August, 2nd 2007

"Gay jihadists"

– Liz Mair

Today, I got a tip from my online buddy Nate Nelson that a fellow named Matt Sanchez apparently thinks that certain gay rights activists qualify as-- get this-- "gay jihadists".

Yes, you read that right. Gay activists (or at least some of them) are "jihadists." Wow.

The post whose comment thread played host to this extraordinary comment features here. Apparently, Mr. Sanchez has had the good sense to remove the "jihadist" comment-- but that still doesn't change the fact that he made it in the first place, or make it any more acceptable.

Nate rightly points out in his post on this subject that it is ridiculous hyperbole to label any kind of activist who a) doesn't behead anyone b) doesn't blow things up (other than, maybe, fireworks, or balloons) and c) doesn't fly planes into big buildings full of innocent people a "jihdist." He's also correct to note that flinging the "jihadist" label about diminishes the power of the term, and the significance of what it connotes.

But, of course, my big problem with the comment is that it seriously purports to equate gay activists, even if just some of them-- and the threat that they supposedly pose-- to Osama bin Laden and his supporters. This is even more evident when you read the full comment made by Mr. Sanchez: "Taught me to see through the shallowness of the militant gay movement and realize what a huge threat gay jihadist (sic) present for the country, culture and civilization." (my emphasis added)

Like Nate, I'm not a huge fan of some left-wing gay activists and left-wing gay activist groups. For example, the guy who was outing "closeted" gay, Republican staffers on Capitol Hill in the wake of the Mark Foley affair last year was, in my opinion, scum. As another example, there are some gay activist groups that focus on the bog-standard, obvious, takes-an -IQ-of-6-to-identify-them, "gay" matters (like legalizing gay marriage) rather than focusing on what I think to be a legislative agenda that is actually helpful to gay people in its totality (e.g., fighting against the anti-federalist, anti-private contract FMA, fighting to get private Social Security accounts so that gay partners can leave each other some retirement funds should one of them die-- something that the current set-up with regard to Social Security completely prevents, fighting to get serious tax reform since gay couples are basically the ones who get most screwed by our current tax set-up and are one group that would majorly benefit from, say, they institution of a flat tax).

But then there are other gay activist groups like, say, the Log Cabin Republicans, who plenty of social conservatives would happily view as part of the "militant" gay movement, and who fight for important, conservative changes to economic policy that would benefit gay people (and lots of other Americans, too), while also opposing things like the FMA. In other words, there are gay activists who don't exist solely to build Teddy Kennedy, and the welfare state's, power-- and I and many Republicans and conservatives I know, see a gigantic difference between the LCRs and certain liberal gay activist groups, as a result.

Even if it were fair or accurate to allege that left-wing gay groups were somehow "jihadists" (which it's not), I find it particularly offensive that someone would put out in the ether the suggestion that gay activist groups, generally, are a "a huge threat... for the country, culture and civilization"-- which does seem to be exactly what Mr. Sanchez is insinuating here.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Mr. Sanchez actually thinks very highly of groups like the LCRs and recognizes that with their membership's interest in lower taxes, less spending, smaller government, and so on, they are not a threat to the country, and they are about as similar to Osama bin Laden as is Cameron Diaz. But the comment, in its totality, sounds a lot like "gay people are evil and they're going to bring about the end of Western civilization." And that is frankly completely out of order and absurd.

Of course, it's easy to believe that Mr. Sanchez would think this. After all, he's the self-professed straight man who used to star in gay porn-- so it's possible to believe he holds a grudge against gay people (as well as liberals, given the porn industry's obvious liberal bent).

But the trouble with this is, Mr. Sanchez's stupid decision to whore himself out in gay porn is, as any good conservative will tell you, his and his alone to own. If he is, underneath all of his military gear, holding grudges against the entire gay community because of his gay porn experiences, he should probably take a look in the mirror before he mouths off publicly again-- because that's where any rage or ill sentiment should be directed.

In the meantime, Nate is asking the pertinent question: since this guy is now a "milblogger," embedded with the troops, exactly how much money are we, the taxpayers, spending to keep him alive to spout off this kind of nonsense instead of doing what he actually purports to do-- i.e., report on the war? And if he's going to use his position, which I suspect is maintained at some taxpayer expense, to mouth off about things that have nothing to do with his actual detail (like gay activists' complicity in the destruction of civilization), mightn't it be better if he came home now and quit wasting our time and cash?


Share by email