Did You Raise Your Kids Not to Kill?

 

I wanted to talk about the deaths of two children, but for a while I wasn't sure how. 

Brianna Ghey was murdered by teenagers because she was a trans girl. Nex Benedict died after an assault after a year (at least) of bullying because he was trans masc/binary. There are people who would claim that these children somehow died because of something called "gender ideology".  If some "force" didn't make them think they were trans--wouldn't they have just not stuck out and then been killed for that? 

The so-called "gender ideology" people are pissed off about is the idea that you are okay to be yourself. The gender ideology that they say is so fucking stringent and dogmatic is--let people live being what they feel they are, and don't fuck with them for it. They can express femininity or masculinity or not really identify with either. They can dress how they will and express their feelings about who they are and what they like without oppression.  How they dress, and whether they are gay or straight or ace or what they want from their one, great beautiful precious life is up to them.  

That life is theirs, and they should be able to live it to the fullest. 

And all society has to do in return is not punish them for existing as themselves. Call them by their names.  Let them live. Let them tend to their bodies as their own vehicles for living in. Just don't oppress. The same rights you would extend to anyone else and not one different thing. 

Kanye and Consequences

 

Sometimes people talk about "cancel culture" as really being "consequence culture"--you have a right to free speech, but not consequence-free speech. The picture above depicts banners unfurled over a busy highway (the 404 in LA) reading: "Honk if you know", "Kanye is right about the Jews", and "Goyim TV TV Rev. 3:9 John 8:44." They were put up there by a notorious hate group: the Goyim Defense League. They are appalling, not amusing, and they are inspired by the inane ramblings of an irresponsible man with a big bullhorn.

So, they are amplifying what Kanye said--to amplify their own message of hate. Kanye sympathized with their message, and they are showing him the exact sort of love he should have expected, because of course, other haters were going to notice.

Who else notices? People who see that banner in their community and feel a tightness in their stomachs, People who were just singled out even though they have done nothing at all--but exist. 

I don't like revisiting this so soon--but the reason a figure like Kanye loses platform or business deals is because that speech has an effect. He isn't thinking about who responds to that speech and what they do. It isn't that he's responsible for what someone else does--he's just making them feel better about their choices. He's not being edgy or controversial--it's the same hate as preached by thugs and has no edifying value. His previous accomplishments don/t elevate it--but his profile makes it more visible for recruitment by groups like the above.

Maybe it affects his bank account that he's "canceled". It's not his place of worship that has to hire security. It isn't his families' headstones being desecrated. It isn't his place of business that would be vandalized by symbols of hate or his physical safety he fears for.  And his co-optation of Jewish identity with Black Israelite conspiracy shit just feels like trolling. It feels like he's daring people to make something of it, hoping one identity camouflages that he is using the same hate that white Christians have used. 

Occurring against the backdrop of a rise in anti-Semitic sentiment and political Christian nationalism it's shocking. Seeing it celebrated by hate groups is instructive.

The House Anti-Hate Bill...Was Good?

There was some reason to consider the Anti-Hate bill as somewhat reactionary--as in, it was a reaction to D.-MN Rep. Ilhan Omar once again running a bit afoul of what is considered correct language with respects to use of anti-Semitic tropes, but it was written not with this Representative only in mind, or with anti-Semitism only in mind, but as a general resolution broadly condemning hate, which seemed quite appropriate:

How does a deliberative body serve the needs and interests of a diverse nation, where hate language proliferates even amongst them?

It was overwhelmingly passed, with all Democrats voting in the affirmative, with 23 Republicans voting "nay" and Rep. Steve King only voting "present". It did not single out Rep. Omar, nor did it single out anti-Semitism only. But the voting found 23 Republicans who were not interested in supporting this anti-hate bill.

Interesting.

Now, I have tried to hold Rep. Omar's history in perspective, in that I don't want to unfairly judge what she has said and I do recognize her perspective is different. And if a white gentile woman's advice means anything, I could counsel that she refrain from comment regarding Israel right now and listen to how others speak about it for the time being, and especially what Jewish people have to say, because allyship begins with not always leading with one's own views--but I'm sure she is getting all kinds of advice, counsel, warning, and sadly, outright threats. I'm also not interested in the tears of my fellow white privileged gentile lady, Meghan McCain. Rep. Omar is not advancing the George Soros slur that influenced the vicious bigot that killed 11 people in Squirrel Hill or endangering the nation of Israel by her words.  She is talking about lobbying on behalf of an actual country called Israel that has interests apart from US interests which need not get an immediate sign-off from US representatives when we also have stakes to consider. That is not dangerous--it's just pragmatic.

The Strange Case of Mr. Smollett

Regardless of whether you believe actor Jussie Smollett paid two men to stage a hate crime attack on him, the question on many people's minds is why he -- or anyone -- would lie about such a thing https://t.co/ujAR99aGgL pic.twitter.com/PBoP0PyIBn

— CNN (@CNN) February 22, 2019

There's something about the Jussie Smollett situation that pretty much scrapes every nerve, and even now, I find myself trying to understand why a person who is in a good position as an artist, is talented and well-liked, and who has a solid reputation for trying to do good, would engage in such a pathetic, time and emotion-wasting lie. There is a lot of real hate out there, for people of color and LGBTQ folks. There has been no shortage of examples of people who have experienced hate and violence. For someone to perpetrate a false alarm with the intention of just garnering sympathy to make himself more marketable or valuable in a salary dispute is so extraordinarily selfish it literally beggars my capacity to consider that such a nakedly selfish motive could be all there is to the story.

If anyone, anyone at all, considers the rights of victims of hate crimes or other deeply personal violence, it has to be understood that false accusations harm real victims. The biggest barrier to justice is the fear of reporting due to being disbelieved, or being accused of trying to ruin someone else's life or reputation. It places a terrible stigma on a person already injured by encouraging other people to consider "what if this terrible thing never happened?" Maybe the world isn't so terrible that people can randomly be assaulted for any reason. Maybe the victim is the problem. We can see this easily with circumstances of domestic violence or rape. Victims sometimes opt not to come forward because their reputations will be damaged, or they will face other societal or economic penalties for trying to receive justice. With hate crimes, this can also have other levels of blowback, if one suspects that law enforcement are not sympathetic to their race or orientation or gender expression. There is a risk of further oppression.

For Jussie Smollett to wave away the entirety of what the revelation of his imposture would mean to real victims, his counting on his identity to earn his sympathy, and the supposition that he would never be found out, shows an enormous ignorance or tunnel-vision about social and criminal justice. The idea that he staged this for solely monetary reasons, when the reality of his salary is already just nonsensically rich to regular folks, is as unsympathetic to consider--in much the way the plight of an actual victim of hate would seem sympathetic.

And yet--the perpetrated story of Jussie Smollett is his story, and it was told to family, friends, co-workers, fans, and the world. The love and sympathy and outpouring of affection he received, and the harshness with which people would condemn violence against people due to racism or homophobia are still good motives, even if what he did to elicit them was a lie. It is still right to stand by marginalized people because of real harms they experience, and it is still right to listen to the stories of victims because most really are true. It is still right to condemn hate and seek justice, and although Smollett's story called out MAGA hat wearing fake perps, I want one thing to be pretty clear:

The fake details were not a smear against all Trump-supporters. This was Smollett's version of verisimilitude. He was working with the reputation MAGA hat wearing people (like Cesar Sayoc) already had, in rather the same way Susan Smith blamed the death of her boys on a carjacking by black men.  He wasn't trying to make a political statement--his shit was very personal.

And what remains to be considered is whether some other issue (outside leverage or mental instability) encouraged what Smollett seems to have done. There may be a reason besides the extremely selfish for what he has done. But although the details were political, I don't see this as solely a political case. The people he hurt most were POC and LGBTQ people whose stories are now going to be met with "but Jussie". It was certainly not "MAGA country" people.

Hate is not the Heat Death of Love

This is Orlando.

This is Muslim Orlando.

This is Stonewall.

This is San Francisco.

This is my country. And terror has no dominion, and hate has no dominion, and dominionism has no dominion.

That is all.

"They are passionate."

The Leader brothers didn't need a whole lot of provocation to, first, urinate on, and then grossly assault a Latino homeless person--they were already violent jerks each with a criminal record. But it does stand out that they name-checked presidential candidate Donald Trump in their answer for why they beat this poor guy so badly:

Police said Scott Leader, 38, told them it was OK to assault the man because he was Hispanic and homeless.

“Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported,” he allegedly told the police.

(You know, I'm pretty sure they didn't ask for the man's "papers" before they started whomping on him--and I'm also pretty sure you can't really call a homeless guy sleeping on the street guilty of stealing opportunities from natural-born US citizens, anyway. Not that that seems to be the actual point of their brutality.)

It's Trump's reaction to the crime that's fascinating:

Here's what Donald Trump said when told about the alleged assault (according to the Boston Globe) at a press conference in New Hampshire: "I haven't heard about that. It would be a shame, but I haven't heard about that." Then the crowd buzzed, and Trump added: "I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate. I will say that, and everybody here has reported it."

"Passionate." "They love this country and want it to be great again." People who piss on a homeless guy and then pound him into the cement are not doing that because they love their country and want it to be great. They do it because they are sick thugs. I give Trump credit for staying on message, but he has to understand he has an awful lot of "sick thug" appeal.

I Know I've Been Here Before

Unbelievable as it seems, there has been 204 shootings in the last 204 days. That's an awful lot of pathology in our society to think about--and wouldn't you know it, a lot of people don't. But sometimes a certain glaring coincidence stares out at me during these different events--

John Russel "Rusty" Houser, aged 59, has been described as a drifter, former entrepreneur, mentally unstable, and was alleged to have engaged in domestic violence. He was also a fan of Hitler, the Tea Party, and Westboro Baptist Church.

But what stands out to me is that the guy was apparently an avowed anti-feminist, and was actually brought on tv to espouse his radical views because it was edgy and people would watch. And that might seem like entertainment, until our man decides to stand up in the middle of a feminist-themed rom com and shoot people, killing two women, and injuring nine other people. A movie where one would expect to see a number of women movie-goers?

So, he expressed anti-woman views, and then acted on them. Because those ideas were still considered in the realm of discussion. As if we can't separate violent or hateful words against women, with the idea that someone might carry through with them.

My thoughts are with the people in Louisiana and the families and loved ones of the victims. I just think someone should have had a closer eye on this angry man.

Even Hate Speech is Protected Speech

So, there was a little "Draw Muhammed" free-speech thing held by Muslim-hater Pam Geller, and featuring Geert Wilders, so, really, what could go wrong?

Uh, what one might expect if one was impressed with the furor over the Jyllands-Posten cartoons and the fatwa against Lars Wilks, or the fairly recent Charlie Hebdo massacre?  There was a shooting, but a security guard was shot non-fatally, and both the suspects were killed. And this is a shitty thing to happen, but as outcomes go, it certainly could have been worse.

You know, I had been trying to work in a Charlie Hebdo post regarding the PEN Awards abstainers. It's not that I give a fig about whether Charlie Hebdo had great satire or good cartoonists, it's just that I don't think it makes sense to slag people when several of their number actually died, having even received threats, for doing the kind of commentary they believed in and which was understood by people who "got" the joke as actually anti-racist.

I don't celebrate Pam Geller's Muhammed to-do the same way. I think she is unnecessarily incendiary in her rhetoric, and I think she provokes.

Which still doesn't mean I condone a shoot-out as the answer to her rhetoric. I deplore the kind of single-minded dope who just added legitimacy to her rhetoric, by once again highlighting how some speech is deemed punishable by death by intolerant Islamists. (And yet, I can imagine even a similar event, where the threat of a distortion of the image of Jesus might at least garner death threats. Single-mindedness in the service of faith isn't any one creed's bugbear.) But would it not be much better to let the speech go, so as not to make Geller and her coterie able to claim martyrdom-status?

I believe in free speech. I think armed assault is not free speech, but terrorism. I can excuse one, even if I disagree with it. I can not condone the other. Shoot your mouth off all you like--just not guns and bombs.

Fired/Not Fired

Reports that Bryan Fischer was "fired" from the American Family Association, as such, seem to have been a bit overblown. He's been dropped as "spokesman", but retains membership and his radio show. It's more like a shuffle of positions, really. And in the meanwhile, by not having the responsibilities of "spokesperson" per se, Fischer is freed up to really, really speak his mind as radio host.

I do kind of shudder to think he might have been holding back on us before being relieved of the onerous burden of speaking for the integrity and good will of the AFA, which, as has been pointed out numerous times by numerous outlets particularly in the run-up and reviews of The Response event held this past weekend in Louisiana and hosted by possible presidential hopeful Governor Bobby Jindal, has been designated by the SPLC as a hate group. This designation is probably not in the least because of the views of its former spokesman, who has vented variously about his belief that all the Nazis were gay, that Native Americans are cursed, that Scott Lively is a swell fellow--especially because of his missionary work in Uganda, that orcas and bears should die already, that Muslims and Jews never were meant to have First Amendment rights,  and that saving lives instead of killing people the way Jesus intended is a little bit gay. (Yes, PFAW linked to all that stuff so I didn't have to. Edifying stuff, really.)

Philadelphia--there's Hope.

I was fairly negative with the title of my last blog-post regarding the assault of a gay couple in my city, but was heartened by the immediate internet response and the possibility that this event could lead to hate-crime legislation inclusive of sexual orientation. (Our Democratic candidate of governor, Tom Wolf, has made a statement in favor of this--good for him!)

And although the Diocesan response is still problematic, I think it should be acknowledged that a message was sent that the dignity of persons should be respected, not violently violated. This was a terrible example of how people can really suck, but also shows, I'd like to think, where change can take place.

I still hope those bigoted assholes get theirs, though.

Anti-Gay Preacher Fred Phelps Has Died.

A few years back, I wondered if the passing of Westboro Baptist Church founder Fred Phelps would be the occasion of the world's longest Pride Parade, but it really seems tacky in retrospect to make a gloating big deal over the funeral of someone I don't respect, because I have seen how tacky it is by watching his tacky-ass family do it. Now that he's deceased, maybe he has some clearer idea about what his maker did or did not hate, or maybe he's none the wiser than he ever was.

His hate was like a yardstick of fuckery by which other haters could only come up short. I'm sure many nasty little garden-variety haters, if ever having a moment of conscience, might have consoled themselves that they were not, at least, "as bad as those Westboro Baptist people."

I find it depressing to consider that his grotesque little church survives him, as well as a few generations of deeply wounded people who find (comfort, satisfaction, cosmic Stockholm Syndrome?) something of value in a church that is fueled by a vision of a vengeful, abusive, miserable diety that would rather be feared than loved. It appears to me that Phelps created a God in his own image.  At the end, he had been excommunicated for asking his churchmembers to be kinder to one another--apparently the biggest sacrilege.  I could almost pity the old man. But, no.

Cue the Lions.

I've been fascinated by some of the overwrought "revolution!" language that the usual Christian right trolls are using regarding the case against Prop 8 being considered by SCOTUS. It's not that I'm comfortable that the pendulum has swung so far that there's little resistance to marriage equality--it's that I just don't see that many people be invested enough to start a civil war over it. Regular folks just aren't thinking about gay folks getting married all the time. It doesn't really impact them because, well, it just doesn't. Gay people getting married doesn't raise anyone's taxes or take away any right that any has previously enjoyed.

Which is why I find this analogy from NOM's president, Brian Brown, so especially creepy:

I think we’re going to win these cases. But say the worst happens and we lose in a broad way – that means that the Court somehow does a Roe, aRoe v. Wade, on marriage and says that all these state constitutional amendments are overturned, gay marriage is now a constitutional right – well, we’re going to press forward on a Federal Marriage Amendment. We’ve always supported a Federal Marriage Amendment, and there’s a lot of misconceptions about it. Some people try and argue, ‘Well, this is against federalism.’ No, our founders gave us a system where we can amend the Constitution. We shouldn’t have to do this, we shouldn’t have to worry about activist judges, you know, making up out of thin air a constitutional right that obviously none of our founders found there and no one found there until quite recently. But if we do, for us, the Federal Marriage Amendment is a way that people can stand up and say, ‘Enough is enough.’ We need a solution in this country, we cannot be, as Lincoln said, half slave, half free. We can’t have a country on key moral questions where we’re just, where we don’t have a solution. And if the Court forces a solution, the way we’ll amend that is through  the Federal Marriage Amendment.

"Half slave, half free." I can kind of understand wanting to do a Lincoln quote-pull because Lincoln, you know, was kind of a big deal. It's just funny that Brown seems to think that people living in the states where marriage equality is recognized would be morally the people living in the "slave states".  Because those poor beset-upon long-suffering religious people would lack the freedom to...

To...

Rep. Sally Kern doesn't know what the hell she is talking about.

(TW: Homophobia, transphobia)

This nonsense from OK Rep. Sally Kern made me unusually pissed off, today. The idea that GLBT people are more dangerous than terrorists because "young people" deal with homosexuality every day is really weird. I seriously doubt that Sally Kern even deals with homosexuality every day, unless it's by choice because she can't mind her own business. But here's an idea for her--maybe she could take a walk in the shoes of someone who really does deal with being homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, trans* or queer on a daily basis, and then she might understand a little better why equating people just being themselves with terrorists is extremely inappropriate and ironic in the unfunny way--

Because then she would understand something about people who actually do deal on a daily basis with having their gender, humanity, personhood, privacy, and rights questioned on a regular basis. She would understand a little better what it might feel like to expect (not just experience, but come to expect) that feeling of being called "less-than", and the sometimes palpable threat of physical violence coming from bigots. If she could step into the place of a sexual minority, she would understand that being othered and discriminated against just for being was a kind of emotional terrorism (except for when it is an actual act of hate crime/terror itself)--and maybe, just maybe, she might bring herself to stop doing it.

Maybe she could bother educating herself before saying things so terribly uninformed.

And no, she is not either being stoned for what she says--how silly and self-pitying that sounds! Especially when one is merely being criticized for bigotry against people who in some parts of the world are literally still stoned--with actual stones.

Frosty the Klansman?

Gee, he never saw the noose? What Klan-hooded snowman? Racism--where? You know, it's one thing to be a rascist shit-stirrer. It's another thing to be a total chickenshit racist shit stirrer: playing a game of "let's offend the neighbors" where one wants to stir this much shit, but no more--when the news cameras can see. That's kind of pathetic. Commit, asshole. Either your hate is so important you need to signify with flags, and even snowpeople for anyone driving by to see, or else--you actually know that what you believe is wrong and most people think it sucks so--Hey? Why do you believe it, anyway?

SPLC designates a few new Anti-Gay Hate Groups

Sorry if this is old news, but I really thought this was a positive development this week (yes, I'm going to be playing catch-up).

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a respected civil rights organization committed to justice and countering bigotry, and I'm glad to see these groups get the SPLC's "seal of disapproval." I've seen characters from these orgs go on tv and get treated as if they were simply people with a different point of view and always felt a bit of rage that their views were being granted validity. Maybe being properly labeled as hate groups will cause the media to think twice before broadcasting their views as just "the other side" of LGBT civil rights issues. Tis has never sat well with me. I've often viewed it as something near to having the press solicit the Klan's opinion about racist grafitti on an AME Church. We know where those people stand. Who needs clarification?

I am a bit pissed that NOM, Coral Ridge, and Liberty Counsel aren't actually on the "hate list". They've all been pretty ugly in the past.

Naturally, the bigots are not pleased to actually be called what they are. I think the response at the link is....interesting. The "falsehoods" that Barber wants to call stubborn "facts" are usually not seriously debated because science and serious organizations based in reason have long rejected them. The claims of these organizations really aren't serious enough to merit debate. Also, he mentions Alinsky (WTF is it with right-wingers and their Alinsky fixation?) and mistates what Godwin's Law is about. Godwin's law only has to do with the likelihood that someone will get compared to a Nazi if a Usenet thread goes on long enough. Randomly calling out "Nazi" in a crowded conversation is probably hyperbolic.

It's just that, sometimes the armband fits. Relax, haters. You aren't directly being called Nazis. You're just being called, "Not entirely unlike their propagandists." And if that lets you sleep all right, you bedbugs....enjoy it.

Here's to the increasing marginalization of the willfully ignorant and hateful!

Paladino can't even get hate right..

Demogoguing a minority group like the LGBT community or Muslims or you-name-it is a cheap, content-free way for a candidate to signify to certain groups that the candidate is the same--he or she is just as mad about those people and what they do. Sure, it's evil, hateful, and shouldn't really be done by decent people, but let's say you have already established that you aren't interested in being decent. It's a gamble politicians have been making for years. The wager is really simple: Do you stand to get more votes by sticking it to the out group than you would lose from the people who would be appalled by what you've said?

A slick candidate knows how far to go. They prepare their own statements so as to toe the line of the socially acceptable. And they live with the consequences because there are no "takesies-backsies".

When caught in a truly horrendous example of bigotry or untruth, the tactical apology must follow the time-honored format:

"I'm sorry if anyone was offended by my unthoughtful language, but I assure you that much of what I said is in agreement with a) my faith and that of others' b) a study I read in The Wingnut Times by an author whose name escapes me." It's best if delivered in a tone of quiet shock at oneself and the response ones words has brought about, as if really, this little things is being blown way out of proportion. This fulfills the requirement for an apology that satisfies some, but tells the haters that every word was really meant. Everyone has seen or read an apology just like that.

What you don't do is wander into the deep end of the hate pool, realize you aren't a good swimmer, and take nearly everything back. Then you have not only alienated the out group (whose votes you weren't getting anyway, dumbass) and the haters, who will feel like they don't really trust you, now.

It looks so simple when guys like Gingrich do it. (And no, I'm not endorsing the tactic, just pointing out this is how it's done.) What Paladino did is the equivalent of going to pat himself on the back, and winding up breaking his own foot off in his backside. Which requires a combination of flexibility and ineptness one seldom sees paired together in a single candidate.

I wasn't going to tap a bile duct today, but Neil Cavuto--eat a fist!

Wow. There was the first lady, talking about how individuals found the courage to act in a certainly deadly situation on a pretty solemn occasion, and he has to interject that nine whole years ago, her husband was like "Who?" and the idea of him being president was like "What?"

Neil Cavuto, I will give you nine years to see if you can figure out how to get your slack ass into the Oval Office as your job. You go from being a State Rep. wherever you live to the White House. You figure out what people care about, and try to respond to that in such a consistent way that you have the kind of political respect where people just know, like John Kerry just knew, that you can send an important message that represents your party, and maybe even the future of this country.

Now, maybe, to be fair, Cavuto was merely remarking on how things change over nine years, how time passes, how in a way a major event like 9/11 freezes us in a specific place and time, and in some corner of our minds, it is always 9/11 and George W. Bush is POTUS and someone like Barack Obama is just a charismatic figure waiting in the wings of history--not yet an apparent historical mover. But I can't necessarily credit him for being that deep. Seemed a little to me like he just needed to hear himself talk over the First Lady, who is not currently married to a nobody, and who I submit is obviously by no means a nobody in her own right, herself being a person of eloquence, relatability, style, intelligence, and the kind of thoughtful dignity a person with any kind of journalistic instincts wouldn't cut away from.

I would further submit this is an example of the problem with the current state of news media--too much personality, not enough journalism. The legacy of 9/11 is now taken up by a new White House Administration, and although Michelle Obama is not an elected figure nor a selected cabinet member--she is the single closest confidante of the current President, and she is herself one hell of a spokeswoman for the goals of this Administration. She reminds me terribly of Hillary Clinton--a spouse as capable and compelling as the Presidential husband, as passionate, involved, and well-spoken, as much a person to keep an eye on.

Tone-deaf Cavuto had to break in. Michelle Obama--who was she nine years ago?

Nine years ago she was a person who nine years later would be one of the most interesting and inspiring people we know. Shut up, man, and let us hear her speak!

Is hate a sacrament? (re-try)

I wrote a sprawling mess of a post last night about this story, so I decided I should start over and express my disgust a little more succinctly. A conservative group is challenging the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009:

(CNSNews.com) – A conservative civil liberties group is challenging the constitutionality of the recently enacted federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

The new law, attached to a defense authorization bill that President Obama signed on October 28, 2009, makes it a federal crime to attack someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center says it elevates people engaged in deviant sexual behaviors to a special, protected class of persons under federal law.

The lawsuit naming U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of three pastors and the president of the American Family Association of Michigan.

All of the plaintiffs “take a strong public stand against the homosexual agenda, which seeks to normalize disordered sexual behavior that is contrary to Biblical teaching,” the Law Center said in a news release.

(Emphasis mine, naturally.) I'm pretty sure I engage in "deviant sexual behaviors"--in fact, I think I probably broke the law in Virginia once (or a few times, consecutively). And I'm heterosexual (well, mostly.) I take a strong stand against making gay-bashers a "protected class" just because they hide behind religion. It's very convenient to hate people and blame God. But the blame for anti-social and hateful behavior really needs to be dumped in the laps of those that spawn it--the haters and the bashers.

It doesn't "elevate" a group of people to say that they should not be physically assaulted, or that people should not be encouraged to physically assault them. It does not elevate them to say there should be no laws that particularly exclude them from fully participating in society, either. But it would elevate a few religions to let them dictate laws that exclude based upon their religious biases, and it would "elevate" them to give them a pass when they maintain that hate is just a crucial protected part of their religion.

These people think they know what "deviant" is--when the truth is, they don't know the half about the variety of human sexual experience and have no reason to know, because it very rarely affects them in their day-to-day lives. But violence and eliminationist rhetoric affect all of us--they are the ones who want to do harm by interfering in other people's private lives--whom they choose to make their families with, or simply love. Or even just mutally and consentually pleasure.

They can choose to believe that I, an atheist and a deviant, will answer some day to their God, if that's how they want to see it. But they have no right to make me, or any other "deviant" answerable to them by violence and intimidation. The law just imposes civility. It doesn't oppress them unless they think terrorism against GLBT folks is a sacrament. If that's how it is, I'm extra-glad there's a law. Because that is just crazy. And uncivil.

(Those poor oppressed things--unable to oppress others, and all!)