re talking about.” I hate these little boxes.
Another “non” left off of “nonviolent.” Since it’s not a “real” typo, I suppose the buzzer has sounded and the game show host has told me I lost the game.
posted by Jorge on
I know, Jorge…you’re a priest, or something.
Technically I’m a heathen who copies from shamanistic women.
No, I’m not. I have already explained that was a reference to my personality.
You seem to be indicating that you think these people are genuine Christians.
I am not talking about anyone but Doug and Clayton. I find their theological reasoning to be unsound. In fact I find it rather stupid and uninformed. Their religion is their own affair.
Leviticus is an interesting book. I’m enrolled in an Episcopal seminary-level program, and we’re now studying it. . . . No one in their right mind (who actually bothered to read it) would interpret that as condemning “heterosexuality.”
And yet plenty of people in their right mind who have read the book interpret it as condemning “homosexuality.” I think it’s because the very concept of homosexuality, let alone a homosexual orientation, post-dates Leviticus.
Which is one of the reasons why I believe what God said 2000 or 3000 years ago is a little less important than what God says today. (Of course, since I do subscribe to the belief that the Bible is the living word of God, that’s not always an escape.)
posted by Clayton on
Well, Jorge, since you find my opinion son ill-informed, let me clarify a few things points and then address yours.
When I said that Jesus had no litmus test, no morals clause, and no special exceptions, I was referring to the three miracles to which I alluded, all of which have to do with providing food (the miracle of the loaves and fishes) drink (changing water to wine) and health care (healing).
Yes, he did say, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Who did he say that to? Not the woman taken in adultery. Instead he said it to those who would cast judgment upon her.
Yes, he said, “Go and sin no more,” and he said it to the woman taken in adultery, but it was said as a personal command, not as an injunction to judge others.
He also said (as you point out) “It is harder for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven.” However, I’m not sure how that’s relevant to a discussion of providing religious exemptions to the provision of services. Are you suggesting that Christian bakers and photographers should be able, in good conscience, to refuse services to people with six figure incomes and above?
My point was that when it came to issues of food, sustenance, and even celebrations, Jesus was a figure of inclusion, not a figure of exclusion, and that people who want to deny services to those they believe to be sinful could learn a lot by following the example of a man who regularly associated with lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors, and others whom mainstream society deemed undesirable, if not untouchable. Associating with them was, in fact, a part of his ministry.
posted by JohnInCA on
In the lower-right hand corner of the comment box (where you type the body of your reply) there’s a couple of diagonal lines. You can click those and drag down to make the text entry box larger.
That’s assuming, of course, that whatever platform and browser you’re viewing the site on has an interface similar to mine (Win 8, Chrome browser). But, I imagine there should be similar functionality for other platforms.
posted by Lori Heine on
Oh! I’m not seeing those lines. What I’m getting is just the box itself, but I still have regular old Google. When I switch over to Chrome (which I should have done long ago), I’ll probably be up to speed.
Thanks for the suggestion.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
[D]uring the 2012 Romney campaign Benson took social conservatives to task for opposing Romney’s appointment of an openly gay man, Richard Grenell, to be his spokesman on national security and foreign policy issues (Grenell, alas, resigned shortly afterward when Romney failed to stand up for him.).
Yup. But he didn’t object when Romney signed the NOM Pledge, agreeing to work for a federal amendment banning marriage equality nationwide, and he didn’t object to other Romney statements inconsistent with equality, apparently voted for him, and championed him after the election.
That’s his business, but he illustrates the problem I have with gay conservatives in general. Equality is always down toward the bottom of the priority list, and isn’t a voting issue for gay conservatives. Nobody puts up a fight.
posted by Jim Michaud on
It’s the battered wife syndrome. Soc cons love homocons because they know their actions won’t be challenged. The fundies can do what they want, comfortable in the fact that the GP crowd won’t say a peep. If anyone of them does find their nads and complains, they’re slapped with the dreaded RINO label and are shunned.
posted by Doug on
It’s also a classic case of internalized homophobia, based on my many years working on a gay crisis line and doing drop in counseling.
posted by William on
So, if you’re a fiscal, limited government, first-amendment conservative who supports gay marriage and legal equality — you’re a self-loather. Don’t your legs get tired with all that lockstep marching to the correct party line? But if you stopped, you might have to think things through, and maybe consider that the LGBT left isn’t right about everything. And that would be really scary.
posted by JohnInCA on
I’d be a lot more impressed if gay conservatives actually took their party to task for the party’s anti-gay positions. Vote for them, but at least express your displeasure over it, ya know?
But largely speaking, they don’t do that. Gay conservatives avoid talking about how anti-gay their party is, attack everyone else for pointing out how homophobic their party is, and act as though it’s worse to point out the homophobic thoughts and acts of their party then it is for their party to be homophobic!
So vote how you want. But you *can* vote while still being critical. You can also vote while not being an apologist.
But that’s not what gay conservatives do.
posted by Doug on
Exactly which fiscal, limited government conservative are you talking about, the ones who spent over a trillion dollars on the trumped up war in Iraq and put it on the national Visa Card and the ones who passed Medicare D, the drug benefit, and did not fund that one either. Those fiscal, limited government one also tried to make you a permanent second class citizen via a Constitutional amendment.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
–So, if you’re a fiscal, limited government, first-amendment conservative who supports gay marriage and legal equality — you’re a self-loather.
Not automatically. I do not think that anyone here has suggested that ALL LGBT people must have the same membership in same political party or else they are self-loathing.
I think that what people here have said — beyond normal partisan disagreements — is that gay Republicans and straight Republicans (who are allies) have failed to do their part within their party.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
I never watch Fox News and therefore was unfamiliar with Guy Benson. But now I’ve looked him up on YouTube and viewed several of his segments, including his interview with Megyn Kelly who fawned over him indulgently while he explained why it was important for him to come out, both then and his is book. Did he seriously think he needed to announce that he is gay? Just look at him! He’s handsome, but no one’s going to think he’s a poster boy for butch. Just listen to his voice! Just watch his facial expressions! He absolutely radiates gay, gay, gay! No need to announce it, Guy.
Then he holds out the olive branch and acknowledges that his life is profiting from the work of liberal gay activistss, saying: “So I just want to give them some credit in this.” Huh? “Some credit”? “SOME”? And who gets the rest?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I hope that this doesn’t come to anything, but the conservative Christian fringe is starting to pound the “Guy Benson should be fired …” drums. I expected it, as anyone who follows conservative Christian politics would
Let’s see if Benson’s still with Townhall by Memorial Day. I imagine that he’ll survive the storm, but Salem Media Group owns a lot of Christian radio stations and other conservative Christian outlets, and you can bet that the pressure will be on Salem.
posted by Mike in Houston on
He can then write a follow up tome: ” The Real End of Discussion: How the Christian Right’s Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun)”
He can even use his current interview quotes in the synopsis:
Then again, live by the carve outs for religious liberty, suffer sudden career death by them as well.
posted by JohnInCA on
Just remember, when gay people pressure a CEO to step down over his anti gay actions, that’s homofascist jack-booted thugs imposing undemocratic something-or-other and general badness.
When Christians pressure a company to fire a man just for being gay that’s a righteous expression of free market principles.
posted by clayton on
Stephen says that Benson’s coming out is “Sure to incite LGBT Progressives to new heights of frenzy,” but I’m unaware of any of them calling for Benson’s job.
Bryan Fisher of the American Family Association, on the other hand, is demanding that Benson be fired, claiming that to be gay and conservative is a contradiction in terms.
Any comment, Stephen?
Here’s the link: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bryan-fischer-demands-conservative-commentator-be-fired-being-gay
posted by Lori Heine on
No, it must be “self-hate,” or the “battered wife syndrome,” or something like that. Benson can’t simply disagree with “progressives” based upon principle.
No one on the left is calling for his job, because he has introduced discord on the right. This, they see as good. They can make little sense of Benson beyond that and the standard blather (self-hate, battered-wife syndrome, Uncle Tom on the plantation, etc.), but at least he is evidence of right-wing discord. Which they find entertaining, so it makes them gleeful.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Actually Lori, this progressive finds it boring and predictable behavior among the homocons.
posted by Lori Heine on
“…among the homocons.” THE homocons. The uncool girls. The kids with cooties.
I actually know quite a few gay conservatives, and–surprise!–they are individual people, who don’t all think alike.
I’m sure seventh grade was fun, but it’s over.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Lori, that’s not what I meant by “battered wife syndrome”. You know quite a few gay conservatives and they don’t all think alike. Great! Glad to hear it! Back in 2004 when the anti-SSM folk were cleaning our clocks with those vicious anti-gay marriage amendments, were your friends speaking out and fighting back, or just sitting like a bump on a log and not saying a peep? If it’s the former: yahoo! If it’s the latter: battered wife syndrome. Same with “religious freedom” laws, “turn away the gay” and a host of other soc con mischief. If your friends were MIA in all these battles, sorry but I call them as I see them.
posted by Lori Heine on
Well, I simply choose a different route. If they were “MIA” on those battles, I very frankly tell them that I think so. Then I urge them to learn from their mistakes.
Unless your real objective is to enjoy basking in your own self-righteousness, I would think that likely a more constructive approach.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Pass that message along to Lauren and Smegpot, would you kindly?”
That a total lack of “governance” is untenable? As Anastasia never said that in the first place, and Francis is a bald-faced liar, John in CA obviously has no interest in passing such a message along.
Don’t tell other people to pass on your messages, child. That’s not their job. Do it yourself. The rest of us are here to have an adult discussion.
As for “Lauren” and “Smegpot,” nothing needs to be said. I didn’t know they let ten-year-olds post comments here.
posted by Lori Heine on
Note that the aforementioned was not directed at John in CA, who did nothing to deserve being dragged into it.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Frankly, I doubt that either major party in America is always right or wrong. I doubt that most people — except very hardcore partisans — really believe that.
I tend to agree much more with the “conservative” viewpoint on the 2nd Amendment (including the recent U.S. Supreme Court cases on the subject). I also tend to have some more “conservative” viewpoints on the oil and I tend to be a bit more hawkish on foreign policy.
However, I also generally support “liberal” ideas such as Affordable Care Act , Clean Air and Water standards, raising the minimum wage, investments in science and technology, and discussing alternatives to drug prohibition.
Sometimes I have ideas that frankly are not readily supported by either party.
For example, I object to much of the discrimination imposed on Independent/third party candidates. Why the courts have not struck down harsh ballot access laws on First and 14th Amendment grounds is simply beyond me.