An Alleged Million Moms (Jazz Mix)

[Deliberately catty sigh]

One Million Moms, the vehemently right-wing group known for getting worked up over everything from Toys ‘R’ Us to Oreo Cookies to Chobani yogurt, is back with what could be its most obnoxious conviction yet.

This time, the group is targeting Jazz Jennings, the remarkable transgender teen who has inspired so many through her LGBT advocacy work and TLC series, “I Am Jazz.”

In two separate blog posts, one of which was titled “God doesn’t make mistakes (but humans do),” One Million Moms condemned the team behind “I Am Jazz,” arguing that the show aims “to desensitize America’s youth.”

“The show is attempting to normalize the transgender lifestyle and make it appear OK while using a young cast member to lure a young audience,” officials wrote in the blog.

(Wong)

I am of two minds about this sort of thing. “We don’t follow this group’s logic,” notes HuffPo Gay Voices Senior Editor Curtis M. Wong, “but when have they been logical?”

It is a fair question, but also one that begs recursively. To wit, we might wonder why we should bother attending the antics in this particular psychomoral cesspit when we already know they are both excrementally wrong and nearly entirely ineffective?

Why Three Is the Loneliest Number (and Pat Robertson Is Dangerous)

To the one, Curtis M. Wong of Huffington Post brings us the least surprising lede of the day:

The increasingly predictable Pat Robertson has no time for Christians who are accepting of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

To the other, before we complain about taking the new out of news, it is worth pausing to appreciate the detail:

“Watch what happens, love affairs between men and animals are going to be absolutely permitted,” he said. “Polygamy, without question, is going to be permitted, and it will be called a right.”

See, here’s the thing about polygamy: Equal protection does not specifically apply to questions of numbers. To this end, marriage equality ends sex discrimination for individuals entering a certain legal arrangement. Polygamy is a fundamentally different assertion of that legal arrangement; the same legal arguments do not necessarily apply.

Thus we would remind Mr. Robertson that the quickest road to legalized polygamy is in the context of religious freedom.

And, you know, we can only reiterate our dismay, vis à vis bestiality, that Pat Robertson would seem to disregard the question of consent in such relations. This is a problem: We should not be surprised.

____________________

Wong, Curtis M. “Pat Robertson Has No Time For Christians Who Accept Gays”. The Huffington Post. 10 August 2015.

A Note on Screeching Panicked Incoherence

“Who thinks it’s a hard decision if some faggot wants you to make them a wedding cake? Anyone struggling with that right now?”

—Pastor Steven Anderson

Yeah, so, when it comes to baiting hooks, yeah, that really did seem the quote to get you to stop, blink, and want to click the link to Curtis M. Wong’s report for Huffington Post.

And in a way, it seems one of the more difficult articles Mr. Wong has had to write, as its narrative is just a tumbling sense of, and then, and then, and then .... But we really shouldn’t blame the reporter for this; the homophobic narrative is well into its screeching panicked incoherence phase, and Pastor Anderson is one of the louder divas in the room. He hates women. He hates gays. And now he’s looking to pick fights with other Christians over who’s more Christian. And all because he can’t look himself in the mirror and admit the truth.

Here’s a tip for the office betting pool, if you have one: Reaction formation symptomatic of denial.

____________________

Image note: Pino―Detail of frame from Ergo Proxy.

Wong, Curtis M. “Arizona Pastor Steven Anderson Claims Anti-Gay Businesses Are ‘Destroying America’ By ‘Being Too Nice’ To LGBT Customers”. The Huffington Post. 12 May 2015.

A Distasteful Consideration

So I happened to mention Alan Keyes recently, which would seem to be about as big a mistake as you might imagine, but in the end it’s not that it got me to thinking. Rather, there was a reason Mr. Keyes was already on my mind, and that, of course, is about as big a mistake as you might imagine. That is to say, the less reason we have to think of Alan Keyes, the better. Meanwhile, Curtis M. Wong valiantly attempts to explain the latest stupidity for the Huffington Post:

Three-time Republican presidential hopeful Alan Keyes made a bizarre link between same-sex marriage and climate change in a fiery conference speech last month.

Keyes, who ran for president in 1996, 2000 and 2008 and also challenged Barack Obama for an Illinois Senate seat in 2004, argued that those in the “‘global climatological change movement,’ or whatever they’re calling it these days” should oppose same-sex marriage.

Like climate change, marriage equality threatens to destroy humanity, he said in statements made at the “Crimes Against Nature and the Constitution: Cultural Marxism and America’s Moral Collapse” event in Washington, D.C. on April 21, Right Wing Watch first reported.

He asked the crowd, “If we all woke up tomorrow morning and decided that our sexual preference is homosexual [and] we shall have nothing to do with the opposite sex, would you like to tell me what would happen to the human race thereafter?”

He then noted that, like climate change, “extinction might still be involved” if everyone were to be gay.

The Value of Their Values

Speaking of incoherent, sputtering rage, because, well, nobody actually was, we do have this sort of sputtering, incoherent something to either amuse or distress or merely distract us:

The Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver is behind a new online petition asking supporters to reject a potential Supreme Court decision if justices vote in favor of making it unconstitutional for states to prohibit same-sex marriage.

“The Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage,” which Staver co-authored with Deacon Keith Fournier of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia, defines marriage as “ontologically between one man and one woman” and “not based on religion or revelation alone, but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart and discernible through the exercise of reason.”

Although specifics of how the pledge will be enacted are scarce, the authors nonetheless ask supporters “to stand together to defend marriage for what it is, a bond between one man and one woman, intended for life, and open to the gift of children.”

(Wong)

Of course the specifics are scarce; they’re supposed to be when one is scratching around for straws to build a wall.

Fifteen Minutes, and Then Some

Cynicism can be difficult.

Well, okay: Cyncism can be difficult for a person with a conscience.

Not long ago there emerged in my circles a notion that bakers and florists refusing to serve gay weddings “were probably going under before”, a note that prompted a brief and general reflection at the time: “blaming the government and calling yourself a victim is one way to appeal to the fifteen minutes”, and, “It seems like almost a side note, but watch how showbiz and the fifteen minutes become so many Americans’ backup plans”. It really is a cyncial outlook, except reality keeps suggesting it; funds raised on behalf of picking a fight with gay people reinforce the notion that “a stunt like this would seem more plausible to the actors because they can reasonably hope for a crowdsourced bailout”.

That seems to be where this is all going. Over at Huffington Post, Cavan Sieczkowski reports on the fundraising response to over $840,000 given in support of an Indiana pizzeria that picked a fight, cried that they were being bullied, and shut down their business; it’s been a profitable “fifteen minutes” for the O’Connor family. And Dominique Mosbergen reports on Baronelle Stutzman, a bigot from Richland, Washington, who has collected $94,000 in donations with a similar publicity stunt.

Meanwhile, also via HuffPo, a bit of good news: At least the courts can still tell the difference.

Or, as Curtis M. Wong brings word that Marjorie Silva did not discriminate against William Jack when she refused to decorate a cake with “derogatory language and imagery”.

It is really easy to be cynical toward these stunts posing alleged acts of conscience as an appeal to crowdsourcing and the proverbial fifteen minutes of fame. To the other, we hear a lot from conservatives about “sincere beliefs”, so it’s not entirely fair to be so condemning in our assessments; after all, there remains a strong possibility that people like the O’Connors and Ms. Stutzman really are that stupid.

____________________

Image note: Detail of This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow, 6 April 2015, via Daily Kos Comics.

Sieczkowski, Cavan. “That Anti-Gay Indiana Pizzeria That Received $840,000? This ‘Pizza’ Supports The LGBT Community.” The Huffington Post. 5 April 2015.

Mosbergen, Dominique. “Supporters Raise More Than $94,000 For Florist Who Refused To Sell Flowers For Same-Sex Wedding”. The Huffington Post. 6 April 2015.

Wong, Curtis M. “Colorado’s Azucar Bakery Did Not Discriminate By Refusing To Bake Anti-Gay Cakes, Court Rules”. The Huffington Post. 6 April 2015.

Indeed Bizarre

Curtis M. Wong of Huffington Post brings us the headline, “Dan Savage Is Tied To University Of Oklahoma Racist Fraternity Scandal, FRC Pundit Claims”, and we’re just going to leave it at that, because, well, you know, it’s not that we would doubt Mr. Wong, it’s just that the lede―

The Family Research Council’s Ken Blackwell bizarrely pulled outspoken lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights advocate Dan Savage over into the racial controversy at University of Oklahoma’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity.

―is exactly accurate insofar as this really does not make any sense.

____________________

Wong, Curtis M. “Dan Savage Is Tied To University Of Oklahoma Racist Fraternity Scandal, FRC Pundit Claims”. The Huffington Post. 12 March 2015.