Disagreeing with the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins’ contention that “the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] had given [the FRC shooter] ‘a license to shoot’“, saying the comment “goes too far”, the National Review’s Rich Lowry reminds conservatives that
Nothing the SPLC does sanctions violence, and [the shooter]’s alleged crime is his responsibility and his alone. But the SPLC’s designation of the Family Research Council is intolerant all the same, a bullying attempt to short-circuit free debate.
It’s not as if the SPLC considers the Family Research Council mildly offensive, or barely hateful. Asked if someone addressing a Family Research Council meeting was as guilty as someone addressing an Aryan Nation rally, the SPLC’s research director said “yes.”
I agree with Lowry that the SPLC goes too far in labeling the Family Research Council a “hate group.” They may put out some pretty strange and generally inaccurate statements/opinions on gay people, but, like many groups with strange opinions, including the SPLC, they don’t advocate violence against the individuals or groups they criticize. Rich laments that it’s fortunate the outfit . . .
. . . can’t tell the difference between people who hate blacks and people who support the traditional definition of marriage. . . .
The SPLC calls the Family Research Council a “hate group.” This puts it in the same league as the True Invisible Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, the Supreme White Alliance, the Old Glory Skinheads and, of course, the American Nazi Party.
As they ask in kindergarten, which of these things isn’t like all the others?
Via Instapundit. Read the whole thing Lowry goes on to call the SPLC’s categorizing “profoundly illiberal” and suggest is purpose is to shut down discourse on gay marriage.
They’re not the only group who wants to shut down debate on this topic. If gay marriage advocates believe they have a strong case to make for state recognition of same-sex marriage, they should welcome criticism as it will afford them a better opportunity to make their case, which (they believe) is the stronger argument (than the case for traditional marriage).
A group called Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry is came out with a kickoff event in Washington, D.C., and a campaign to build backing for marriage equality among young right-of-center voters.
“Freedom to marry and family are core conservative values: We have a historic opportunity to reaffirm these important values by supporting the fundamental freedom to marry for all Americans,” said conservative pundit Margaret Hoover, a director of the group.
“The center of political gravity has shifted for good,” said Marc Solomon of Freedom to Marry, parent group to to Young Conservatives for Freedom to Marry.
U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida, speaking at the group’s launch event, said in a statement: “The right for individuals to lead their lives without government intrusion is a bedrock conservative principle and it is much more than just about sexual orientation.
“It is about the fundamental rights we all share as Americans, it is about equality for all with no exceptions.”
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/07/10/conservative-group-boosts-same-sex-marriage/
I had hoped that the gay marriage debate would be mostly about marriage’s relationship to parenthood. But it hasn’t been. Or perhaps it’s fairer to say that I and others have made that argument, and that we have largely failed to persuade. In the mind of today’s public, gay marriage is almost entirely about accepting lesbians and gay men as equal citizens. And to my deep regret, much of the opposition to gay marriage seems to stem, at least in part, from an underlying anti-gay animus. To me, a Southerner by birth whose formative moral experience was the civil rights movement, this fact is profoundly disturbing.
I had also hoped that debating gay marriage might help to lead heterosexual America to a broader and more positive recommitment to marriage as an institution. But it hasn’t happened. With each passing year, we see higher and higher levels of unwed childbearing, nonmarital cohabitation and family fragmentation among heterosexuals. Perhaps some of this can be attributed to the reconceptualization of marriage as a private ordering that is so central to the idea of gay marriage. But either way, if fighting gay marriage was going to help marriage over all, I think we’d have seen some signs of it by now.
So my intention is to try something new. Instead of fighting gay marriage, I’d like to help build new coalitions bringing together gays who want to strengthen marriage with straight people who want to do the same
How My View on Gay Marriage Changed
By DAVID BLANKENHORN
Published: June 22, 2012
David Blankenhorn is the founder of the Institute for American Values.
Dan, drawing a moral equivalence between SPLC and FRC: Very apt. The SPLC deserves it. Not all moral equivalences are bad; some can be accurate.
“can’t tell the difference between people who hate blacks and people who support the traditional definition of marriage”
The SPLC has never labelled a group a hate group for opposing same sex marriage. Not once.
From the websites
Since 1983, Family Research Council (FRC) has advanced faith, family and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview. FRC’s team of seasoned experts promotes these core values through policy research, public education on Capitol Hill and in the media, and grassroots mobilization. We review legislation, meet with policymakers, publish books and pamphlets, build coalitions, testify before Congress, and maintain a powerful presence online and in the print and broadcast media. Through our outreach to pastors, we equip churches to transform the culture.
Strategically located in Washington, D.C., FRC is the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power. FRC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization whose vision is a culture in which human life is valued, families flourish and religious liberty thrives.
And then from SPLC
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society.
Founded by civil rights lawyers Morris Dees and Joseph Levin Jr. in 1971, the SPLC is internationally known for tracking and exposing the activities of hate groups. Our innovative Teaching Tolerance program produces and distributes – free of charge – documentary films, books, lesson plans and other materials that promote tolerance and respect in our nation’s schools.
We are based in Montgomery, Ala., the birthplace of the modern civil rights movement, and have offices in Atlanta, New Orleans, Miami, Fla., and Jackson, Miss.
True Invisible Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, the Supreme White Alliance, the Old Glory Skinheads and, of course, the American Nazi Party
Really don’t think these folk have a high regard for the homos either.
rusty, funny how both groups’ web sites manage to make their activities sound better than they really are.
Web spinners do a great job.
rusty, trying to figure out what your first comments have to do with the post to which you attached them.
Just like to acknowledge folk on the right or right of center are out promoting SSM
I’m black and I oppose gay marriage. So, according to the SPLC, I’m equivalent to a member of the Aryan Nations? How stupid.
I wonder if Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry supports Kody Brown’s right to be legally, as opposed to just privately, married to four women at the same time. If not, how does the group square that omission with it’s professed commitment to “equality for all with no exceptions”?
Dan, Lowry’s article is ill-informed or grossly disingenuous. Um… how much trouble would it have been to actually look at what the group has said on the subject before writing this article? I’m sure that I’ll be accused of shilling for SLPC, but so be it. Whatever the merits of the “hate group” label, or lack thereof which can be fairly argued, their reasoning is clearly stated:
Even as some well-known anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family moderate their views, a hard core of smaller groups, most of them religiously motivated, have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities. These groups’ influence reaches far beyond what their size would suggest, because the “facts” they disseminate about homosexuality are often amplified by certain politicians, other groups and even news organizations. Of the 18 groups profiled below, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) will be listing 13 next year as hate groups (eight were previously listed), reflecting further research into their views; those are each marked with an asterisk. Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.
Now, is the SPLC correct in their assessment? Maybe, maybe not. Folks will come to different conclusions, of that I have no doubt. Yet even if SPLC is every bit as bad as some social cons want to claim it is, fine. I would suggest some of their groups, not just those singled out by SPLC, look in the mirror. What is the difference between what SPLC is supposedly doing and the reams of accusations against “gay agenda”, “perverted lifestyles”, “corrupting children and schools”, “destroying traditional marriage”, etc. that they put out daily? Lowry’s own publication of National Review has allowed this from the likes of Elaine Donnelly to Maggie Gallagher and others. Seems more than a bit hypocritical to whine about SPLC when his own house is in disorder from the ideal he wishes to pontificate about.
@11 – Based on the criterion SPLC itself has laid out for such a designation, no. Ask them though and if you like maybe they’ll bestow such a dubious honorific on you so you can wear it with pride and feed the martyr complex.
1 – I took it as rusty making the point that some conservatives are different from the FRC, for example, in favoring gay marriage. It’s an interesting concept: is it possible to be conservative, and favor gay marriage? I have long eschewed the term ‘conservative’ for myself, out of respect for my “real conservative” friends, in part because I do support gay marriage.
2 – Roughly the same idea. I took it as rusty making an indirect point: look, conservatives can be different from the FRC!
John, AGJ, I have looked at what the FRC has said on gay issues; it’s why I used the word “strange” above (and “loopy” in past posts to describe what they say about people like us.
They have made some really strange statements about gay people. Strange and, as I said above, inaccurate.
@14, “martyr complex”? Please. I don’t have a martyr complex but, in light of their histrionics about “bullying” and how the evil religious right is out to get them, it’s easy to believe that most gays do.
“I have long eschewed the term ‘conservative’ for myself, out of respect for my “real conservative” friends, in part because I do support gay marriage.” I think that’s a wise move, ILC. I guess the real question should be, can someone call himself a conservative while supporting a key component of social leftism? I think the answer is no.
I oppose leftists on all fronts: social, political, economic, religious. I believe leftists are insidious and intolerant ideologues determined to bring all of society under their dominion. They can’t allow traditionalists to have any voice in the culture. So, when I hear about the “conservative” case for gay marriage; when gay “conservatives” express contempt for traditionalists in the SAME terms social leftists use; when gay “conservatives” tell traditionalists to shut up about social issues while they continue to promote “relationship recognition”; when more and more straight “conservatives” buy into the opposing-gay-marriage-is-hate narrative; when I see all of that I can’t help but regard it as evidence of leftists’ infiltration of the right. And that’s not good.
“9.rusty, trying to figure out what your first comments have to do with the post to which you attached them.”
very little, as usual.
Whenever I read something long, out of context, spell checked I know before hand it is the usual copy paste job by rusty
16: That’s great Dan, but yet you still chose to post the biased article for obvious partisan reasons. Makes no difference to me if folks agree with Lowry and see SPLC in the same light, just that I weary of the “my side is great, your side sucks!” routine being played out once again. Lowry undercuts his own article by failing to note that by the standard he himself uses, the disparate groups arguably are guilty of the same. Yet of course, just like one would find in a liberal publication, Lowry mostly ignores FRC’s sins to focus on the perceived ones of SPLC. So it’s SPLC that’s being “intolerant” and “bullying” while FRC doing likewise is conveniently overlooked. Yeah, ok.
17: Well sweetie, looks like we’re two sides of the same coin then. Oh the horror! The irony! 🙂
Our innovative Teaching Tolerance program produces and distributes – free of charge – documentary films, books, lesson plans and other materials that promote tolerance and respect in our nation’s schools.
I always love it when lefties talk about how much they love tolerance, when what they really mean is that they only love tolerance of their own ideas and hey if you disagree with them, they might eve label you a hate group.
But I am a conservative with quite a few social conservative leanings (I am avidly pro life), but I think there is a place for recognizing gay marriage, especially when gays want marriage because they want and respect the institution not because it comes with a bag of goodies (if all they really want is the goodies then civil unions should do the trick).
The institution of marriage has been in trouble for decades, but I would love to see a society where the institution becomes important again not because the government provides tax breaks, but because the institution is good for society.
@ 21, whatevah.
Oh and btw, here’s more of the pot calling the kettle black:
In light of last week’s attempted murder of employees at the Family Research Council (FRC), we pro-family organizations ask Fox News to discontinue guest appearances by homosexual agitator Wayne Besen on the popular O’Reilly Factor TV show.
Besen has a long history of slandering conservative groups and the ex-gay community in language that foments hatred and undermines civil discourse. t is time that the O’Reilly Factor cease using Besen as a guest commentator. Providing Besen with a forum lends credibility to his pernicious tactics and enables Besen to exploit his appearances for fundraising purposes.
When Fox News provides a forum to a radical homosexual activist known for employing inflammatory and hateful language in the service of promoting lies, the network becomes complicit in the damage done to the victims of Wayne Besen’s and the SPLC’s smear campaigns.
We ask the News Corporation, Fox News, and Bill O’Reilly to find more ethical spokespersons for the liberal view of sexuality. In their infamous Washington Post ad accusing FRC of hateful values, Besen and the SPLC claim that “words have consequences.” Yes, they do. And Besen’s may lead to violence.
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1012220453.html
Every tactic they formerly criticized from the left, while quietly using themselves, this group at least has now publically embraced.
– Exploiting a tragedy to demonize your opponents while using it to fundraise? Check.
– Accuse your opponent of slander with “language that foments hatred and undermines civil discourse” all while engaging such tactics yourself? Check.
– Seeking to sideline your opponent from media exposure by calling for media outlets to ban them? Check.
– Etc.
I swear, in tactics at least both FRC and TWO are twins of each other. Yet somehow I seriously doubt that Lowry will be publishing an article at National Review taking FRC to task, which GayPatriot will then link to and comment upon. Nope, it’s all about standing with your partisan colleagues, whether you like each other or not, all while denouncing the other guys. Yep, business as usual here in the good ol’ US of A…
JohnAGJ, my point in this post was to say that SPLC and FRC are two peas in a pod, with FRC having only a slight advantage in that they don’t call their ideological adversaries “hate” groups. But, they do say some very loopy things. Very loopy.
Normally they just liken homosexuals to pedophiles, but not anymore now Dan. In the press release I linked to above FRC is among the social con groups that are clever enough not use the “hate group” label but adopt almost verbatim the same criterion SPLC uses in designating groups as being such. Mere semantics, Dan. I see no difference here, except that Lowry and National Review will never publish an article on this which GayPatriot will link to and comment on. Curious that…
John, while I don’t agree with using the left’s tactics (looks at ND30 and his shotgun) I *do* understand the urge to do so. There is some satisfaction in beating someone over the head with the same club they’ve tried to cave your skull in with.
Well, I’d argue that these social groups were using these tactics themselves before all of this but no matter. Now that they have embraced them no one from either side should be complaining about these tactics. They are now “mainstream” and by their use on both sides have become completely legitimate to further one’s agenda.
“The bottom line is people like Tony Perkins are in the industry of demonizing gay people,” he said. “The reason why Tony, Joseph Farah, the World Net Daily crowd, the extreme fringe of the conservative moment, the reason why they aren’t participating has nothing to do with policy at all, it’s because we happen to be gay. “
Chris Barron on Tony Perkins objections to GOProud @ CPAC 2/9/11
Who says that explicitly recommending violence is what makes an organization a hate group? You might be fooled by FRC’s ability to coat their homophobia and bigotry in rosier, 21st century, politically correct language, but at the end of the day, if you’re desperately associating an entire group of people with reviled and loathed perverts like pedophiles and animal-rapers, then yes, you just might be a hate group. You don’t say things like that if you have benign intentions.
That’s not to say that the FRC doesn’t have a right to say whatever they want to say. They’re a relic, and they’ll become increasingly marginalized as time goes by. They’re destroying themselves and don’t need any help to do so. That said, the government needn’t legitimize or lend credibility to their stupid arguments by continuing to discriminate against gays. Legalize gay marriage and we won’t have to put up with these bozos very much longer.
LOL.
If those were so important to you, John, why did you support and endorse Wayne Besen, TWO, and their behavior previously?
You lowered the bar and changed the rules. You supported and endorsed TWO attacking people using these tactics. You made it clear that there was a double standard and that you had no problem with TWO doing what it was doing.
You wanted “equality”, John; this is what it looks like. Now with your screaming and hollering, you’re making it clear that you lied; you never wanted “equality”, just special treatment, where you, Wayne Besen, and your fellow gay liberals at TWO could say whatever you wanted, do whatever you wanted, and never be held accountable for it.
27.John, while I don’t agree with using the left’s tactics (looks at ND30 and his shotgun) I *do* understand the urge to do so. There is some satisfaction in beating someone over the head with the same club they’ve tried to cave your skull in with.
Comment by The_Livewire — August 23, 2012 @ 2:25 pm – August 23, 2012
Better start, Livewire.
I think by now we should realize that bigots like Wayne Besen and JohnAGJ do not respect restraint, principles, or values, or govern their behavior accordingly.
They take advantage of and exploit every situation. Their only concern is power, and the only thing they respect are clubs to the head.
The difference between us and them is this, Livewire; we can restrain ourselves and in the process, demonstrate respect for restraint.
But again, it’s a Blackstaff situation. These are people who exploit our restraint and turn it against us.
Sorry, Levi, but violent bigots like yourself who encourage and support sending death threats have no credibility in this regard.
Furthermore, given how you support and endorse LGBTs faking hate crimes for political gain, everyone realizes that you really don’t care about the truth; you’re just a duplicitous liar who will say anything to get power.
Be a man and condemn these, Levi. Of course you won’t, because they illustrate the violence, bigotry, and depravity that are the characteristics of “progressives” and Obama supporters like yourself.
Actually Levi just tarred large chunks of the gay left as a ‘hate group’.
*coughHaryHaycough*
In fact… Levi’s ‘logic’ just made the entire Democrat Party a ‘hate group’. *Cough* Gerry Studds, Bobby “Sheets” Byrd. *cough*
Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.
The FRC is a “hate” group because:
1) They oppose gay marriage.
2) They don’t floss.
3) They are faith-based which is code for bigots.
4) They oppose abortion kiosks at the mall.
5) They identify evil which makes them evil-centered and therefore: hateful. If they are hateful, they must be a hate group.
6) They are insufficiently informed by moral relativism and they are stuck on stupid principle.
7) They are are an alien group of groupthinkers who think they are right about things which makes other people hate them with makes them a hate group.
The rest of the list can wait on Levi’s brilliance and clarity.
Oh sweet, NDT has shown up with his usual bile!
Let’s see…
What, no links NDT? You’re slipping. Please provide some demonstrating this, including the context where such support was allegedly given.
On the contrary, NDT, I do not want your buddies at FRC et al. to have special rights to employ these tactics quietly before this shooting and now doing so publically – all while playing the martyr. As for TWO, have at ’em if you like. Makes no difference to me. Yet if these tactics are kosher for FRC et al. to use now than they’re likewise for those groups you disagree with. Which means, of course, that most of your bitching about these groups is ipso facto now devoid of any moral standing, assuming it had any in the first place.
LOL! You are one of the last people online that many folks would find to be paragon of virtue, values or principles, let alone have any concept of restraint. Ok, I guess it’s been too long since the last time so now that we’ve insulted one another let’s move on, shall we?
Ah, but you see, JohnAGJ, your argument is akin to the Taliban attempt to invoke the Geneva Conventions to stop the United States from fighting back.
What the US has realized is that this has nothing to do with respect for moral values and standards; it’s simply desperate, duplicitous liars trying to make you hamstring yourself so they can get an easier shot.
The reason you’re squealing and bawling is because you wanted that easy shot, and you’re upset that people are no longer giving it to you.
Perhaps in your mind, NDT, the analogy is valid which doesn’t surprise me in the least. If ever they pen an addendum to Godwin’s Law, I’m quite sure it will say something along the lines of “see NDT”. You never fail to “go there” and violate the spirit, if not the letter, of that particular law. Odd for one who claims to be Christian to repeatedly fall into such error.
Project much, NDT. Cheap shots are your specialty bud, a staple of your online repertoire. That you would insinuate that FRC et al. acted more nobly beforehand is laughable at best. No, you and they have become exactly what you criticize (although really you always were just like them) or to paraphrase a saying, you have met the enemy and became them.
Anything else, NDT? I’m bored at the moment and have some time to spare, but alas have to leave you to stew on by lonesome in a bit. Make it good now…
And there you demonstrate the point, JohnAGJ; since you never once bothered to condemn these tactics when being practiced by TWO, clearly your attempts to invoke the belief systems of others is little more than an attempt to manipulate their behavior.
Perhaps we should remind folks what you and your fellows at TWO consider good behavior. That should help them get the joke of how you whine that someone isn’t a good Christian.
Likewise, I’m sure given the noticeable silence from you concerning the misadventures of FRC et al. Couldn’t quite bring yourself to violate the Bro Code, eh?.
Trouble is, I’m not part of TWO nor in fact know Besen or anyone else at that group and have never heard of this blog you link to before let alone comments about Dan. Meh, the author could learn a lesson or two from you anyways when it comes to dishing out the caustic remarks. Or are you playing the poor misunderstood saint routine tonight?
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/noms-long-and-profitable-history-of-deceit
Wrong.
I think it should be patently obvious to everyone who’s observed me that stupidity is my enemy, not political affiliation.
Which, given that you can’t bring yourself to criticize your Wayne Besen, Evan Hurst, and TWO, demonstrates that you’re quite the hypocrite by comparison.