![]() |
| Austin Ruse |
The office of Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) revoked access to a Senate meeting room for a right-wing confab planning to discuss how American social conservatives can learn from Russia's draconian crackdown on LGBT people. Among the participants slated to speak at the event was Breitbart.com columnist and notorious homophobe Austin Ruse.
BuzzFeed's J. Lester Feder reported on November 14 that Kirk - who supports marriage equality and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) -- had shut down the planned November 15 "Family Policy Lessons From Other Lands: What Should America Learn?" conference. A Kirk spokesman explained that "Sen. Kirk doesn't affiliate with groups that discriminate."
Later that day, Speaker of the House John Boehner managed to secure the room for these activists. However, I found it interesting that Austin Ruse was involved with these activists. But maybe I shouldn't have been. Three years ago, Ruse and I had a serious verbal confrontation via my blog because of a United Nations General Assembly voted to delete the terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" from a proposed anti-discrimination document.
Our back-and-forth confrontation should give you a look at Ruse's anti-gay mindset (his comments are in blue. Mine are in red):
A year ago the Holy See and the Bush
administration tried to get the General Assembly to endorse a statement
condemning precisely the kind of violence against homosexuals that you
cite. The effort was quashed by France and her allies in Europe? Why?
Because these efforts are not really about stopping violence. They are
about forcing a broad range of homosexual "rights" on traditional
peoples using the least democratic venues possible.
Austin Ruse
President
C-FAM
Your statement is a wonderment. Just how do you
"force" homosexual rights on "traditional peoples?" Austin, please get
rid of the phraseology because you aren't speaking to the choir here.
Why don't you be specific in your objections.
But Austin, you didn't answer my question. You
went through a lot of legalese and "harum," "harum," but did not defend
your original point. How does one force "homosexual rights" on
"traditional peoples?" You seem to be talking about the process here.
But when you (were) originally quoted, you were talking about the
fact that the process had to do with gays and lesbians? Is it the
process that you disagree with or the fact that through the process,
folks are seeking to protect lgbts. And if the latter is the case, you
really need to defend defining "traditional peoples" as countries who
would persecute and imprison lgbts.
When non-democratic bodies like unknown
UN committees and courts make decisions like this and then impose them
on the people, that is force. Should have made that clearer.Thought i
did.
But you didn't make it clear. . . . in
the One News Now article, you were all "how dare they try to elevate the
homosexual agenda to a global right." Don't you think you aren't being
honest?

