In a sadly predictable development, our local “Focus on the Family” writer Barbara is defending the ridiculous lies the AGI is disseminating about the Matthew Shepard Act, joining the other self-described Christians who are bearing false witness.
In the discharge of her duties, Barbara turns to the American Family Association’s attempt to refute the embarrassing article at Snopes exposing their florid misrepresentations as an “urban legend.” And what does the AFA cite as compelling evidence that our freedom of speech and religion are threatened by a bill that includes a clause explicitly reiterating those freedoms? Incidents in Canada and Sweden.
I probably don’t need to point out that neither Canada nor Sweden is subject to Articles of the U.S. Constitution.
The gratuitous verbage flows on: “In fact, just because I’ve stated on my blog that I don’t support same-sex marriage, I have been accused of hating gays.” Really? Certainly not by us. In fact, we have been careful to make the point that those who oppose marriage equality do so for a variety of reasons, not necessarily because of anti-gay animus. In last year’s heated campaign to pass Virginia’s so-called “marriage amendment,” there were well-intentioned people who wanted to believe that they were only voting to define marriage and had no intention of harming their neighbors; there were also those whose motivation was to inflict as much harm as possible on the GLBT community, and made no effort to conceal that fact. We have always insisted on making the distinction between them clear.
No, Barbara’s anti-gay animus has been betrayed, not by her statements about marriage, but by statements such as this, from a Focus on the Family article opposing anti-bullying programs in California schools:
They charge teachers with identifying students with tendencies toward “hate violence,” sometimes based on no more than routine verbal insults (aka “hate motivated incidents”). They call for revised curricula to “foster appreciation” for diversity and discourage discriminatory attitudes and practices. They provide for K-12 access to “supplemental resources to combat bias” including “gender or sexual orientation” and require “tolerance programs.” [Emphasis mine.]
You heard it here, friends and neighbors: The abuse GLBT kids are subjected to in school hallways callously dismissed as “no more than routine verbal insults” – this from a person who presents herself as a champion of children.
My dictionary defines the adjective “routine” as “in accordance with a regularly repeated course of action or standard practice,” which is unfortunately the case for many kids who are left to the mercy of bullies. What conclusion can we draw from this? Since it’s “routine” for certain children to be threatened and abused because their peers perceive them to be gay, there is no reason to take such threats seriously or correct the perpetrators? The very fact that such abuse is systematic and unrelenting when adults fail to intervene is used here to dismiss it as business as usual.
That kind of says it all, don’t you think?