Monday, August 19, 2013

NOM surrogate continues strategy of pitting African-Americans against gays

Robert Oscar Lopez - NOM-Bot
At this point, Robert Oscar Lopez is just a mindless NOM-Bot.

Bear with me. I'll get to Lopez in a moment. In March of 2012, a Maine court, investigating the failure of National Organization for Marriage to comply with the state's campaign finance disclosure laws, unsealed documents. Included in the documents was essentially a "business plan" to lure big donors. One part of that plan included the following:
The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…
Yesterday, on a Tea Party website (oddly titled American Thinker), Mr. Lopez let loose his latest anti-gay essay titled: The International Gay War on Black People. It's “international” now. Who knew? Apparently, for example, we've been picking on poor Donnie:
…McClurkin is a black Christian who has come forward with an inspiring life story. He was molested as a boy and developed homosexual behaviors, possibly as a result of the trauma. Later his faith helped him to overcome his homosexual desires and live a more biblical life.
This idiot is an assistant professor somewhere. There is no connection between sexual orientation and child sexual abuse. That's what the scientists tell us. My suspicion is that so-called "ex-gays" like to claim that they were molested as part of the victimology. McClurkin further fits the ex-gay mold by having an economic interest in claiming to be ex-gay. But I digress. When Lopez is done commenting on our intolerance, he goes off with this:
There has been a string of global clashes between LGBT activists and black Christians -- not only in the U.S., but abroad. African-American Christian Angela McCaskill nearly lost her job at Gallaudet University for signing a petition about gay marriage, even though it wasn't clear that she was signing in protest against it.
Because McCaskill was the chief diversity officer at Gallaudet the matter was rightfully investigated. She was placed on leave with pay and the matter was resolved with her reinstatement. It's not "global" and the same thing would have happened were McCaskill white. So what? And then:
Crystal Dixon was an African-American administrator in Toledo who authored a rebuttal against someone who'd accused the University of Toledo of economic discrimination against homosexual couples. Dixon said, "I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman." She went on to clarify the illegitimacy of the economic comparison:
Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor's degree: For gay men, the median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000); 36% of lesbians reported household incomes in excess of $100,000/yr. Compare that to the median income of the non-college educated Black male of $30,539. The data speaks for itself.
I cannot fathom what theory Mr. Lopez thinks he is supporting. Dixon's ignorance about "choosing the homosexual lifestyle" is obvious to the vast majority of people. Her "irrefutable" conomic data is all wrong as well (Lopez does not provide the source. According to both Gallup (which surveyed 120,000 people) and research done by the APA, gays do not enjoy income parity. Gallup summarized:
Among those who report income, about 16% of LGBT-identified individuals have incomes above $90,000 per year, compared with 21% of the overall adult population. Additionally, 35% of those who identify as LGBT report incomes of less than $24,000 a year, significantly higher than the 24% for the population in general. These findings are consistent with research showing that LGBT people are at a higher risk of poverty.
People like Lopez like to float the idea that gays are wealthy. They don't need protection.

Ms. McCaskill was reinstated (no harm — no foul) and Ms. Dixon is an imbecile. Now what? I am not going to re-litigate the Dixon matter. She was fired (for cause); she sued; she lost; she appealed; she lost again. Perhaps Mr. Lopez knows where Dixon obtained her economic data:
Dixon's point is particularly important to keep in mind when we consider the case of Edie Windsor, who was the plaintiff in the DOMA case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in late June. Windsor, a white lesbian, sued because her lesbian partner's estate amounted to $3.5 million, as Patrick Deneen has pointed out. Not content with this gargantuan estate, Windsor won her legal case and is now set to receive $360,000 more.
What does that have to do with the price of rice? Edie Windsor's wife was a very successful physician who left a decent sized estate (including the life insurance). Windsor sued because it was a matter of principle. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court ruled in her favor. Thereafter, Mr. Lopez indulges in another black "victim" or two.

Does it occur to these morons that 13% of the LGBT community is Black?
People who love the same sex come with many different agendas and experiences.  The peculiar ideology of the LGBT lobby, however, seems fashioned perfectly to inflame the rage and resistance of African-Americans.  First, the ideology is based on biological determinism.  The repeated appeals to the Fourteenth Amendment depend upon the notion that homosexuals are born with their orientation in the same way black people are born with dark skin.  This isn't the most inviting way to start a comparison: "Hi, I'm a guy who loves playing with other men's genitals, and that's just like you being black!"
"Peculiar ideology of the LGBT lobby?" This schmuck is seriously in need of some therapy. Furthermore, Mr. Lopez, sexual orientation is as biologically determined as skin color, irrespective of your religious beliefs.  "Playing with genitals?" You have got to be joking. Furthermore, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment applies to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Don't they teach civics in schools anymore?

This polemic goes on and on and on. It makes less sense and becomes more offensive as it continues. Read it in full if you have some brain cells to spare. Lopez' concluding paragraph begins:
As a descendant of Puerto Rican slaves, I find the general recurring attitude of the LGBT movement toward black people disrespectful and offensive.
Sure, Bobby. Sure. Lopez is not just a garden variety Christianist bigot. Oh, no. Bobby is out to defend the African-American community. The NAACP and virtually every mainstream civil rights organization disagree with Mr. Lopez, and NOM, and the Bishops and the anti-gay industry.

What the fuck is this dim bulb saying anyway? Seriously.
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.