Leave a Comment Johan
What it takes to reframe Gallagher, Perkins et al in the media
May 19, 2011
By Adam Bink
Jeremy Hooper at Good As You makes a very fine point about the media, a point that has been bugging me since Tony Perkins had an op-ed published in the Washington Post, commenting on the rash of gay teen suicides last year. Here’s Jeremy:
When they say they want to ‘change’/'save’ us…
….believe them!
If I had to track the biggest frustration I see with our modern “culture war” conversation, I’d probably hone in on the mainstream media and larger public’s tendency to ignore the larger rhetoric that the “protect marriage” community has put on the public record. No matter how hard those of us see this stuff up close try to connect the dots for those who don’t fine-too-comb this debate, there tends to a massive mental block that exalts blinders at the expense of reality.
In Maine, the co-head of the campaign to “protect marriage” in the state posted all kinds of really extreme “ex-gay” videos to his YouTube channel. I tried so hard to get that message out there. To make the local media see how far beyond marriage Bob Emrich wants to take his mission. To make the public see how willing the same-sex marriage opponents are to overlook science. To connect the overreaching dots. It didn’t take.
[The other day] in North Carolina, there was a massive “protect marriage” rally. I dug up eleven videos of that rally’s organizer, Rev. Ron Baity, preaching against homosexuality itself in every crude way imaginable. The endgame, once again: To “save” (i.e. “convert”) the nauseating (his word) gays. I’ve contacted local media, and had a few bites. But so far, the local coverage continues to make this a two-sided, equally-merited, “agree to disagree” conversation that begins and ends at marriage. When it doesn’t end there, at least not for our organized opponents.
Or what about Maggie Gallagher herself? She gets to testify before Congress, write a syndicated column, pundit her way onto cable news, and retain the title of a conservative “marriage warrior.” But in fact, Maggie has told gays that they “can always control their behavior” — “behavior” she
admits she considers “unfortunate.” She once suggested of President Bush, via her nationally syndicated column, that “ex-gay” therapy deserves more research dollars. She admitted that she considers homosexuality to be “at a minimum, a sexual dysfunction much as impotence or infertility,” and “like infertility…a sexual disability preventing certain individuals from participating in the normal reproductive patterns of the human species.” And while speaking to her base on Catholic radio, she said that both gays and their straight supporters are “
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
” THAT GOES WAY BEYOND THE CIVIL MARRIAGE CONVERSATION!
Media outlets like the Post and Roll Call always believe they need to have an “opposite view”, even though on some issues, like gay kids killing themselves, it makes one scratch the head to wonder what the opposite “view” is, exactly. It’s not the printing of divergent views that is what is the problem, it’s giving a giant microphone to people with agendas that go way beyond what they claim to be talking about. Many people objected to Rev. Rick Warren giving the invocation at Obama’s inauguration not because they were opposed to invocations at government events but because Warren probably sold another zillion books on Amazon that week, Obama fans started appreciating his work because their favorite President does, and so forth. That’s the problem with giving microphones to people like Perkins and Warren. Another example is when ABC invited Andrew Breitbart, a proven liar and con artist who destroyed Shirley Sherrod’s life, to be an election analyst for a digital town hall (a decision they eventually regretted as they dropped him). Does it matter that Breitbart is a proven liar, Perkins tells lies that, in the words of Joe Solmonese, are life-threatening, and Warren vocally supported Prop 8 and refused to condemn the Ugandan anti-gay legislation? It should.
And for the sake of making people aware that Maggie isn’t just for “protecting marriage”, it’s important to make the media, and those who watch/listen/read it, aware of those points.
Filed under: Community/Meta,Right-wing
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
8 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
NetAmigo | May 19, 2011 at 5:25 am
I suggest stop using the language “cultural war” because it glosses over that people like Perkins and Gallagher are fighting to force their religious beliefs on everyone using the police power of the state. Their position is based upon a religious myth of human sexuality and we need to make that clear by quoting from the science of human sexuality. Thus, people do not have any real choice about their sexuality. One can believe God condemns it but that is their religious belief based upon religious mythology as they and their church interpret the Bible and nothing more. Americans have a long tradition of religious freedom and I think we need to keep reminding people that the religious right is out of step with basic American freedoms and traditions. Americans can relate to that.
2.
Sagesse | May 19, 2011 at 5:33 am
What works, apparently, is the SPLC 'hate group' designation. Once designated, the principals… gradually… become persona non grata on the op-ed pages of serious publications, and are less likely to be invited to testify before Congress. There are always others to step in for them, but those voices are muted, if not silenced.
This has happened to Tony Perkins in the last year… he is no longer published in the Washington Post, but does appear occasionally in USA Today, and of course in the Right Wing press.
I personally am gratified that NOM are taking the gloves off, and fervently hope they make the SPLC list next year, after skating by this time.
3.
NetAmigo | May 19, 2011 at 5:41 am
That is a good point Sagesse because the SPLC is generally respected. They classify Perkins' outfit as a hate group because they repudiate the science and keep insisting upon their religious mythology. They, also, use inflammatory language that reeks of prejudice.
4.
Ed Cortes | May 19, 2011 at 6:15 am
It's too bad they don't classify NOM as a hate group immediately. I think there's enough evidence that they do the same as the freakers (what I call frc) do.
5.
DaveP | May 19, 2011 at 6:51 am
Good points so far. Whenever, wherever we see articles by or about NOM, we ALL should post replies to those articles clearly stating what NOM really is and what they really want to achieve. For example:
"NOM is an extremist hate group that has a proven history of spreading ugly lies about gays and encouraging all forms of discrimination against gays. They are not simply interested in 'protecting traditional marriage' as they want you to believe, they are actively working to harm gay Americans in any way they can. They are no different from the KKK. Do not believe their lies."
6.
Nicole | May 19, 2011 at 9:39 am
Polls indicate that we're certainly winning the battle of rhetoric if for no other reason than substance alone. However, I have always felt from the start of the proposition 8 campaigns that we're not coming off nearly strong enough.
Over the years they've called us militant jihadist with an agenda to indoctrinate everyone's children with conversations of gay sex in the classroom. We've been on the defensive ever since. We're not coming out strong enough to point out this is largely a religious movement with a much larger agenda. We let them change the subject and pretend that this is all about the rights of straight couples.
In truth, this is an assault on the definition of what liberty means in America today. It means that if you're not lock in step with the church, then you don't deserve basic human rights. You can live so long as you're "Useful" to the state and meet the approval of society at large. They absolutely and unequivocally support the Uganda bill which kills gays and lesbians. We need to be ALL OVER that.
7.
Rhie | May 19, 2011 at 9:47 am
DaveP
I can definitely understand that reaction. But if you take them seriously, other people will assume that they actually have something serious to say,. I know that sounds counter-intuitive but the best thing to do is treat them with contempt. If you try to engage their arguments rationally, you give those arguments credence.
They are not the only nor are the they most powerful or influential Religious Right group in the country. The best way to deal with them is make fun of them. Ridicule them. Roll your eyes and say "Really? You're REALLY going to quote that debunked Exodus "statistic" to me? Here's some real research." whenever anyone talks to you about it.
There's a reason kings and leaders fear an acid pen more than a sword. A sword can only kill. A pen can ruin a person for all eternity.
8.
John B. | May 19, 2011 at 10:57 am
It's discouraging, but meanwhile the polls continue to move in our direction–this is the third recent poll to show a (slim) majority of Americans supporting same-sex marriage: http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=579
But it's almost amusing to see how NOM et al. react to polls showing rapidly increasing support for same sex marriage–either saying the polls are wrong or biased or that polls in general are unreliable (of course while trumpeting any that show the least support for their own position), or shamelessly mispresenting them, as they did and are still doing with the recent poll out of New York that showed that 50% of adults and 51% of registered voters are in favor of allowing gay couples to marry–even when civil unions were offered as an option! (and these were the LOWER numbers of two recent polls); NOM et al. are somehow claiming this poll as showing support for their side. They've pretty much reached the point of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying LA LA LA LA LA . So the real question is, how can we get the rest of the media to see how silly they are and expose Emperor Brian and Empress Maggie as having no clothes?
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.