Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg Wants To Throw You In Jail

Jim Burroway

February 2nd, 2010

Don’t believe me? Then check this out:

Peter Sprigg was on Chris Matthews’s Hardball to talk about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on gays in the military. Sprigg, of course, is against ending the ban. But skip ahead  to about the 8:15 mark, and you can see what Sprigg really wants to do:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you Peter, do you think people choose to be gay?

SPRIGG: Uh, people do not choose to have same-sex attractions, but they do choose to have homosexual conduct. And that’s conduct also , which incidentally is against the law within the military. It violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It doesn’t make any sense for us to be actively recruiting people who are going to be violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?

SPRIGG: Well, I think certainly it’s defensible.

MATTHEWS: I\’m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?

SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

MATTHEWS: So we should outlaw gay behavior.


This is the guy who nearly two years ago said we should “export” gays:

YouTube Preview Image



February 2nd, 2010 | LINK

Oh… just you wait. Peter’s going to claim one of the following:

1) “LIberal media bias was on full display as I was ambushed by Chris Matthews and not given the opportunity to clarify my position! This is what happens to Christians who speak out on behalf of righteousness! Please send money.”

2) “I was misquoted. Please send money.”

3) “My statements were completely taken out of context! Please send money.”

4) “My statements were deliberately misunderstood. Please send money.”

February 2nd, 2010 | LINK

I tend to agree with your analysis, Christopher. Of course, I’d offer the following responses.

1) You’d think by now that Peter Sprigg and other such “righteous speakers” would be prepared for such “ambushes.” The fact that they can still be caught off guard demonstrates that they are incompetent to be public speakers and should allow more capable spokespeople to step forward.

2) Claiming that you are misquoted may work in print or when someone repeats your words. However, when there is video of you uttering those exact words, it’s rather silly to try and claim a misquote. (Though I’m sure he’s relying on the fact that the donors will never actually watch the video for themselves or will forget it in favor of his retelling of what he said.)

3) A direct answer of “yes” to a direct question is rather difficult to take out of context.

4) When someone asks directly if we should outlaw gay behavior and you say “yes,” it’s hard to understand what other understanding any reasonable person might come to.

February 2nd, 2010 | LINK

I totally agree with your points, Jarred. However, these are the only excuses that Peter Sprigg could possibly offer to polish this turd. And it’s not like we haven’t seen these lame and tired attempts before.

I don’t know what’s worse… his statement about criminalizing gays, or that he assumes his right-wing Christian audience is so stupid, they wouldn’t even bother to call him on any of these excuses.

Or, more frighteningly, they don’t care what he said because they agree with him.

Timothy Kincaid
February 3rd, 2010 | LINK

I suspect that Peter Sprigg will not try and claim he meant anything other than what he said. He is proud to believe that gay behavior should be outlawed.

If cornered, he’ll say that he wasn’t advocating for jail time, per se, but rather that homosexual behavior should be illegal so as to send a message of disapproval much in the same way that smoking pot is illegal but seldom enforced.

Personally, I think it’s time that we took the gloves off. Anti-gays have no problem making marriage battles about irrelevant things (e.g. NJ pavilion).

Our next ad should include Peter Sprig, Bill Tam, and every other lunatic phobe out there. Let the voters know that this isn’t about “protecting marriage” but is instead about criminalizing their gay neighbors.

Priya Lynn
February 3rd, 2010 | LINK

Timothy said “much in the same way that smoking pot is illegal but seldom enforced.”

Either you live in some unbelievably exceptional part of the U.S. or you’re profoundly ignorant about what’s going on in your own country.

Police arrested an estimated 872,720 persons for cannabis violations in 2007, the highest annual total ever recorded in the United States, according to statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Of those charged with cannabis violations, approximately 89 percent, 775,137 Americans were charged with possession only. An American is now arrested for violating cannabis laws every 38 seconds.

February 3rd, 2010 | LINK

Timothy, just call it the “Enough!” campaign. All I can ever think when I read/hear/see their shenanigans is “Enough already!”

Put them on the defensive for a change. And when they claim victim: rinse/repeat only louder.

February 3rd, 2010 | LINK

I’m actually pleased to see the anti-gays coming out of their closets, so to speak, and showing their true colors. This is great PR for us because it’ll show the public just how hateful and mean-spirited these people really are.

It’s easy for us to see the connection between the views of people like Peter Sprigg and opposition to marriage equality because we’ve learned to from growing up surrounded by prejudice, but many members of the public still think they can be compartmentalized. I think Timothy is right on about ads featuring the likes of Sprigg, Tam, etc.

February 3rd, 2010 | LINK

And fellow conservatives/libertarians wonder why I hold groups like FRC in such contempt and remain highly suspicious of social cons in general.

This is nothing new. Many groups like FRC and AFA have been our enemies for years. They are every bit of a threat to our Republic as the extreme Left is. If socialism is bad for Americans, as I believe it to be, so is theocracy.

February 3rd, 2010 | LINK

I see your point. In that sense, Peter would be like those people who insist that abortions should be outlawed but resort to handwaving and excuses of “not being qualified to comment” when pressed to disclose what they think the appropriate sentence would be for a woman who had an abortion.

Of course, it’s a ludicrous notion. A law that declares something illegal but provides no provision for enforcement is a waste of legislative time and taxpayers’ money.

February 3rd, 2010 | LINK

If you want to look into the modern face of evil, look upon the face of one Peter Sprigg. All that is missing is the black-white-red armband. With a cross on it!

Ben in Oakland
February 3rd, 2010 | LINK

I know that this is somewhat tired, but I only had to listen to this man and think with the sound off, and all that krep passing through my mind was….

gay face.

Oh yes and really prissy queen in bunny slippers and a caftan

rom mittney
August 2nd, 2012 | LINK

“he’ll say that he wasn’t advocating for jail time, per se, but rather that homosexual behavior should be illegal so as to send a message of disapproval much in the same way that smoking pot is illegal but seldom enforced.”
Which requires jail time for *some* prosecuted. I agree that this guy would claim that he meant exactly what he said. His supporters would criticism for surrendering to teh gey agenda.
Since this post is more than 2 years old, I wonder if sprigg has “refudidiated” himself, or has reiterated his 2010 opinion?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.