Candi Cushman responds to GLAAD with the MSU strategy

Timothy Kincaid

March 17th, 2012

The new Commentator Accountability Project of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation was certainly expected to elicit reaction and some of it in objection. And there are reasonable and legitimate responses which some on the list could make.

For example, those who were included primarily due to statements of theological position could simply note that indeed they do disagree with GLAAD but that they think it unfair to be lumped in with folks like Lively or Donohue. Or some might object to specific quotes which they may have once said but no longer believe. And those are objections with which I could sympathize.

But one included party had a different response. Candi Cushman, the Education Analyst for Focus on the Family took what I call the “MSU” response. She just Made Sh!t Up.

Here’s how she opens her rant:

I found it fascinating to read the announcement yesterday that I had been included in a list of 36 dangerous radicals who should be banned from national television and print outlets.

Now no doubt that would be fascinating to read. But if Candi read that, it didn’t come from our community. How GLAAD described the individuals they included is as follows:

The GLAAD Commentator Accountability Project (CAP) aims to put critical information about frequent anti-gay interviewees into the hands of newsrooms, editors, hosts and reporters. Journalists or producers who are on deadline often don’t have the time to dig into the histories of a commentator. Audiences need to be aware that when they’re not talking to the mainstream media, these voices are comparing LGBT people to Nazi Germany, predicting that equal treatment of LGBT people will lead to the total collapse of society, and even making accusations of satanic influence.

The Commentator Accountability Project is bringing all of these statements to light, while calling attention to the sentiments behind them. We will show that the commentators who are most often asked to opine on issues like marriage equality or non-discrimination protections do not accurately represent the “other side” of those issues. They represent nothing but extreme animus towards the entire LGBT community.

Radical? Didn’t see it. Dangerous? Missed that too. And there’s no mention of “banning” at all.

Although, I suppose, if Candi were speaking not of what she has been called but was instead trying to accurately assess the individuals based on the standards that her faith professes, she might conclude that these people are, indeed, dangerous radicals and that any civilized religion would renounce such persons and reject them as representatives in national television and print outlets. I very much doubt that was her intent.

Candi Cushman just wants you to feel sorry for her and to be indignant towards GLAAD. So she engages in MSU.

GLAAD didn’t call her a dangerous radical. But if they had called her a dangerous radical then she would get sympathy and GLAAD would be seen as extremist and hostile to Christians. So she MSUs.

GLAAD didn’t call for banning anyone from anything. But if they had said that these individuals should be banned from national television and print outlets then she would get sympathy and GLAAD would be seen as extremist and hostile to Christians. So she does a little MSU.

And continuing down the theme of martyrdom and how gay activists are unreasonable hate-mongers imposing on poor Candi who only has good intentions, she posts a few comments that Focus has received in the past which were nasty.

I agree with Candi that those comments illustrate hateful attitudes – but no one is inviting those idiots to speak on television about issues. They don’t represent organizations or pretend to speak for anyone but themselves. And to suggest otherwise is just to MSU.

The ironic thing is that some of Candi’s worldview is not really all that objectionable.

While it is increasingly difficult to support or convince oneself, it is not inherently “hateful” to believe that gay people could become heterosexual if they tried. Nor is it “hateful” to think of sin as “spiritual brokenness” which can be healed through faith and to have compassion for those you imagine struggle with temptation. It might be condescending, but isn’t hate to think, “Oh, they would be so much happier if they just gave all that up and got married. A family is such a blessing and joy.”

Such thinking may offend us and may be based in willful ignorance, but it need not be the product of hatred or animus. Many people who see homosexuality by these terms are not motivated by malice, they just have difficulty conceptualizing that this isn’t a matter of being “tempted” to engage in certain forbidden sexual acts but an underlying subconscious difference in how our bodies, minds, emotions and perceptions respond to the two sexes.

But it’s what Candi does with it that places her on the list and excludes others.

Candi is not satisfied with simply saying that homosexuality, like pre-marital sex or remarriage or cursing or gossiping or working on Sunday, are contrary to her beliefs about divine mandates for appropriate behavior and therefore socially unacceptable. Instead Candi creates fictional attributes of gay people to attack. Gays are mentally ill or tools of Satan or infiltrating classrooms or trying to harm Christians or trying to destroy the family.

Unwilling to limit herself to “GLAAD is wrong about me”, Candi goes with

So more than revealing anything about the spokespeople it’s targeting, GLAAD’s “project” reveals the intolerant mindset driving it: The belief that only one perspective—that which is completely aligned with homosexual activist groups—is legitimate, and that all others should be censored and eradicated from the public realm.

Which is definitely MSUing.

What she doesn’t realize is that in her MSU approach, Cushman reveals much more of what she believes about her faith than it does of what she believes about gay people.

Those who have confidence in their position, state it. They believe that the truth, when heard, is compelling. Those who do so about matters of faith believe that their God will make evident the truth of their preaching and convince the listeners of its merit. Christians call it the moving of the Holy Spirit.

But Candi doesn’t believe that her arguments are convincing. She thinks that society would hear her moral code and reject it. She believes that her god is not capable of influencing society to adopt her beliefs or is unwilling to do so. Yet, for motivations that we may never fully know, Candi can neither give up her position or find the faith to let it stand on its own.

So Candi, lacking truth or a god to defend it, is left with her only option. Candi Cushman turns to the MSU strategy: when all else fails, just make sh1t up.

. . .
[presented with apologies to the students, staff and alumni of Michigan State University]

Jim Hlavac

March 17th, 2012

Well, now that she’s saying she’s not one of the 36 “dangerous radicals” would she be willing to go on record to say those people, the 35 other than her, are the “dangerous radicals” who should be shunned and ostracized? Not banned, no, that’s a legal thing. Shunned, Ostracized, that’s so much more religious. Some of them have called for our “extermination,” “expulsion,” or “incarceration” — is she for or against those? Inquiring minds want to know.

You know, every time I hear this sort of stuff about gays I retreat to “what would someone in the 1400s do about Jews.” Oh, they were out to destroy civilization, families and Christianity too, it was said, by the commentators of the times. Jews said “but we’re born this way.” And Christians stepped up the pogroms and destruction, extermination, expulsions, the refusal of the state to recognized Jewish marriages — it’s all so eerily similar. It’s almost as if History is repeating itself.

Jews eventually got a country, maybe we need ours.

Jane Laplain

March 17th, 2012

This point is tangential to your main point, which I agree with, that this is a clear case of MSU.

You said:

<>

Such thinking is based in Heterosexism, or Straight Supremacy, as it were. The straightforward belief that, regardless how one may feel about being gay, being straight is simply better.

Supremacist beliefs do not always come coupled with animus. I’ve met all sorts of supremacists, who would never name themselves such, simply because they clearly didn’t HATE me and people like me, but they were very open about feeling sorry for me and people like me, condescendingly tolerating people like me, all the while considering me and people like me somehow beneath their station.

Supremacist attitudes ARE problematic and they DO call for resistance. Hate is NOT the only problem oppressed groups have. Not to say that the author was in any way saying hate is the only problem, but too often whether or not something was a “hate” incident is the focus of our attention, rather than whether the incident in question contributes to our collective harm.

Jane Laplain

March 17th, 2012

This point is tangential to your main point, which I agree with, that this is a clear case of MSU.

You said:

**It might be condescending, but isn’t hate to think, “Oh, they would be so much happier if they just gave all that up and got married. A family is such a blessing and joy.”

Such thinking may offend us and may be based in willful ignorance, but it need not be the product of hatred or animus.**

Such thinking is based in Heterosexism, or Straight Supremacy, as it were. The straightforward belief that, regardless how one may feel about being gay, being straight is simply better.

Supremacist beliefs do not always come coupled with animus. I’ve met all sorts of supremacists, who would never name themselves such, simply because they clearly didn’t HATE me and people like me, but they were very open about feeling sorry for me and people like me, condescendingly tolerating people like me, all the while considering me and people like me somehow beneath their station.

Supremacist attitudes ARE problematic and they DO call for resistance. Hate is NOT the only problem oppressed groups have. Not to say that the author was in any way saying hate is the only problem, but too often whether or not something was a “hate” incident is the focus of our attention, rather than whether the incident in question contributes to our collective harm.

a mcewen

March 18th, 2012

The problem is not necessarily the beliefs but when cushman and others r interviewed, these beliefs r ignored or overlooked when they should be a parrt of the conversation in terms of credibility.

Blair Martin

March 18th, 2012

I recently questioned an Imam of a mosque here in Brisbane, Australia in a public forum on his views relating to those who identify beyond the heteronormative world and also as a person of faith from one of the three Abrahamic faith traditions. This man is seen as a “liberal”(to use the American sense of the word) in thought, words and actions. His response to me was that such practices, should they be deeply and inherently felt should be kept away from the public gaze and hidden behind closed doors. He went on to allude to changing thought about the meaning of the Sodom and Gomorrah story, of which he is not one as he still believes the traditional version of what is alleged to have happened there.

I challenged him to think about what he has said, that he was advocating a life of lies, deceit and secrecy and ultimately persecution. Some others at the forum thought that he was only speaking “personally” however as I reminded them that whenever a person gets up in their robes, their dog-collars, wearing their cross on a chain or lapel or waving their religious text about, they are no longer speaking “personally” but embodying that faith tradition for all those listening. It is no wonder so many people of the LGBTQI community are bitter towards faith traditions and people of faith.

If those of us that profess a faith in a higher power or life-force as well as being comfortable and real in our sexual orientation and it’s expression can stand firm in front of these people and remind them of their role in oppression, then perhaps we are part of the way toward a change of mind. Not everyone will change, because like this Cushman person, martyrdom is too damn attractive a state to let go willingly.

Blake

March 20th, 2012

Who says the spiritual gift of martyrdom can only be received once?

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.

 

Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.