Thursday, March 20, 2008

Peter LaBarbera tries to defend Sally Kern . . . and reveals more about why the comments came out of her mouth

Over two weeks after Kern's dumb comments, members of the anti-gay industry are slowly crafting a public relations defense for her.

Yesterday, it was the Thomas More Law Center. Today, it's our friend Peter LaBarbera and his group, Americans for Truth (in name only.)

Their defense is to try and turn focus on the responses Kern received regarding her comments, rather than the comments themselves.

Peter today, published a few unsavory emails that Kern allegedly received. To be honest, they are not nice.

Now I myself sent Kern a very short email asking just what sources did her information about gays and lesbians come from. And my letter represents a great number of emails by folks who decried her comments in a very respectful manner.

But of course Peter won't talk about those emails.

It is unfortunate that some folks choose to let their fingers wander on the keyboard before they calmed down from hearing Kern's comments. But you know what's more unfortunate?

Trying to make Kern into a victim.

I don't like some of the emails she received and I certainly don't think that she should receive death threats, but her comments were polarizing.

And people sending unsavory messages is what happens when polarizing comments are said. It happened in the case of the Dixie Chicks, it happened to Ann Coulter when she attacked the 9-11 widows, and it will probably happen again to someone else at another time.

What did Kern think the reaction would be? I tend to think that if her comments were about Christians, she would most likely receive the same type of vitriol.

However, the difference is that Peter and company would be trying to draw attention away from the vitriol rather than to it.

And on that note . . .

Our friend Peter also tries to lodge a serious defense of Kern's comments. The following are some his points along with my take on them:

Peter - No complete tape or transcript of the speech has been produced

My take - Unless Kern said at the end of the speech, "I'm just kidding. I really support the gay community," the fact that there was no complete tape is irrelevant. The comments on the portion produced is the reason for the anger.

Peter - Rep. Kern told AFTAH that she gave the (public) speech four times in her legislative district and never received a constituent complaint for its content.

My take - Again irrelevant. She certainly pissed off folks this time, didn't she?

Peter - Kerns told AFTAH that when she said, “I honestly think it’s the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam,” she was speaking singularly and directly to the threat of radical Islamic terrorism.

My take - She really should have indicated this in her speech and in her nonapologies about the speech. What took her so long?

Peter - Some homosexual activists are crusading to allow “men who have sex with men” (and women who have had sex with such men) to give blood – as part of their crusade for “gay rights” – despite the warnings by FDA that this would pose a “small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusion if the policy were changed

My take - This is happening where in the United States? Oh that's right. It's not. Peter is referring to a 2006 article that dealt with gay activists in South Africa. But notice how he sneaks in the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to infer how this is happening in the United States.

Peter - Homosexual activists are waging a legal/political/cultural war against the Boy Scouts of America, demanding that Scouts allow homosexual scoutmasters against their moral creed — and smearing this noble organization while seeking to cut off all government support for the Scouts nationwide.

My take - notice the phraseology behind the statement "demanding that Scouts allow homosexual scoutmasters . . ." The Boy Scouts do not allow gay scouts at all, but Peter is trying to covertly push the "gay pedophile" lie. For the record, I think the Scouts have every right to not allow gays, but they also should not have access to taxpayers' money. Some of that money comes from lgbts. You simply can't have it both ways.

Peter - Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, admitted what most of the rest of the country knew already when he said, “HIV is a gay disease”

My take - And Julian Bond of the NAACP called HIV a "black disease." Both comments were a challenge to both communities to take charge in eradicating these dieases, which is a good idea.

Peter - The GLBT “youth” movement – through organizations like GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) — promotes homosexuality, bisexual and transsexuality as harmless “identities” to young people, thus putting children at tremendous risk. The result is widening youthful experimentation with “GLBT” behaviors and a plummeting of the average “coming out” age (when people publicly declare their homosexuality): some children now are even claiming that they are “gay,” lesbian, “bi” or “transgender” before they become teenagers

My take - The GLBT "youth" movement, as Peter puts it, sprung from the fact that young people are declaring and discovering their sexual orientation. If organizations like GLSEN did not exist, this would still be happening. GLSEN exists to provide support to these youth.

Peter - homosexual activists encourage the formation of “gay-straight alliance” clubs in middle schools across the nation

My take - That's right because these children need support rather than condemnation. And according to the Equal Access Act, it's perfectly legal.

Peter - the GLBT movement promotes homosexuality and transsexuality to our nation’s very youngest students – toddlers and kindergartners included — equating homosexuality with “love” in the minds of the most impressionable, grade-school children. Meanwhile, these groups are working to break down children’s natural opposition to homosexuality and establish “gay” activists as curricular role models in the classroom, while they simultaneously work to undermine parents’ rights and ability to keep their kids away from such lessons;

My take - Peter's comments here are filled with errors and entitlements. First of all, where is the proof that "homosexuality and transexuality" is being "promoted" to kindergartners and toddlers. And if children are equating homosexuality with love, it's probably because of their home environment. You see that is the part Peter omits when he says that gays are "undermining" parents. Many of those parents are lgbt and many of the homes these children come are same-sex households. And what's the deal with that comment, "children's natual opposition to homosexuality"? What natural opposition? Since when did Peter become a medical professional as to make such a comment?

If Peter's ridiculous tirade reveals anything, it's where Kern received her information as to homosexuality being more dangerous than terrorism. Don't you recognize the same vitriol? The same incorrect notions that lgbts are somehow outsiders and every move we make to protect our families and our futures being compared to tactics of a soulless invading army?

We get mad at Kern but really it's folks like Peter and other members of the anti-gay industry who are the blame for her nonsense.

And what makes matters worse, they claim that their demonization of the lgbt community, their distortion of legitimate medical information and statements made by our leaders, their entire program of misinformation about the lgbt community is somehow ordained by their Judeo-Christian values.

But in a way, I am glad that Peter wrote this "defense." He is taking responsibility for being one of the reasons behind Kern's lies.

Whether he meant to or not.

UPDATE: And now they lie about Joe Solmonese and donating blood

Peter's nonsense about gays giving blood may come from a recent Concerned Women for America press release:

But risking lives is apparently of little consequence to Joe Solmonese, president of the "Human Rights Campaign" (HRC), the nation's largest homosexual pressure group. Solmonese recently placed politics over science, falsely declaring this commonsense public health precaution to be "discriminatory." He has called for the ban to be lifted with the wildly irresponsible claim that, "[T]here is no medical or scientific rationale for this discriminatory policy."

"Joe Solmonese's demand is incredibly reckless and selfish," said Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA). "Unfortunately, it's a common demand among his fellow extremists.

Of course this is somewhat of a distortion. The press release juxtaposes Solmonese's comments with "recent studies" that are connotated to make it seem that gays are disease-ridden.

But what the press release fails to mention is that Solmonese's statements came about because of a hearing at the Food and Drug Administration in which the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks and America’s Blood Centers all said that the ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men since 1977 should be lifted.

Solmonese was merely commenting on this testimony.

So what did the Concerned Women for America press release say about these organizations and their belief that the ban should be lifted?

Why nothing. Apparently the group was too busy trying to make Solmonese into a bad guy.

Just more proof as to why Sally Kern has the mindset that she does.