On Sunday, the NYC LGBT Pride March, dedicated to victims of the Orlando terror attack, prominently featured a banner that declared “Republican Hate Kills.”
As HypeLine reports, “a large group from the LGBT community led part of the parade with a banner reading ‘Republican Hate Kills’ in the wake of the Orlando night club shooting.” The mainstream and LGBT media chose to ignore this in their coverage despite the image being widely circulated on the twitterverse. But it seems Gays Against Guns was the group behind the banner.
[Direct action group Queer Nation, a dominant player on the city’s activist scene, says it was “honored to join Gays Against Guns” in the Pride march, and that “Gilbert Baker supplied the vibrant banners reading ‘Gays Against Guns’ and ‘Republican Hate Kills.’” Baker is credited as the creator of the Rainbow Flag and a member of Queer Nation. Blogger joemygod further describes Baker as “a major force with Queer Nation here in New York City.”]
A few inconvenient truths: the mass murder in Orlando was committed by a radicalized Muslim jihadist who was also a registered Democrat, and who told friends he was supporting Hillary Clinton? No matter, if the big lie serves the narrative, then it’s all good, right?
If I were a gay Republican who showed up to march, I may have just left.
Hillary Clinton marched for a few highly publicized blocks then departed. That’s fine, But the progressives who organize Pride and run the LGBT political movement have made it crystal clear that Republicans are not welcome.
That’s the message being sent to the growing number of younger Republicans and conservatives who are, like their generational cohort, gay friendly. As I’ve often said, the worst nightmare of LGBT progressives is a GOP that ceases to be anti-gay, and they’ll do whatever it takes to stop that from happening.
LGBT progressives’ modus operandi is to go all out to defeat pro-gay and openly gay Republicans, with any lies at their disposal, as they did when San Diego’s Carol DeMaio ran for mayor in 2012, about which James Kirchcik noted:
…a group deceptively named “Conservatives for Gay Rights Supporting Carl DeMaio for Mayor 2012”—paid for “push poll” robocalls in which DeMaio’s homosexuality was put front and center. The group also paid for pamphlets featuring pictures of DeMaio hugging another man and standing alongside a drag queen, stating, “We conservatives know that liberty means that someone can pick a partner of their choice. We commend Carl on his conservative policies and exercising his liberties.”
Not until after the election—ultimately won by former Democratic Congressman Bob Filner, who resigned last August facing multiple accusations of sexual harassment—was it revealed that Democratic supporters of Filner had funded the shadowy group.
During the campaign, DeMaio, then a San Diego city council member, was greeted with boos while marching in the city’s gay pride celebration with his partner—a common occurrence for GOP candidates and officeholders who attend pride events that aren’t organized and hosted by gay Republicans.
And even worse were the now-verified slanders against DeMaio when he ran for Congress in 2014, which a court found “definitely played a role” in DeMaio’s defeat.
Meanwhile, South Carolina has elected its first openly gay legislator, a Republican who says the party in his conservative, southern state is growing more inclusive.
Oh, the pain that this must be causing LGBT progressives.
More. Via Jihadwatch: Islamic State throws four gay men off rooftop, taunts gays with photos of murders bearing #LoveWins hashtag. Gay Pride celebrators ignore the threat of jihadists and blame Republicans. (warning: graphic photo).
Furthermore. An example of inclusive pride. An email I received says, “Join the DC Log Cabin Republicans for our end of Pride Month Social. … We encourage our members and supporters to bring friends to this event—conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, gay,straight, transgendered, or bi—because tonight we celebrate LGBT PRIDE and how together we make advancements for our community as a whole.”
Imagine if they had, instead, said “Democrat Hate Kills.”
Parting observation. No, the fact that QN and the march organizers who gave it prominence framed their “Republican Hate Kills” message, if you did some digging into background, as a critique of those who defend Second Amendment rights is a rather thin reed to legitimatize the banner. Despite the pretext, the message came through loud and clear, and it was received as intended.
On the matter of guns, Scott Adams has a pertinent observation on Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA:
On average, Democrats (that’s my team) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime. On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense. … So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles.
Indeed. And check out David Kopel’s The history of LGBT gun-rights litigation, on “the past and present of gay rights activism for the Second Amendment rights of sexual minorities and of all other Americans.”
Also, Pink Pistols besieged with new members.
Obviously, people of good faith can disagree about gun rights, but if you think opposing restrictive gun control is “hate,” then look in the mirror to see the real hater.
70 Comments for “Exclusionary Pride”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What a spew!
“A radicalized Muslim jihadist who was also a registered Democrat, and who told friends he was supporting Hillary Clinton”, indeed, as if that did anything other than point out the depth of the personal/psychological swamp in which the killer lived.
IGF is becoming increasingly unhinged.
A quiet note on Carl DeMaio. He’s now morphed himself into “a nationally recognized reformer” who is somehow or other making money raising money for an outfit called “Reform California” and working the talk show circuit. But he’s just as silent about LGBT issues as he was when he was running for office.
Along those lines, I’ll be curious to see if South Carolina’s Jason Elliott raises a peep about LGBT issues. He comes from a state House district that is so conservative that the Democrats don’t even bother to run a candidate. I somehow doubt that he’s going to be much of a change agent in South Carolina Republican circles.
posted by TJ on
I can only speak from experience with pride events in the upper Midwest.
Democrats and Republican groups are both involved in the parade and booth.
Minneapolis has very active green, libertarian, and socialist parties that are usually active in pride.
Their is quite a bit of party and political diversity, so every time some one like Stephen complains about “exclusion” , I’m get curious about how pride in Minneapolis is different then pride elsewhere
posted by TJ on
I thought that candidate Carl didn’t really want to talk about LGBT rights and hadn’t been “pro gay”.
In much of West Central Minnesota, I don’t seen much positive change from the GOP.
Minnesota has some good state policy on the books, mainly because of blue and purple voters in the twin cities and the northland.
When you move into the west central part of the state, it’s like what’s people describe in other states.
Very strong opposition to LGBT rights, very hard to build a visible community or do outreach.
posted by TJ on
sometimes I think that Stephen uses the same logic and concern for the truth as a Jack Chick comic book.
posted by Kosh III on
” is to go all out to defeat pro-gay and openly gay Republicans,”
An easy task as those are as scarce as hens teeth.
But there are tons of gay-bashing Republicans: Cruz and Huckabee frolic with Christian clerics who want to execute gay people, Trump vows to nullify marriage equality, the GOP Congress and state Houses keep passing laws designed to destroy our life liberty and pursuit of happiness and on and on and on.
posted by TJ on
I think that social attitudes about gay people are certainly influenced by factors such as age.
Young Republicans in Minneapolis would find the Log Cabin Republicans, probably a local pink pistols club.
A friend of mine says that
posted by TJ on
…the libertarian party was leading the gay pride parade in Minneapolis. not too long ago.
Id imagine that people seeking less and more gun control had a table or booth or something at pride.
posted by Jorge on
1) Though I don’t always follow it, my instinct for avoiding trouble never fails me. I’m glad I avoided a situation in which I might have actually heckled the march (I’m not blustering–last time I actually booed during an invocation). And I was wearing my rainbow-colored bracelet at the time, too.
2) I see no evidence that the parade was led by that banner. Since the march was grand marshaled by Pulse’s founder (co-founder?) we’ll see about that one!
Whether or not the banner “led” the parade or was stuck in the middle somewhere is actually pretty important. LGBT events always have a radical element attending or participating in them, and they certainly have a partisan element that one must be vigilant against. So it is no surprise that such a banner would appear. Moreover, it’s only been a few years since the St. Patrick’s Day Parade’s organizers lifted the ban on gay groups; for the longest time their rationale was that they didn’t want “political” messages in their parade. NYC simply does not have a political environment that will allow the organizers of its Pride parade to likewise exclude groups from marching because of their political or partisan views. And I doubt much of the rest of the nation does, either.
So what you are really doing, Mr. Miller, is not criticizing the NYC Pride Parade organizers for their political message, because you haven’t established that their message is what you make it out to be. Through your cherry-picking you are doing exactly what you are criticizing, stating that a certain message should be forbidden in the gay community, wherever it shall appear.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I see no evidence that the parade was led by that banner.
It wasn’t (see the parade line up from NYC Pride), nor did the “Young Conservatives” link Stephen provided suggest that was the case. In fact, a Daily News photo shows whatever group was displaying the banner to be behind another group.
It is just another example of Stephen making things up to further his spin. He does that a lot.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The “Republican Hate Kills” seems to have followed (scroll down a ways to see Sara Ray’s tweet) Gays Against Guns, a newly-formed anti-NRA advocacy group. Ray’s tweet indicates that the “Republican Hate Kills” group was chanting “NRA, sashay away”, which suggests that the marchers may have been part of the “Gays Against Guns” group.
posted by TJ on
1. Stephen distorts reality.
2. Stephen attacks gay Democrats for being too partisan, while trying to paint all Democrats as being in league with terrorists.
posted by Houndentenor on
I live in Texas. Please tell me how and where the GOP is becoming more inclusive down here. It’s certainly nowhere in the voting record of the legislature or in the campaigns of any politicians. Maybe there’s some outlier in a purple district somewhere that I missed? It’s delusional to claim that the GOP is less anti-gay. In fact, the party platforms at the state level in the red states are doubling down on the anti-gay and anti-trans rhetoric. I don’t know what kind of blinders one has to have on to ignore that.
posted by Houndentenor on
P.S. I live in a deep red district where no Democrat is going to get elected to anything at the state or county level. I would happily vote in the GOP primary to help elect someone who was even moderate on lbgt issues. No such person ran in 2014 or 2016. There is no one like that running as a Republican for me to vote for in the primary. Stephen and other homocons should come live in a red part of a red state if they like Republicans so much.
posted by Kosh III on
What you said; just change it from Texas to Tennessee.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
True for much of Wisconsin, too. The last moderate Republican standing, Dale Schultz, elected not to run in 2014 in the face of certain defeat in the Republican primary. Thanks to Republican efforts to gerrymander an unbreakable Republican legislative majority, I’m lucky enough to live in a district in which Democrats run and can win.
posted by Wilberforce on
It’s sad that the GOP has become so unhinged. Gone is my dad’s GOP, the party of moderate, reality based business people. Now it seems a union of far right nut jobs and money obsessed queens, people dad used to call profiteers, who only care about their portfolio.
In the olden days, you could talk to and even agree with business people. Now they only bend over backwards to please their hick voters.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As I’ve often said, the worst nightmare of LGBT progressives is a GOP that ceases to be anti-gay, and they’ll do whatever it takes to stop that from happening.
You do say this a lot. You say this so often it makes me wonder if you think that constrant repetition will make it true.
In light of the emerging platform battle, though, you might want to rethink the phrasing: “As I’ve
oftennever said, the worst nightmare ofLGBT progressivesanti-gay conservative Christians is a GOP that ceases to be anti-gay, and they’ll do whatever it takes to stop that from happening.”posted by JohnInCA on
I’ll admit, I haven’t been paying as much attention this year, but aren’t we usually inundated by “conservative” gay groups denouncing pride parades all-together because they aren’t sufficiently conservative?
That said, every pride parade I’ve gone to has had plenty of politicians in it. Almost exclusively democrat. Maybe Republicans should try a similar thing if they want to improve their image, rather then attacking those who do march.
posted by Jorge on
Well first of all you can probably count the number of Republicans in elected office in NYC on one hand.
I’m kinda with Carl Palladino (failed challenger to NY gov. Andrew Cuomo) on this one when he said it wasn’t appropriate for Cuomo to take his children to the parade. Unless you’re already strongly committed to the interests of the LGBT constituency, I don’t think a pride parade is the best place to start reaching out. You have a place where the pride parade is literally the only place gay community is, then yeah. Otherwise, start with something more mainstream.
posted by Doug on
I’d like to know why children should not be taken to a Pride Parade? I’ve scene lot’s of children at our Pride Parade, brought by both straight and LGBT parents. All seem to be having a good time.
posted by TJ on
It depends on lots of other factors, not related to being a gay pride.
It can be too hot, too many people smoking or drinking stuff.
Minneapolis pride generally puts lots of family friendly groups together, so Pflag and family equality council together.
I hear that pride in Berlin or Amsterdam is a total madhouse
posted by Jorge on
I’d like to know why children should not be taken to a Pride Parade? I’ve scene lot’s of children at our Pride Parade, brought by both straight and LGBT parents. All seem to be having a good time.
And my parents let me watch Robocop on cable when I was under 10. I still remember the scene when he shot a bullet underneath a woman’s legs through her skirt. This is not in any way meant to imply there is violent content in gay pride parades.
If you want a more blunt example, I refer you to the Onion’s article on the subject.
posted by JohnInCA on
“[…] I don’t think a pride parade is the best place to start reaching out.”
While there may be merits to “start reaching out” in different places and different ways, I think the important thing is that a politician does start reaching out.
From a quick google search of Carl Paladino, “reaching out” is something he never did. You know the guy opposed marriage as well as civil unions, called Republicans that voted for marriage a bunch of sell-outs, and a whole bunch else.
That is to say… when someone objects to Pride Parades all-together, objects to civil liberties for gay folks, doesn’t think we’re equal, why should I listen to them for advice on how to “reach out”?
posted by Jorge on
From a quick google search of Carl Paladino, “reaching out” is something he never did.
He just happened to step in it, as the media started publishing stories interviewing or quoting his gay nephew.
That is to say… when someone objects to Pride Parades all-together, objects to civil liberties for gay folks, doesn’t think we’re equal, why should I listen to them for advice on how to “reach out”?
Because you’re a Republican who opposes gay marriage, doesn’t think gays are equal, and is uncomfortable with Pride parades.
posted by Jorge on
It wasn’t (see the parade line up from NYC Pride)
(Oh, Duh! The parade is always led by the Bikes. This is not a terribly relevant observation on my part.)
In fact, a Daily News photo shows whatever group was displaying the banner to be behind another group.
Missed it. I only saw the “Gays against guns” banner.
That NRA thing certainly is an odd spin on it. Dumb, but odd. Ehhh, nothing new.
It is just another example of Stephen making things up to further his spin. He does that a lot.
You know I really gotta start reading Mr. Miller’s posts from the bottom up.
I live in Texas. Please tell me how and where the GOP is becoming more inclusive down here.
Ted Cruz. He has graduated from wicked stepmother to hypocrite.
As you know, Texas’s previous Republican candidates for president were Rick Perry and then George W. Bush, a trend line that runs away from gay inclusion.
posted by Houndentenor on
Cruz is anti-gay except for millionaires who donate to his campaign. He’s happy to take gay money but he is against any gay rights as a Senator. I’m not sure if that’s hypocrisy as much as it is being a whore.
posted by Jorge on
Hey Tom! I caught an edit on refresh!
I’m like, “This thing don’t have only 2 comments!” When I refresh and to see the correct count the last two stories are inverted. I think it made more sense the other way!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Hey Tom! I caught an edit on refresh!
By this time, the post has been rewritten/overwritten so many times that the original is unrecognizable. Typical of Stephen.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Steve, I gotta tell ya, if the GOP weren’t such anal retentive jerks when it comes to gay issues, they might have a better reception at Pride parades. At the Boston parade June 11th, a Log Cabin Republican group marched by. I never saw such glum looking participants in my life. Not smiling at all and looking from side to side while walking quickly past, they looked like they wanted to be anywhere but there. And a wall of silence from spectators went along with them. It was eerily similar to the reception that NAMBLA got when they were at the Boston parade way back when (early ’90s at the latest). And the GOP were no shows at the Portland, Maine Pride parade a week later.
posted by Lori Heine on
Lots of commenters have given lots of reasons why the Republicans are hateful. I don’t disagree that many of them are. But I do have one question.
Since it’s all that painfully obvious that they’re hateful, why was it necessary for a great, big, colorful banner to be made proclaiming this? It had to be shouted to the world because…they wouldn’t be able to figure it out for themselves?
Perhaps if the Republicans who had the guts and the decency to march in Pride parades weren’t heckled and pelted with monkey poop for being there, there might even–dare I say it–be more of them who would do such a thing.
But I’m sure a tremendous public service was done by those helpful souls who marched with the screaming banner. How else would paradegoers have been warned about the evil Republicans they might otherwise not have had the sense to beware of?
If Stephen, and a lot of other people, didn’t see crap like this, perhaps they wouldn’t get the notion that the gay left feared the GOP might become more gay-friendly.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Since it’s all that painfully obvious that they’re hateful, why was it necessary for a great, big, colorful banner to be made proclaiming this? It had to be shouted to the world because…they wouldn’t be able to figure it out for themselves?
Lori, none of us has any hard knowledge about who the marchers were or what they intended to accomplish.
The best evidence that I could find suggests that the banner was affiliated with the “Guns Against Gays” group. The evidence is: (1) the “Republican Hate Kills” group immediately followed the “Gays Against Guns” group, (2) the two banners were identical in design, (3) the “Republican Hate Kills” group chanted “Sashay away, NRA”, (4) photographs of the “Republicans Hate Gays” group appear on the “Guns Against Gays” twitter site, and (5) the 14-15 people in “Republicans Hate Gays” group, in at least one photo I found, appears to be participating in the “Gays Against Guns” die in.
What motivated that particular banner, I don’t know. Perhaps it was an obscure reverse reference to the NRA slogan “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Maybe it was something else. I just don’t know.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As an side note, Dr. James Dobson issued a more complete statement on The President Presumptive’s conversion to Christ:
Dobson’s assessment of The President Presumptive’s Damascus Moment is a bit less than full-throated than his earlier statements might have suggested.
Paula White is an odd duck even by televangelist standards. Perhaps that accounts for Dobson’s hesitation about personally confirming the conversion.
posted by Lori Heine on
I had no idea who Paula White was, so I Googled her. Yes, she is indeed different from any other televangelist I’ve ever heard of.
She’s married to Jonathan Cain, from Journey. She’s won the Rosa Parks Award. She looks like a supermodel. No wonder Dobson wouldn’t know what to think of her.
I still know absolutely nothing about what she preaches–if she’s the typical anti-gay crusader or something else. The only really rah-rah evangelical preacher I know of who’s openly supportive of us is Jay Bakker–son of Jim and Tammy Faye–who’s got a couple of megachurches called Revolution Church. If he ever endorsed Trump, a whole lot of people would have heart attacks.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If Stephen, and a lot of other people, didn’t see crap like this, perhaps they wouldn’t get the notion that the gay left feared the GOP might become more gay-friendly.
“As I’ve often said, the worst nightmare of LGBT progressives is a GOP that ceases to be anti-gay …” is just a StephenWorld™ formulaic rhetorical device. Years back, Stephen would drag out the formula and commentators would respond, debunking it. Nobody bothers anymore.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
On a positive note, LGBTrump is hosting a “Shoot Back” party at the convention. It sounds like, finally, somebody in the homocon community is ready to fight a little bit.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And beyond cool is this “We Shoot Back” T-shirt is being sold as party swag by none other than Milo Yiannopoulos Merchandise. You can also get it in hoodie, long-sleeve and wife-beater styles.
posted by Lori Heine on
Well, I must say that I don’t find “Shoot Back” events the least bit frightening. I’m actually quite familiar with them. As a member of Pink Pistols, I can attest that they’re happening all over the country.
I myself am going to an (unofficial) Shoot Back event this Friday. I’m bringing my S&W .357 magnum and getting in some target practice. This event is not hosted by the Pink Pistols, but it should be a lot of fun.
Maybe we’ll get some protesters in their hip little porkpie hats. Perhaps they’ll even make a banner! That would make the evening truly special.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t find Shoot Back frightening, either. I hope nobody does.
Shoot Back is one of the first sign of gumption and/or imagination I’ve seen out of gay conservatives in years. The party smacks of the type of political theater that Act Up used to be famous for, and I’m glad to see that kind of political theater back.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
An update on Jason Elliot, the Republican who will be elected (he is unopposed in the general election) to the South Carolina House in the ultra-conservative 22nd District. In after-election coverage, Elliot’s sexual orientation has been touted as a sign that South Carolina’s Republican Party has become more inclusive, and that may well be the case.
But FitsNews tells a more complicated story:
I don’t know whether FitsNews is reliable. I suspect so, since the story is well documented, but can’t vouch for it.
I just hope that Elliot, now that his sexual orientation is out in the open, will become a change agent within the Republican Party in South Carolina.
I can understand why he ran as something of a stealth candidate, if that is what happened, given the composition of District 22. I helped in campaigns for gay and straight Democratic pro-equality candidates as recently as 20 years ago in which the candidate’s sexual orientation and/or support for equality was kept quiet.
But, without faulting Elliot for keeping his sexual orientation on the quiet, now that he’s elected it is time for him to step up and stand up. G-d knows the Republican Party needs somebody to start standing up, and Elliot, gay and from a ultra-conservative district, is uniquely positioned to do so.
posted by Jorge on
Lori, none of us has any hard knowledge about who the marchers were or what they intended to accomplish.
It’s not necessary to psychoanalyze every single individual to predict broad patterns. I do think Lori’s reasoning supports an interpretation that the banner would have been “unnecessary” if some Republicans weren’t engaged in a (in my view nakedly political) ploy to convince gays to believe their interpretation of Pulse.
But FitsNews tells a more complicated story:
How could he have “turned out gay voters in droves with a wink and a nod” then? Never mind, local elections are weird. I can’t find much coverage on my state Senate district’s contested primary, and there is plenty of “wink-nod” going on. I don’t think any of the candidates either talked about their own families in the forum I attended or have articles about their families. You don’t that for bigger races. No, I am not implying that any of my local candidates are gay.
G-d knows the Republican Party needs somebody to start standing up, and Elliot, gay and from a ultra-conservative district, is uniquely positioned to do so.
What need is there for anyone in particular in the GOP to stand up for gay rights when we already have Ted Cruz and Donald Trump grabbing headlines doing so? Let his own constituents demand it of him. He is already in office for a reason of his own choosing; let the residents decide the reason not of his own choosing.
posted by Doug on
‘What need is there for anyone in particular in the GOP to stand up for gay rights when we already have Ted Cruz and Donald Trump grabbing headlines doing so?’
Exactly how are Ted Cruz and Donal Trump standing up for gay rights? If you believe that, I want some of whatever you are smoking.
posted by Jorge on
If you believe that, I want some of whatever you are smoking.
My cynicism? You don’t think as ruthlessly as I do on these things. You would rather win more at a higher cost.
Thus when Donald Trump says he’s gay people’s best friend against radical Islam and Ted Cruz says vocally pro-LGBT Democrats should “speak out against an ideology that calls for the murder of gays and lesbians”, I favor holding them accountable for their words, cash in on them while they’re in the news cycle, use them.
Now that they’ve said some important things, this guy Elliott has a little breathing room for a time, he can focus on something more local. He doesn’t have to rush to make a minimally appropriate statement on gay rights. Let me leave my thought on Elliott at that for now.
posted by JohnInCA on
Ted Cruz and Trump have been whining about Islam for years. That they suddenly realized that Islam has issues with gay people doesn’t make them pro-gay in the least, it just makes them opportunistic to latch onto a tragedy to push their agenda.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
More. Via Jihadwatch: Islamic State throws four gay men off rooftop, taunts gays with photos of murders bearing #LoveWins hashtag.
The “Muslims throw homosexuals off rooftops … we don’t. What’s your problem?” mantra and its endless variants is offputting in the extreme.
It is no different than the classic wife-beater mantra (“I didn’t kill you, you stupid bitch! What’s your problem?”). The wife-beater mantra doesn’t change the fact that the wife-beaters regularly beat the shit out of their wives, and the “Muslims throw homosexuals off rooftops … we don’t. What’s your problem?” mantra doesn’t change the fact that conservative Christians and their Republican political allies have spent decades working to deny gays and lesbians equality treatment under the law, and continue to do so.
The mantra would be a stroke of political genius if the mud would stick. The mantra marries Republican efforts to whip up fear and loathing about Muslims with conservative Christian efforts to whip up fear and loathing about gays and lesbians (“Satan-spawned homosexuals are unjustly attacking us again“), and it has the collateral advantage of being useful as a wedge issue between gays and lesbians, on the one hand, and the Democratic Party and its candidates, on the other). Deftly deployed (e.g. “a radicalized Muslim jihadist who was also a registered Democrat, and who told friends he was supporting Hillary Clinton“), it can even be used to suggest that Democrats and Hillary Clinton are somehow allied with ISIS.
The problem with the mantra, of course, is that most people know better. The mantra is so transparent a self-serving attempt to spin Orlando to Republican advantage that nobody is buying it except conservative Christians and their Republican political allies. Even The President Presumptive, who is no slouch when it comes to shamelessly exploiting Orlando (“Hillary Clinton can never claim to be a friend of the gay community as long as she continues to support immigration policies that bring Islamic extremists to our country.“) hasn’t gone quite that far. Yet.
Gay Pride celebrators ignore the threat of jihadists and blame Republicans.
Either you are really beginning to lose it or you are trying to get into the running for the Matt Staver Irrationality Award.
Whatever the “Republican Hate Kills” banner meant in the context of the “Gays Against Guns” contingent of the march (see numerous comments above), it is irrational to conclude that the sign affixed responsibility for the acts of ISIS. Just keep it up, Stephen. The guys in white coats, like FEMA, will be there to help.
posted by Jorge on
More.
*Rolls eyes.
They already reported on this last year when it actually happened.
If 49 people slain half a month ago in the United States hasn’t convinced people to think and vote neocon, I’m not sure what you expect from repeating a story about 4 people slain half a world away a year ago. It’s not very sensible to flail about so randomly after an unfavorable decision is made. One needs to wait, or rebut with more calculation. But I’ll give you one thing: at least this website tried to actually make an argument out of it.
It is no different than the classic wife-beater mantra (“I didn’t kill you, you stupid bitch! What’s your problem?”). . . . The mantra would be a stroke of political genius if the mud would stick.
All the party really needs to do is change it to something like, “I didn’t kill you, you most beautiful creature in the world, I’ll protect you from that big bad” and they’ll get about 1/4 of the vote. They’ll get even more if they don’t say it only when it’s in their self-interest. Instead Republicans have a rather annoying habit of talking to gays (among other minority groups) as if the history of Democratic and progressive support for gay rights never existed and gays are just sitting there waiting for Republicans to see the light.
Whatever the “Republican Hate Kills” banner meant in the context of the “Gays Against Guns” contingent of the march (see numerous comments above), it is irrational to conclude that the sign affixed responsibility for the acts of ISIS.
I think it’s perfectly rational to conclude that. The march was dedicated to the victims of Pulse. They died in a terrorist attack committed by someone who pledged allegiance to ISIS. The sign chose not to hold ISIS or radical Islamic terrorism in general responsible. Instead come to think of it I think it is possible the sign was written from a perspective that the reason for the attack was because of the attacker’s self-hated of his own homosexuality which was fed by Republican hate. It all adds up rather nicely.
Lots of things added up nicely about that attack. It’s why there are so many different opinions about it.
posted by Jorge on
Furthermore. An example of inclusive pride. An email I received says, “Join the DC Log Cabin Republicans for our end of Pride Month Social…
I am so glad there are Republican organizations that don’t think the only decent people in the United States are conservatives.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I am so glad there are Republican organizations that don’t think the only decent people in the United States are conservatives.
I’m glad, too. I wonder if anyone will invite Jared Polis.
posted by Houndentenor on
I can’t help but laugh at the addendum. While LCR is celebrating the end of Pride Month, the GOP is trying to pass an anti-gay rights bill through Congress. How about working towards making the Republican Party less hostile to gay people? Stephen’s denial about the nature of his own party would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic and if it didn’t have real-world consequences. His fantasy the that GOP would embrace gay rights if only Democrats weren’t such big meanies is delusional.
posted by Kosh III on
“They died in a terrorist attack committed by someone who pledged allegiance to ISIS. The sign chose not to hold ISIS or radical Islamic terrorism in general responsible.”
The head of the CIA said there is no credible evidence of any connection to ISIS.
Anti-gay sentiment by fundamentalist branches of Islam and Christianity undoubtedly had more influence, there’s certainly MORE anti-gay propaganda in this country than ISIS propaganda. “Kill a Queer for Christ.”
posted by Jorge on
The head of the CIA said there is no credible evidence of any connection to ISIS.
Ludicrous. The killer pledged allegiance to ISIS in one or more 911 calls. Either of the CIA needs a dictionary about what “credible evidence” means or he’s holding back on us by not telling us what the rebuttal is.
Anti-gay sentiment by fundamentalist branches of Islam and Christianity undoubtedly had more influence
Here is how rebuttal works:
1) He texted dick pics to other gay men.
2) An ex-lover of the killer claimed that he hated Puerto Ricans.
3) The killing happened on Latin night.
4) The killer told people he was not out to shoot black people and that blacks were okay with him.
I think it is reasonable to conclude that anti-Hispanic sentiment had more to do with the terror attack than anti-gay sentiment.
I also think radical Islam had more to do with it than either.
posted by Doug on
So a man that murders 49 innocent people is to be believed an honest man because he claimed something during the murders. Are you so naive as to believe that? Every criminal arrested proclaims they are not guilty.
posted by Jorge on
Absolutely. Such things are called confessions. Hearsay testimony of confession is admissible in court.
Evidence for sincerity: No conditions of coercion. Uttered in immediate temporal proximity to the crime. Your argument that every criminal arrested claims they are not guilty is first, irrelevant as this is an admission made before he was arrested, and second, irrelevant because many criminals arrested give confessions to the police before they plead not guilty. The main rebuttal to be considered is premeditation. There is other, more objective evidence of this confession’s truthfulness: Logical and consistent with known motivations of previous mass shootings. Killer is of a religion is known to be targeted by ISIS for recruitment into terrorist activity against the United States.
posted by Jorge on
I would add one more thing.
When one is arrested, one has a very strong incentive to deny or mislead as to the crime and one’s motivations for it.
What incentive does one have to lie about the reasons for an action that is more likely than not to result in one’s own death?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
No, the fact that QN and the march organizers who gave it prominence framed their “Republican Hate Kills” message, if you did some digging into background, as a critique of those who defend Second Amendment rights is a rather thin reed to legitimatize the banner.
I think you are right, Stephen. “Republican Hate Kills”, to the extent that it suggests that there is a connection between two hardened political positions (slavish devotion to the NRA’s dubious interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and hard-core anti-equality, anti-gay rhetoric and legislation), makes little or not sense. Republican’s do not slavishly pander to the NRA because Republicans hate gays and lesbians, nor do Republicans oppose LGBT equality so stridently because Republicans pander to the NRA.
Despite the pretext, the message came through loud and clear, and it was received as intended.
I suppose that it depends on what you think was “intended”, and your understanding of how it was “received”.
I don’t know anyone (other than you) who thinks that the banner was “intended” to “blame Republicans” for Islamic State atrocities.
I do know quite a few people who (whatever they many think about the banner) who believe that the constant drumbeat of hateful and violent rhetoric coming out of the anti-gay right, both political and religious, is a major contributing factor to (a) the relatively high level of violence against gays and lesbians, (b) the relatively high percentage of gay teens who commit suicide, (c) the staggeringly high percentage of homeless teens who are gay or lesbian, and (d) the disproportionate levels of depression and other mental health issues affecting gays and lesbians.
Hateful rhetoric legitimizes hateful actions. I wrote about this a decade ago, and I stand by what I wrote then:
The Republican/Christian right is not blameless, no matter how hard the spin machine tries to whip up a frenzy of anti-Muslim rhetoric to deflect attemtion from the violent and hateful words of the Republican/Christian right, the anti-equality measures they propose, and the anti-gay rhetoric they use.
The Republican/Christian rhetoric of recent years, which compares gays and lesbians to the Taliban and ISIS, is even worse than it was a few years ago, when I wrote the reflection about Rav Herschel. That latest spew, expressed in this post and the immediately preceding post, which suggests that “radicalized Muslim jihadists” and “LGBT progressives” are somehow joined in common cause, is beyond disgusting.
posted by Raymond on
I don’t know anyone (other than you) who thinks that the banner was “intended” to “blame Republicans” for Islamic State atrocities.
Wow, for real? Aside from the left-progressive echo chamber, the consensus view on twitter and the blogosphere was that the banner was absolutely meant to put the blame for the Orlando massacre on Republicans. Somehow (and how doesn’t really matter). Either Republican “hate” caused the murderer to go berserk, or maybe it was GOP protection of gun ownership, not jihadist ideology. It doesn’t really matter, it’s just Republican “hate.” Stephen is hardly an outlier in pointing this out.
And by the way, the New York Times website lists Orlando as an ISIS attack.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Also, Pink Pistols besieged with new members.
I quietly note, Stephen, as a gay who owns and uses both handguns and long guns, that ownership and use of a hand gun for personal protection (the stated purpose of Pink Pistols) is not synonymous with the NRA’s dubious interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
I can’t say that I personally know any Pink Pistols members, but I do know many gun owners — probably 90% of the people I do know — who own and use guns for hunting, personal protection and/or recreation. A handful are RNA members and a minority buy into the NRA’s political positions vis a vis unrestricted ownership and use of military grade weapons by untrained civilians.
The Pink Pistols may be locked into the NRA’s political positions. I don’t know. Lori might know whether membership in the Pink Pistols entails NRA membership. But if the Pink Pistols is nothing more than an arm of the NRA, its appeal is to a limited segment of the gun owning population, and it should be upfront about the fact.
I doubt that I’d join the Pink Pistols in any event (for me, gun ownership and use is just a fact of life, something I grew up with and continue, part of the culture, and I’m not sure that I’d be comfortable around newbies who are link gun ownership with sexual orientation and/or a political stance), but I sure as hell wouldn’t join Pink Pistols if it was locked into the NRA.
posted by TJ on
The NRA was once a mainsteam and sane gun group.
They were taken over by a group of extremists at their national convention back in the late 1960s or early 1970s.
perhaps sane people could take over the NRA
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The NRA was once a mainsteam and sane gun group.
I know. I used to be a member. The NRA used to be about firearms training and safety, responsible ownership and use, reasonable levels of government regulation, and representing the interests of sportsmen, hunters and target shooters.
No longer. Starting with an extremist takeover in the late 1970’s, it has gone increasingly off the rails, and now, under Wayne LaPierre (who has led the organization since the early 1990’s) pushes an absolutist view of the 2nd Amendment, and far right-wing politics.
I stayed longer than I should have, in retrospect.
I don’t have much hope for the NRA turning around at this point. It has gone too far down the rabbit hole.
posted by Lori Heine on
The Pink Pistols is not affiliated with the NRA. It’s a totally separate entity.
There are some PP members who also belong to the NRA, but there are others who refuse to have anything to do with it. It is viewed even by many LGBT gun owners as extremely right-wing.
posted by TJ on
1. Stephen and other Republican party supporters were not barred from the parade. Seeing a message that you disagree with, ain’t automatically exclusion.
2. Each group that marches within a gay pride parade generally gets to say what they want. I seen stuff from vegan, animal rights groups (at pride) that I disagreed with, or felt was counterproductive.
During the Iraqi War, I saw stuff from pro and anti-war groups at gay pride that I disliked. Same thing with the gay pro life group
Personally, when I do the gay pride march (with a group) its generally for PFLAG, Family Equality Council or a local gay group.
However, in a large city you probably going to have something at pride that you disagree with, dislike with or find to be counterproductive.
However, I almost always seen the log cabin gop at pride. the libertarian party almost always has a presence at pride. so…I don’t buy the exclusion argument.
Second point; I doubt that most gay people – no matter their party choice – are unaware of the existence of violent, anti-gay people.
Many gay and transgender people have been victims of such violence. Too many cases go unsolved or unreported.
Mass attacks, even killings, are also not unknown. These violent acts are almost always committed by young men with mental illness, prior history of violence and or ties to a group like the KKK Iraqi’s ISIS.
posted by TJ on
Beyond the fact that their are some modern day fundamentalist Christians who have pushed for anti-gay violence in Uganda.
Never mind the fact that killings and vigilant violence against LGBT people was tolerated by the Iraqi government, before ISIS.
Never mind the fact that Trump wants to build hotels in places where gays are executed as part of state policy.
posted by Wilberforce on
Darling, please stop complaining about liberal hostility and do something about the cruelty boiling in your own party. Thanks ever so much.
posted by Raymond on
Yes, you need to look in the mirror, as Stephen suggests. Who’s that hater staring back — it’s you, Darling.
posted by TJ on
final thoughts..
prelude – I will wait until I get all the facts concerning the shooter. However, the bar was not a “gun free zone”. Their were people — trained and not drunk — who had firearms.
1. It is nice that Stephen is allowing people to have different opinions about gun control (as long as they don’t express them at a pride parade). However, we need to have a serious and civil conversation about the issue and that is not going to happen if the NRA dictates the conversation (even to the point of banning scientific research). Who gets to decide whether or not a gun control policy or idea is too restrictive? If we use the NRA definition, then ANY rule is a bad one and (based on their logic) we should probably be forcing adults, children and pets to own guns.
2. The U.S. Supreme Court had — until recently — tended to dodge the question of whether or not the 2nd Amendment protected a person right or just a state right to have a national. guard. This is especially the case after the infamous 1930s case involving machine guns.
The recent case law on the subject is not bad (IMHO), but it does not justify banning scientific research. It also does not mean that regulations cannot exist. None of the rights in the Federal Bill of Rights exist as anarchist declarations.
If you want to run for elected office — for example — you (often) have to collect petition signatures to get on the election ballot. Now, we can certainly debate whether or not a particular set of rules are too high or low, but, their are good reasons why getting on the ballot is a bit more involved then a simple request.
posted by Raymond on
Totally wrong on the facts (why am I not surprised)? Per Florida’s concealed carry law, those with a license to carry may not carry their firearms into an establishment that serves alcohol. Pulse was, without dispute, a gun free zone.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Totally wrong on the facts (why am I not surprised)? Per Florida’s concealed carry law, those with a license to carry may not carry their firearms into an establishment that serves alcohol. Pulse was, without dispute, a gun free zone.
TJ was referring to the fact that Pulse hired off-duty police officers as security. Officer Adam Gruler, member of OPD since 2001, was working security on the night of the attack, and, according to an OPD statement engaged the killer and exchanged fire with the killer:
The Orlando Sentinel’s account:
Another Pulse security officer did not exchange fire with the killer, but was responsible for escorting roughly 80-100 patrons out a back exit through a storage area, saving their lives.
Laws in almost all states ban carry in bars. We can debate the wisdom of the ban — there is something to be said for encouraging guns in bars as a means of culling the herd, I suppose — but the laws are in place for a reason.
Personally, I can’t imagine a worse locus for untrained civilians to engage a shooter than in a dark, loud, crowded, confined environment — as Pulse was that night — particularly if the civilians have been drinking and may not exhibit proper judgement. Police have extensive training in live-fire situations, and as a rule will not engage when the probability of collateral casualties is high, unless there is absolutely no choice.
posted by Jorge on
It is nice that Stephen is allowing people to have different opinions about gun control (as long as they don’t express them at a pride parade). However, we need to have a serious and civil conversation about the issue and that is not going to happen if the NRA dictates the conversation (even to the point of banning scientific research).
Well and good.
When the White House held their last big summit on mass shootings (I believe Joe Biden was put in charge), they made a very big mistake. They ignored the NRA. Not too long after, the NRA went vocal on its absolutist position again.
The NY Daily News and some others have made another similar mistake: they’ve opposed the NRA directly and forcefully. And, Congress still does nothing that even might reduce the risk of mass shootings.
Sound contradictory? When you have an elephant in the room as big as the National Rifle Association, it’s difficult to avoid blundering into giving them control over the conversation. You ignore them and try to take the high ground, they build a tower faster than you ever could. You take them on full force, you get annihilated. You let them in the gates, they take your women and make babies.
The correct thing to do in my opinion is to use a more or less assertive diplomacy. Take concessions and use them against the NRA. The NRA says the problem is mental illness, you call them out on it and move in that direction, whether it’s about funding research or passing legislation. But you make it clear we are dealing in an unknown. You call for the proofs that the NRA has that research on guns will not answer any questions. You come to a consensus: what we know, what we don’t know, what we agree on, what we disagree on. Action can happen as a result, and progress can be measured from that action.
The result of all this song and dance is not good government, but it is a change in the balance of power. You begin to exert some influence over what the NRA actually says, you take some of their power and give it to other forces beyond either of your control.
posted by TJ on
The NRA became radicalized decades ago. A once mainstream group committed to public safety and personal responsibility, became a club for gun anarchists, whose leadership wasnt above verbal attacks on gay people.
posted by Mary on
Readers here have no idea how quickly evangelical church members are becoming pro-gay. I live in NYC and I’ve already heard of two people in my church who attended a lesbian wedding (two who are admitting to it, that is). Recently, a young woman in my church made a public profession of faith and claimed that her identity used to be in “being a gay women” but is now in being a follower of Christ. Interestingly, she didn’t say that she’s “leaving a life of sin” or something like this. She did nothing to disavow the lesbian “lifestyle.” Does anyone here agree with me that it was incredible for this woman to go before an evangelical congregation and declare herself a lesbian? This is how rapidly things are changing. I myself used to be one of the most strongly anti-equality conservatives you could meet. Now I support full LGBT equality and identify as a Log Cabin Republican.
I never expected to live to see changes like this (even the changes in my own thinking.) But they’re happening.
TJ, if he’s the same TJ that posts on Towleroad, can tell you of the exchanges he and I had on the issue of gay marriage. He once claimed I’d support it when dogs developed opposable thumbs, or something like this!
posted by Lori Heine on
Yes, Evangelicals are definitely coming to embrace us much more frequently. I graduated, 28 years ago, from a Southern Baptist university. When I came out about 10 years after that, not one of my college friends deserted me; they all stood by me. That was nearly two decades ago, and things have advanced rapidly since then.
Something like 80% of those in the Roman Catholic pews say they support us. Only the media–which is indifferent or downright hostile to all religious faith–has failed to get the memo. I’ve also found that a number of non-religious LGBT people get very hostile when I tell them that I’m a Christian. This revelation has gotten far more nastiness from them than it ever has from conservative hetero Christians.
When we hear an anti-gay Christian say something like, “I’m a Christian, so of course I believe that ‘homosexuality’ is a sin,” I’ve come to realize that the person is either abysmally ignorant of what’s happening in America these days, or else is just playing the cynical game of “let’s pretend for as long as we can, and hope enough fools will still believe us.”
Eventually, Christians will pretty much overwhelmingly realize that the six random snippets from Scripture that were, for so long, used to condemn gays actually had nothing to say about committed same-sex love whatsoever. It’s the very fact that we’re headed in that direction that has the hardened homophobes so panicked. Their adamant refusal to acknowledge what’s going on is exactly how losers behave.
I always welcome allies. And being a Christian myself, I especially rejoice when they share my faith.