Box Turtle Bulletin

FRC values anti-gay conformity more than pro-life advocacy

The Family “Research” Council sees itself as a protector of conservative social values, specifically by opposing abortion rights and equality for gay Americans. But it appears that FRC has a hierarchy in their social agenda and they may well value partisan conformity to anti-gay positions more than they value “the inherent dignity of every human life from conception.” (Times-Picayune)

The conservative Family Research Council Action PAC has launched a last-minute radio ad campaign against Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, R-New Orleans, for his support of gay rights.
…
Cao co-sponsored both the Hate Crimes Protection Act of 2009 and House legislation to repeal the policy that prohibits openly gay men and women from serving in the armed forces, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

“I believe it is a human rights violation to impose government-sanctioned penalties on a group of people just because of their sexual orientation, just as it would be a human rights violation to impose penalties on a group because of its religious affiliation or race,” Cao said. “I will continue to fight for the protection of human rights for all people.”

This alone might not raise eyebrows. It would not be unusual for FRC to oppose pro-gay candidates. But it should be viewed in context: (FrumForum)

Further confounding is the fact that Cao is one of the most pro-life Republicans on Capitol Hill. He was only persuaded to vote against the final version of the healthcare bill because he wasn’t satisfied that it would not fund abortions. On pro-life issues, the National Right to Life has Cao supporting them on all of their five identified pro-life votes in the last Congress.

FRC is willing to give up a staunch pro-life vote, and replace him with a Democrat who is not likely to vote with FRC on many issues at all. Why is FRC trying to throw the election?

Because FRC is not just opposing Cao due to his gay advocacy; rather, FRC is furious that Cao dare be a Republican who supports gay people. Tony Perkins and FRC are desperate to hold onto the Republican Party and keep gay equality as a partisan issue for as long as possible. His biggest fear is that it will soon become acceptable for elected Republicans to be pro-gay; when that happens, the battle will be over.

GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Apologizes for Anti-Gay Remarks

Tea Party-backed Republican candidate Carl P. Paladino, whose anti-gay remarks to Orthodox Jewish leaders sparked outcry in New York and embarrassment among fellow state Republicans, has finally issued a letter of apology for his outburst.

In remarks delivered to Orthodox Jewish rabbis, Paladino called gay people “perverts who seek to target our children and destroy their lives,” and said that gays were trying to “brainwash [them] into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option.”

The following morning, Paladino appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America, where, incredibly, he tried to paint his remarks as being empathetic to LGBT people who experience discrimination. He also insisted that he was not anti-gay and would hire gay people in his administration.

Later, in Paladino’s letter of apology, he wrote, “I sincerely apologize for any comment that may have offended the Gay and Lesbian Community or their family members.” He also said that he was a “live and let live person,” and that “I am 100% against discrimination of any group. I oppose discrimination of any kind in housing, credit, insurance benefits or visitation.”

Elsewhere, Paladino has said that he would veto a marriage equality bill if it should reach his desk as governor and has called for a statewide referendum on the subject.

The most incredible admission in his letter is this:

Yesterday I was handed a script. I redacted some contents that were unacceptable. I did also say some things for which I should have chosen better words.

We know that one redacted content was the line, “There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.” The Jewish Week reports that it was Rabbi Yehoda Levin who prepared the remarks. Which, if true, means that Paladino will mostly read whatever words anyone thrusts in front of him.

Meanwhile, the laws of unintended consequences continue to hold sway. In reaction to the backlash against Paladino’s comments, New York state Senate GOP leader Dean Skelos said that if the Republicans win control of the chamber, he would bring the marriage equality bill to the floor again for an up-or-down vote, although he remains opposed to the bill.

Also, the New York Daily News reports that Paladino has made quite a lot of money off of gay people as the landlord of a couple of Buffalo gay clubs.

Paladino’s letter of apology after the jump

New York Republicans denounce Palidino’s anti-gay remarks

Earlier this week, Republican nominee for New York Governor, Carl Paladino, called gays “perverts” and said they “seek to target our children and destroy their lives.” While that sort of language may seem normal for Republicans in Oklahoma, New Yorkers are a different breed. (Boston Herald)

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani Monday called on Paladino to apologize for his “highly offensive remarks.” Paladino’s opponent in the GOP primary, Rick Lazio, said the speech was “counterproductive and an embarrassment.”

Dan Donovan, the GOP candidate for attorney general, and Harry Wilson, the Republican running for comptroller, both issued statements denouncing Paladino’s comments.

Meanwhile Paladino thinks that he deserves an apology from the media for including a line that was in the draft but which he didn’t say. And he attempted to hide behind a gay nephew (which seems to be the latest trend in “some of my best friends are…”) (CBS)

“I want to clearly define myself. I have of no reservations about gay people at all, none, except for one thing, their desire to get married. … I feel that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Very clearly, I wanted to state that.

“Now, in addition, I have a nephew and … I have people working for me who are gay. Never had a problem with any of them, never had a problem in any sense with their lifestyle and we’ve talked about it often. … I talk to them about the discrimination that they suffer and I’m sensitive to it.

He went on to say that homosexuality was “not an easy life.”

“It’s a very, very difficult life. Most of them don’t choose it. … The discrimination that they suffer is very, very difficult and I’m totally sensitive to it.

No, Mr. Paladino, it’s not a “difficult life.” Or, at least, it wouldn’t be without the interference of individuals such as yourself.

Another “radical activist” (Republican) judge

In what is becoming a strong ironic trend, yet another judge who has found that gay people are, well, citizens like everyone else and constitutionally protected from discrimination turns out to be a Republican. As we noted last week, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton ordered the Air Force to reinstate Major Margaret Witt, saying

The application of “Dont’s Ask Don’t Tell” to Major Margaret Witt does not significantly further the government’s interest in promoting military readiness, unit morale and cohesion. Her discharge from the Air Force Reserves violated her substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. She should be restored to her position as a Flight Nurse with the 446th AES as soon as is practicable, subject to meeting applicable regulations touching upon qualifications necessary for continued service.

Now the Seattle Times tells us a bit more about Judge Leighton:

Leighton, 59, was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush in January 2002 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in November of that year.

An active Republican and longtime Tacoma trial attorney, Leighton twice served on fundraising committees for former Sen. Slade Gorton.

Gorton, the state’s last Republican senator, championed Leighton twice as a federal judicial nominee. The first nomination came from George H.W. Bush in 1992, but the Senate failed to act on the nomination before Bush Sr. left office.

I noticed that this time the usual suspects didn’t even trot out the “liberal activist judge” accusations. They must really be disheartened by now.

Montana GOP lawmaker seeks to repeal anti-gay law

Back in June we, along with many others, noted that the platform of the Montana Republican Party included this position:

We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.

As it turns out, this was a position that had sat in their platform since 1997 and no one really noticed that it was there. But the attention proved to be embarrassing to some in the party. (AP)

“I looked at that and said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me,'” state Sen. John Brueggeman, R-Polson, said last week. “Should it get taken out? Absolutely. Does anybody think we should be arresting homosexual people? If you take that stand, you really probably shouldn’t be in the Republican Party.”

Revising the Party platform requires a process involving committees and conventions and cannot happen over night. However, this has prompted Brueggeman to take action where he can. He is going after the defunct sodomy law that, though unenforceable, still sits on the Montana law books. (Bozeman Daily Chronicle)

State Sen. John Brueggeman says he is requesting a draft of a bill to strike down the law. The bill would be considered by the 2011 Legislature, which convenes in January.
…
The Polson Republican has criticized the GOP platform statement. He now says Montana shouldn’t have such a discriminatory law, even if it can’t be enforced.

I guess a little embarrassment can be a motivator.

New Times profiles Matt Salmon, the gay one

What happens when the sons of two prominent conservative Republican Mormon families meet? Why, they become a cute couple, of course.

The Phoenix New Times has an extensive profile on Matt R. Salmon, son of former Arizona state senator, gubernatorial candidate, and U.S. congressman Matt J. Salmon and his boyfriend Kent Flake.

They’ve been a couple for 10 months, and things haven’t gotten much easier with their families. Flake says he hasn’t had a real conversation with his father since March and hasn’t visited his family in Snowflake since a quick day trip in June. His family has no interest in meeting Salmon.

“I’ve asked them many times to meet him, and they don’t want to see him,” Flake says. “My dad’s last comment to me was that he didn’t want him around our family, his kids, or his grandkids.”

When Flake started dating Salmon, he says, his sister called Salmon a “fag” and a “pedophile.” Flake’s sister, Trisha Rogers, tells New Times, “A lot of things were said in the beginning that caused contention. It’s really important to me that people know there’s no hatred there. It was just such a shock, because Kent seemed to change so quickly. He was different from the brother I knew for 25 years. We felt like we’d lost our brother, in a sense, and Matt got some of the blame.”

The difference in social policy between a Democrat and a moderate Republican

In reading about the candidates vying for Mark Kirk’s old district, I ran across as clear a description between the social positions of a “Democrat” and a “moderate Republican” as I think I’ve seen:

The two candidates are facing off in the 10th Congressional District, portraying themselves as deficit and tax hawks who are more moderate on social issues.

Yet Dold and Seals noted their differences on abortion and gay rights.

Dold said he supports abortion rights, with restrictions. Dold backs parental notification for minors and opposes late-term abortions and tax money being spent on the procedure.

“Let me be clear, I’m pro-choice, while I may be more moderate than (Seals) is on this issue,” Dold said.

Seals said he supports abortion rights without Dold’s caveats and cited his endorsements from organizations such as Planned Parenthood.

Seals argued that limits on taxpayer-funded abortion and parental notification laws would force some women “to go to a back alley to care of this.”

On gay marriage, Seals supports it, calling it a “civil rights issue.” He also backs repealing military restrictions on openly gay soldiers.

Dold doesn’t support gay marriage, but said same-sex couples should have similar legal protections. Dold said he will support repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy if military generals agree it won’t impact combat operations.

Yes, there are many Democrats that do not support marriage equality and some Republicans that do. But I think that these two positions probably reflect what the voter who self-categorizes as “Democrat” or “moderate Republican” finds most comfortable.

Utah GOP selects Log Cabin leader as candidate

To run for State Senate in Utah, you need to file certain disclosures by a deadline. If you do not, you are disqualified and the state party can pick a new candidate. (Pride in Utah)

The time limit expired last night on Ben McAdams’ Republican opponent Nancy Davis to file her disclosures and she was forced out of the race. In these unlikely circumstances, the Republican Party is allowed to nominate their own candidate to automatically run without going through the delegate system. You won’t believe who they picked.

Of all people… Melvin Nimer, the President of the Utah Log Cabin Republicans and board member of the Utah Pride Center.

Ben McAdams, the Mormon Democrat currently holding the office, is supportive of the community and a reliable ally. His predecessor in the 2nd District was gay.

It’s difficult to know just what prompted the Republican Party to pick a gay candidate. Perhaps they figure that a gay man has a better chance in the district, and they like winning more than they oppose gay rights. Or perhaps it was pure tokenism, tossing an impossible seat to the gay guy; yet this is a token that Utah Republicans have not traditionally considered.

Regardless of the reason, this is very unexpected and very welcome.

The Republican Party has reached a turning point

I have some hesitation to write this, for several reasons. First, I may be premature in my analysis and may be observing a fluctuation rather than a trend. And also, it goes without saying that some will be furious with me for daring to suggest that their favorite boogieman may no longer be lurking under their bed. But I think it is true; so I’ll say it.

The Republican Party has reached a turning point on gay rights.

To be specific, I think that we have now reached the point where the Republican Party will never again see it to be a winning strategy to oppose gay people. I think that much of the party will continue to be non-supportive of specific gay issues – particularly marriage – but no longer will the justification for such positions be baldly presented as unashamed animus.

Further, and more importantly, no longer will being anti-gay be seen as an integral part of the meaning of “Republican” or a presumed policy determinant. And that is, in my opinion, of tremendous importance. Going forward, Republican politicians will have permission to be fully supportive of gay equality and will not lose status for doing so.

I’ve been observing this for a while. When Cindy McCain received no criticism at all from party leaders for endorsing marriage equality, I found it telling. When Laura Bush announced her tepid support, I became more impressed. As Proposition 8 was overturned without a peep from nearly every prominent Republican, I was frankly surprised. And when Ken Mehlman’s coming out garnered nothing but praise from his predecessors and successors, I finally was convinced that the Party has abandoned it’s knee-jerk raging anti-gay rhetoric for good.

Kate Zernike, writing in the NY Times, notes the non-response to Mehlman.

…in a midterm election cycle that is otherwise fierce, campaigns are largely silent on the issue of same-sex marriage — even as two federal courts have issued similar decisions in recent months upholding the rights of gay people to wed. And when Ken Mehlman, who ran President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign in 2004 and then became the party’s chairman, said in an interview in The Atlantic this week that he is gay and is working to support a campaign for same-sex marriage, it was met with little controversy.

Even the commentary accusing him of hypocrisy seemed outweighed by people who wished him well, or merely shrugged.

The muted reaction reflects not only changing values in the country generally, but also, more notably, among many Republicans and conservatives.

Part of this, of course, is the current economic concern. No one is wanting their elected officials to rant and rave about gays when they don’t know whether they will have a job or a home in a year. But more of it is related, I believe, to an awareness that this issue has passed. No one is fired up to fight the gays.

Polls show that acceptance of gay and lesbian Americans is increasing rapidly, that youth overwhelmingly support equality, and that folks are getting used to the idea of gay people being their neighbors, not deviant perverts living in hedonistic San Francisco.

Even the Tea Party’s narrow focus on economic issues has changed the national conversation. NOM may have toured but no one showed up.

And when Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter hop of the homophobia express, you know its because they’ve looked down the tracks and don’t see any advantage in going where it’s going.

Does that mean that the Republican Party is going to rush to support our goals? If the Republican Party takes over the House or the Senate, will they continue to push forward ENDA or repealing all or part of DOMA? Should our community rush to vote for the GOP?

No.

Or not any time soon, anyway. Republicans will remain, for some years to come, a reliable voting block, both in the legislatures and in the ballot box, against full equality. McCain will rant, Cornyn will sneer, and few will hurry to cosponsor needed legislation.

But it does mean that votes will become less and less partisan, that many newer legislators – and even some older ones – are going to come to the startling revelation that they views have “evolved”, that “times have changed” and that “recent research” has helped them to come to policy positions that they do not hold today. And, most importantly, that the fiery invective, fierce denunciation, and waving of Bibles is going to dry up – and, I predict, sooner rather than later.

And I don’t think it’s going to turn back. The social forces that are pushing change are not likely to reverse any time soon. And by the time that the economy ceases to be an all-consuming obsession, too much water will have gone under the bridge to restart an anti-gay campaign. Time is our friend, and the more of it that passes, the weaker the cause against equality will be.

This will, of course, result in a lot of short-term shrill shrieking from those who earn their living, or political relevancy, from “fighting the homosexual agenda.” But even they see the writing on the wall. Yesterday, Ken Blackwell, the anti-gay Ohio social conservative warned:

Disaster Looms If GOP Changes Course On Gay Marriage

That he even has to fear such a thing is a sign that times have changed and that the old Republican anti-gay paradigm is dying. We know it, the Party leadership knows it, our opponents know it. And it is going to be a joy to watch it finally fade away.

Voters are really really (not) concerned about “protecting marriage”

The latest Pew Research Center survey is in and they’ve found that when it comes to same-sex marriage, voters could not care less. Literally. Of the thirteen categories of concern, same-sex marriage was at the very bottom, in both parties.

The reason we haven’t heard the politicians screaming about Judge Walker’s ruling is because they have figured out that their constituents aren’t interested, don’t want to talk about it, and are probably suspicious about anyone who wants to rant about gays instead of the economy.

Utah Gov. hosts Log Cabin

Utah Governor Gary Herbert will be hosting a private reception for Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, later this month. Herbert, a Republican and a Mormon, had spoken against a non-discrimination proposal last year but this announcement may be an evidence of both the party’s and the church’s softening attitudes over the past couple of years.

Within the past few years, at least six Utah cities have passed discrimination protections – with the support of the Mormon Church. This may be the silver lining that resulted from the exposure of the church’s involvement in California’s Proposition 8.

Let’s hope that Log Cabin can continue to help build inroads into the administration and elicit support for some of the provisions that are expected to be brought up in the legislature within the next year. But even absent any specific tangible advance, this is a positive step. History shows us that exposure to gay people and hearing our concerns can be the strongest contributor to change.

Why the Cornyn meeting matters

No one does homophobia like a Texas Republican. This year’s party platform is so ragingly anti-gay that it looks like it could have been drafted by any of the colorful people who make a living off of scaring folks about The Homosexual Agenda.

So, then, why is Texas Senator John Cornyn speaking at a fundraiser for the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay group? And, more importantly, what does this say about the current and future state of gay politics within the Republican Party?

For many conservative Republicans, Log Cabin is seen as an enemy to the Party. They are not “real” Republicans but rather (in the words of American Family Association’s Robert Knight) a Trojan Horse:

“It’s important to understand that the Log Cabin Republicans aren’t really a Republican group; they’re a group of homosexual activists who are inside the Republican Party, trying to neutralize the party on the issue of homosexual activism,” he explains. “It’s sort of a voluntary disarmament that they’re advising the Republicans to undertake.”

And for some Republicans, an organization of gay Republicans is no more valid than a club of Republican murders or Republican pedophiles. They would no more acknowledge Log Cabin’s existence than they would of the Republican Socialists Club – it’s an impossible contradiction in terms.

Conservative Republicans – or more accurately, purist Republicans – have long pretended that LCR didn’t exist. And when they did mention the group, it was as an illustration of Who We Are Not Like or in mockery. The term RINO (“Republican In Name Only”) is often applied as a slur against fiscally conservative people who didn’t follow the party’s social agenda.

And this is why it is important that Log Cabin receive official recognition from ranking officials within the Party and by Party structure. As the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Cornyn’s presence provides authentication, it says “you are real Republicans.” It says that Robert Knight is wrong, the disagreements between Cornyn and Log Cabin are defining.

And that is a very important acknowledgment. And it adds to a process that is changing the dynamic. Instead of being outsiders, vile scum whose opinions do not even matter (who cares what a rapist has to say?), gay Republicans are becoming family with whom they do not agree. Instead of being dismissed out of hand, your voice can be heard even if it does not immediately persuade change.

And, even more importantly, it sends a message to moderate members of the party that being friendly with gay activists is not political suicide. It says that you can consider pro-gay perspectives and still be considered “a good Republican”. (And I think that we have been seeing this for a while without giving it proper attention).

What will this do on a personal level? Will this shift Cornyn’s opinions or votes? Probably not. But it may change his future language.

Will this result in a change in policy? Probably not. But it may make it less easy for the American Family Association to make wild claims about “what gays are like”. And it may make it more acceptable for rogues to “just disagree” with the party position and support our community on some issues.

Our community says over and over and over that coming out is the most important thing to bring about social advancement. Nothing changes minds more than exposure to a real living gay person whom you like.

And that is also true in politics. Nothing – absolutely nothing – will change Republican Party positions on gay issues more quickly or more effectively than being exposed to gay people. And that is why this is such a tremendously important step.

Marriage Equality brought to you by… Republicans?

The Atlantic’s Joshua Green gives a brief listing of the “liberal activist judges” who have been instrumental in bringing about marriage equality in those states in which it exists.

Nearly as significant as the [finding that DOMA is unconstitutional] itself is the political affiliation of the judge who made it: 79-year-old Joseph Tauro, the longest-serving appointee of Richard Nixon. Why is this significant? Because while the recent confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan dwelt on whether ”activist” liberal judges appointed by Democrats would trample legal precedent, the judges who have begun the constitutional protection of same-sex marriage have mostly been Republican appointees like Tauro.

Last year, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a gay-marriage ban on the grounds that it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the state constitution. The unanimous decision was written by Justice Mark Cady, a conservative placed on the court by the former Republican governor Terry Branstad. In 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court struck down a comparable prohibition in an opinion written by Justice Richard Palmer, an appointee of Governor Lowell Weicker, a three-term Republican senator who became an independent. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling was written by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, named to the court by one Republican governor (William Weld) and elevated to chief justice by another (Paul Cellucci).

Green sees these judges as being in contrast with more recent Republican judicial appointments.

What all these judges share is their distinctiveness from Republican appointments over the last two decades, who tend to be activists affiliated with conservative outfits like the Federalist Society — think John Roberts and Samuel Alito. This makes the Republican pedigrees of the judges moving gay marriage toward legality all the more striking, particularly in how it contrasts with conservative outcries about judicial activism. But more than that, it’s a gauge of how far from the mainstream modern conservative jurists have drifted.

Georgia GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Karen Handel: classic example of unthinking prejudice

Heterosexuals are superior to gay people because, well, they just are. Everyone knows that!

This is the type of “thinking” that is based solely in prejudice, an assumption that goes unchallenged and is so basic to one’s beliefs that to think otherwise would be jarring. And this is the type of “thinking” that Karen Handel, a Republican candidate for Governor of Georgia, uses to determine her policies.

Doug Richards, writing for 11alive.com, interviewed the candidate.

Q: Would you favor outlawing gay adoptions?

A: Yeah, I would consider that, absolutely.

Q: Do you know any gay couples with children?

A: Not that I’m aware of.

Q: So you think gay couples are less qualified to function as parents than straight couples?

A: I think that for a child to be in a household — in a family in a household with a situation where the parents are not married, as in one man and one woman, is not the best household for a child.

Q: Is it better or worse than a single parent household?

A: Doug, I’m really trying to be straightforward with you but I’m not going to debate all the nuances. I’ve made it abundantly clear that I think that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that’s what I believe, and I don’t know what more you would like me to add to that.

Q: I guess I want to know why you think gay parents aren’t as legitimate as heterosexual parents.

A: Because I don’t.

No knowledge. No reason. No experience. Just prejudice.

Texas GOP vice-chair defends party’s extremist anti-gay platform

If the term “hate-filled homophobic bigotry” does not accurately describe the platform of the Republican Party in Texas, then it’s a term without meaning.

Not content with clauses about the “protection of marriage” or which express dismay at what “the children” are being taught about homosexuality, the Texas GOP makes no bones about what they feel about gay people. They want to take away your children, deny you health insurance, and throw you in jail.

Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

But if you think that sounds harsh, well Texas Republican Party Vice Chair Melinda Fredricks knows who to blame: you. If you weren’t so uppity, trying “to force acceptance, affirmation and normalization of homosexual behavior,” then she wouldn’t have to put you in your place.

From The Courier (which her husband publishes)

Although Fredricks admits she cannot speak for the entire Republican Party, she believes the strong statement was a response to an aggressive homosexual political agenda, including an attempt to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass laws forcing churches to consider hiring homosexuals. Fredricks said “a large portion of our base is Christian, and we believe that homosexuality is contrary to what God says is appropriate behavior.

“People feel threatened that their children have to be taught that it’s an equal lifestyle to heterosexuality,” she said. “At the same time, you can’t say people are subhuman. (Homosexuals) still deserve the dignity entitled to them.”

I’m not sure I quite see the distinction between “subhuman” and the way in which Fredricks views gay people. And I’m not sure just how much dignity one can have when denied even the most basic of freedoms.