We've written at NewsBusters at how reticent the Associated Press is to note the Democratic Party affiliation of controversial or disgraced politicians, the latest of which is New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. But right off the bat the AP yesterday disclosed the party affiliation of an Oklahoma state legislator strongly critical of gay rights activists.
OKLAHOMA CITY – A Republican member of the Oklahoma Legislature has received death threats since telling a political group that "the homosexual agenda is just destroying this nation" and poses a bigger threat to the U.S. than terrorism or Islam.
"I'm not gay-bashing. But according to God's word that is not the right kind of lifestyle," Rep. Sally Kern of Oklahoma City said during an appearance before a group of Republicans. Her comments were recorded and posted on the video sharing Web site YouTube on Friday by the Washington, D.C.-based Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund.
The AP made certain to stack the article with critics of Kern, one of whom called Kern's comments "hate speech":
Story Continues Below Ad ↓Chuck Wolfe, president and CEO of the Victory Fund, said Kern's position in the Oklahoma House means she is representing her constituents as well as the entire state when she speaks.
"I think her comments can rightfully be classified as hate speech," Wolfe said. "Do we expect our elected officials to spew hate? If we don't, then we should tell them we don't.
"It's appalling. It is a hate-filled rant that shouldn't go unnoticed."
Of course the media won't let it go unnoticed, and almost certainly won't let her party affiliation slip by without mention.
What's more, while Kern has the First Amendment right to express her opinions, at least one gay rights activist critical of Kern's speech seems to hint that Kern's comments fall outside free speech protection. Reported Mick Hinton in the Tulsa World:
Justice Waidner, executive director of Oklahomans for Equality, said in a press release that "OkEq firmly supports Rep. Kern's constitutional right to express her views, but vociferously objects to the actions she takes to prevent LGBT Oklahomans from attaining justice and equality."
"When elected officials use their power to defame entire categories of people, they abuse the freedom of speech embedded in the First Amendment and violate their responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of their constituents," she said.
The group called upon the rest of the Legislature to condemn Kern's comments and to pass a state hate crimes law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'm trying to understand
March 11, 2008 - 13:09 ET by NewsbusterbrownI'm trying to understand how homosexuality is a greater threat to America than terrorism, but my brain is hurting in the attempt.
Of course, it would be nice if the AP actually thought terrorism was a threat to the US instead of using it to beat this lawmaker up with it.
If a liberal Democrat said
March 11, 2008 - 13:13 ET by Ken ShepherdIf a liberal Democrat said "unequal wealth and the vast difference between the rich and poor" is a greater threat than terrorism, the media attitude would be, "well, he has a point there" or "that's worth considering."
But conservative Republican sentiments about morality eroding the foundations of American society, that's kookiness to the media.
That's not to say that I agree with Kern, but these lines of argument are fundamentally the same. It's the notion that no external threat can destroy the United States, it's the enemy within. To liberals it's class inequality, it's a Marxist rubric of why empires fall and countries collapse. For some conservatives its moral erosion and how that weakens families, society, and ultimately the government.
Are any of us doing more than bitch?
March 11, 2008 - 13:23 ET by dronetekI'm just curious if anyone from Newsbusters is contactng these orginizations, to find out why they think they can get away with this? Its so obvious, that its hard to beleive they would actually claim there is no bias in the reporting. We have countless examples that prove they are fudging the facts when it comes to democrats.
Let me just say that I dont agree with the gay agenda comments. I've got no problem with gay people as long as they are minding their own business.
.....Guess that depends on
March 11, 2008 - 14:11 ET by Binxly.....Guess that depends on what you mean by 'minding their own business.' I have old relatives who I veheminantly disagree with, but have said the same about minorities. To them, 'minding your own business' means staying low on all radars and avoiding any sort of pride in yourself as an individual.
If you mean it in the sense that they act like everyone else, go to work, live their lives much as heterosexual people do, then I see no problem. If it means forcing them into a closet or chastizing them when they openly hold their mate's hand or talk about date night at work, then no, I think that is still bigotry.
No one thinks twice when Anna reaches for her boyfriend Jim's hand in the park, yet when Steve reaches for his boyfriend Bill's hand in the same park, the very same gesture of affection, it becomes somehow evil and corrupting to the crowd surrounding. Another typical scenario that people don't bat an eye to with heterosexuals but seem to be uneasy with homosexuals is the lunchroom chat.
Jane can BS till the lunch break is over about how great her date with Tim went, or BS about her boyfriend/husband and most will, again, be indifferent or even listen in and become engrossed in the story. However, If Gina talks about her date with Sandra, or her girlfriend, people walk away as if she's diseased or will begrudgingly 'put up with it' and think silently to themselves 'freak.'
I just don't get it. Who knows, perhaps I should just 'mind my own business' on this issue, right?
However, If Gina talks
March 11, 2008 - 15:13 ET by NewsbusterbrownHowever, If Gina talks about her date with Sandra, or her girlfriend, people walk away as if she's diseased or will begrudgingly 'put up with it' and think silently to themselves 'freak.'
Of course, if Gina and Sandra were hot... :-D
When Democrat "Bashes" Gays, No Party Mentioned
March 11, 2008 - 15:36 ET by zeestephenI grew up in Ft. Lauderdale and usually check the Sun-Sentinel website for headlines each day.
Ft. Lauderdale has a very large gay community and close to 20% of the town's tourists are gay.
Ft. Lauderdale mayor Jim Naugle is a conservative Democrat and decided about 6 months ago to crack down on gay sex in public restrooms. His solution was to replace existing restrooms with a new and quite expensive restroom model.
Naugle also made some comments that infuriated gay activists and the Democratic dominated city council.
Probably a dozen stories have been written about this in the Sun-Sentinel, and a few were picked up by wire services.
I have not seen one story where Naugle, the "gay basher," is identified as a Democrat.
Yes, indeed it is quite odd
March 12, 2008 - 09:41 ET by BinxlyYes, indeed it is quite odd that depending on the letter after your name, you are either burned alive or simply ignored for what's seen as an 'anti-progressive' viewpoint.
Personally I agree with his decision. Here's how I work it, if it wouldn't be accepted for heterosexuals, then I see no reason why it must be tolerated when its done by homosexuals. Sex of ANY kind does NOT belong in public at all, nor in public bathrooms.
I don't think they realize it, but when homosexuals protest these sort of laws, it doesn't speak too highly of them. They aren't all deviants, trolling bathrooms for sex, so why would they put themselves in a position like this, protesting a rather reasonable plan to end a VERY unreasonable and lewd public act, basically painting themselves as claiming 'all homosexuals *are* bathroom trolls' Totally beyond me. I guess some of them feel they have rights of private residence in the stall when the door closes. Sorry, its still public domain, take it back to your OWN place.
Well said, Ken.
March 11, 2008 - 13:22 ET by NewsbusterbrownWell said, Ken.
Ken, we here have been
March 11, 2008 - 14:01 ET by bassndudeKen, we here have been kickin this around for a week now. I heard her remarks in their entirety yesterday, and I must agree with her. What with NAMBLA in the picture, it gives you pause for thought.
The left wing here is in overdrive aginst this woman. I find it funny that they can say anything they want, but her freedom of speech, they think, is not protected. And that is where they, the left, are trying to take it.
BTW, her husband is a baptist minister. Heard him speak about the hub-bub yesterday. Im on her side.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I'm wondering why a silly
March 11, 2008 - 13:27 ET by Chris NormanI'm wondering why a silly statement by a minor state lawmaker warrants coverage (national?) by the AP. Hmmm - I've never heard a member of the Kansas state legislature being quoted before, what could it be, what makes the difference....
Soon the Bible will be hate speech
March 11, 2008 - 13:27 ET by exLibCount on it.
There are too many scriptures that have "bad" things to say about people who do homosexual things.
As soon as the hate speech legislation passes you'll be sure to find edited versions of the bible, as you already do. And ministers, preachers whatever you want to call them will have their sermons monitored as you already do today and those who use "hate speech" will be fined or jailed.
And most Americans could care less, since most are unaware of the vast majority of things said in the Bible and all too readily believe what the media tells them it says.
Morality question---
March 11, 2008 - 13:38 ET by misterbillIs it possible that Representative Kern fears the loss of our souls more than the loss of our lives??
It seems to me that the tolerance and love I have shown to those who live an alternate lifestyle has changed to a reverse discrimination issue. I do not believe it is right, for example, thet the school board of Montgomery County, MD has approved a course to teach elementary school children about anal and oral sexual practices. As a matter of fact, I feel they should be arrested for insisting on such a thing. The courts have upheld their decision.
I want my children to decide what they want their children to know. Who would have ever believed that American society would attempt to dictate this type of thing.
For decades, even longer, our gay people were discrimuinated against and punished for their lifestyles. Now a more open minded society has recognized them and their rights. Society's reward for learning tolerance????? Having the gay agenda shoved in their faces. I , for one , am starting to become intolerant. I want my shot at reverese discrimination. I want to shut the gay agenda down. I am sickened that an organization suchas NAMBLA exists in this greta country. An organization whose goals are in direct contradiction with American law and the laws of decency.
It seems to me that Oklahoma is leading the nation in trying to restore decency and patriotism to America.
You go, Rep Kern!!!!!
PS Maybe I support her because I fear the loss of my soul more than I fear death!
The biggest threat to homosexuality, of course, would be..
March 11, 2008 - 14:08 ET by Gary HallLast time I checked, the biggest threat to homosexuality would Islam; notably the more fundemental sects of Islam, and groups like the Taliban. The penalty, of course, for the gay lifestyle frequently is death.
I suspect the AP has little interest in hyping that up, when the larger issue is simply protecting the Democrats from all angles and at all costs.
From the standpoint of the
March 11, 2008 - 16:50 ET by rbosqueFrom the standpoint of the family, that life-style is a threat. The nuclear family has been the backbone of society. Now it's an "anything-goes" society. GLAAD is not above shoving their twisted logic down everyone's throats.
I agree that the 'club'
March 12, 2008 - 10:18 ET by BinxlyI agree that the 'club' culture and immature, childish sub-cultures within the homosexual community ARE threatening to the family unit as they promote irresponsibility, poor choices in sexual protection and discretion, and an overwhelming focus on extremely selfish living, it is these ACTS themselves that threaten the family, not homosexuality itself.
I know of plenty of 'good' homosexual couples who are faithful, loving, supportive, and JUST like heterosexual couples used as the golden standard of the nuclear family, just that there happens to be two people of the same sex. I believe, and it is supported by case studies as well, that a responsible, adult, and mature homosexual couple are just as capable of raising a well-adjusted, educated, and otherwise 'normal' child and family as any heterosexual couple can.
I agree much of what is at the most visible forefront of homosexual culture IS the irresponsible, selfish, and immature sub-cultures within the homosexual community, and therefore, it is easy to assume that is how the community functions in general. I can assure you such is not the case.
I am all for restricting such practices as gay pride parades and other spectacles that claim to be about pride but are more or less just an excuse to dance in your birthday suit on a California street in broad daylight. However, I think it is just foolish to think that homosexuals are a danger to the family unit by default. If we united on the issues we DO care about (safe sexual practices, using discretion, becoming less focused on sex as a sport than as an expression of love) then I think the 'good' homosexuals and the moral majority could better tackle the sub cultures that give homosexuality a bad name.
Like the term racism, which
March 11, 2008 - 20:36 ET by R D HelmLike the term racism, which has come to be defined as anything said that disagrees with a person of color, hate speech is being redefined as anything said that many on the left disagree with.
I do not agree that the gay agenda is more of a threat to us than terrorism, although I am not comfortable with the introduction of this topic at the elementary level, as they are currently doing in California.
However, I do believe that government schools ultimately are more of a threat to this nation than terrorism.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Agreed.
March 12, 2008 - 09:05 ET by amberAgreed.
Leave The Bible Out of This
March 12, 2008 - 08:24 ET by BlueCat57While I thump the Bible with the best of them on Sunday morning, there is no need to use the Bible to determine if a particular lifestyle is a "threat" to American society.
I recommend the eye-opening book, The Marketing of Evil. At this point I will say that I am not calling homosexuals evil. That is the book's title and was probably chosen by the publisher, not the author, to sell books.
What the book points out is that homosexuals are not just trying to get mainstream society to accept them as they are, they are trying to forcefully change American society against the desires of the majority. They have a plan and they are skillfully executing it.
You don't need to use the Bible, or any other religious argument, to show that something is not good for American society. At least that's what the atheists tell us.
So my recommendation is "leave the Bible out of this." Use the moral standards of the majority of society to judge what is right and wrong. Isn't that how you decide morals without God?
------
That's like reading Marx to become an entrepreneur.
Correct me if I am wrong,
March 12, 2008 - 08:54 ET by amberCorrect me if I am wrong, but Kern said the biggest threat was the homosexual agenda, not homosexuals. Did the article explain the homosexual agenda and why it may be considered a threat? Maybe an opposing view? Nope, it was only about bashing someone for saying what they beileve with no context at all. Makes my point that colleges do not teach people. If they did, journalist would know what journalism was.