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

Which Side Are You On?

Jim Burroway

August 18th, 2010

Last week, I noted that Peter LaBarbera’s coming unglued over Ann Coulter’s scheduled appearance at GOProud might almost – almost — make me want to cheer for Coulter. Now LaBarbera’s going off on Glenn Beck for saying that same-sex marriage is not a threat to the country. LaBarbera counters that gay marriage will “destroy freedom.” Of course, the only freedom he’s really interested in is the freedom to force us to cower in the closet. That cause was lost 41 years ago.

Meanwhile, World Net Daily is also melting down over Coulter and GOProud. Coulter has been axed from WND’s “Taking America Back National Conference” to be held in Miami next month. Joseph Farah, WND’s editor, spoke to Coulter and said that she told him the only reason she’s speaking at GOProud is because she’s getting paid. Remember, this is coming from Farah so take it with a grain of salt, but he quotes Coulter as saying:

“I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don’t endorse their views. I’ve spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion. The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference. I’m sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences. But in any event, giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I’m speaking to. I was going to speak for you guys, I think you’re nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!)”

As I said last week, LaBarbera’s outrage over Coulter speaking at GOProud makes me almost want to cheer Coulter and GOProud, two entities that I have very little respect for otherwise. Same with Beck. So by the same token I have trouble knowing who to cheer for here as well. The whole “enemy of my enemy” thing can only carry you so far. Barely as far as it takes for me to write three paragraphs about it first thing in the morning and wonder if I’ve already spent too much time on this already.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Stephen
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

I think the only puzzlement here is why any college would hire Coulter to speak. Unless by ‘college’ she means Liberty U.

TJMcFisty
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

After spending so much time as of late with birferism (WND is king of the birftards), I cannot believe I’m actually a little thrilled–downright giggly–Coulter calls them out on their nuttery.

As for the rest, meh.

Peter LaBarbera
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Hey Jim, nice throwaway line on freedom, but even BTB has covered some of the zero-sum-game conflicts between homosexuality-based “rights” and religious freedom (inc. the New Mex. photog. case). Why don’t you get serious and address my points about the conflicts that would arise from legalizied SSM (and S.O. laws)? Do Americans (and not just religious Americans) have a fundamental right to oppose homosexuality based on their moral/philosophical beliefs — or not, in your view?

John in the Bay Area
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

The supposed quote from Coulter makes sense. I have seen her in action on TV a few times. She says whatever she needs to get a reaction and stir thing up. It has worked for her. I am sure that she has made a lot of money. I don’t for a moment believe that she honestly cares at all about the issues that she goes on rants about. It really is all about the money.

Stephen
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

To Mr LaBarbera.

No.

Next question: should Americans be allowed to put up signs reading “No Dogs or Jews Allowed”?

And moving right along: “No Irish Need Apply.”

Or my own favorite: “No Theatricals.”

KZ
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

I made the mistake of clicking on your ‘destroy freedom’ link. Mr Burroway could address LaBarbera’s points, but I think he already has from countless, previous posts.

Priya Lynn
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Peter said “Do Americans (and not just religious Americans) have a fundamental right to oppose homosexuality based on their moral/philosophical beliefs”.

Yes, up until the point when that opposition involves denying gays equality under the law.

John in the Bay Area
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

I am generally opposed to women marrying men who spend a great deal of time attending gay leather events, skulking about gay bathhouses and purchasing enormous amounts of gay porn.

However, just because I think that it is a terrible idea for a woman to marry or stay married to a man with these sorts of all consuming hobbies or obsessions, I don’t think that I have the right to deny this woman the freedom to make her own mistakes by marrying this man who is way too interested in things that heterosexual men don’t take an interest in.

So, Peter, someone can oppose something, yet at the same time recognize that they don’t have a right to interfere in someone else’s private life.

Soren456
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

@LaBarbera:

How do you “oppose” homosexuality? That’s like “opposing” the weather.

Both are natural phenomena; how do you “oppose” them?

TampaZeke
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

I think it’s very telling that GOProud loves Coulter so much but Coulter makes it clear that she doesn’t support them and is only attending their event for the money.

No matter how I feel about Coulter or how I feel about GOProud, there’s no denying that they are meant for each other and deserve each other.

Oh, and Hi Petey! How does it feel to realize that you’re on a rapidly sinking ship? 10 to 20 years from now the vast majority of people will remember you, and others like you, with the same fondness that is reserved for George Wallace, former Grand Wizards of the Ku Klux Klan and other bigots who lead campaigns against minority civil rights.

I know, I know, YOU aren’t a bigot and homa-sek-shul rights aren’t civil rights. Funny that. Growing up in Mississippi, my racist parents, who fought integration and voting rights for blacks claimed, and continue claim, that they weren’t bigots and that “negro” rights weren’t civil rights either. In fact, most people in the South and many people across the country agreed with them. But history hasn’t been kind to those people.

I suspect that this is one of your greatest fears. That gay people will achieve equality and their rights will be considered civil rights and that those who oppose their rights will be considered bigots.

Alas, I think you have good reason to fear.

Just so you know, I’m doing everything I can do to make your greatest fears come true.

TampaZeke
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Actually, I take that back.

I think your GREATEST fear is that people will come to a place where they not only don’t fear their gay neighbors but actually like them and support them. The reason this is your greatest fear is because you know that their lack of fear means you won’t be able to dupe them into sending you their hard earned cash, resulting in your being forced to get a REAL job!

THAT is your GREATEST fear!

sam
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Peter asks, “Why don’t you get serious and address my points about the conflicts that would arise from legalizied SSM (and S.O. laws)?”

What conflicts? Any conflicts I’ve seen are fictions contrived to scare people into thinking that we’re boogeymen/women (boogeypeople? boogeypersons?) So why don’t you come back and tell us here what it is that you’re so worried about?

Timothy Kincaid
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Peter,

Do Americans (and not just religious Americans) have a fundamental right to oppose homosexuality based on their moral/philosophical beliefs — or not, in your view?

Of course they do.

Ideology – even that which is based in animus, fear, arrogance, superiority, or fanaticism – is a fundamental right that we support here at BTB. But, of course, we also reserve our fundamental right to oppose that ideology and expose it for what it is.

Aeval
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

To Peter LaBarbera:

Time is on our side, and God is not on your side.

TampaZeke
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

What’s the matter Pete? Don’t like to play outside your echo chamber sandbox?

Xaocoh
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Why worry about who you should be cheering for? Just grab some popcorn and enjoy the show!

Chris McCoy
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Peter LaBarbera said:

Why don’t you get serious and address my points about the conflicts that would arise from legalizied SSM (and S.O. laws)? Do Americans (and not just religious Americans) have a fundamental right to oppose homosexuality based on their moral/philosophical beliefs — or not, in your view?

Please clarify what you mean when you say “oppose”.

Does “oppose” mean “Make a personal choice not to associate or do business with”; or does “oppose” mean “Deny equal rights to, by force of law”.

Jason D
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

“Do Americans (and not just religious Americans) have a fundamental right to oppose homosexuality based on their moral/philosophical beliefs — or not, in your view?”

They have the right to be opposed to whatever they wish to be opposed to, however if they wish to express that opposition by violating laws, the constitution or use the government to punish and oppress those they disagree with then they have crossed the line.

Let’s ask YOU a Question Pete.
Your religion opposes premarital sex, right? Yet it’s legal. At some point a Christian parent has to explain to their children that while this is legal, it’s not moral according to their family’s faith. In other words, they have to explain that there are Man’s Laws and God’s Laws and they don’t always overlap. Similarly a Kosher Jewish parent has to explain that a Ham & Cheese sandwich is against their faith, but perfectly legal. Now we don’t see Hebrews declaring that allowing people to make, sell, and eat ham and cheese violates their rights because they have to have conversations with their children…yet somehow, you think that homosexuality can’t just be part of the “it’s legal, but we’re against it” talk. Somehow that’s a violation, but explaining that things like gambling, drinking, and premarital sex are legal but against your faith isn’t a violation. How’s that work?

Richard Rush
August 18th, 2010 | LINK

Oh, Peter, you really should seek professional help.
You clearly suffer from GOD (Gay Obsession Disorder). Symptoms include debilitating irrational fear and loathing of gayness, and paralyzing paranoia. Those symptoms are normally coupled with delusions of superiority that include the assumption of entitlement to have absolute authority over the lives of others in every detail, and a compulsion to persecute those who dare to resist.

Anyone should recognize that they are in dire need of professional help when Glenn Beck is not paranoid enough for them.

Audrey the Liberal
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Hey, look everybody, it’s ‘Porno Pete’. “Hi ‘Porno Pete’”.

Tommy
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

And crazy rears it’s head…

(inc. the New Mex. photog. case)

You do realize there is a difference between a person and a business?

Tommy
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

Now my question (or rather questions) for Mr. LaBarbera is this:

Did you know that Liberty University was started to be a whites only school? Did you know the moral majority was founded because Jimmy Carter stripped segregationist “Christian” schools like Liberty University of their tax exempt status? Would you be intellectually honest and describe this as a “zero-sum-game conflict” between race-based “rights” and religious freedom? Do Americans (and not just religious Americans) have a fundamental right to oppose black people based on their moral/philosophical beliefs — or not, in your view?

Timothy Kincaid
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Tommy,

You’re making some interesting claims about Liberty University but I don’t think they are accurate. Please provide a source.

werdna
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Timothy-Perhaps Tommy was thinking of Bob Jones University, rather than Liberty, at least as far as having a history of racial discrimination.

Tommy
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Liberty University was founded in 1971 as Lynchburg Baptist College and was an adjunct to Lynchburg Christian Academy which was built in 1967. The News reported in 1967, “a non-profit, non-stock Lynchburg organization has announced plans to build a private school for white students on land in the Evergreen Farms area.”

Timothy Kincaid
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Tommy, thanks for the source.

Chris McCoy
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Thy Kingdom Come‘ by Randall Balmer (2006) was written to forward the premise that the Moral Majority began due to opposition to the “forced” desegregation of Bob Jones University, and not due to Roe v Wade.

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)
(Required, never shared)

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