Before I hit the meat of my post, let me lay a couple things out there. First, I think we’d be incredibly foolish to tinker with the definition of marriage any more than we have. A few decades of well-intentioned meddling ought to have taught us we absolutely suck at predicting unintended consequences. If we move the very bright line of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, we do so with the full knowledge that we will likely have handed generations after us a weaker society. I know plenty of my conservative friends disagree with me but I’ve yet to have anyone give me a reasoned argument to prove I’m wrong (and no, that’s not an invitation). Second, I don’t care if CPAC invited GOProud to be a co-sponsor, or whatever they call it, at this year’s convention. There’s a lot to the history between some members of the ACU board and GOProud that is rarely reported and I’d bet that history had a lot more to do with the board’s decision than any animus against gay activists. Third, I really don’t care who is or isn’t gay. If you’re gay, fine. If you’re not, fine. You are what you are and you do what you do. Sexual proclivity is the least of my concern when I consider a political candidate, business partner, or friend. I care a heck of a lot more about whether you are a good person, whether you treat those around you well, whether you can control your temper, and where you stand on the eternal Kirk vs. Picard debate.
That said, this editorial by Cliff Kincaid, the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism is ridiculous and shameful. No rational human being should be proud to have their name attached to such a noxious stew of half-baked history, conspiracy theory, and boring, self-aggrandizing outrage-peddling. Here’s a little sample of the frothiest bit.
What better way to destroy the family than to undermine the relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, and eliminate the need for children to have mothers and fathers?
Here, again, the homosexuals deliberately pervert the language, so that two women or two men have now become shacked-up “partners” or even “husband and wife” in “civil unions” or even “marriages.”
Hay’s contribution to communism in America was developing the idea that homosexuals, like the “workers” under capitalism, were being oppressed and had to assert their “rights.”
The donation of gay blood to the nation’s blood supply, despite the health risks, is the next “right” that the male homosexuals now are demanding the government grant to them.
I know folks have gone a bit crazy over this. Many of them have demanded AIM condemn the piece. A few have suggested those who won this years Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award boycott the presentation and refuse the award. I don’t think any of that is necessary. AIM ought to apologize for Kincaid’s editorial, not because it’s a hate-filled hate-cake with hate frosting but because it’s a transparent and embarrassing link-bait attempt we bloggers have seen for years.
I doubt Kincaid really believes that homosexuals are in-the-closet communists. Folks who hold that chunk of crazy in their head usually don’t have room for more useful knowledge like how Velcro works or how to operate a doorknob. Sure, it’s possible, but it’s a lot more likely that Kincaid tried to take advantage of the CPAC/GOProud dustup to grab a bit of attention for AIM. Like a lot of people who go a link-whoring, he jumped way the heck over the line. We ought to slam him for it. Link-whoring is a a cheap way to drive web traffic and it makes people a lot less likely to trust what a web site writes. Kincaid cheapened his whole organization and pulled down the reputation of those who work at AIM with him. He’s a bad conservative, a bad writer, and a bad co-worker.
That’s what I think, for whatever it’s worth.