Rightbloggers Have Another Miserable Pride Week
Hope you folks had a good Pride week. Rightbloggers didn't, much. For one thing, last week anti-same-sex-marriage heavyweight David Blankenhorn finally gave up the fight. And with more states (and President Obama!) on the SSM bandwagon, rightbloggers' traditional hatred of homosexuals looks like less of a winning proposition all the time.
But some of the brethren made an earnest effort, ginning up outrage over some gay White House visitors who were disrespectful to a painting of Ronald Reagan, and comparing gay people to Jerry Sandusky.
Few rightbloggers went in for straight-up, in-your-face gay-baiting. Sure, occasionally there was someone like Short Little Rebel of The Constitution Club, who saw pictures of muscle queens and such like from Pride parades and went berserk: "Complete lust for the sensual and craving for unlimited appetite," he howled. "Sodom & Gomorrah on display... Where is Jesus' command to be humble servants? Can you see any of these disgusting examples of humanity bending down to wash a poor man's dusty feet? Or feeding a hungry child's mouth?" (OK, wiseguys, let's just walk away from that one.)
And rightwing relics reliably rose at the sight of the rainbow flag like enraged, spavined bulls. "How is it that we have become a nation of such compliant sheep that we accept this rubbish?" quavered veteran gay-basher Brent Bozell, who sputtered that "gay bully, Dan Savage" was repped by CAA and had his own MTV series while Brent Bozell has to content himself with gigs on NewsBusters and at the Washington Times. Also, Bozell interpreted Savage's playful crack about his own kid -- "he's a little thuggy snowboarder-skateboarder dude" -- thus: "he's insulted his own adopted son D. J. as thuggish... Thanks, 'Dad.'" (See, he's not really his dad, because he's gay.)
Most run-of-the-mill rightbloggers seem to sense, if dimly, that this sort of thing is de trop. But they're willing to make an exception when a couple of guests at a White House Pride event were photographed giving the finger to a painting of Ronald Reagan.
A White House spokesman later expressed official disapproval of this behavior ("while the White House does not control the conduct of guests at receptions, we certainly expect that all attendees conduct themselves in a respectful manner"), but so what? Some of the boys seemed to think the gay guests should all have been monitored and, if seen to gesture rudely at paintings, tackled by the Secret Service.
"If there's one thing that Barack Obama has taught us it's that a president cannot be held responsible for any misery that occurs while in the Oval Office," said Baron von Ottomatic at Wizbang, who also denounced the liberal idea that "the government is supposed to hand out free rubbers in the gay community where they don't really want to use them. Forcing dirty needles into the scabby arms of junkies and condoms onto the engorged dongs of gay men. Your tax dollars in action."
At gay conservative site Classical Values, Eric implied Obama set it up on purpose. "Think about it," he invited readers. "The people who run the White House might not be capable of fixing the economy, but they are certainly politically savvy enough to realize that when you invite certain people to certain places, certain things are certain to happen."
Eric didn't say what purpose Obama hoped to accomplish by conspiring to have gay people flip off Reagan, but his colleague Simon described it as "the latest pander to gays by the President." Gay readers, is this a thing, like hanky codes? Please advise.
Rooster (look, we aren't making this up, these are the names they use) at Conservative Outcry ran a picture of simulated fellatio allegedly from a Pride march in Ohio and asked, "don't you think they should have known?... Since it was the first-ever Gay Pride Reception at the White House, wouldn't one expect some of the same crowd that recently gave us this beauty [below] in Columbus, OH?" Well, in Obama's defense, none of the guests were oiled up.
"This is the lowlife vermin that Obama invites into the White House," gibbered The Conservative Monster. "This is a perfect example of the demented freaks that would support a radical Marxist. I am going to laugh my ass off when the Marxists throw these 'useful idiots' into prison camps one day..."
At the Christendom Review, one William Luse spent Pride Day reflecting on his own disgust when "President of the United States Barack Obama (God, that gives me a headache) announced publicly his support for the same-sex caricature of marriage." Worse for Luse, though, when he went "seeking the encouragement of like-minded conservatives," he found gay-friendly rightwing figures "popping up like zits on an otherwise promising countenance."
What these wets do not understand, Luse said, was that "homosexuals want marriage because they want approval of the sex that accompanies it, the same approval that heterosexuals enjoy. Without the sex, the controversy disappears, their 'romantic' relationships devolving (or evolving) into the chastity of friendship. Everyone knows this, but not many want to talk about it, forthrightly at any rate." But now that you good people have heard this forbidden truth, we assume your attitudes have been utterly transformed, so here's a link to NOM.
Jesus conservative Rod Dreher started Pride Week bemoaning a New York Times "Father's Day column extolling the virtues of being a gay father... The New York Times will go out of its way to find a gay angle to just about anything..."
When some commenters asked what's the big deal, Dreher explained, "does the Times really aspire to do nothing more than confirm the prejudices of its readers? I am one of its non-NYC readers, and I don't want to see anti-gay coverage. I want balance." William Luse is available!
Then Dreher, obviously struggling to be fair, testified to the Times' power to do good: An approving David Brooks Times column helped get Dreher a book deal! Yet, he lamented, when not advancing Dreher's career the Times editors insist on being favorable to gay rights "in a way that dramatically harms the interests of social conservatives and religious institutions," and "there's not a damn thing conservatives and religious people can do about it." The free market's a bitch, ain't it, Rod?
Later, when Dreher heard that David Blankenhorn had defected, he mourned, "Anti-SSM Giant Falls." Then he heard and was outraged about the finger-giving at the White House. We think it's safe to say Dreher didn't have a happy Pride Week.
Marvin Olasky was also in despair about Blankenhorn, among other things. "The tendency to follow the crowd and satisfy ourselves, in high or low ways, is always with us," he sighed. That Blankenhorn "recanted his opposition" to same-sex marriage showed Olasky that "intellectual arguments do not save us. A jury found Jerry Sandusky guilty of sexually abusing 10 boys. Football does not save us.... Only Christ saves us, through faith." (From gay people.)
Ah, Jerry Sandusky. Some of the brethren saw a connection between the convicted pedophile/former Penn State defensive coordinator and gay liberal activism.
Debbie Schlussel, for example, found significance in the fact that Sandusky's victims from the Second Mile organization were fatherless. "A father is far more important in a child's life than a mother," she asserted, "especially today, when women are not nurturers, but aggressive players in the workplace who are not home for their kids... Despite what any liberal, lesbian couple, single mother, or social engineer might tell you, there is NO family without a father. Period." Ellen and Portia are just asking for their kid to be raped!
Just a Conservative Girl read an article about pedophilic urges being inborn, and agreed that they were -- just like homosexuality! "I am 100% against gay marriage as well as civil unions," she said. "...But I do think that you are either gay or you are not. You are either attracted to children or you are not. I don't totally dismiss other factors, but I do think there is a biological function in there somewhere."
But when Just a Conservative Girl read further in the article that "pedophiles perform more poorly on various tests of brain function, tend to be shorter in height and are three times more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous (characteristics that are observable before birth)," she made a great leap: "Is it just me," she asked, "or did this man just make another reason to abort babies that could 'possibly' show signs of being a pedophile?"
Before anyone could give her an honest answer or a sedative, Just a Conservative Girl ramped up to a more glossolaliac level of discourse: "This is the continued slippery slope that is part and parcel on the left," she declared. "They 'normalize' something, such as abortion, homosexuality, and the push to start normalizing pedophilia has already begun. So is really that far of leap to think that this man is suggesting that aborting babies that show the 'characteristics' of pedophilia should be aborted? I don't think it is." Not only are they gay, they also want to abort their pedophile fetuses! Why does anyone vote for them?
"Was the Jerry Sandusky tragedy partly the result of GAY ACTIVISM, and a rluctance to challenge someone for homosexual 'attraction' ('orientation')?" asked a cowboy, new to us, called The Maverick Conservative. "It is entirely possible -- even probable."
The Maverick Conservative didn't say how, but he was dead certain that "you should not hire a homosexual man--or accept him as a volunteer--to supervise young boys in ANY sports program, or any program like the Boy Scouts. It is actuallyWORSE lthan hiring a heterosexual man to be in a similar positoin in the Girrl Scouts (which I would not do either, unless in desperation)."
Why is it worse, Maverick Conservative?
"Why is it worse? Because of all of this GUFF about 'discrimination' against homosexuals, and supposed 'harassment' of homosexuals."
Wait for it...
"When a heterosexual man inapporpriately 'looks' at girls showering, he has NO 'defense'. Oh, a coach of a girl's basketball teeam may get away with a certain amount of inadvertent exposure of girls in a state of semiundress. But ANY kind of complaint is going to be taken VERY seriously, and the man is going to get absolutely nowhere claiming he is being 'discriminated against, or 'harassed'. An admitted homosexual, however, can easily make a claim of 'discrimination' or 'harassment'."
What all this had to do with Jerry Sandusky, a married man who never declared himself homosexual, or with gay people, was never made clear. But if the Maverick Conservative ever gets a job coaching women's gymnastics, we'd suggest someone keep an eye on him.
Get the This Week's Top Stories Newsletter
Every week we collect the latest news, music and arts stories — along with film and food reviews and the best things to do this week — so that you'll never miss Village Voice's biggest stories.