Would You Please Sign My “Kill the Gays” Proposal?

Y’know, I always wondered about those two…

Though it might seem like the recent “religious freedom” act signed into law by Indiana’s Republican governor is a giant step backwards for gay rights, all things considered the U.S. is a pretty good place to be LGBT. It could always be better, but despite the reactionaries on the Right trying to push gays back into the closet, both public sentiment and history are lined up against them. These are the desperate acts of small-minded bigoted homophobes.

That’s not to say everything is sunshine and flowers. I’m not gay, but if I were and read the details of the proposed Sodomite Suppression Act and wonder if I went to sleep in America and woke up in the dark ages somewhere in Iran, Uganda, or Nigeria where putting homosexuals to death is legally codified.

In February, California attorney Matt McLaughlin paid $200 to propose a ballot measure called the Sodomite Suppression Act. McLaughlin’s measure describes gay sex as “a monstrous evil that Almighty God … commands us to suppress on pain of utter destruction.” Given these high stakes, McLaughlin suggests all gay people “be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.”

An excerpt of McLaughlin’s proposed law:

a) The abominable crime against nature known as buggery, called also sodomy, is a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
b) Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God’s just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.
c) No person shall distribute, perform, or transmit sodomistic propaganda directly or indirectly by any means to any person under the age of majority. Sodomistic propaganda is defined as anything aimed at creating an interest in or an acceptance of human sexual relations other than between a man and a woman. Every offender shall be fined $1 million per occurrence, and/or imprisoned up to 10 years, and/or expelled from the boundaries of the state of California for up to life.
d) No person shall serve in any public office, nor serve in public employment, nor enjoy any public benefit, who is a sodomite or who espouses sodomistic propaganda or who belongs to any group that does.

Makes doggone good sense to me.

Monstrous and appalling. Such evil hatred makes me sad for this world and violated by reading such filth.   This insanity is the pushback that comes from people on the wrong side of history.

Whenever you see guys like Mr. McLaughlin whom are simply obsessed and thinking about these homosexuals and the things they do and how it creeps him out and its on his mind all the time all day long it makes you wonder why, oh, why is he on this Evil Sodomite Thing?

Maybe The Onion had the answer?.

A letter writer to the San Diego Gay and Lesbian Times crunched the numbers and calculated the possible effects if Mr. McLaughlin’s murderous proposal were approved.

Here’s how lawyer Matthew McLaughlin’s initiative would actually pan out:

1. Assuming you kill 1.4 million people (approximate LGBT population of California) and congressional seats are based on population, you would lose two seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

2. Next, consider that the median income of Californians is $61,000 and the average household size is 2.9 people. The average state income tax rate is 8%. Killing off the LGBT community would cause a loss of $40 million in tax revenue in California each year. The Fed would be out $112 million annually

3. Finally, the average additional cost associated with a capital punishment trial is $1 million per person. Multiply that times 1.4 million LGBT and well, you do the math.

I believe not only should this “attorney” be disbarred, he should also be charged with all applicable crimes. Matthew G. McLaughlin is perhaps proposing killing more people at one time than were killed at Auschwitz during World War II.

Until such time as the laws of California are changed, McLaughlin is within his rights to file his disgusting proposal no matter how nuts it is. This perversion of the process allows McLaughlin to go looking for about 370,000 like-minded morons to sign his proposal in a state of nearly 39 million and the Sodomite Suppression Act would end up on the ballot. Even if it were defeated as it definitely would be, as the law currently exists, there is nothing to stop McLaughlin from coughing up another $200 to try it again,

Attorney General Kamala Harris  would like to find a court to allow her to deny certifying of McLaughlin’s putrid proposal, but legal experts doubt she will able to.

It’s not a quantum leap from state-approved discrimination against the LGBT community to state-approved executions. How dare we sneer at the Islamic extremists when we have good Christian extremists doing the same thing here?

What the hell happened to the American Dream? How did it get warped and perverted to this?

The only way to hold back the darkness of ignorance descending on this country, is to drag the homophobic bigots kicking and screaming into the light.  From a crank in California to the governor of Indiana.

The choice is between everybody having theirs rights or the last rites.   McLaughlin has the right to hate homosexuals and want to see them dead, but not the right to force the state to do his dirty work for him.

California A. G. Harris wants to block the “Kill the Gays” proposal, but likely will not be able to.

No Gay Marriage, Please. We’re DC Comics.

“Hi, Batwoman. I hear you like women. I prefer youthful male wards.”

Let me make it plain:  I don’t read Batwoman.   I’m not crazy about J.H. Williams’ art style.   I don’t read any DC Comics regularly.   I barely pay attention to what’s going on in comic books any more.

But I do know Batwoman has a loyal following.  I do know Williams is one of the more acclaimed artists working today.  I know this revamped Batwoman was something more than just another costumer cut-up swinging around Gotham City who took their inspiration from flying rodents and as an open lesbian, Kate Kane was one of the few gay superheroes in a genre that still lags behind most of pop culture in acceptance and enlightenment of homosexuality.

This is not simply about imaginary characters in made-up stories that never happened.  It’s about not marginalizing an entire group of people.

It’s okay for Batwoman to be a lesbian.   Lesbians are popular now.   It’s okay for her to draw her having sex with her partner.  Guys dig women making out.    It’ s not okay to let her to marry her partner because that runs counter to DC’s editorial mandates.    Those same editorial mandates where same-sex marriage is a hell-no! but Naked Harley Quinn is a yes, please!

The reasons for the unholy marriage between the homophobic Orson Scott Card and DC is starting to become clear.

DC’s decision to bar Batwoman’s big gay marriage from happening is being chalked up as being about business instead of homophobia, but that seems like bullshit particularly when Williams says it was an editorial dictate to keep Batwoman and Maggie Sawyer’s marriage from happening.

in recent months, DC has asked us to alter or completely discard many long-standing storylines in ways that we feel compromise the character and the series. We were told to ditch plans for Killer Croc’s origins; forced to drastically alter the original ending of our current arc, which would have defined Batwoman’s heroic future in bold new ways; and, most crushingly, prohibited from ever showing Kate and Maggie actually getting married. All of these editorial decisions came at the last minute, and always after a year or more of planning and plotting on our end.

Batwoman has won a few GLAAD awards. Well, it was nice while it lasted, but onward and upward!

I’m sure whomever the new writer and artist on Batwoman will do fine. They’ll probably straighten her out and have her kick this lesbian thing, sex her up, make her breasts bigger than her head like Power Girl and fall madly in bed with Batman.

Homophobia? Maybe not, but isn’t it interesting how hard DC pushed back when the Internet revolted against Orson Scott Card writing a Superman comic, but is now issuing boiler-plate statements about forcing out the creators of one of their few New 52 titles worth reading.

As far as “business decisions” goes, while DC may have a problem with same-sex marriage, they don’t have a similar one with crude sexual exploitation.

DC Comics has been having a bad week. Yesterday, two members of the Batwoman editorial team quit after their publishers refused to allow Batwoman (who is a lesbian character) to marry her partner. And now the comic company has provoked even more outrage by hosting a contest in which they readers to draw Harley Quinn, a popular villain, preparing to commit suicide. Naked.

The trope of sensationalized female character deaths has long haunted the medium, as has a terrible tendency to oversexualize and objectify women characters; it’s almost surprising that it’s taken DC this long to combine the two into a vile heap of casual sexism — because female suicide is so fascinating and compelling and cool, right, guys?

The contest winner will have the opportunity to contribute to an upcoming comic about Harley Quinn; it’s billed as an amazing opportunity to break into the industry. In order to be considered, one must draw four panels: in the first, Harley is attempting to get struck by lightning, in the second she’s wearing a bikini made of chicken in the hopes that alligators will devour her, and in the third she’s attempting to get swallowed by a whale. The fourth is, by far, the worst:

Harley sitting naked in a bathtub with toasters, blow dryers, blenders, appliances all dangling above the bathtub and she has a cord that will release them all.  We are watching the moment before the inevitable death.  Her expression is one of “oh well, guess that’s it for me” and she has resigned herself to the moment that is going to happen.

Why would anyone want to see a naked and depressed woman about to electrocute herself in a bathtub and why would I want to pay $3.99 to see it?

Oh HELL no, says DC.

What’s the message from DC Comics?   Same-sex superhero marriage=BAD

Naked superbabe about to off herself=GOOD

Well, at least they don’t have Dr. Light raping anyone, huh? Hey kids! Rapey comics!

Generally speaking, readers prefer superheroes to be White, male, heterosexual and single. Like they are.

Doesn’t make it right and it sure doesn’t make it representative.

I’m tired of comic book tokenism and I’m even more tired of always being told, “Look, you got your one (fill in the blank) hero and that’s all you’re gonna get!”

When Marvel married off one of their innumerable mutants, Northstar, to his partner a few years ago, some said this was simply a comic book company riding the wave of a hot trend.   Maybe so.  Northstar is a minor league, third-string character.   It felt like a token gesture, not a giant step forward and Northstar hasn’t played a major role in the X-Universe since he jumped the broom.

But it happened.   And it hasn’t been “ret-conned” out of existence.  The sun still came up and the world still turns.  A gay marriage happened in comic books and NOTHING BAD HAPPENED.

Marvel is not better than DC.  But on this one issue Marvel is better than DC.

DC can make this right.   They could do it.   They should do it.  Will they do it?

That might take more moral courage than anyone at DC has.

Rob Portman’s Coming Out is A Profile In No Courage

“Look, Rob, you can bring your Black friend, but leave your gay son at home. Got it?”

Big political news.  Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) became the most prominent member of the GOP caucus to come out.  In favor of same-sex marriage, that is.  Portman, who was on Mitt Romney’s short list of possible vice-presidential running mates attributed his change of heart to his son coming out as a gay man.

I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married.

That isn’t how I’ve always felt. As a congressman, and more recently as a senator, I opposed marriage for same-sex couples. Then something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way.

Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay. He said he’d known for some time, and that his sexual orientation wasn’t something he chose; it was simply a part of who he is. Jane and I were proud of him for his honesty and courage. We were surprised to learn he is gay but knew he was still the same person he’d always been. The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love.

So let’s review: it’s okay to previously be on record as opposing gay rights and same-sex marriage just so long as your positions “evolve” once you learn your son or daughter is one of those people you’ve actively discriminated against.

It has to become personal. Oh, and you have to be a Republican too.

I was blind but now I see. Go forth and sin no more. Hallelujah!

Portman remained a religious-based, anti-equality, bigot throughout his entire career prior to his sonny-boy coming out only to be “transformed” and “evolve” when his previously held beliefs suddenly became personal for him.

Until it did he was fine with discriminating against someone else’s child.

  •     Let the military decide on don’t-ask-don’t-tell
  •     Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage
  •     Supports banning homosexuals in the military
  •     YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.
  •     YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage

“Same-sex marriage? Sure I have sex the same way in my marriage.”

As recently as 2011, Portman was a typical Republican homophobe actively opposing same-sex marriage and not apologizing for it.  I’m not nearly as impressed by my home state Senator’s partial-reversal as some folks are. It’s nice. It’s late, but it’s still nice. I’m sure those gays and lesbians Portman happily discriminated against will be glad he’s getting off their backs.

Hooray, and so what if Rob Portman goes forth and sins no more? Just because you got religion doesn’t mean you’re not a sinner anymore.

Everyone was wondering why Romney chose Paul Ryan over Portman as his vice-president when it was obvious Portman could have helped Romney in the critical state of Ohio (you know, that place that when it was declared for Obama and ended Election Night sent Karl Rove into such a frenzy he tried to eat his own foot).

Now we know why. Ryan didn’t have a gay son.

Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce shares my skepticism about Portman’s epiphany.

If Will hadn’t come out, or if he’d been as straight as Nebraska highway, Portman wouldn’t have cared about the sons and daughters and brothers and sisters of all the other Dads who love them and want them to have the same opportunities? It’s not just the implied notion that discrimination is OK unless it inconveniences Sunday dinner with the Portmans. It’s also the relentless banality through which even “decent” Republicans struggle to come to simple humanity. Does any group of people have dark nights of the soul that are so endlessly boring and transparently insincere?

It’s like listening to Kierkegaard sell flatware. I’m glad there’s another vote for marriage equality here. I’m also glad I didn’t have to listen to the full explanation behind it.

Me too and frankly I don’t get why I should give Portman credit for doing what he’s supposed to do.

It’s wonderful and terrific that Rob has decided to stop discriminating against a group of people. But am I supposed to bake him some cookies too?

The President Who Came Out of the Closet

It gets better, Mr. President

Let me make it plain. I don’t care about gay marriage. But then I don’t care about straight marriage either. I mean, since I’ve been married for 31 years, I’m pretty good at it, but I don’t think being married is all that big of a thing. The idea that one person can meet all your needs mentally, physically, intellectually and especially, sexually for the rest of your life always and forever strikes me as damn near impossible.

But if gay folks want to join me in the institution of marriage, why the hell should I be upset? There’s enough misery to share so come on down and get your share.

Like Barack Obama, my position on same-sex marriage had to evolve and what it evolved to was it is no business of mine who wants to get married. As long as its limited to two people of the age of majority, they can jump the broom and turn the two into one. More power to them. The greatest right is the right to be left the hell alone. I can’t think of a single credible reason to be opposed to gay marriage that doesn’t have bigotry and homophobia attached to it.

And I know I’m not hearing any noise from folks  saying they are against gay marriage because it’s “unnatural” and if it keeps up there won’t be babies born.

If there’s two things there are no shortage of its babies and stupid people making babies they don’t love, won’t take care of and really don’t want.  The biggest threat to heterosexual marriage are cheating, divorcing, spouse abusing, not ready to be married HETEROSEXUALS.

Never mind all the number of marriages that crash and burn in bitter divorce.  Forget about all the wives being thumped by husbands.   Let’s not dwell on all those men who slip their ring off along with their boxer shorts to cheat with some other man’s wife.   We can focus on what a threat  celebrity marriages are and how Kim Kardashian’s 72-days long  drive-by nuptials isn’t even close to being the shortest on record.  Try Cher and Gregg Allman’s eight-days of wedded bliss for making a total joke of holy matrimony.

Two women raising their kids together next door isn’t a “threat” to my many years of matrimony.   Anyone who uses that as an excuse for their own shit being raggedy, has no business being married in the first damn place.

Let’s get serious here, people. Bruce and Dick putting a ring on it isn’t going to make one married couple break apart, so don’t use my situation to justify your issues with homosexuals, okay?   The last group that can hide behind their fear of a gay planet are Blacks.   If our right to vote were put up to a vote the way the right for gays and lesbians to get married has been, how many of the 50 states would take that right away, especially when there’s a Black man running for reelection?   Rights should never be subject to who has the best 30-second ad.

As far as Obama coming out (after Joe Biden gave him a big-ass push out of the closet) for gay marriage, the obvious question is, “Evolution complete then?”

Those who were waiting for Obama to come out in favor of gay marriage will be pleased. Those who were waiting for Obama to come out in favor of gay marriage that don’t like Obama or gay marriage will howl like stuck pigs.

Those who are blind cynics that are in favor of gay marriage but don’t want to say anything nice about Obama being in favor of it too will grumble, gripe and grip that it’s too little too late, that he should have done it on Inauguration Day 2008 and that it’s purely pandering to an important Democratic base.

Everyone else? As you were. The sun will rise in the East and set in the West and by the time our kids are having kids, they won’t think twice about those two nice old guys who walk their dog and wave “hello” at their neighbors.

At least not in my neighborhood. Yours might have a problem with it.

“red” vs. “blue” perspectives on the president’s decision.

Dividing and Conquering Blacks and Gays in North Carolina

An event unlikely to be repeated in North Carolina.

The foes of same-sex marriage may be acting out of reactionary bigotry, but that doesn’t make them stupid.   They learned well the lessons of the Proposition 8 playbook written in California and are employing the same tactics in North Carolina.  Divide the Black and the LGBT communities and use one against the other.

Some background on how the National Organization for Marriage is working their hustle.  First comes theory:

When a light is shined into the dark corners of American politics, it’s never pleasant to see what scurries away. Last week, a federal judge in Maine unsealed memos from the National Organization for Marriage, one of the most prominent groups fighting against same-sex marriage.

They relate to a case filed over whether the group must disclose the donors that helped underwrite a 2009 ballot initiative that overturned the state’s legalization of same-sex marriage. The group uses its designation as a social welfare organization to avoid federal disclosure, but the memos dispel any notion that the claim has any legitimacy. National Organization for Marriage is a political group, through and through.

 The documents brag about its “crucial” role in passage of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage that was overturned by a federal appeals court. They describe the group’s use of “robo-calls” to scare residents in different states away from supporting marriage equality. They talk of a plan to “expose Obama as a social radical,” but the most appalling portions deal with the group’s racially and ethnically divisive strategies.

 “The strategic goal of the project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies,” the memo says, describing an initiative called the “Not a Civil Right Project.”

 The project’s goal, according to the memo, was to recruit blacks who opposed same-sex marriage to represent the group, and then “provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots.”

 Another stated aim is to manipulate Hispanic voters by making the exclusion of gay people from marriage “a key badge of Latino identity.”

Next comes practice:

As North Carolinians head to the polls next week to vote on the fate of a state constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage and civil unions, the controversial measure can already claim at least one clear winner: The National Organization for Marriage. Exposed in March as seeking to drive a wedge between African-Americans and gay rights groups, the conservative group has found North Carolina — which is 21 percent black — a fertile playing field for its divide and conquer tactics.

Armed with both NOM money and strategic know-how, state level groups such as Vote FOR Marriage NC have deftly deployed the race debate to court black clergy and voters in their attempt to ensure that North Carolina is no longer the only Southern state whose constitution does not bar same-sex marriage. Passed by the legislature in September 2011 as “An Act to Amend the Constitution to Provide That Marriage Between One Man and One Woman is the Only Domestic Legal Union That Shall Be Valid or Recognized in This State,” the measure goes before voters for ratification on May 8 as Amendment 1.

 “Our efforts have certainly involved a broad coalition of individuals and organizations, including African-American pastors,” said Rachel Lee, a spokesperson for Vote FOR Marriage NC. Although pro-equality forces have mounted an aggressive fight against the amendment, NOM’s cynical blend of rhetoric and religion has successfully placed ethnicity — as much as equality — at the heart of the pro-Amendment 1 campaign.

 “NOM has injected race into this conversation as an explicit strategy to drive a wedge between blacks and gays,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, the nation’s leading marriage equality advocacy group. “Anti-gay forces have deliberately funneled money into North Carolina [African-American] churches to enlist their leaders as messengers of their agenda.”

 Anchoring the push are pro-Amendment 1 black clerics from North Carolina and around the nation with strong ties to NOM, such as Maryland’s Bishop Harry R. Jackson, who’s also leading the effort to overturn his own state’s recent law granting gays the right to marry, and Philadelphia-based Rev. Herbert Lusk, who appears in one of NOM’s latest video campaigns, “Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right? African-American and Latino Leaders Speak Out.” In April, Rev. George D. McKinney of San Diego helped launched an initiative for NOM with the Coalition of African American Pastors to collect 100,000 signatures around the country on behalf of keeping marriage something restricted to opposite-sex couples in North Carolina.

Anybody want to take bets on how this money and manipulation plays out at the polls in conservative North Carolina?

The groups fighting the Right in N.C. are trying not to repeat the post-Proposition 8 blame game where gays slammed Black support for the ballot measure which only hardened divisions between the two communities.

Conservative groups have caught the most fire for fueling race-based animosity toward gay marriage, but progressive leaders have also played a role in stoking discord between the leaders of black and gay activist groups. The race question regarding same-sex marriage first cropped up in 2008, when California blacks — a mere 6 percent of state voters — were blamed by some gay leaders for the passage of Proposition 8 in the wake of reports in The Washington Post and CNN that exit polls showed seven in 10 black voters backing the measure barring marriage equality.

 Although subsequent analysis found black support for Proposition 8 was only 6 percent higher than on average — instead of nearly 20 percent — the specter of black homophobia has loomed over the marriage equality movement ever since. “I certainly think the black community got a bum rap following the Prop. 8 vote,” observed veteran activist Stuart Campbell, executive director of Equality North Carolina, the state’s leading pro-LGBT non-profit. “And we had no one to blame but ourselves for not more effectively conveying our message to communities across the state.”

What is also distressing is the clumsy response by some pro-gay marriage groups where they have artlessly appropriated the iconic imagery of the civil rights era in an ham-fisted attempt to equate the two struggles.

Nonetheless, an anti-Amendment1 ad campaign by the group Every1Against1 confrontationally compares the battle for gay rights to the one by African Americans for civil rights in the segregated South. With its stark images of a water fountain, a lunch counter, and the back of a bus, the campaign brazenly re-imagines central scenes in 1960s Civil Rights fight. Insensitive — if not downright offensive — messaging such as this, said Moodie-Mills, “shows just how disconnected some LGBT groups still are on the ground.” Last week’s television campaign from pro-equality group The Coalition to ALL Protect NC Families featuring solely white faces didn’t help much either to bridge the divide. Coalition Campaign Manager Jeremy Kennedy acknowledged the omission, but attributed it to “limited economic resources” rather than an intentional attempt to put a white face on gay rights.

Is this the right way to win Black support for gay marriage?

What same-sex marriage advocates have seemingly been slow to realize is their opponents have put together a superior sales job by doling out dollars to greedy Black ministers to carry their anti-gay message to their congregations whom are not the most naturally receptive audience for gay rights anyway.   The suspicion by Black churches that these are liberal White gays and lesbians pushing their social agenda on them is confirmed by ad campaigns that are as clueless as they are earnest.

Outreach is a one-on-one, face-to-face job and it can’t be dictated and directed from afar.  I can’t think of anyone less interested in advancing the rights of the LGBT community than a middle-aged Black Baptist in the South.  They already believe the same-sex activists are jock-riding the civil rights battles waged by Blacks and when they see the iconic images of segregation re-purposed on behalf of gay marriage, they aren’t going to be too thrilled by it.

These are people whom you have to look dead in the eye and show them, not tell them, why your fight is right and should be their fight as well.

GLAAD’s Outrageously Selective Outrage

Kirk says for gays it doesn't get better.

Like an example of double standards and selective outrage?  Me too.  Here’s one case of it in action.

LOS ANGELES, March 4 (TheWrap.com) – Former “Growing Pains” star Kirk Cameron‘s negative comments on homosexuality and gay marriage, made Friday on CNN’s “Pier Morgan Tonight,” have drawn a rapid response from GLAAD.

Cameron said he thought homosexuality was “unnatural.”

“I think that it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization,” the actor told Morgan.

Cameron, who is an evangelical Christian, also spoke out against gay marriage.

“Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don’t think anyone else should either,” Cameron said. “So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don’t.”

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation issued a statement Saturday in response to the actor’s appearance on the CNN program.

“In this interview, Kirk Cameron sounds even more dated than his 1980s TV character,” Herndon Graddick, senior director of programs at GLAAD, wrote “Cameron is out of step with a growing majority of Americans, particularly people of faith who believe that their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be loved and accepted based on their character and not condemned because of their sexual orientation.”

Graddick also addressed Cameron’s remarks regarding gay marriage.

“With an increasing number of states recognizing marriage equality, Americans are seeing that marriage is about committed couples who want to make a lifelong promise to take care of and be responsible for each other and that gay and lesbian couples need equal security and legal protections. That’s not ‘redefining’ anything.”

In brief remarks to TMZ Saturday night, Morgan called Cameron “brave” to voice his beliefs. Morgan said he feels Cameron “was honest to what he believed” even if most people find his views to be “antiquated.”

When Roland Martin tweeted remarks GLAAD considered homophobic and possibly an incitement to gay bashing, they unleashed their rap on him leading to CNN suspending him indefinitely, despite Mr. Martin’s apology.

GLAAD gives Piers Morgan a pass on enabling homophobia.

Piers Morgan gives Kirk Cameron a forum to call homosexuality “unnatural,” “detrimental” and “ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization” and though a has-been, hack actor like Cameron gets the GLAAD smack down, why is Morgan given a pass for telling TMZ Cameron’s remarks were “brave” and “honest?”  Does the qualifier that they were “antiquated” give Morgan a pass from Martin’s apology does not?

Seems like GLAAD has their own evolving standards when it comes to Martin’s silly Tweets and  Morgan’s tacit approval of Cameron’s clear and present homophobia.   What’s the lesson to be learned here?   It’s a bad thing when a Black CNN contributor implies homophobia but it’s okay when a White CNN host applauds it?

How can GLAAD plausibly criticize a nobody like Cameron while giving Morgan a pass?   I could care less what a nobody like Cameron says.  This is a guy who attacked Steven Hawking and John Lennon for not believing in heaven.  To go after the former teen idol of Growing Pains while saying nothing about Piers Morgan, the enabler and defender of Camerion’s bigotry makes no sense.  Or maybe it does if GLAAD figures they’ve bagged their quota of CNN personalities by getting Martin off the air.

GLAAD apparently considers the sin lies in making remarks they consider offensive.  But if you give the homophobe a forum and defend his right to be homophobic, it’s no harm, no foul.

Or maybe the simplest answer is it’s true that hypocrisy IS the greatest luxury and GLAAD is more willing to take on homophobic remarks when they’re coming from self-described Christians like Martin and Cameron and tolerate them when Morgan sticks up for bigotry.

The White privilege card.  Don’t leave home without it