Author Archives: Stephen H. Miller

GLAAD Asks for More Censorship

by on

As an early GLAAD board member in the 80s, I can say there were always two impulses within the organization: to educate the media about the importance of full, fair and inclusive portrayals of gay and lesbian lives, and to protest, boycott or even try to shut down offensive and defamatory representations. When those favoring a hard shift to focusing on identity politics within the organization and advocating the left’s political agenda took over under a “progressive” executive director and her staff, I was pushed out.

Since then, there have been many different executive leaders and the mission has varied depending on whether liberals or progressives were running the show. Currently, it looks like those favoring the silencing of speech they deem “unsafe,” which now primarily means any post questioning the new gender orthodoxy, are in command.

3 Comments

Yes, this is happening to gay kids

by on

Jordan Peterson writes:

But the radical types’ notion of gender is completely empty. “Gender is what you feel”. OK, what do you mean by “feel”? “I feel like I’m a man.” Well, how do you know, because you aren’t. Do you always feel that? “Well, sometimes I do, and sometimes I don’t. So I’m fluid.” It’s so juvenile and narcissistic that it’s almost impossible to exaggerate.
There’s a lot of confused people, and there’s certainly a lot of confused adolescents who could be enticed into narcissistic abnormality as a consequence of attention-seeking. No problem, man. Ten per cent of adolescents will line up for that, especially girls because they’re prone to psychogenic epidemics. But what’s happening now is that gay kids are being convinced they’re transsexual. Well that’s not so good for gay people, is it?
I’ve had people come to me who have uncertainty about their sexual identities. The right way to handle that therapeutically is to say, “OK, I don’t know what the hell is best for you, and clearly you don’t either because you’re confused. So let’s evaluate the whole range of possibilities before we do anything precipitous, let alone surgical.” It’s like sacrificing children to Moloch. It’s horrible, what’s happening.

5 Comments

Progressive Dismiss History in Favor of Preferred Narratives

by on

James Kirchick writes:

The role of [Frank] Kameny and other gay rights pioneers has been neglected by many historians, journalists, and cultural influencers, who prefer to locate the origins of the movement for gay equality in “a race riot against the police started by hustling transwomen of color.” They speak of the “privilege” supposedly enjoyed by Kameny and the other gay white men who dominated the pre-Stonewall gay rights movement, as if being a homosexual in mid-century America — hunted by the police, purged by the government, confined to mental institutions, and subjected to barbaric forms of medicalized torture — was a blessed way of life. That the movement’s intellectual roots are reformist and bourgeois does not suit these people’s ideological commitments or theory of history.

More.

1 Comment

Gay Marriage Isn’t at Risk

by on

In the the majority opinion, Justice Alito wrote:

“The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a “potential life,” but an abortion has that effect. … Unable to show concrete reliance on Roe and Casey themselves, the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decisions would “threaten the Court’s precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights.” Brief for United States 26 (citing Obergefell, 576 U. S. 644; Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558; Griswold, 381 U. S. 479). That is not correct for reasons we have already discussed. As even the Casey plurality recognized, “[a]bortion is a unique act” because it terminates “life or potential life.” 505 U. S., at 852; see also Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is “inherently different from marital intimacy,” “marriage,” or “procreation”). And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right.
Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

Justice Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion:

“First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.”

Justice Thomas would like to overthrow Obergefell, but he stands alone.

More.

Also, law professor and blogger Dale Carpenter writes:

“In a sense the Court is doing two things. It is saying there can be no constitutional right to take what the state regards as life or potential life, and the Court should never have second-guessed or overriden that governmental conclusion. And it is saying that even if abortion fits within a larger sphere of autonomy over one’s reproduction, the state’s interest in life or potential life is enough to justify regulation or outright prohibition.”

7 Comments