A Twig in the Fire

Conservative author Ann Coulter dropped a bomb with her inappropriate reference to Senator John Edwards as a "faggot," but the term "fagot" was not always a taboo word. It used to define a bundle sticks destined to burn in a fire. A "fagot ceremony" was when someone tossed a twig into the flames as a symbol of repentance and commitment. Such a ceremony might not be a bad idea for conservatives and liberals alike who have both committed transgressions in their zeal to debate cultural issues. Here are a few on the offense list.

Stop the name-calling. Lest anyone need reminding, Coulter said at the American Conservative Union's Political Action Conference, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards." In subsequent comments, she remarked, "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean." Obviously, she doesn't plan an apology.

In an ironic twist, another conservative drew scorn for an altogether different reason at the same event. Conservatives honored Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez for his support of the military at Columbia University, but when word got around on the blogosphere that Sanchez had a decade-plus past in gay porn, liberals were gleeful and attempted to smear him on MSNBC.
There was no apology on that front either.

There is nothing to be gained by denigrating others with crude slurs or personal attacks. In doing so, we disgrace ourselves and discredit the truths we seek to publicly elevate. Conservatives and liberals alike should unite to denounce this type of social discourse.

Stop the hypocrisy. It disturbs me to see policymakers and activists endorsing legislation such as the Federal Hate Crimes Legislation (H.R. 254) because it epitomizes the duplicity within our nation.

The death of Matthew Shepard is a tragic crime that deserved to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but not because Matthew Shepard was gay - because he was a valuable human life worthy of equal justice. Just as worthy as Jesse Dirkhising, a 13-year old Arkansas boy who was suffocated to death in 1999 after being bound, drugged, gagged and brutally sodomized by two homosexual predators who confessed to using him as a sex toy while torturing him to death. There have been no public memorials for him and the amount of articles written about him pale in comparison to those written about Matthew Shepherd.  Yet, both were valuable lives that were taken in horrible, cruel ways.

I confess this legislation presents a problem for me personally and for many others.  Fourteen years ago, I was living life as a gay man just like Matthew Shepard. I, however, was conflicted by the emptiness that consumed me.  Through faith, the support of many caring individuals, including that of licensed therapists affiliated with the American Psychological Association, I overcame my unwanted same-sex attractions. Today, I am a married father of two children and now represent thousands of others who have experienced the same change. We are living lives that are of no less value now than when we were living as homosexuals.

In a recent editorial, Joe Solomonese from the Human Rights Campaign and Judy Shepard, Matthew Shepard's mother, said, "Every act of violence is tragic and harmful in its consequences, but not all crime is based on hate."  I wonder how they know the motive and emotion behind each perpetrator's crime. Certainly, there is no love and compassion extended towards the perpetrator's victim. Solomonese and Shepard add, "It's time to update the law to protect everyone."   I agree on that point. Let's make the law an equal advocate for every victim because every crime is truly a hate crime.

Stop the spin. This tactic is in employed a lot when same-sex marriage is debated as a civil right. It's not, but the spin makes it sound good.

As Rev. Bob Battle, a Minnesota pastor who served as the head of the St. Paul Human Rights Department, says, "The basics for the civil rights movement is that we are all God's children, created equal in God's eyes. As for marriage, God created us male and female. That's the basics for marriage," He gets it. He knows the difference having grown up in the days of segregation in Mississippi as an African-American.

This issue has nothing to do with civil rights, special rights maybe, but not civil rights.  Liberals and activists should not undermine the integrity of the American people by dressing up their agenda in civil rights language simply because it sounds better that way. Call it what it is - a rejection of marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. It is a demand to reinvent an age-old institution and assign a new set of stipulations.

We could build a bonfire with all the twigs representing transgressions on both sides of the aisle, but these are strategic ones that inhibit real dialogue on issues that affect all Americans. Instead of name-calling, hypocritical juxtopositioning and spinning - let's engage in discourse that contributes to the national debate and elevates one another's dignity.

Comments

[Aaron]

There's a lot of deceit going on out there and it's not coming from me. I've had to be more explicit, public and come under far more scrutiny than perhaps anyone else who reads this.

This part of my life took place over a decade ago--period.

I look forward to the day when I'll be chasing a toddler across the living room and married to a woman who is proud to have me as the father of her children.

I frankly don't care, who has a problem wtih this. The Marine Corps is a conversion experience and my life changed when I joined.

Semper Fi,

Matt Sanchez

mattsanchez.blogspot.com
[email protected]

http://www.militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?p=44216&posted=1#post44216

[Jay]

I could be wrong about this, but I was pretty sure that the FBI counts the statistics of anti-white, anti-heterosexual, and anti-Protestant hate crimes, too. I don't mean to say hate crime laws are a good thing (they are dangerously close to thought crime laws), but you can't say they help one group over another. Any group is protected if the crime can be proven to have been provoked by the fact that the victim was a member of the perceived group.

Of course, I don't care if someone kills a man because he's black/gay/Jewish or because he wanted to steal his TV/car/wallet. Either way, my first instinct would be to make sure he's behind bars for the rest of his natural life.

[Jonathan]

I'm pretty sure that religion is already covered under hate-crime legislation. I could be wrong, but let's just assume that it is. Should we do away with that because it offers some sort of "special right" to people of faith? I don't understand the need to really fight having a person's sexual orientation included in the list.

I don't recall ever hearing the religious crowd (as a PK, I'm pretty sure I would have) get up in arms regarding hate crimes and who is included until a person's sexual orientation was brought to the forefront. I personally believe that all people (black/white, brown, asian, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Athiest, etc.) should be treated equally. But it just seems to me that, especially for a Christian, to allow themselves to be covered under hate-crimes, but then work actively to get people they disagree to NOT be covered, just seems to smack of eliteism (amongst other things).

j.

[L. Alexander.]

your heartless

[Alan Chambers]

Well that not only makes no sense, it isn't true.

[Jonathan]

Alan~

I'm assuming your comment was directed at me. I apologize if you feel it didn't make any sense. After re-reading my comment and the Hate Crimes Act, I do believe what I wrote to be truthful. You are advocating a policy that would keep sexual orientation from being covered under the Hate Crimes Act. An Act which currently covers Religion. Which means that as a person of faith, if a crime was committed against you and that crime met certain of the criteria, it could and probably would be, prosecuted as a hate crime. I could understand your position better if you were working to do away with the Hate Crimes Act all together thereby putting every crime on a level playing field. But, as a person of faith, to be covered under the Act, but work to preclude others from also being covered, just seems...I don't the right word, it just doesn't seem right I guess.

j.

[Alan Chambers]

Jonathan,

My comment was directed towards the person who called me heartless.

I am glad that you commented, though, because it allows me to clarify that I am opposed to *all* hate crimes legislation, not just to the inclusion of sexual orientation or gender identity.

[Jonathan]

Guess I was feelin' a little sensitive...LOL!

Thanks for clarifying your position. Working to do away with Hate Crime penalties is an interesting concept, although I rather feel like the general tenor of the debate is heading in the other direction.

Have a great weekend!

j.

[John Chambers]

Thought you might find these interesting:

http://gayleftborg.blogspot.com/2007/03/ex-gay-clinics.html

http://gayleftborg.blogspot.com/2007/04/ex-gays-are-ripoffs-part-i.html

[Alan Chambers]

John,

Nice last name....as for the links, that is what you call tolerance. Funny, the activist gay community calls for tolerance (AKA: complete endorsement and acceptance of homosexuality or else) and then they treat us like we are garbage.

[Willie Hewes]

Alan, if you are against all hate crime legislation, why didn't you say so in the first place? Why does your post only contrast the value of the lives of gay people versus non-gay people? Why doesn't your original post acknowledge that by your own logic you are currently leading a more 'valuable life' (as a member of a faith community) than you were as a gay man?

That logic is faulty to start with. Hate crime legislation punishes people who commit hate crimes more harshly not because their victim was more valued, but because their crime affects not only the victim, but the community he or she represented to his attacker. Swastikas and anti-semitic text sprayed onto a synagogue do not just damage a building, they put fear and terror into a community.

You oppose all hate crime legislation? Then do so. Don't make it about the gays.

[GayLeftBorg]

Thanks a lot Alan!

Since Mr. Chambers advocates for violence against gays (including violence against high school students who are either gay or perceived to be gay), I want to personally thank him for this:

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6433072&nav=9Tai

[Randy]

What a stupendously ridiculous comment.

Alan, I would suggest a ban on Mr (?) Borg. What a horrible accusation.