FRC’s Tony Perkins “saddened” by Ken Mehlman coming out

August 27, 2010 at 7:45 am 96 comments

(Cross-posted at LGBTPOV)

By Karen Ocamb

The Call Tony Perkins.JPGTony Perkins, head of the antigay Family Research Council, is “saddened” by the news about former GOP heavy weight Ken Mehlman coming out as gay, according to an email to supporters he sent during a break from his vacation. Perkins (pictured) says that Mehlman has “chosen” to identify himself as gay. I guess Perkins didn’t read Mehlman’s interview with The Atlantic or skipped that part where it took Mehlman 43 years to “choose” that identity.

But there are so many other interesting tid-bits in Perkins’ email. Look at the phrase “unfortunate confirmation” – now what does Perkins mean by that? That he, too, knew that Mehlman’s sexual orientation was an “open secret” in Washington DC and Republican circles? If that’s true – why didn’t Perkins reach out to Mehlman, whom he says he “cares about as a person,” and invite him to join an “ex-gay” ministry with which FRC is connected? Hmmmm? Might he have thought that Mehlman’s sexual orientation was none of his business? A personal matter? But wait – Perkins thinks every other gay person’s personal life is his business so why make an exception for Mehlman? Or perhaps if Mehlman had said yes and then the “cure” failed – and Mehlman, having been exposed for trying – exposes the truth about “ex-gay” ministries – that they don’t work? Geez – and then he trots out the old homosexual-”conduct”-causes-disease trope – long discredited but still a money-maker with his unquestioning crowd.

But best of all is Perkins’ conspiracy theory – that Mehlman having been closeted all this time “helps explain the scandalous failure of many in the Republican establishment to vigorously uphold the values and policy positions expressed in the party’s platform in 2004 and 2008, particularly the need to protect the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman nationwide.” Yup – that’s it: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and all the other top right wing GOP leaders were afraid of blowing Mehlman’s secret or hurting his feelings so they refused to do the “grassroots” bidding. Never mind that that GOP team under Mehlman was responsible for antigay marriage constitutional amendments in 11 states in 2004 and 8 states in 2006. Not good enough.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when Mehlman and Perkins encounter each other again.

Here’s Perkins email to supporters:

The Update remains on Summer break and will return next week, but I wanted to respond to inquires and concerns that have been expressed about the news that former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman has now chosen to identify himself as homosexual.

First, I am saddened by this announcement. I’m saddened because I know Ken and care about him as a person. Homosexuality not only has negative implications for society, it also has profound, well-documented negative physical and mental health consequences for those who engage in homosexual conduct as well.

This unfortunate confirmation helps explain the scandalous failure of many in the Republican establishment to vigorously uphold the values and policy positions expressed in the party’s platform in 2004 and 2008, particularly the need to protect the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman nationwide. While grassroots activists succeeded in passing marriage amendments in dozens of states across the country, they received little support and even outright resistance from Party officials at the national level, which contributed to the GOP’s electoral failures in 2006 and 2008. Now we know one of the major reasons why.

With this announcement about his homosexuality, Ken also announced that he would join those who have mounted the assault on marriage through the activist courts. Not only does this run counter to the historical principles of the Republican Party, it stands in direct opposition to the Party’s platform which is clear on the importance of marriage and family. The Party’s unequivocal stand on life, marriage, and family is why many social conservatives have made the GOP their political home.

It is important for the conservative movement that the Republican Party remains committed to its longtime stance on core social issues. The Party and the movement will suffer if the GOP adopts a foolish strategy of seeking votes by pandering to the two-percent of the population who are homosexual or bisexual–and thereby alienating the majority of conservative voters.

** When the news about Mehlman hit the wires this morning, FRC’s two Kens–Blackwell and Klukowski–tackled the tough road ahead for the Republican Party in a brand new column. “If Republicans flinch on marriage,” they write,” America could have eight years of President Obama.” You can check out their op-ed, “Disaster Looms If GOP Changes Course On Gay Marriage,” on Fox News now.

Entry filed under: Right-wing.

Political Science professors note marriage equality “groundswell” Peter, Paul & Mary’s cease-and-desist to NOM: Stop playing “This Land Is Your Land”

96 Comments Add your own

  • 1. BK  |  August 27, 2010 at 7:52 am

    First! Yeah! Sorry. Had to do that. :)

    Reply
    • 2. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  August 27, 2010 at 7:57 am

      Subscribing

      Reply
      • 3. Kathleen  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:32 am

        me, too.

        Reply
      • 4. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:23 pm

        Gotsta get more packets.

        Reply
    • 5. BK  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:01 am

      Okay. Now for something to justify that first comment.

      Personally, I haven’t found that gay conservatives are taken seriously much anywhere. Speaking as a gay conservative myself, it seems that people like me are in a bind. We could either vote for people who most align with our beliefs, or we could vote for our own rights. It sucks. What thoughts do you guys have? Ciao for now!

      Reply
      • 6. BK  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:02 am

        Oh yeah — and conservative is definitely different from the current Repub party. Just FYI.

        Reply
      • 7. Sagesse  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:13 am

        BK, there’s not much place for moderate conservatives of any kind in today’s Republican party. They’ve just shifted their identity to ‘independent’.

        Reply
      • 8. Alan E.  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:14 am

        If people would just let go of their ties to extremes when choosing a party to vote for in an election, as opposed to voting for a person, a third party that’s socially liberal and fiscally conservative would do well! Unfortunately, support for third parties just isn’t there yet on the grand spectrum, and those that say they are independent tend to align themselves purely with one party.

        Reply
      • 9. fiona64  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:34 am

        “Conservative” is now pretty much synonymous with “fundamentalist Evangelical Christian right-wing Republican,” and that is part of the problem with our two-party political spectrum.

        The right person for the job, IMO, will never be elected — because the right person for the job where politics are concerned is the one who will never take money from special interests (be they churches or corporations).

        I’m becoming more and more about the Peace and Freedom party these days …

        And the “tea party”? How any thinking person could align themselves with that blatantly racist hot mess is beyond me. Yet, because scapegoating is easy politics (ref: Nuremberg), the “unwashed masses” cheerfully go along with the hate-filled agenda because it’s easier than, you know, applying critical thinking.

        /rant

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 10. PamC  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:12 am

        I’m sticking with the saying that the only person who should be elected to office is one who is qualified but doesn’t want the power/money/etc. OK, that will never happen, but if only…. :)

        Where are the philosopher-electees?

        Reply
      • 11. Anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:21 am

        My thought on the “vote conservative or vote for my rights” issue is this.

        Vote for a person, not a party. If you find that an independant falls more in line with most of your core beliefs, but is outside of the sphere you thought you would vote in, think about expanding your sphere.

        I am, and have always been, a lefty. But I do find sometimes that a more moderate politician may seem to have a better handle on the issues that concern me, so I will vote that way.

        Reply
      • 12. Judy  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:07 pm

        @PamC: Schwarzenegger has never taken a dime of his governor’s pay.

        Reply
      • 13. fiona64  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:27 pm

        That doesn’t make Arnold any less of an embarrassment to CA. :-/

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 14. PamC  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:33 pm

        @Judy

        re: “@PamC: Schwarzenegger has never taken a dime of his governor’s pay.”

        Well, he still seemed to be in it for the power, if not the money. And a philosopher? hmmm….

        I give him credit for marrying a thinker. :)

        Reply
      • 15. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:38 pm

        @PamC: ‘I’m sticking with the saying that the only person who should be elected to office is one who is qualified but doesn’t want the power/money/etc.

        Yes! If you want the job, you should be automatically disqualified for it :)

        But you’re right. Power and money are drugs some people just cannot resist.

        Reply
  • 16. Bolt  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Good morning everyone,

    Until yesterday, I’ve never heard about Mehlman, and everything that I’ve read about him makes me like him less and less. According to Keith Olbermann, “Mehlman is stirring up anti-Muslim fear and anxiety to gain support for the republican party.” It’s so tiring to explain why this is wrong. Republicans choose groups of people to shit on.

    Mehlman deserves to have his career destroyed exactly like the careers of the NOM, and Tony Perkins.

    Reply
  • 17. Alan E.  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Don’t cry too much Tony. You already got a lot out of Ken.

    Reply
  • 18. Ed  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:14 am

    I think Tony P. cares a little too much about his appearance. Isn’t that an adorable sweater/shirt ? And the way he pushes the sleeves up… that man just exudes gay sex

    Reply
    • 19. draNgNon  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:32 am

      This.

      Reply
    • 20. fiona64  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:35 am

      Yep.

      One of these days, Tony Perkins will come out … and most of us will go “And …?”

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 21. Dave in CA  |  August 27, 2010 at 9:04 am

        What Fiona said. :-)

        Did everybody here see / read about Tony’s worries about what happens during “spooning” in the military if DADT is repealed. What he fears is what he wants.

        Should we start a betting pool of who is next to come out?

        Reply
      • 22. Anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:23 am

        Sadly, I missed both “spooning” in the military, and Perkins’ concern about it.

        I am in fits of giggles at the pictures in my head, so someone please enlighten me as to what military spooning is, and why Mr. Perkins worries about it?

        Reply
      • 23. Ozymandias71  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:40 am

        Agree with fiona – though I think there will be a collective ‘I told you so!’ from us.

        Of course the irony is that he has spent so long whipping his followers into a bloody furor about ‘teh Gay’ that when he does come Out (or is Outed)…

        …well I have an image of Tony Perkins huddling in a corner while his army of brainwashed zombies slowly advances on him, saying ‘Gaaaaayyyy….’

        …and that image makes me smile. A. Lot.

        Reply
      • 24. Ozymandias71  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:01 am

        Anonygrl, check this out – a friend of mine who is ex-Army explained what ‘military spooning’ actually is. It’s one of the survival techniques they’re taught – particularly in places like the desert where it can drop to near-freezing temps overnight. They’re taught to have two soldiers share one sleeping bag… naked. Sleeping back-to-back so that body-heat is conserved (hence being naked) and shared (hence two bodies in one sack).

        This is STANDARD training – has been for a long, long time. ;) When he told me this, he also pointed out that it was pretty natural for one guy to turn over while asleep… he laughed about it. ;)

        Reply
      • 25. Steve  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:05 am

        @Anonygrl

        Imagine being shot down behind enemy lines or having to sleep in the middle of nowhere on the ground. It’s cold, you’re hungry, the enemy is out there trying to kill you. To stay warm you spoon with a fellow soldier, who will then immediately forget all the other shit that is going on and fear that s/he will catch the gay or that you’re turned on.

        Reply
      • 26. Dave in CA  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:07 am

        Re: Spooning. He was talking to some group or other about the dangers of repealing DADT. He was interviewing an officer, who explained that in freezing conditions, soldiers are taught to spoon together to conserve body heat – a survival technique.

        Well… you could see the lust and fear both at the same time in Tony’s eyes. Then he wondered aloud about what would happen, post DADT, if a soldier had to spoon in those conditions with another soldier who might be openly gay.

        Poor Tony didn’t know whether to be terrified or turned on.

        Reply
      • 27. Alan E.  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:12 am

        Ozy, I learned that in Boy Scouts. Of course there were others that would talk about where we would get a woman to get naked with, but in my mind, I was gladly volunteering. We were taught to lay back to front (spooning). But seriously, in these instances, you are too cold to even think about sex, and you can always leave underwear on.

        I cannot confirm nor deny, however, any instances of practicing this technique with another scout.

        Reply
      • 28. Mandy  |  August 27, 2010 at 12:11 pm

        I guess tony doesn’t understand DADT then. Does he really think that there are no gay men or lesbians in the armed forces? Hopefully he had his cootie shot before picturing same sex armed forces being naked in a sleeping bag together. Hmm totally reminds me of alec baldwin on SNL as the boy scout troop leader.

        Reply
      • 29. Dave in CA  |  August 27, 2010 at 12:16 pm

        Tony’s discussion of spooning can be found in the video at this site, starting around 48:15 and for the next minute or so.

        http://frcaction.org/missioncompromised#

        Reply
      • 30. Steve  |  August 27, 2010 at 12:36 pm

        @Mandy
        Tons of people opposed to DADT repeal seem to think that. Or they at least totally underestimate the numbers of gays and lesbians in the ranks.

        Reply
    • 31. Dave in CA  |  August 27, 2010 at 9:13 am

      He does have that kind of fabulously reverend Ted Haggard look going on, doesn’t he?

      Reply
    • 34. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:42 pm

      Oh thanks Ed, I thought I was the only one. Like BB, TP sets off my ‘gaydar’ rather severely. TP reminds me of Ted Haggard.

      Reply
  • 36. Sagesse  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:15 am

    Wondering if Tony Perkins wrote this before or after he took a three hour shower to scrub off ‘the gay’ :).

    Reply
  • 37. Ann S.  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:20 am

    ::Weeps crocodile tears for Ken::

    Reply
  • 38. Ozymandias71  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:20 am

    Tony Perkins, all I gotta say to you is –

    *ppppptttthhhhbbbbbb!*

    Ooops! *wipes spittle off monitor, muttering*

    Oh, and the Faux News article is interesting – not so much the article itself (it just has more of the same ‘teh Gayz will destroy America!’ garbage) but the comments – I had braced myself for a bunch of vitrol and Gay-bashing, but was actually surprised at how many posters took issue with the article and the GOP’s so-called ‘stance’.

    Reply
    • 39. Ed  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:56 am

      thanks for the heads up on this, I was shocked at the positive comments at FOX News re this article. Maybe the world really is changing in our favor

      Reply
  • 40. Jim  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:45 am

    That man is a disgusting piece of crap. I know that is not advancing the discussion any but really that is all he is.

    Reply
    • 41. Jim  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:45 am

      I’m referring to Perkins, not Mehlman. :P

      Reply
  • 42. Carpool Cookie  |  August 27, 2010 at 9:19 am

    “Not only does this run counter to the historical principles…The Party’s unequivocal stand…It is important…remains committed…The Party and the movement will suffer …”

    Why does it sound like he’s speaking for a zealous cult?

    This is frenzy.

    Reply
    • 43. Ozymandias71  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:19 am

      Yes, it certainly has the ring of zealous absolutism.

      Reply
  • 44. Sagesse  |  August 27, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Good interview, shows both sides of the reaction:

    Michelangelo Signorile and Log Cabin Republican executive director R. Clarke Cooper appeared on John King’s CNN show last night to discuss Ken Mehlman coming out.

    http://www.towleroad.com/2010/08/watch-signorile-vs-log-cabin-republican-on-mehlman-coming-out.html

    Reply
  • 45. InPalmSprings  |  August 27, 2010 at 9:27 am

    The next to come out is Tony Perkins himself, but I am not sure he can break his closet door.

    Reply
    • 46. Anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:26 am

      Let’s mail him a big, pink handled, glittery ax with a tastefully calligraphied tag on it reading “Closet Door Opener. For Personal Use Only”.

      Reply
      • 47. Jen-Bunny  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:26 am

        ahahahahaha Anonygrl I LOVE that! I wish I had had one of those when I broke MY closet door!! =)

        Reply
      • 48. Ed Cortes  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:35 am

        That image made me laugh!!

        Reply
  • 49. James Sweet  |  August 27, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Meh. I’m saddened by Tony Perkins. End of sentence.

    Reply
  • 50. Sagesse  |  August 27, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Each day this week, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, has released a letter from family members and spouses of former service members impacted by DADT.

    There are other articles mixed in, but this page at HRC has all five letters.

    http://www.hrcbackstory.org/

    Reply
  • 51. NetAmigo  |  August 27, 2010 at 9:37 am

    It’s been rough on Tony Perkins and his Family Research Council. First their cohort and founder George Alan Rekers was caught in a compromising position with a “gay prostitute”. Now, they have to deal with Ken Mehlman. Basically, people have to ask themselves why they turn to unqualified, ignorant and oftentimes prejudiced preachers and priests for answers about medical mental health issues such as sexual orientation.

    Reply
    • 52. PamC  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:27 am

      “people have to ask themselves why they turn to unqualified, ignorant and oftentimes prejudiced preachers and priests for answers about medical mental health issues such as sexual orientation”

      Amen.

      Reply
    • 53. draNgNon  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:38 am

      People have been doing that since before monogamous marriage. Religion provides a framework from within which a confusing world can have context.

      The problem is, when the framework it provides has parts proven wrong. Some religions adapt, some die. But during the transition, the religion ends up with often “unqualified, ignorant and oftentimes prejudiced preachers and priests.” And in the last few generations, there’s not been any time for any adaptation to settle.

      After all, 550 years ago the world was flat. And 400 years ago it’s not like anyone knew about gravity. 250 years ago the elements were still Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. 150 years ago we didn’t have a hint of evolution…

      Reply
      • 54. AndrewPDX  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:47 am

        Sorry… makes me think of a movie quote:
        J: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
        K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.
        — Men in Black

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 55. Steve  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:12 am

        People knew the Earth was round over 2000 years ago and even calculated its diameter with a good amount of accuracy given the methods available. In the middle ages that was widely accepted.
        In particular, sailors knew it, because certain things at sea make it very obvious. Like ships appearing on the horizon with their masts first, or being able to see mountains before the rest of the land. You can even see the curvature of the Earth out on the ocean.

        The controversy in the Renaissance was about heliocentrism vs. geocentrism. The Church wanted Earth to be the middle of the universe.

        Reply
      • 56. Ed Cortes  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:37 am

        WHAT??!! Marriage hasn’t ALWAYS been 1M1W??

        Reply
  • 57. AndrewPDX  |  August 27, 2010 at 9:51 am

    Tony Perkins is sad… that’s very true.

    A very, very, sad excuse for a human being.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

    Reply
  • 58. Sagesse  |  August 27, 2010 at 9:56 am

    Family Research Council has a really bad ad attacking Reid on DADT

    http://gay.americablog.com/2010/08/family-research-council-has-really-bad.html

    Reply
  • 59. Bill  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:01 am

    When Tony Perkins is all alone, sitting quietly by himself, I wonder how he justifies this to himself.

    It strikes me that we should really feel very, very sad for this man. For a life wasted.

    But that he is willing to leave his hateful legacy for his children and grandchildren to clean up after is very, very telling.

    Do I like or respect this ‘man?’ No, of course not. But I do feel incredibly sorry for his family and for what they will have to answer for when their dad is long gone.

    Reply
    • 60. JefferyK  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:29 pm

      Well, my theory is that he has a neurotic fear of death: He thinks he is doing God’s work, so he thinks he is working his way into heaven, where he will live forever. He is in for a big surprise, IMHO.

      Reply
  • 61. Sorry Charlie  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:06 am

    “Gay conservative” at this point is like “Jewish Nazi.” Find another party–or another country–because this one’s “conservatives” want you dead or locked up somewhere to be “cured.”

    Reply
    • 62. Anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:45 am

      I understand “gay conservative.”

      You can be socially conservative and fiscally conservative, you can be conservative about domestic and foreign policy.

      You might be someone who believes in gun control, for instance, and still be conservative on bank bailouts. You might favor health care reform, but be conservative on immigration.

      Like sexuality, political leanings come in all flavors, and reside on a spectrum, not a series of separate boxes.

      Reply
      • 63. Steve  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:18 am

        Yeah. The problem is really the extreme partisanship and extremism in American politics. And that the Republican party made a huge shift to the right. These days, you either agree with the party line on all issues or you aren’t in the club.

        In fact the whole political spectrum is completely warped. Obama is called left in the US. In Europe (and traditionally), he would be center-right to center.

        Reply
  • 64. PamC  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:19 am

    I’ve been expecting the day when the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives find there is a widening gap between them–and why wouldn’t there be? The social conservatives are all about pouring endless reserves of money into a bottomless pool of emotional hot-button issues.

    These guys really have less & less in common. The “family values” folks speak as though they have a corner on morality, and the “no more taxes” folks aren’t as concerned about what’s moral, just what’s profitable.

    Follow the money–especially in a recession: people are just more worried about their financial woes these days. They would rather have gay neighbors than a neighbor who brings down their property value.

    Reply
    • 65. PamC  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:30 am

      and p.s., the social conservatives keep taking bullets, since many of the most morally indignant guys have clay feet, what with gay or straight liaisons/affairs. The fiscal conservatives may be realizing that they need to drop the extra luggage, so to speak. :)

      Reply
  • 66. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:38 am

    My favorite comment from the Faux ‘News’ article:

    “Every time some Ned Flanders starts pontificating over this type of nonsense it makes all of us look like shortsighted, narrow-minded religious zealots.”

    LOVE IT!!!!

    Reply
    • 67. PamC  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:46 am

      …what, it holds up a mirror???….. just sayin’…

      Reply
      • 68. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 27, 2010 at 3:52 pm

        HUH?
        I’m missing that one I guess……

        Reply
    • 69. Anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:54 am

      Dear Fox News,

      The Corporate DNA tests have come back and the results are positive. You are, each of you, a Ned Flanders. This is within an error margin of .00005%.

      Thank you for your inquiry, and we are off to attend a gay wedding now.

      That last was just a double check of our results. If your head exploded, you are, in fact a Ned Flanders. For your safety and the safety of those around you, you should immediately and permanentely refrain from any and all pontificating.

      Sincerly,
      Doc

      Reply
      • 70. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 27, 2010 at 3:53 pm

        LOL!

        Reply
  • 71. carpoolcookie  |  August 27, 2010 at 10:57 am

    RE: Mehlman:

    I was discussing his coming out in the office yesterday, and someone said, “Larry Bud Melman is gay?”

    Reply
    • 72. Anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:14 am

      You owe my boss a new keyboard, as I just spit water all over this one.

      ROTFL!!

      Reply
      • 73. carpoolcookie  |  August 27, 2010 at 12:21 pm

        Someday, YES, SOMEDAY SOON, MY FRIENDS, we will not be forced to beg for marriage….like someone in a bear suit wandering the hall, asking for change.


        Reply
      • 74. Anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 12:47 pm

        AND a monitor. Stop it now before I spit on my BOSS!

        :P

        Reply
  • 75. Seraphiel  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:18 am

    I wonder how long it’ll be before we find Mr. Perkins in the company of a rentboy.

    Every homophobic closet-case needs someone to hoist their bags, after all.

    Reply
    • 76. nightshayde  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:23 am

      He may be smart enough or may have been lucky enough thus far to not get caught. I have no doubt it will happen at some point.

      Reply
    • 77. Jen-Bunny  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:33 am

      ….or someone to clean their pool! Those pesky pool boys, with their tan skin and their shirtless ways……I can see Perkins salivating already!

      Reply
      • 78. nightshayde  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:35 am

        I think I am now. :blush:

        Reply
      • 79. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 27, 2010 at 12:00 pm

        And let’s not forget all the gardeners and landscapers, as well as the landscapers’ staffs! They also have a tendency to work shirtless!

        Reply
      • 80. fiona64  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:33 pm

        Okay, true story.

        When I was at DINFOS (that’s the Defense Information School, for those who don’t know), we had a photojournalism unit. We were given one hour to go out and shoot enough photos on a theme to put together a picture page for a newspaper.

        Most of my friends went screaming off to the day care center, because everyone knows that kids = win in photographs, right?

        Not me. I found the landscapers.

        I had done two different filters on one of my prints, which featured two very buff, shirtless landscape workers, and took the images to my advisor to find out why I wasn’t getting what I wanted in terms of printing.

        I held one print in each hand and said “I’d like to be somewhere between these two.”

        “I’ll just bet you would,” he said, looking at my subject.

        I turned beet-red, he laughed … and told me which filter to use to get the results I was seeking.

        Love,
        Fiona (who still has one of those prints somewhere … 20 years later)

        Reply
      • 81. Straight Grandmother  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:32 pm

        @Fiona I love a story tha stars off with, ‘Okay true story”

        Reply
  • 82. nightshayde  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:22 am

    I find it interesting that Tony Perkins said “… chose to identify himself as homosexual” rather than “chose to be homosexual” or “chose to become homosexual.”

    Almost as if he now realizes that being gay is not a choice while being in the closet is a choice.

    Reply
    • 83. Anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:53 am

      Perkins is in a tough spot. He doesn’t really want to come out swinging against Mehlman, who still has better political contacts than Perkins does, but he can’t avoid the topic and still appease his own constituancy. So one has to assume he will do a bit of eggshell treading for a while.

      Reply
    • 84. JC (no not THAT JC!)  |  August 27, 2010 at 3:41 pm

      In my humble opinion, it is key to understanding the turmoil that is going on here:

      “Almost as if he now realizes that being gay is not a choice, while being in the closet is a choice”

      BINGO!

      A paradigm shift seems to have occured in that there is very little argument on people being born gay or having an intrinsically gay orientation.

      * Box Turtle Bulletin has an excellent write up discussing the ex-gay efforts of Focus on the Family and the choice being between living a celebate or a heterosexual married life (defined to be closer to God and holiness), or giving in to the intrinsic feelings and acting on homosexual orientation (defined to be the opposite of holiness and therefore aligned with evil). It seems to be accepted that the intrinsic nature of homosexuality will lead to a lifelong struggle against those inclinations, the rejection of that which is experienced as being a part of oneself, and this struggle is further defined as being in it’s very nature one of moving oneself closer to God just by enduring. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/08/02/603

      * The Roman Catholic Church is actively purging its seminaries of men who admit to or exhibit homosexual inclinations, going so far as to reason that such inclinations are so intrinsic that even a vow of celibacy is not enough to allow a homosexual priest, the orientation cannot be changed. (I apologize, I cannot find the reference.)

      Thus it seems if we are to love the intrinsic homosexuals and hate the behavior, there are only a few acceptable options:

      1) the homosexual must choose to live a hetrosexual life, struggle with orientation on a regular basis, and therefore choose to be closer to God and holiness.

      2) the homosexual must choose to live a celibate life, and at least not collect points on his life record for evil behaviors.

      3) live in the closet, if one insists on acting out homosexually, for society cannot tolerate a choice that is not moving closer to God and holiness. Tolerance or acceptance is equal to an endorsement of moving away from God or holiness, and that is equal to endorsing evil.

      Make no mistake, while this present discussion is about Proposition 8 and Gay Marriage, ultimately it is about basic rights and liberties for homosexuals to live outside of the closet, and be seen by others, and accepted as a welcome part of our larger society.

      Another way to put this, is that yes, it is about shoving homosexuality into your face, and helping you to see that there is so much more to homosexual behavior than just what one does in (or out) of bed.

      Reply
      • 85. Fluffyskunk  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:15 pm

        The Roman Catholic Church is actively purging its seminaries of men who admit to or exhibit homosexual inclinations, going so far as to reason that such inclinations are so intrinsic that even a vow of celibacy is not enough to allow a homosexual priest, the orientation cannot be changed.

        They’re going to run out of priests if that happens.

        Reply
      • 86. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:18 pm

        fluffyskunk, the RCC is close to the point of running out of priests now. As you so rightly point out, this is not going to help them in the least.

        Reply
  • 87. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:23 am

    The only disaster I see looming is the fall of bigotry. And in my book , that is NOT a disaster!

    Reply
  • 88. Ed Cortes  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:39 am

    memo to self: check the box!

    Reply
  • 89. Ronnie  |  August 27, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    The Family Restriction Council is falling a part at the seams….do I feel bad for them?…..Not in the least…. <3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 90. Anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 12:58 pm

      As the tide turns, many of those organizations are seeing that their conservative haydays are over and they are looking at losing their base, and their funding, and are fighting back.

      Reply
  • 91. Owen  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    Ken Blackwell, lol

    I wonder if he still has scars from the smackdown Christopher Hitchens laid on him a few years ago

    Reply
  • 92. MJFargo  |  August 27, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    An article in The New Yorker on Mehlman’s coming out:

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2010/08/mehlman-and-marriage.html

    Reply
  • 93. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    It is important for the conservative movement that the Republican Party remains committed to its longtime stance on core social issues.

    And there’s his real fear (and NOM’s, AFA’s, etc).

    More and more ‘conservatives’ in the Republican party are no longer buying to the animus the religious right has spend decades nurturing.

    Without the Republican Party, all these dumbasses can do is form their own party, and lose quite badly.

    I’m really looking forward to this – for they shall reap what they’ve sown.

    :)

    Reply
    • 94. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:45 pm

      You mean, they haven’t already formed their own party? I thought that was what the Tea Party was all about!

      Reply
      • 95. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 6:26 pm

        Not enough power and support there yet… I’m sure they are working on it, though from my understanding, even the teabaggers are being fairly quiet on lgbt and other social issues.

        Teabaggers seems mainly focused on libertarian ideals, with a pinch of racism and anti-intellectualism thrown in.

        IMO, anyway.

        Interesting.

        Reply
  • 96. Joe  |  August 29, 2010 at 12:53 am

    Let me call Tony a wahhhhhhmbulance.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,297 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...