This Wednesday, a man opened fire in the lobby of the Family Research Council (FRC), shooting a security guard.
I know Barry wrote a nice piece about this earlier this week and many of the pro-LGBT bloggers I read have also condemned the shooting, but I’d like to add my voice to those condemning the shooting. I also wanted to wait until more information was available before I wrote about this incident. I’ve seen several unconfirmed reports noting that the man did so because of the group’s anti-gay or conservative policies. The Christian Science Monitor (a source I generally respect, by the way), describes the shooter as someone who “had volunteered at a community center for gays.”
This shooting is horrifying and deplorable. Full stop.
And, if it was actually motivated by political ideology, I think it is evidence of the toxic, aggressive, and bullying nature of the way LGBT rights are often discussed and “debated” in US society by those on all sides of the issues.
When we call it a “Culture War,” do we expect it to happen without guns?
I don’t, in general, buy into the notion that “both sides are just as bad” when it comes to questions of LGBT equality. But, I do think many voices, especially some prominent voices, demonize, bully, and caricature those who oppose LGBT rights in a way that is dehumanizing.
Look. I get it, I really get that groups like Family Research Council hurt us as LGBT people.
In my very first post at Family Scholars Blog, I advocated for a greater awareness for how our rhetoric and incivility disrespects the human dignity of our political opponents and, ultimately, hurt our cause. Yet, when I have made such pleas, several gay men (and it’s always been men) have ordered me to get off my “high horse” (are men who advocate for civility regularly ordered to do this?) for noting that when we meet hostility with hostility we legitimize its use.
For, I’ve found that stepping out of line and criticizing certain pro-LGBT voices or disagreeing with them has sometimes meant finding myself on the receiving end of hostility that they used to only aim at our mutual “enemies.” I understand the intensity of their anger and the sense of righteousness with which they yield it, but when hostility has been directed at me it has felt scary at times. As though, once a person is put in that little box that’s labeled “enemy,” we become people who’s dignity no longer matters.
I’m not perfect and I never will be. And, I’m not at all letting those opposed to LGBT rights off the hook here. Many folks who oppose same-sex marriage do the exact same thing. And, as a lesbian and a woman, I’ve felt much more fear and disrespect as a result of my interactions with some who oppose LGBT rights than I have in interacting with the supporters of LGBT rights.
In all honesty, I hesitated to even write this post admitting that LGBT people aren’t perfect because I know how such concessions can be used against us. As though, if it’s a lesbian admitting that LGBT people can be mean, it’s some sort of “confessional” that justifies the further mistreatment and vilification of LGBT people as Big Bad Mean Bullies. Another toxic element of these “culture wars” is that it’s difficult to make even the tiniest concession due to our fear about how the “other side” will use it against us.
For instance, as the Christian Science Monitor reports, “about two dozen” LGBT rights groups rejected and condemned the attack. (That number, as of yesterday, is actually 41). I hope that organizations that oppose LGBT rights acknowledge that condemnation.
As of yesterday, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has posted 13 updates and pieces of commentary about the shooting, while pushing the message that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is responsible for the shooting due to its labeling of the FRC as a hate group.
This sort of swift, reactionary politicization of the shooting, without appearing to care or understand why the some might see FRC as a hate group, doesn’t help lessen the toxicity of the national conversation. By failing to concede that hate is a real thing that actually exists in the real world not only against opponents of same-sex marriage, but against LGBT people as well, NOM further polarizes this “culture war” and feeds into the cycle of aggression.
My thoughts are with the security guard- Leo Johnson, his family, and all who live in genuine fear of violence because of their political beliefs.
And, I hope those who have prominent platforms to voice their views and rile people up will begin to use them more mindfully, sincerely, and responsibly.
Categories: Civil Society
Thank you, Fannie, for your words. Somebody should give you a four star medal for civility in public conversation.
After hearing Bryan Fischer’s comments, and hearing about the shooting at FRC, I too fear for the consequences of the awful rhetoric that is out there, from pro and anti-ssm people. Now, more than ever, we need prominent leaders from both sides to jointly voice their opposition to hateful rhetoric and violence and to recommit our country to a same-sex marriage debate that respects people’s dignity and conscience.
Tough as it may be, this is a disagreement that we must strive to share within the bond of civility. The alternative is unthinkable.
Thank you Fannie. One thing I admire about you, is that you not only make these points regarding the words and deeds of others (on all sides), but you also consistently model these ideas in your own words and actions, which is not always easy to do these days.
I’m suspicious of “civility” talk, especially (though not exclusively) in the context of the debate pertaining to LGBT rights.
I’m not suspicious of civility. Civility is an important civic virtue. It has important instrumental benefits in enabling discussion, and it reflects important truths about the unconditional dignity and worth of all people, and the need to behave toward one another with generosity and fairness. As a general rule, people ought to be civil to one another. (Let me add here, in light of the recent shooting, that as an absolute rule, people must not ever be violent toward others on the basis of their political views. We do not get to divide people into those whose lives and well-being matter, and those whose lives and well-being do not. That is what it means to talk of unconditional worth, of inalienable rights.)
Civility, however, is not the same as truth or justice. A person who is more civil is not thereby more right, at least not when it comes to the substance of her or his position. The special character of civility as a norm is that it applies to every person irrespective of whether or not they speak truth and advocate justice, and so its regular invocation in this debate has the effect, sometimes, of making it not about truth and justice, of suggesting that its most morally salient feature, instead, is the level of tact people on each side express.
But it is not so. To embed in culture and law norms that marginalize and subordinate LGBT people and our relationships is a deeply wrongful and profoundly destructive thing to do, even if its proponents are the most civil people around. To direct strong and in some respects harsh criticism at people who do this is entirely appropriate and often important and necessary, again irrespective of how civil those people might be. And to suggest that the times when such criticism descends into the uncivil are part of “the problem” is quite misleading, I think. It is a problem, and it is worth responding to. But the problem, the fundamental problem here, remains the denial of justice to LGBT people. And that problem is very much not two-sided: one side is trying to end it and the other side is trying to perpetuate it.
This is not meant as a criticism of Fannie’s post. Still less should it detract from the recognition of another important truth, the total unacceptability of political violence, which the FRC shooting apparently was. But when we think and talk about “civility,” I think it is something to be kept in mind.
Fannie is eloquent. But the big to-do about this stems from the fact that this is the FIRST time a gay person has (literally) targeted the FRC and its allies. If Maggie Gallagher can attend the premiere of 8 without disguising herself, it is pretty clear that she knows that she will not be harassed. The fact is the gay rights movement has been the most peaceful movement in the history of civil rights movements.
I don’t know that our movement will remain so peaceful, at least unless the rhetoric from the other side cools. Until the Web, most of the really vicious hate speech was done when the other side was speaking to their choir. Now that their activities are being monitored and broadcast to a large audience, gay people are quite aware of what the FRC and other say about us.
Inevitably, a person in fragile mental health is going to snap. Either the rhetoric is toned down or we need to prepare ourselves for more of these incidents.
JHW, thank you. That was very eloquent and I agree fully.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes hate. I think it is more useful to view hate as an action, and not as an intention or performance. What is the end result? Does it meet the standard of treating others as one would prefer to be treated? Advocating that gay and lesbian families not be treated with the same regard or have access to the same standard institutions and legal protections that heterosexuals enjoy, or denying gay and lesbian persons the same civil rights protections that heterosexuals have, or denying gay and lesbian persons inclusion in social institutions of various kinds…..those are all hateful actions, even if the means for enacting them were nonviolent (voting, the custom of shunning, etc.). Even if no screaming or spitting or name-calling was involved, the same amount of bottom line harm is done to gay and lesbian persons and their families.
I am a victim of gun violence. My life will never be the same again. I feel for the building manager who was shot in ways that others may not be capable of appreciating. I am also a gay man.
What concerns me is the potential for a false equivalence between the actions of anti-gay “hate” groups and the energetic opprobrium of the gay community. Yes, we cross a line of civily from time to time.
While I am way past the point of having any personal stake in gay rights, I am very concerned for gay children. Some of these kids are in awful places – from Tupelo to Tulsa. Some of these kids come home bloodied every day; Some are driven to suicide. Groups like FRC are often the proximate – if not direct – cause for gratuitous violence and, yes, “hate.” They give license to the bullies and their parents. Every time that I hear of one more gay child killing himself or herself I go unhinged. I cannot help it. If that causes me to be a tad uncivil, from time to time, well – I am only human.
“…recommit our country to a same-sex marriage debate that respects people’s dignity and conscience.”
Therein lies the problem: you think it’s debatable whether gay people should have the same legal rights as straight people. I have a BIG problem with that notion. It defies notions of fairness, social justice, constitutionality, religious belief, etc. It is a fraudulent argument.
No one is stopping religious groups or any other groups or individuals from believing that marriage can only occur between different-sex couples. But to want the government to take your side, to the disadvantage of gay and lesbian couples, is unreasonable.
If your starting point is, let’s talk about whether we should grant full citizenship rights for gay and lesbian Americans, I think you are going to simply perepetuate a hostile environment, rather than find an outcome satisfying to you and to supporters of same-sex marriage.
test sorry but it looks like my comments are getting whacked
David,
We apologize, your comment was not taken down because of moderation – it is a technical difficulty. We are checking to make sure you haven’t been accidentally banished by the spam filter.
Standby, we’ll hopefully get all your comments back in the right spot.
I am a victim of gun violence (I was shot point blank with a .45). I am super sympathetic and absolutely loathe violence of any kind. Having said that I am also a gay man. While I am beyond the point of having any personal stake in LGBT equality, I know a thing or two about civility.
Kids in our community come home from school every day bloodied and beaten down – some to the point of suicide. Every time I hear of another child killing himself or herself I go unhinged.
Groups like FRC give license to parents and their childred to torment our kids. They refuse to be accountable. In fact, they claim that gay kids commit suicide because they know that they are perverts.
So, yes, I have been known to be uncivil from time to time. I am human and I really care about that child in Tulsa or Tupelo who is told, every day, that he or she is evil. The day of the shooting – before I knew about it – I wrote, at slowlyboiledfrog, that FRC’s Peter Sprigg took an anti-gay statement from the Regenerus study and reworded it (in quotes as original) to make it even more anti-gay.
We are angry and we have good cause to be angry. Our incivility is the result of that anger. Meanwhile, people at FRC measure and test every sentence that they write. They are cold and calculating.
I found the “techinal problem.” It is adding the website to the post. Perhaps you are using the Akismet plugin which creates a backlink and identifies the post as spam,
Is there a way to ask a question of the moderator?
One case of violence is not equivocal to generations of mistreatment, vilification, violence and the deaths of GLBT people justified by “religious beliefs”. Pretending it does only feeds into the fictional narrative groups like FRC and people like Tony Perkins rely on. For years people like Perkins have referred to us as “violent militant homosexual activists out to destroy religious freedoms and acquire children” without a shred of proof and now finally that they have a case that feeds into part of the myth they have relied upon to fill coffers they have gone completely off the rails.
This tragic event by a lone deranged individual has predictably been turned into another fundraising tool scapegoating GLBT people and the SPLC purposely to deflect from the very harmful rhetoric prated by the sanctimonious FRC and Tony Perkins while conveniently attacking the group, the SPLC, that tracks the type of organizations that Perkins is affiliated with. It should surprise no one that the man who bought the Klan mailing list and spoke at white supremacist rallies has a problem with the SPLC but ignoring the real reason behind it, his revisionist views and feeding his persecution complex is not something we should allow to continue unchallenged. It is not hateful to refuse to participate in other peoples fantasies.
Allowing them once again to rewrite and misrepresent the issue is unconscionable. People like Perkins who makes huge sums of money knowingly misrepresenting research and facts who call GLBT people sinning, deviant, demon possessed, child predator, abominations out to destroy the world for political and financial gain can not be trusted or treated as sane, innocent, “righteous”, moral, upstanding defenders of “faith” regardless of how they present themselves in front of a camera.
We will never have a rational civil debate about equality when one groups entire platform is based on intentionally dishonest misrepresentation of reality, complete and utter falsehoods shrouded in pious self righteous “faith” denying what is TRUE and replacing FACTS with “beliefs”. Lying has become a “traditional family value” and proven extremely profitable for those in opposition. Imagining that will change or they will ever see the light when the dark pays so well is a mistake like it always has been. They have no motivation to compromise failing to realize only forces us to participate in their game and play our parts in this sick script they have written.
While I think Milbank was totally inaccurate in his assessment, I am all for having a discussion on what constitutes a hate group. Furthermore, a discussion of the Family Research Council’s activities is has been needed for a long time now. But therein lies the problem. There has never been a suitable discussion of their activities. And it’s extremely bothersome that in spite of the charges against FRC, very few will ask Perkins or anyone from FRC the important and crucial questions about the FRC’s statements and actions. Believing that homosexuality is a sin is perfectly fine. But what we are talking about here are deliberate attempts to pass along junk science and anti-gay propaganda with the goal of denigrating the gay community. If an organization was doing these things against the African-American or Jewish community, there would be no question about their hate group status. What needs to be asked is why are things different when it comes to the Family Research Council?
If something good can come from this shooting tragedy, it’s the negative light that’s getting shined on the FRC and its militant anti-gay activities. Americans are tired of this idiocy, and other groups, like NOM, that are milking this, will hopefully be marginalized, too.
[...] the end of this post, but I also recommend reading JHW’s excellent comment on why he’s suspicious of “civility talk,” and this blog post: If We Don’t Call [...]