"I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided," said Sprigg. "I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior."And then he laughed.
"So we should outlaw gay behavior?" asked Matthews again.
Yes,” said Sprigg.
As Rob Tisani writes,
You know, it’s the laughter that gets me. I live in L.A., where I can pretend this sort of thinking is limited to the extreme, bigoted fringes of society. But this is on MSNBC, and Sprigg is a spokesperson for a group that brings in over twelve million dollars a year. We see what their position is — and how can you compromise between full civil equality and being thrown in prison? What would that compromise even look like?Let's be very clear what we are up against. It's hatred, ignorance, and violence all wrapped up with a veneer of religion.
No matter what we do, no matter what we offer, it won’t be enough for these folk. If we agree to everything-but-the-word, they’ll go to work on the “everything.” They’ll chisel away at civil unions and domestic partnerships until they strip us of even the right to claim the dead body of your partner from the morgue. They’ll keep chiseling — chiseling until we’re in prison.
9 comments:
Ughhhhh. Shudddddder.
Yep. No effing compromise.
People like this Sprigg guy scare me more than any of the "muslim terrorists" the Right is always going on about...
“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” ---Sinclair Lewis
The Diocese of Los Angeles has issued a news release on the status of the the consents for the two bishops-suffragan-elect:
"Of a total majority of 56 Standing Committee consents needed in each election, 29 have been received for the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool, and 34 for the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce."
Bryan Fischer of the AFA made similar comments last week, though he's now trying to do a bit of backpedaling and saying he never actually said that gay people should be imprisoned, but merely meant to point out that homosexuality carries the "risk of spreading disease." I'm not buying it, as Mr. Fischer has used the rather specific word "felony" in his arguments. Quite frankly, felonies come with prison time. To specifically promote making (or keeping) homosexuality a felony and then try to insist that you don't want to imprison gay people demonstrates you're either a complete idiot when it comes to the criminal justice system or a complete liar -- and not a very good one at that.
Then again, maybe he's both.
homosexuality carries the "risk of spreading disease."
Any form of sexual activity runs the risk of spreading disease! There are many more heterosexual folks with AIDS and herpes than gay folks.
David, I agree with you. That's also why I take issue with Fischer and company's "solution" to that particular problem. The real solution is to encourage safer sex practices and general sexual responsibility. And that goes for everyone, whether you're straight, bi, or gay.
Criminalizing homosexuality, no matter the "penalty," is a non-solution to the problem under discussion.
Only-slightly-off-topic:
+Gene Robinson will be on The Rachel Maddow Show (talking Uganda, and the National Prayer Breakfast) in less than 15 minutes!
One does not know wether to laugh or cry.
That language is very, very dangerous. As we all know, what AFA and FRC want to do is criminalize identity. If identity is criminalized (merely acknowledging one is queer), it makes it sooo much easier to remove the pesky queers from the body politic.
It's hateful and really dangerous.
Post a Comment