« DEEP THROAT'S CRIMES: Mark Felt, Constitution-shredder | Main | A REPUBLICAN PARTY CHAIR FOR PBS »
June 09, 2005
THE NEW BLACKLIST: Corporate America Caves In to the Christers
Spurred on by a biblical injunction evangelicals call “The Great
Commission,” and emboldened by George W. Bush’s re-election, which is perceived as a “mandate from God,” the Christian right has launched a series of boycotts and pressure campaigns aimed at corporate America — and at its sponsorship of entertainment, programs and activities the Christers don’t like.
And it’s working. Just three weeks ago, the Rev. Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association (AFA) announced it was ending its
boycott of corporate giant Procter & Gamble — maker of household staples like Tide and Crest — for being pro-gay. Why? Because the AFA’s boycott (which the organization says enlisted 400,000 families) had succeeded in getting P&G to pull its millions of dollars in advertising from TV shows like Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. P&G also ended its advertising in gay
magazines and on gay Web sites. And a P&G executive who had been given a leave of absence to work on a successful Cincinnati, Ohio, referendum that repealed a ban on any measures protecting gays from discrimination was shown the door.
“We cannot say they are 100 percent clean, and we ask our supporters to let us know if they discover P&G again being involved in pushing the homosexual lifestyle,” growls the AFA’s statement of victory over the corporate behemoth, “but judging by all that we found in our research, it appears that our concerns have been addressed.” The Wall Street Journal reported on May 11 that “P&G officials won’t talk publicly about the boycott. But privately, they acknowledge the [Christer] groups turned out to be larger, better funded, better organized, and more sophisticated than the company had imagined.”
But the P&G cave-in to the Christers is only the tip of the iceberg. In just the past year and a half, AFA protests and boycotts — or even the simple threat of boycotts — have been enough to make a host of American companies pull their ads from TV shows the Christers consider pro-gay or salacious. Desperate Housewives has lost ads
from Safeway, Tyson Foods, Liberty Mutual, Kohl’s, Alberto Culver, Leapfrog and Lowe’s after the AFA’s One Million Dads campaign targeted the show’s
sponsors. Life as We Know It got the same AFA treatment — and lost ads from McCormick, Lenscrafters, Radio Shack, Papa John’s International, Chattem and Sharpie.
And it’s not just programs on the broadcast networks and their local
affiliates that are feeling the heat from the Christers. When the AFA targeted Comedy Central’s South Park, the popular cartoon satire saw ads on the show pulled by Foot Locker, Geico, Finish Line and Best Buy.
Nissan, Goodyear and Castrol stopped running ads on The Shield after AFA complaints. Sonic Drive-In pulled its ad support from The Shield after a single e-mail request from AFA’s Rev. Wildmon (photo below).
S.C. Johnson and Hasbro ordered their ads taken off He’s a Lady when it got the AFA treatment. And the list goes on . . . Call it a new, 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not advertise” if the religious primitives smell sin.
Just two weeks ago, the AFA undertook a new letter-writing campaign aimed at Kraft Foods (makers of Oreo cookies, Maxwell House coffee, Ritz Crackers and the like) for supporting the “radical homosexual agenda.” Kraft’s crime? It’s a corporate sponsor of the
2006 Gay Games in Chicago. Founded in 1980 by Dr. Tom Waddell — a 1968 Olympic decathlete — these Gay Games VII will bring gay athletes from all over the world to the Windy City for a complete catalog of Olympic-style competitions. The honorary chairman of the Chicago Gay Games? The city’s mayor, Richard Daley, who declared that he is “committed to the success of the 2006 Gay Games because it is an expression of international goodwill and a celebration of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, which are important to Chicago.” But, following the AFA’s lead, another Christer group — the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) — has asked its members to take on Kraft and five other Illinois companies that are sponsoring what it calls the “Homosexuality Games.” Proclaimed the IFI: “By allowing their corporate logos to be used to promote the ‘Gay Games,’ Kraft, Harris Bank and other sponsoring companies are celebrating wrong and destructive behaviors, and showing their disdain for the majority of Americans who favor traditional morality and marriage.” Here’s a nice touch: The IFI’s Web site features a statue of Abraham Lincoln, who some historians now credibly say was gay or bisexual. Will Kraft stand up to the pressure? The company’s answer to this protest campaign is, for the moment, yes — but for how long?
All across the country, the Christian right and its allies in the culture wars are mobilizing — sometimes spurred on from the top by the AFA, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and similar national groups, but with increasing frequency local pressure campaigns and boycott threats are self-starters. They target everything from local broadcast outlets and local cable operators to libraries, bookstores, playhouses, cinemas and magazine outlets. “The Christian right is incredibly mobilized,” says Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, a 30-year-old alliance of 50 nonprofit groups. Bertin says, “There’s been an explosion of local book and arts censorship — a lot of activity by an emboldened grassroots, who think they won the last election on moral grounds. They barely need to threaten a boycott to get those they target to back down — hey, nobody had to threaten to boycott PBS to get them to back off Postcards From Buster.” Bertin affirms that “This new threat from below as well as above has already achieved a widespread chill” on creative and entertainment arts throughout the country.
A good example of successful up-from-below pressure in making corporate America bend the knee to the Christers: the Microsoft Corp. Earlier this year, under pressure from a local protest led by Ken
Hutcherson (left) — a conservative National Football League linebacker turned preacher — Microsoft made a decision to stay neutral in the fight over legislation in Washington’s state Legislature banning discrimination in employment against same-sexers, although many other companies headquartered in the state took positions in favor of the bill. But after an avalanche of counterprotests to Microsoft about their cave-in to Hutcherson, from their own employees (many of whom are gay), gay groups and the blogosphere, Microsoft reversed itself and supported the anti-discrimination bill. Too late: Two weeks earlier, the bill had been defeated by just one vote in the state Senate. Now, Microsoft is being targeted by a new, national Christer protest campaign for having flip-flopped again.
Martin Kaplan, director of the Norman Lear Center at the Annenberg School of Communication at USC, calls the new Christer offensive a drive toward “theocratic oligopoly. The drumbeat of religious fascism has never been as troubling as it is now in this country,” adding that “e-mails to the FCC are more worrisome to me than boycotts” in terms of their chilling effect.
Even The New York Times is feeling the chill. At the beginning of May, an internal committee of 19 Times editors and reporters, who’d
been asked how to improve the paper’s “credibility” with a wider swath of America, came up with a key recommendation: Deliberalize the paper’s news columns, especially through more coverage on religion from a sympathetic point of view. The committee’s report, “Preserving Our Readers’ Trust,” added that “the overall tone of our coverage of gay marriage, as one example, approaches cheerleading. By consistently framing the issue as a civil rights matter — gays fighting for the right to be treated like everyone else — we failed to convey how disturbing the issue is in many corners of American social, cultural, and religious life.” Oh, “disturbing” to whom? Why, to the Christers, of course — whose e-mail complaint campaigns against the Times are legion: It’s the paper the fundamentalists love to hate. So why is the Times — one of the few newspapers in the latest available study of circulation released earlier this year to significantly increase circulation rather than lose it — feeling the need to kowtow to the religious opponents of gay marriage? The paper’s willingness to do so is about as frightening a testimony to creeping theocracy as one could imagine.
Is the new Christer anti-gay and anti-sex crusade a back-to-the-future nightmare? Remember your history: In the 1950s, the anti-Communist owners of a small chain of supermarkets in upstate New York started threatening the TV and radio networks with boycotts of sponsors’ products if they employed any persons listed as supposed
Communists or lefties, in a sloppily researched little pamphlet called “Red Channels.” It didn’t take long for this small protest to instill fear throughout the broadcast industry, and the result was the Blacklist, a witch-hunt that lasted for years — even after John Henry Faulk (below), the
blacklisted star CBS-radio host and actor, won his landmark $3.5 million libel suit in 1962 against the blackmailers of AWARE Inc., which — for a suitable fee — offered “clearance” services to major media advertisers and radio and television networks, investigating the backgrounds of entertainers for signs of Communist sympathy or affiliation. But Faulk didn’t work in national broadcasting for another 13 years, until he landed a spot on the TV series Hee-Haw in 1975. It took that long to end a quarter-century
reign of terror in the entertainment industry, 18 years after Senator Joe McCarthy (right, with his counsel Roy Cohn) was dead and buried.
Today’s Christer protests are targeting a different kind of subversion. Chip Berlet, senior analyst at the labor-funded Political Research Associates, has spent over 25 years studying the far right and theocratic fundamentalism. He is co-author of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. Berlet — who was one of the speakers at a conference last month co-sponsored by the N.Y. Open Center and the City University of New York Graduate Center on “Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right” — says that “What’s motivating these people is two things. First, an incredible dread, completely irrational, of a hodgepodge of sexual subversion and social chaos. The response to that fear is genuinely a grassroots response, and it’s motivated by fundamentalist Christian doctrines like Triumphalism and Dominionism, which order Christians to take over the secular state and secular institutions. The Christian right frames itself as an oppressed minority battling the secular-humanist liberal homofeminist hordes.”
The key to those doctrines is what fundamentalist religious primitives call the Great Commission, which is basically an injunction to convert everyone to Christianity. In the Bible (Matthew 28:19-20), it says, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you . . .” The fundamentalist interpretations of these and other texts can be found on evangelical Web sites like Thegreatcommission.com, Transferableconcepts.com and Gospelcom.net. They have incredible motivating power for the religious right, and help explain the vehemence of the Christers’ intolerance of the freedom of others to think or act differently.
Says Berlet, “The re-election of Bush was a sort of tipping point for these people, who take it as a mandate from God — they see that the leadership of America is within their grasp, and when you get closer to your goal, it’s very energizing. It reaches a critical mass, in which the evangelicals feel they have permission to push their way into public and cultural policy in every walk and expression of life.” All that, says Berlet, is what is motivating the skein of Christer boycotts, protest
campaigns and censorship drives bubbling from the bottom up — which get added emotional and pressure power from the fund-raising-driven crusades launched by political Christer organizations like AFA at the national level. The confluence of from-above and from-below is a powerful mix.
There’s one big problem: Nobody at the national level is tracking these Christer censorship and pressure campaigns in a systematic way, to quantify them or assess their impact, so that strategies to defeat them can be developed. “People for the American Way used to track this stuff, but they stopped doing so systematically in 1996. We at Political Research Associates would love to do it,” says Berlet, “but we don’t have the resources. Groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute or Americans United for Separation of Church and State could easily do this sort of work. But none of us has the money to do it, because nobody wants to give it. There used to be three major journalists writing about this stuff — Sara Diamond, Russ Belant and Fred Clarkson. But none of them could make a living doing it, and they’ve all dropped out of the game.”
Unless Hollywood, and the entertainment and broadcast industries, all want to live through an epoch of increasing content blackmail and blacklists, the wealthy folks who make a lot of money from those industries better wake up and start funding intensive and systematic research on the Christian right and its censorship crusades against sexual subversion and sin in the creative arts — or soon it will be too late, and the “theocratic oligopoly” of which Martin Kaplan speaks will be so firmly established it cannot be dislodged.
P.S. The AFA has just announced a new boycott -- this time of Ford, for "supporting the homosexual agenda."
I wrote the above article for the latest issue of the L.A. Weekly, out today. By the way, there's a lot of good stuff in this issue of the Weekly. There's a first-rate, sharp-tongued profile of Christopher Cox, the California Congressman Bush has just appointed to head the SEC. In this piece, R. Scott Moxley exposes how Cox was the accomplice of a convicted stock frauder who swindled thousands of elderly out of $136 million. The legendary Paul Krasner talks to a victim of Deep Throat Mark Felt's Constitution-shredding strong-arm tactics in the bad old days. Tony Valenzuela's confessions of a crystal meth user suggests some reasons why a lot of the current methodology used in trying to get gay men to stop dating Tina (as they bloody well should) isn't working. And William H, Kelly exposes how Gov. Aaaaaahnold's energy plan favors the wealthy Big Energy companies over the taxpayer. There's even a piece for opera buffs (like me) -- the knowledgeable Alan Rich lifts the curtain on Alberto Vilar, the failed financial angel for Placido Domingo -- artistic director of the L.A. Opera -- and a swindler who's now behind bars. If you want to know why the L.A. Weekly is one of the hotter reads around, check out all this and more by clicking here.
Posted by Doug Ireland at 09:10 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/91667/2614727
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference THE NEW BLACKLIST: Corporate America Caves In to the Christers:
» They Help Us. They Hurt Us. from daily dose of queer
This is starting to seem like an abusive relationship.
All of you who weren't quite ready to celebrate corporate America's actions in relation to the queer community simply because of this will get a sense of vindication from THE NEW BLACKLIST: Cor... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 9, 2005 6:13:52 PM
» Causas Perdidas from BdE - Blogue de Esquerda (II)
Gostei do comentário e do nick, e atrevo-me a passá-lo a post: A História é que julga as Pessoas e as Ideologias, diz a frase-feita. Como o dia do juízo final ainda não chegou, nem me parece que "amanhã seja... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 14, 2005 5:21:52 PM
» Extra pounds raise heartburn risk from ead full story
ead full story for latest details. [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 8, 2006 7:43:24 AM
» Link Suggested Between Blood-Pressure Drugs and Birth Defects - Forbes from women, a new
by pregnant women, a new study suggests. ... Blood-Pressure Drugs Linked to Birth Defects Washington Post Drug warning [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 10, 2006 9:18:47 AM
» Infinera nets Global Crossing network contract from 600 cities in
Deployment of the network has already started in the southeastern US, with the first 1500 km installed and turned [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 12, 2006 2:43:35 AM
» Nash Tired of Fatigue Talk from speeches to two-time
a little too much like concession speeches to two-time league MVP Steve Nash, writes Chuck Carlton of THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS. [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 13, 2006 1:47:10 AM
» Extra! Extra! Matchbin.com Provides New Online Business Building Websites for Newspapers from
ad submission, simplify billing, and more. (PRWEB Jun 8, 2006)
Trackback [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 15, 2006 10:00:48 AM
» Interview with Daniel Glazman, Head NVu Developer from interview to
Daniel Glazman to take some time to give us another interview to book-end our first interview with him, early in NVu's development. [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 16, 2006 12:02:31 PM
» Heat Must Stop Nowitzki, Howard from Mercedes Mayer
of the FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM. The question was simple: Have you noticed more attention being paid to you as the playoffs have worn [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 17, 2006 8:17:32 PM
» Job Interviewing Lessons from Prison from ory Johnson Gives
ory Johnson Gives Advice to Job Seeking Inmates [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 18, 2006 3:16:37 PM
» When the unobtanium gets too puffilated, cars take on the J.C. Whitney look from AutoWorld , the
unexpected bulging of the clay that, although previously invisible, becomes visually magnetic by virtue of being pointed out by one's boss." (Kevin [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 19, 2006 9:58:34 AM
» Huntington Celebrates 10-Year Milestone as Industry Leader and Pioneer in Online Banking and Bill Pay from site continues
online banking site continues to be one of top 10 in the nation. (PRWEB Jun 22, 2006)
Trackback URI: http://www.prweb.com/zingpr.php/SW5zZS1FbXB0LUNvdXAtQ291cC1JbnNlLVplcm8=
[Read More]
Tracked on Jun 28, 2006 10:49:12 PM
» One third of Americans wouldn't flee a storm-study
(Reuters)
from their homes before
third of Americans in southern states say they might ignore
an order to evacuate their homes before [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 24, 2006 11:00:23 PM
» BlackHat, DefCon Pranks Underlie Larger Security Message from hackers sporting
purple hair can make the two conferences that will converge in Las Vegas this [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 8, 2006 1:28:32 PM
» An Easier Way to Detect Breast Cancer in Young Women from DA Approves New,
DA Approves New, Cheaper Digital Mammography System [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 10, 2006 5:03:39 AM
Comments
Folks, these are not real Christian orgs. They are just shills for the Israel Lobby. You can tell because they favor zionism, in fact, they exist to promote zionism. All their other positions, such as vehement anti-homosexuality, are just window dressing. Learn more at deanberryministries.net.
Posted by: DEAN BERRY | Sep 28, 2007 4:11:40 PM
I, myself, am not gay. HOWEVER, I am a supporter. I find it repulsive what these stupid anti-gay Christians keep pulling out of there asses. It's ridiculous! What will they think of next?!?!? Seriously, you'd think they'd have something better to do.
Posted by: Stacy Bagnasco | Aug 26, 2005 3:02:56 PM
"Christer" may not sound nice to some, but many American religionists' campaigns against women's rights, going back to the Equal Rights Amendment, and the very existence of gay men and lesbians, has made "Christian" a word that inspires fear.
Posted by: Mary O'Grady | Aug 13, 2005 1:29:52 PM
Dear Doug: On your recommended site list you may wish to include such libertarian sites as:
LewRockwell.com and antiwar.com. Both feature incisive anti-war, anti-Bush/Cheney reports-- their premise being that left and right (and center too), alarmed at what is happening in our country,need to unite in opposing the administration's imperial dreams and the threat of endless wars. The two sites have yet another admirable virtue: they loathe and regularly dissect Washington's neocons.
Posted by: Murray Polner | Jun 21, 2005 9:08:13 AM
Hey Doug. First, stop being such a bigot against Christians and Catholics. Your language incites anger. As a gay man and minority, you above all should be indoctrinated in non-judgmentalism and pacifism. We have to abide by these rules, what gives you a pass? You come across as an ignorant ranter. Christians and other decent folks not of the Christian religion want to be out there and proud of who WE are, and try to influence the world the way homosexuals are trying (and, thank God, failing). So it goes both ways. Your 'lover' is dead of AIDS. Let me say that again: your lover died of AIDS!! Did he get that from being monogamous and heterosexual for 12 years? Or maybe the only fault of homosexuality is that you haven't been able to screw around with nature ENOUGH to get it to stop retaliating against you and killing you off when you defy it. Understand this: sin is the word prescribed to activity that is destructive, to ones' self or another or society. It isn't just a bunch of sadistic rules that God laid out for the fun of it. This is why we shouldn't do those things considered sinful--because in the end they bring misery and pain. God's just giving us a warning, and protection against getting hurt. Your partner suffered and died for his behavior (whether drug related or homosexually related. I'm assuming he didn't die like Ryan White). Life shouldn't be about trying to circumvent sin, and trying to artificially escape the natural consequences of sin. It should be about trying to help people prevent sinning and prevent the negative consequences of it. If you really loved your fellow gay/lesbian co-workers, you'd try to help them not act in ways that bring misery and pain. We who recognize this are trying desperately to defend ourselves and society from what has become organized, in-your-face sin-promoting fronts. If you have the right to try to force homosexuality on us, we have the right to tell you you're wrong and resist. I can't wait til alcoholics and the mentally ill band together in their own units, and get the press and hollywood on board (ooh. The ultimate legitimizers!), so we've got TV shows like 'the schizophrenic couple!" or "Bernie causes another drunk driving accident!" These disorders (alcoholism and mental illness) are inborn and 'natural' too, but they are destructive. These poor people end up too incapacited half the time to band together and promote their disorders as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Homosexuals just happen to have a disorder that doesn't necessarily affect their ability to function, and so we have this front from you. But you are still living a lifestyle that is destructive to yourselves and the rest of us, one way or another, and you can't make us think otherwise (because it's not about what society is 'used to' or acclimated to, no matter how much you'd like to think it. We're just calling it like it is.) Think of it this way: the people on your side are either stupid like sheep--looking for the next fad, or they're gay themselves. But the ones who aren't victims of the latest trend, the ones who can actually think for themselves, and have values outside of whatever happens to come along, are the 'evil' ones, right? Get over it. And, anti-homosexual behavior people who end up actually hating homosexuals and calling them names and being hateful, are just as wrong as any sinful behavior. My prayers for your health and that you'll have a change of heart.
Posted by: Liz | Jun 18, 2005 12:14:37 PM
Doug,......duh! Quote "Sexual subversion and sin" (unquote), is what the "religious right" is against, and what YOU are promoting! Sexual subversion and sin by definition is EVIL! Do you want to promote more EVIL in our world? I sure don't want to answer for that when I meet my maker! If you are not the Lord's, you belong to the "other guy"!!
Posted by: Sandy Brooks | Jun 17, 2005 4:27:59 PM
"Anonymous" wrote: "Fascism implies official power of which these groups have none. What they have is the ability to influence people in power. Why, because of the numbers they represent. Isn't that the point of a democracy? Historically fascism has been used to silence and control the majority."
The AFA and its allies are seeking official power, and in reality, have gained it by proxy through their re-education of government officials, elected and otherwise. You and I don't have the access that James Dobson and a number of select "pastors" and "ministers" have to this White House and its political advisers. It has nothing to do with the numbers they present, other than that fundamentalist Christians have swung very tight elections recently. The AARP represents many more people than the AFA does, yet the AARP does not have the access to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney that the AFA does.
The use of fundamentalist Christians (as opposed to moderate, mainstream Christians) as political pawns or tools to swing tight elections, and to provide cover to policies that are at the least controversial, and at most immoral and contrary to the vast majority of Christ's teachings concerning the poor and the meek, is a real step towards the kind of fascism that propelled Hitler to power. This is also a real step towards silencing the majority of Americans. This majority may believe in God, but are uneasy about breaking down the wall between church and state, and they definitely do not support a theocracy, particularly when it rewards the rich and punishes the poor.
These steps towards fascism are very well-funded and organized and have been extensively documented by a number of individuals and organizations. Most people don't realize just how much money is involved, or how extensive these links are between Dobson et al. and the federal and state executive and legislative branches. They haven't yet been able to crack or co-opt the judiciary, which is exactly why you've been hearing all those stories lately about the judiciary. This is an extremely serious matter, and any attempts to pooh-pooh it is either ignorant or intentional. I strongly suggest that the readers of this blog pay attention to these larger power plays, or they will wake up one day under a political regime they REALLY won't care for.
Posted by: a_retrogrouch | Jun 17, 2005 12:40:14 PM
John Fries,
While I agree that using the term "Christers" as a description of all of the Christian fundamentalist nutjobs out there is unfortunate and insulting of Christ's name, I don't think that people who use the term are the ones to attack. The ones to attack are the AFA who are carrying forth clearly unChristian acts and flying their hateful beliefs under the banner of Christ. Who bothers you more, those who use the term by which the AFA name themselves, or the AFA who takes Christ's name and teachings and drenches them in the mud?
Posted by: Marie Harang | Jun 16, 2005 12:29:32 PM
When did Doug call for censoring the AFA?
Posted by: Johnny Luo | Jun 16, 2005 3:49:05 AM
Beliefs about whose right or wrong aside, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to accuse a group, who you seek to silence, of censorship. Isn't the whole point of your article that they should be silenced....that you want to sensor their message because you disagree with it. If a pro gay group carries as much influence are they wrong for using it or is that more acceptable?
And are they really fascists or simply a majority of consumers and voters in a country that allows public policy to be defined by the majority? Fascism implies official power of which these groups have none. What they have is the ability to influence people in power. Why, because of the numbers they represent. Isn't that the point of a democracy? Historically fascism has been used to silence and control the majority. So whose really the fascist you or them?
If you want to beat them, do it in the market place of ideas. Argue why they are wrong rather than attacking them for being influential. Your arguments and personal attacks only shows that you are as bigoted as you accuse them of being. Two sides of the same coin!
Posted by: anonymous | Jun 15, 2005 5:38:24 PM
I consider myself a Christian. I was raised Catholic, and now attend (although somewhat sporadically lately) a Presbyterian church. My wife and daughter are more regular in attendance.
We know at least half a dozen gay couples, male and female, and have know several of them for ten years or more. We have absolutely no problem with civil unions, marriage, and the adoption of children by these couples. They are good, educated people, who care for each other and would make excellent parents. Their marriage and adoption of unwanted children does not threaten my marriage, neither does it threaten anyone elses. It also does not threaten the "moral fabric of America." That is a lie based on an extremely narrow, very selective reading of the Holy Bible.
Those who go off on cultural jihads against gays are hypocrits of the first order, greedy with power, and drunk with it when they get some. There is no difference except in dress between them and the mullahs who run Iran. Giving these people power will not result in a more moral society; it will simply result in a totalitarian theocracy that would be as corrupt as any regime on earth. It's one thing to have Christers--and we know who they are relative to true Christians--trying to boycott companies; it's quite another for Christers to control police forces and the U.S. military and its nuclear weapons. If things appear to be moving in that direction and if the U.S. political system cannot respond back to a more balanced state, then it's time for civil disobedience and even outright violence. The stakes are too high.
Posted by: a_retrogrouch | Jun 15, 2005 2:07:43 PM
I consider myself a Christian. I was raised Catholic, and now attend (although somewhat sporadically lately) a Presbyterian church. My wife and daughter are more regular in attendance.
We know at least half a dozen gay couples, male and female, and have know several of them for ten years or more. We have absolutely no problem with civil unions, marriage, and the adoption of children by these couples. They are good, educated people, who care for each other and would make excellent parents. Their marriage and adoption of unwanted children does not threaten my marriage, neither does it threaten anyone elses. It also does not threaten the "moral fabric of America." That is a lie based on an extremely narrow, very selective reading of the Holy Bible.
Those who go off on cultural jihads against gays are hypocrits of the first order, greedy with power, and drunk with it when they get some. There is no difference except in dress between them and the mullahs who run Iran. Giving these people power will not result in a more moral society; it will simply result in a totalitarian theocracy that would be as corrupt as any regime on earth. It's one thing to have Christers--and we know who they are relative to true Christians--trying to boycott companies; it's quite another for Christers to control police forces and the U.S. military and its nuclear weapons. If things appear to be moving in that direction and if the U.S. political system cannot respond back to a more balanced state, then it's time for civil disobedience and even outright violence. The stakes are too high.
Posted by: a_retrogrouch | Jun 15, 2005 2:06:19 PM
Andy says: "It is not anti-gay to oppose 'gay rights'."
Opposing equal human rights to gay people is the very definition of "anti-gay".
Posted by: Stephanie | Jun 14, 2005 2:43:56 AM
Re AFA boycott of Procter & Gamble: It seems that some people have fallen for the claim, by AFA, that their P&G boycott succeeded, without carefully examining the veracity of their statements. I'm sure AFA would prefer for people to think they were successful, and that they are powerful, influential, taken seriously, etc. Reality may be something else, however. To wit, during the series finale of "Will & Grace," a few weeks ago, the first commercial was for Bounty paper towels, a P&G product. (I say, hurray for P&G for having some ethics and not letting bigots push them around. I know that I am now personally more inclined to buy Bounty paper towels!)
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 14, 2005 1:59:15 AM
John Fries: I like using the moniker American Taliban, as I find it quite apt....but the average person has no idea what that means. I see your point about using Christers, but it does get the point across, and it's hard to come up with something short and to the point that paints the right picture. Christian Fundamentalists would work, as many people refer to Islamic fundamentalists. Or would you still object because it has Christ in it, even though it's perfectly accurate?
Posted by: Cynthia | Jun 13, 2005 8:39:42 PM
Brenda: What do babies have to do with gay marriage, or, for that matter, no gay marriage?
Are you assuming that gay marriage will necessarily mean scads of adoptions by those couples, or scads of pregnancies of lesbians, or??? Do you then suggest that lesbian mothers who have female partners give up their natural kids to be raised by a hetero woman, or what?
How would you feel about gays/lesbians who guarantee that they won't have children in the home if you let them get married? What then? Still a no go? Why, if so?
Is your main focus keeping gays/lesbians from parenting, (which is what it sounds like) or are you just a strict proponent of the man/woman parenting idea, or????
Surely you realize that the march of humanity and the progress of society is making the two hetero parent family one of many types, instead of the only family situation... you propose what would be the holding back of societal evolution - which, much as social conservatives have tried, is not possible in the long run.
Posted by: Cynthia | Jun 13, 2005 8:32:31 PM
Your description of Bush being "re-lected" in 2004 for your article "The New Blacklist" is factually inacurrate. The truth will always be that Bush was NOT elected in 2000. Bush in fact lost the popular vote by more than 500,000 votes and he also didn't get the most votes in Florida. It was the Bush campaign who deliberately thwarted the will of the people by illegally blocking the counting of many thousands of legally cast, uncounted votes that Florida law clearly required be counted. The Bush campaign's illegal acts were then rubberstamped by 5 republican U.S. Supreme Court judges appointed when Bush's father was Vice President or Pesident. What happened in 2000 wasn't an election, t was a broad daylight coup that deliberately thwarted the will of the people because they hadn't chosen Bush. Bush ended democracy in America in 2000 and its long overdue for the media to report this ugly truth.
Posted by: Nancy | Jun 13, 2005 9:59:59 AM
Amen to that,Mr. Ireland.
Posted by: mike | Jun 12, 2005 3:53:22 PM
Doug,
Your use of the sobriquet "Christers" for right wing Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals is unfortunate and embarrassing, and I do hope you refrain from its further use.
There are many long time, committed activists on the Left who oppose militarism, seek a just society, support universal health care, support equal rights for all, including gays, and fervently believe in environmental stewardship, and do so as a result of their personal committment to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am one of them. To take His name in vain, as you do in your Christer reference, is plainly insulting to both His memory, and to those followers of His who are natural political allies of yours.
There is nothing in the least Christ-like about the intolerance, hatred, oppression, love of vengeance and militarism beloved of the supposedly "Christian" right wing in this country. In using the term "Christer" to identify them, you further the identification in the popular mind of these extremist right-wing leaders with the Founder in whose vision of love, tolerance, and active care for the poor, they are actually so lacking.
It is hard to change a marketing effort once launched, and it's pretty clear from your frequent resort to it that you are actively marketing the term "Christer". I urge you to re-think it, and try something else.
Personally, I think "Fundamentalist Militia" is an attractive alternative: it captures the Right's love of violence and unconstrained militarism, their disdain for the rule of law, and positions them right where they belong, as the intellectual brothers of Muslim jihadists.
Regards,
John Fries
Posted by: John Fries | Jun 12, 2005 11:44:49 AM
Andy,
You'll find a more extensive discussion of this question in my post-election analysis for the L.A. Weekly for Dec. 3 '04, "Democrats in Denial, Gays on the Ropes," which you'll find at
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/02/news-ireland.php
And if you'll allow me to say so, I also predicted exactly what would happen in the '04 elections in a column I wrote for TomPaine.com in August '03, in which I said -- based on polling data I cited -- that the Republicans would surf on the anti-gay backlash that occured after the Supreme Court "sodomy" decision in Lawrence v. Texas. The referenda and the federal Constitutional marriage amendment were Rove's strategy -- the Christers were his shock troops in carrying it out. You'll find this analysis in "Straight Wedge" on the TomPaine site at
http://www.tompaine.com/scontent/8536.html
Posted by: Doug Ireland | Jun 11, 2005 7:20:49 PM
It is not anti-gay to oppose "gay rights". Laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, are an example of the gays and their supporters imposing their values on others.
It is an over simplification to blame the Christian Right(whatever that means) for opposition to gay marriage. Here in Michigan only 3 voting districts voted against the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. One of them was a district that voted for Bush for President in the same election. In all, our state vote for Kerry and against gay marriage.
Oregon voted for Kerry and overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage.
Posted by: Andy | Jun 11, 2005 6:40:33 PM
Donald Wildmon is not just a censorship advocate or a gay-basher. He hates Jews and he hates the entertainment industry.
In the late 80's Wildmon said "Hollywood ... is heavily influenced by Jewish people". He said that in the midst of the AFA crusade against "The Last Temptation of Christ". Did the mainstream media ever report his Jew-bashing? No. I found out about it from The Freedom Writer (an anti-fundamentalist newsletter, now defunct) and the Village Voice.
In 1994 Wildmon branded Universal Pictures as "a company dominated by non-Christians." At the time Universal's owners were Canadian Jews (the Bronfman interests) and Japanese (Matsushita). Where was this reported? In These Times -- a liberal magazine that ID'd Wildmon as a member of the fascist Council for National Policy.
Wildmon also condones Christian terrorism: Two letter bombs were sent to the president of ABC in 1994 during an AFA campaign to ban "NYPD Blue".
Posted by: Charles Everett | Jun 11, 2005 11:15:12 AM
Dear Reginleif,
On your questioning the evidence about Abe Lincoln being gay, I suggest you read my review fot the L.A. Weekly of C.A. Tripp's book, "The Intimate World of Abe Lincoln," where you will find a considerable amount of historical documentaiton supporting that claim. The article is at
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/49/news-ireland.php
Posted by: Doug Ireland | Jun 10, 2005 8:37:46 PM
I just had to comment on the great moron, Brenda Levy, who assumes that gay men and women want to marry in order to have children. The logic here just doesn't work, Levy. Gay men and women want equal rights because they are human beings who happen to live in a country that, for the time being, is a land of freedom and the pusuit of happiness. Levy represents a whole class of people who are just mean-spirited. They hate other people for the hell of it. They don't give a damn about children. They just want to hate people.
Well, Brenda, I won't return the favor by hating you. I do hope that you have to deal with a gay child or grandchild or neice or nephew. I hope you have to think really hard about the hate that you perpetuate because you are so fucking dumb.
Go back and get and education before you waste space on another blog.
Posted by: Michael | Jun 10, 2005 5:49:53 PM
Brenda Levy's comments are a good example of how homophobic bigotry isn't confined to religious primitives and far-right wingnuts.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 10, 2005 4:27:16 PM
Threats of economic boycott from tight-fisted "Christians" like the AFA are not to be taken seriously. Microsoft recently shrugged off their moment of stupidity, and Kraft's response to those crying boycott for their sponsorship of the Gay Games has been a relentlessly cheerful "Screw you, fundie."
Seems like companies are starting to crunch the demographic numbers, and those numbers apparently show that the only thing really bad for business is alienating the gay demographics.
Posted by: Dan B | Jun 10, 2005 2:52:38 PM
One more thing: The "evidence" that Lincoln was gay isn't quite as strong as you think:
Making shit up about a historical figure to serve an agenda is not only wrong, but eventually becomes counterproductive to that agenda.
Posted by: Reginleif | Jun 10, 2005 2:34:34 PM
I am not an Xtian, or even religious, and I happen to support gay marriage and other civil rights for gay folks. That said:
"Even The New York Times is feeling the chill."
And they deserve to. Maybe if they hadn't undermined their own credibility with "reporters" like Jayson Blair and openly biased editors like Howell Raines, they'd have more fortitude with which to stand against the AFA's campaign.
"Deliberalize the paper’s news columns"
Um, why is this a problem? Newspapers are supposed to REPORT THE FACTS. Not be a "cheerleader" for one side, or wring its hands over how that side's victories might "disturb" others.
"Remember your history: In the 1950s, the anti-Communist owners of a small chain of supermarkets..." [snip]
What is not acknowledged here at all is that yes, there were a lot of Communists in American arts, literature, and other fields of employment back then; and yes, quite a few of them were working for the Soviets. I suppose that if the New York Times finally issues a mea culpa after all these years for the shameful "reporting" of Walter Duranty, you'll see that too as a caving in to the "Christers."
Posted by: Reginleif | Jun 10, 2005 2:20:49 PM
This is fucking stupid.
To the Rev: Leave us the fuck alone, we aren't hurting you! Our sexual preferences should be none of your fucking busines, so get your turned up nose out of it.
A true Christian doesn't judge, because they know that God will judge us when the time comes. So they graciously step aside. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is what my mother's always said, and that's exactly the phrase Rev. Donald Wildmon should hear!
Posted by: Shannon | Jun 10, 2005 2:18:22 PM
"The New Blacklist" article is largely the paranoid fantasy of a liberal. Voters have voted roughly 70%, give or take, in 13 states in favor of defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. Americans are not 70% "far right" Christians. Clearly, sentiment against gay marriage is broader and deeper than the writer implies.
I am not Christian (or Jewish), voted for Al Gore in 2000 and strongly oppose both civil unions and gay marriage. Why? I think that babies need mothers. I do not think that, ten generations from now, it should be an established principle that adults can deprive a baby of a mother because of the sexual preferences of homosexuals. I have worked in inner city schools. Boys need fathers. Two lesbians at home do not constitute a father. Does this make me hateful? Not at all. Disagreement does not constitute hate. Many of us simply do not think that marriage should be centered around the sexual preferences of adults.
From where I sit, we baby boomers want self-indulgence but prefer to call it high principle. I'm sorry that this appears to be our legacy for future generations.
Posted by: Brenda Levy | Jun 10, 2005 11:39:12 AM
I have been watching this whole thing unfold since before the elections - and the tactics these fundies use. This has nothing to do with them being against gay marriage - they don't want us to have any rights at all. They use gay marriage as a stepping stone because they know that most people in this country are against it. Then they fill it all in "and those people do this and ths and this, you don't want these people in YOUR neighborhood/business/teaching your kids, do you?" 9 times out of 10 the people who buy into this are folks who have little to no higher education, and don't question the way things are. Once the Christian fundamentalists get a hold of them, they are brainwashed - and I have found it impossible to reason with these people. This brainwashing gets to the core of their spirit - and that is what concerns me. If this is just the beginning of their crusade I fear what things will be like in ten years.
Posted by: Jonathan | Jun 9, 2005 7:27:45 PM
Oh, but they indeed are christians, and they're acting on longstanding christian values -- intolerance, sexual fascism, staggering self-righteousness, opposition to science and to reality itself. Those so-called mainstream christians share many of the same values as the fundies -- they just don't push them as aggressively. Nowhere in the christian tradition is there validation for gay sexuality or for any mode of sexual expression outside of heterosexual married monogamy. Yeah, sure, not all christians share the homo-hating mania of creeps like Dobson, but they're totally ineffectual in opposing him and his ilk. It's time for those of us who are secular humanists, agnostics, atheists, freethinkers, etc. to organize against these bastards, and NOT through any vehicle associated with the useless Democratic Party.
Posted by: George De Stefano | Jun 9, 2005 2:41:41 PM
Thank you for not calling these people "Christians." One of the biggest problems faced by mainline Christians, is that the mainstream press has tended to call these people "Christians," and when they need quotes from Christians, they tend to look for extremists on the right.
The Christers are a product of the same thing that produced Karl Rove and the new Republican party -- the Goldwater Moment. From organized boycots to astroturfing, the Christers and the political right have coalesced in an incredibly effecient allied front. It's time for the left to stop reacting to the strategies of the right and to organize in like fashion. As the Rove Republicans have found a strengthened base in the Christers, the new left will find a much larger majority of steady support in the mainline Christian left.
Posted by: Sean T | Jun 9, 2005 1:33:36 PM
It's even worse:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18075
Elizabeth Drew's account of how the Republicans are purging even the ranks of lobbyists of Democrats:
"he Republican purge of K Street is a more thorough, ruthless, vindictive, and effective attack on Democratic lobbyists and other Democrats who represent businesses and other organizations than anything Washington has seen before. The Republicans don't simply want to take care of their friends and former aides by getting them high-paying jobs: they want the lobbyists they helped place in these jobs and other corporate representatives to arrange lavish trips for themselves and their wives; to invite them to watch sports events from skyboxes; and, most important, to provide a steady flow of campaign contributions. The former aides become part of their previous employers' power networks. Republican leaders also want to have like-minded people on K Street who can further their ideological goals by helping to formulate their legislative programs, get them passed, and generally circulate their ideas. When I suggested to Grover Norquist, the influential right-wing leader and the leading enforcer of the K Street Project outside Congress, that numerous Democrats on K Street were not particularly ideological and were happy to serve corporate interests, he replied, "We don't want nonideological people on K Street, we want conservative activist Republicans on K Street."
The K Street Project has become critical to the Republicans' efforts to control all the power centers in Washington: the White House, Congress, the courts—and now, at least, an influential part of the corporate world, the one that raises most of the political money. It's another way for Republicans to try to impose their programs on the country. The Washington Post reported recently that House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, of Missouri, has established "a formal, institutionalized alliance" with K Street lobbyists. They have become an integral part of the legislative process by helping to get bills written and passed—and they are rewarded for their help by the fees paid by their clients. Among the results are legislation that serves powerful private interests all the more openly—as will be seen, the energy bill recently passed by the House is a prime example —and a climate of fear that is new. The conservative commentator David Brooks said on PBS's NewsHour earlier this year, "The biggest threat to the Republican majority is the relationship on K Street with corporate lobbyists and the corruption that is entailed in that." But if the Republicans are running a risk of being seen as overreaching in their takeover of K Street, there are few signs that they are concerned about it."
Posted by: Brian Siano | Jun 9, 2005 11:23:50 AM
Perhaps someone should find out what corporates/foundations are feeding $$$ to the AFA... and boycott them.
we may be surprized what we find !!!
Lisa K
Posted by: Lisa Koffey | Jun 9, 2005 10:13:05 AM