Gay Patriot Header Image

HRC & DNC choose silence in response to anti-Christian rhetoric

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:53 am - May 2, 2012.
Filed under: Liberal Hypocrisy,Mean-spirited leftists

In the wake of Richard Grenell’s departure, a number of conservative bloggers have faulted the Romney campaign for not defending Grenell when he was under attack from social conservatives, with Paul Mirengoff of Powerline, for example, writing that “the campaign should have stood strongly behind him.

McKay Coppins of BuzzFeed echoed that theory and expanded upon it, writing that “as the Romney camp furiously spins his departure, it seems clear that, politically, silence in response to anti-gay rhetoric may no longer be an option for either party.

But, did they need do as much?  Perhaps, campaign officials thought that by not rescinding the appointment, they indicated they were unfazed by the handful of social conservatives’ objections.  Grenell acknowledged as much thanking “Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.”  Indeed, all reports indicate that numerous campaign officials and top Republicans contacted Grenell, urging him to stay on with the campaign.

Actions do speak louder than words.

Romney aides perhaps should have made public what they had said in private to Grenell, but, were under no obligation to condemn the anti-gay statements of those opposed to the appointment.  Simply put, if you don’t follow someone’s advice, that person doesn’t speak for you.

That didn’t stop the folks from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a group which has long since endorsed Barack Obama, for attempting to hold Romney to account for the anti-gay statements of those opposed to the pick, with its President Joe Solmonese taking Obama’s opponent to task:

Not once did the Romney campaign condemn these attacks and support Grennell.

Mitt Romney capitulating to the demands of extremist anti-gay groups is nothing new.

Um, Joe, perhaps you should have checked the facts before issuing your statement. In this case, Romney didn’t capitulate to the demands of extremist anti-gay groups. Indeed, he defied them, dispatching aides and top Republicans to persuade Grenell to stay on board.

Oh, and, while I was at HRC’s site, I decided to check and see what they had to say about Dan Savage’s mean-spirited rhetoric and could find nothing. Seems silence in response to anti-Christian rhetoric is an option for HRC — and the Democratic Party.

(Now, to be fair, Savage has savaged HRC, just as those social conservatives attacked Romney.  Since they’re citing the Romney campaign’s failure to condemn these attacks, we’re citing HRC’s failure to condemn Mr. Savage’s.)



  1. Dan, seriously, I need you to e-mail me. Your response to this Dan Savage shit is really, really missing the mark.

    I’m not surprised to hear it from Bruce, but I expect better from you.

    Comment by Evan Hurst — May 2, 2012 @ 6:11 am - May 2, 2012

  2. Here is a useful link for this silly political season.

    A story that is nothing more than someone whining that a politician has been insufficient supportive or critical about a situation qualifies as a BS story.

    And since when is it a presidential candidate’s job to defend a spokesman? Isn’t that job supposed to work the other way around?

    Comment by V the K — May 2, 2012 @ 6:13 am - May 2, 2012

  3. Missing the mark, Evan? He’s engaging in name-calling. And doing so in a most mean-spirited manner.

    If you’re going to criticize me on this, please cite the particulars in my posts and elaborate appropriately.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 2, 2012 @ 6:15 am - May 2, 2012

  4. I am a conservative evangelical Christian. I appreciate the thoughtful posts here. We agree to disagree on some issues. I happen to think that homosexuality is immoral, but I also think that cohabitation is immoral. My cohabitating friends (of either sexual preference) know how I feel, but they accept me and I accept them.

    Dan Savage is wrong on so many counts. He is the epitome of a vulgar bully and should by eschewed by all. There is no better textbook example of internet hate than his campaign against candidate Rick Santorum.

    One of the lies that I found most offensive about his rant was his assertion that the Bible is pro-slavery. St. Paul’s letter to Philemon did more to end slavery in 479 words than any other. Paul, wisely understood, that if slavery was to be abolished, it would have to be done by the slave owner voluntary relinquishing the slave. Paul simply said to the slave owner, Philemon, to treat the slave, Onesimus, as he would treat Paul – as a brother in Christ. In another letter, Paul state that in Christ there is neither slave nor free. Was it successful? Mind bogglingly so. Slavery ended in Europe with the spread of Christianity. It is true that slavery raised its ugly head again a millennium later in the new world. That is an ugly stain in our history, but again it was Christian abolitionists that stamped it out. Unfortunately, even today in places where Christianity hasn’t reached, there is still slavery practiced.

    Then we have his tired shellfish arguments (early gentile Christians were dismissed from those requirements in the book of Acts), stoning (Jesus himself did away with that with his: “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”), etc. Really a poor job.

    Comment by Appreciatively — May 2, 2012 @ 7:20 am - May 2, 2012

  5. The mark B.Dan is missing is the mark of falling in line ,complying with the Collective and defending Savage because, even if he is an obnoxious, bullying hypocrite, he’s a gay obnoxious bullying hypocrite, and you’re supposed to stick up for him. Cultural identity is supposed to trump decency, B.Dan.

    Comment by V the K — May 2, 2012 @ 7:59 am - May 2, 2012

  6. My problem with Savage rests on the fact that he was billed as a lecture on anti-bullying and then proceeded to attack captive high school students from the “bully-pulpit” for what he perceived their beliefs to be. Not on the basis or a remark made by a student but from his personal biases and beliefs about Christians. Christians are no more a homogenous group than any other group of society. (See Nancy Pelosi, JohnKerry, the Kennedys, Harry Reid etc)

    Good for the students, who were completely unprepared to be bullied by the lecturer, for standing for their rights. Everyone has free speech rights but cannot force anyone to listen unless you are a captive audience like these kids. Bravo for the teacher that told themit was okay to leave. And shame shame on Savage for continuing the assault as the students. As far as I can tell, none of the students provoked the rant nor did they attempt to retort. They took the only option available for non confrontation, as Savage called them cowards for leaving.

    Conclusion: Savage is and was the cowardly bully who expects kids to accept his beliefs while he vilifies those kids who did not even state their views, he just “knows what all Christians believe”. As a side note: Muslims don’t just vilify gays, they murder them. So perhaps Islam should be the target of Savage’ s rage? Oh yeah, Christians are an easier target, cuz they won’t kill you!

    Comment by TexasMom2012 — May 2, 2012 @ 8:36 am - May 2, 2012

  7. OKAY Evan, , ,Dan Savage popped off. and he popped off in a public venue as a speaker to a very young audience. True, he said what he wanted to say but his delivery was off and offended many. But Savage has apologized.

    Sidenote, Evan there is a flutter that has circled over GP that you weren’t fair to Dan in a situation over at SN with tintin. Hope you have apologized.

    Any way, folk pop off. It happens here in the blogosphere, in public and in private conversations.

    Like this:

    Asked for GOProud’s response, the group’s chairman apologized for his comments about Cleta Mitchell. “For the past six months, we have watched as unfair and untrue attacks have been leveled against our organization, our allies, our friends and sometimes even their families. Everyone has their breaking point and clearly in my interview with Metro Weekly I had reached mine. I shouldn’t have used the language that I did to describe Cleta Mitchell and for that I apologize,” said Chris Barron.
    Still no apology to Sen. Jim DeMint or others for saying they belonged on the “island of misfit toys.” No apology either for calling Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council a “bigot.” But at least it’s a (very) belated step in the right direction. He’ll need to take a lot more steps to make up for his slander, though.

    And Grenell’s 800 (yes 800) tweets that are consider quite demeaning.

    Some folk apologize and folk roll with it.

    Like Chris Barron stated. . .everyone has their breaking point.

    Maybe DS will learn to temper his presentations and realize the importance of making sure his delivery is done with a bit of style and class. DS is not an official rep of the GAY INC. but I do value his contributions.

    Jim Burroway has this ditty:

    Savage’s apology was very specific for calling the walkouts “pansy-assed.” But he didn’t apologize for using the word “bullshit” to describe those ideas written in the Bible which, if they would have come from anywhere else, would have elicited cries of “bullshit!” should anyone ever attempt to seriously propose them today in 2012. He only described his choice of that word “regrettable.”

    It is regrettable, but only because it gives anti-gay Christians an opening (as if they really needed one) to cry foul over the larger point that Savage was making. And let’s not fall into the error of ignoring that it really is that larger point that they’re upset about, and not the dingle-dropping. He’s used worse words than “bullshit” in other contexts and didn’t lead with an entire page devoted to it. And that wasn’t the issue for the minority of students at the conference either: if you look at that video above, you’ll see that the walkout started before Savage dropped his first poo.

    The walkout started when he said he wanted to talk about the Bible.

    Comment by rusty — May 2, 2012 @ 9:05 am - May 2, 2012

  8. Dan, seriously, I need you to e-mail me.

    LOL 🙂 Evan, *you* *need* Dan to e-mail you? What for? Just say it on one of your blogs. You know perfectly well, that you want to.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 2, 2012 @ 10:16 am - May 2, 2012

  9. On “Bullsh*t” and “Pansy-A**ed”

    posted by DAN SAVAGE on SUN, APR 29, 2012 at 9:01 AM

    I would like to apologize for describing that walk out as a pansy-a**ed move. I wasn’t calling the handful of students who left pansies (2800+ students, most of them Christian, stayed and listened), just the walk-out itself. But that’s a distinction without a difference—kinda like when religious conservatives tells their gay friends that they “love the sinner, hate the sin.” They’re often shocked when their gay friends get upset because, hey, they were making a distinction between the person (lovable!) and the person’s actions (not so much!). But gay people feel insulted by “love the sinner, hate the sin” because it is insulting. Likewise, my use of “pansy-a**ed” was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

    Get it? The students who walked out were not called “Pansy-A**ed”. It was the “walk out” that was called “Pansy-A**ed” and any inference that the students and the walking-out they did are inseparable is a mistake of perception, but out of charity and wanting to get along, Dan Savage will apologize for permitting the perception to exist among the weak minded and for not making an effort at the time to clear it all up.

    But, then, Mr. Savage spirals off into a convoluted CYA thing about Christians who “love the sinner, but hate the sin” and how that is the same difference with his remarks about the action being “Pansy-A**ed” but not the actors.

    He makes it clear that the not-“Pansy-A**ed” actors in the “Pansy-A**ed” action were but a mere “handful” of 2800+ students (most of them Christian) [apparently a census was taken] who stayed and listened. Ergo, the “actors” permitted an “action” that was generally not motivating to the masses assembled, which apparently provides affirmation for the Dan Savage delivery.

    As for what I said about the Bible…

    A smart Christian friend involved politics writes: “In America today you just can’t refer, even tangentially, to someone’s religion as ‘bullsh*t.’ You should apologize for using that word.”

    I didn’t call anyone’s religion bullsh*t. I did say that there is bullsh*t—”untrue words or ideas”—in the Bible. That is being spun as an attack on Christianity. Which is bullshhh… which is untrue. I was not attacking the faith in which I was raised. I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against—and anti-bullying programs that address anti-gay bullying should be blocked (or exceptions should be made for bullying “motivated by faith”)—because it says right there in the Bible that being gay is wrong. Yet the same people who make that claim choose to ignore what the Bible has to say about a great deal else. I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy. My remarks can only be read as an attack on all Christians if you believe that all Christians are hypocrites. Which I don’t believe.

    Dan Savage posits that saying: “there is bullsh*t—’untrue words or ideas’—in the Bible” is NOT calling “anyone’s religion Bullsh*t.”

    That denial is an escape mechanism for avoiding the obligation to apologize. He clearly does not want to apologize. He clearly does not fear any Christian acting like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed with a dull knife at the throat of Danny Pearl over the niceties of respecting the Bible.

    So, we have one “apology” that was for the action caused by the actors who are not to be associated with the tenor of the action. Or something like that. Apparently, the devil made them do it, so the devil is to blame, not those who acted on what the devil tempted them with. I really don’t know. I don’t do irrational explanation easily or comfortably.

    Then we have one complete denial of culpability. Savage whines: I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against.And the Biblical imperative that “gays must be discriminated against” is…….?

    Well, go read the rest of his pathetic, convenient reading and rendering of the Bible in his “apology.” He is Cas and Serenity and Levi all rolled up into one. He tap dances, shifts, lies, ignores, pirouettes, stretches, truncates, and, yes, bullies.

    He can not be argued with because he has no intention of giving up any part of his scripted act. He is not a thinker so much as he is an ideologue who is hammering away at his chosen points of attack. When you squeeze him on one comment, he balloons out somewhere else shooting at a different target. His whole post is a game of whack-a-mole.

    What I don’t get at all is how did Seattle hold a school journalism conference where 2800+ high school assembled and permit a speaker to attack religion, any religion, and resort to the un-“manliness” of locker room talk in order to “engage” his audience?

    Does Dan Savage have so much confidence in his superiority and the righteousness of his cause that he is indifferent to the common rules of civility and courtesy? Is his notion of “tolerance” and “diversity” so warped that he must be accorded the benefit of every doubt that emboldens him?

    He reminds me of the predictable six year old at the dinner table who clearly reports the dirty word he heard at school as an obligation to truth and honor.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 2, 2012 @ 11:21 am - May 2, 2012

  10. That denial is an escape mechanism for avoiding the obligation to apologize.

    So he’s engaging in the same behavior every other public figure does these days – the non-apology apology. Must say I’m unsurprised. It’s the de facto standard now.

    Comment by Neptune — May 2, 2012 @ 11:54 am - May 2, 2012

  11. If you would like to compare Dan Savage’s non-apology to Rush Limbaugh’s apology, here is the link:

    Comment by heliotrope — May 2, 2012 @ 12:18 pm - May 2, 2012

  12. Dan, seriously, I need you to e-mail me. Your response to this Dan Savage shit is really, really missing the mark.

    I’m not surprised to hear it from Bruce, but I expect better from you.

    Comment by Evan Hurst — May 2, 2012 @ 6:11 am – May 2, 2012

    Given what you consider intelligent discussion, Evan Hurst, one seriously questions how on earth you could even define “better”.

    Oh, and remember this, Evan? You not only linked it, you, Wayne Besen, and the Truth Wins Out organization you represent said, quote, “everything he said is true, and then some”.

    Are you trying to argue that you feel differently in private? Then in that case, you’re a two-faced hypocrite.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 2, 2012 @ 3:33 pm - May 2, 2012

  13. How can you call it “anti-Christian” to condemn a selective reading of the Bible?

    That’s a serious question (in other words, I really want to know), not a rhetorical one.

    Comment by rt — May 2, 2012 @ 10:32 pm - May 2, 2012

  14. Probably because Savage himself is criticizing what he calls “selectively reading the Bible”… citing his own selective reading.

    In short, he is criticizing others for allegedly doing what he is clearly doing.

    Hence why his actions are nothing more than anti-Christian bigotry.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 2, 2012 @ 11:22 pm - May 2, 2012

  15. For a group of people that go on and on about how thin-skinned everyone else is, who lament how political correctness as some terrible thing, and who complain incessantly about identity politics, conservatives sure do flail around a lot when someone says something mildly confrontational about religion.

    Comment by Levi — May 3, 2012 @ 12:02 pm - May 3, 2012

  16. And for someone who takes offense at everything, Levi, your complaining about other people doing so makes you a hypocrite.

    That’s really all you have left, because the facts show that you truly are an antireligious bigot whose OWS movement is screaming for people to be stripped of their rights and run out of the country due to their religious beliefs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 3, 2012 @ 3:46 pm - May 3, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.