Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Against what, exactly? I have no idea. Nor do they. But the Thomas More Law Center, ever eager to get their name in the press, sent out an alert declaring:
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national Christian public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, called Representative Kern "a courageous Christian woman," and announced today that the Law Center has agreed to represent her in any misguided legal action arising out this controversy. The Law Center will be assisted by its local affiliated attorney, Bill Kumpe.
One obvious question comes to mind. What misguided legal action? Kern is not being sued by anyone; it's difficult to imagine any possible grounds for doing so in this country (unlike some of our allies we do not have laws against hate speech, nor should we have them, nor will we likely ever have them). Even less conceivable is any criminal action. So what exactly are they promising to defend her against? Criticism? Yeah, good luck with that.
I like how they also lump everyone criticizing her together:
Representative Sally Kern has received over 27,000 vulgar, hate filled e-mails, her life has been threatened, her son falsely accused of being a homosexual, her financial supporters contacted and asked to no longer support her, and a leading homosexual activist entered her husband's church last Sunday and took notes on her husband's sermon.
There's nothing the least bit illegal about contacting her financial supporters and asking them to stop supporting her. After all, this is what "family values" groups do to companies that sell things they don't like all the time, isn't it? There's also nothing the least bit illegal about going to her husband's church to hear what he's preaching about.
As for those 27,000 emails, I would be willing to bet that there are no more than a handful of death threats among them. And those should, of course, be turned over to the police and those who sent them should be tracked down and prosecuted. I sent her one of those emails and it was perfectly polite. I merely asked for citations for those "studies" she claims show that no country that has "embraced" homosexuality has survived more than a few decades. No answer, naturally.
I'm sure the bulk of those emails just tell her how crazy and stupid her position is. Is the Thomas More Law Center going to defend her against such criticism? Sorry, there's this pesky thing called the first amendment that protects such communications. And if it bothers her to be called out on her crazy and stupid beliefs, perhaps she shouldn't have such crazy and stupid beliefs.
And what would a religious right "alert" to their followers be without an obligatory "they're trying to destroy Christianity" screed?
Continued Thompson, "Radical homosexual groups are attempting to curtail Representative Kern's constitutional rights to free speech, and use that speech as a platform to push for anti-Christian "hate crime" laws. In effect, their goal is to criminalize Christians and Christian beliefs. "
That sound you hear is the sound of a straw man being beaten to death by the terminally ridiculous Richard Thompson.
Comments
Re Richard Thompson
This is the same Richard Thompson who argued to Judge Jones that Intelligent Design was not religion and then, when the verdict went against him, stood on the courthouse steps and ranted that the decision was an example of prejudice against religion.
Posted by: SLC | March 20, 2008 9:41 AM
People like Sally Kern have led me to the conclusion that many of the people writing these anti-gay talking points are deeply closeted homosexuals themselves.
This is not just some gratuitous smear. I simply cannot understand, as a straight man, how anyone can believe acceptance of homosexuality makes people "turn gay". I know I didn't "turn heterosexual" because a spokesman for heterosexuality showed up at my school with brochures. Their statements just don't make any sense, if of course you assume the authors are straight.
If you use an alternate model and assume they are gay and in denial, everything starts to fall into place. We would then expect them to experience homosexual urges that would take willpower and much social pressure to suppress. Their religious beliefs tell them that you're not gay if you don't have gay sex, and that if you accept Jesus, you'll no longer be gay. These people accept Jesus, and at least try to abstain from same-sex relations, so they are quite convinced that they are in fact straight. It is natural for them to assume therefore that it's normal for straight people to have these homosexual urges and project their denial onto the population at large. Under this scenario I can see how they could sincerely believe the only thing keeping straight people straight are religious and social pressure.
The question becomes, how can you argue rationally with someone who can't even accept who they are?
Posted by: DaveL | March 20, 2008 10:12 AM
TMLc defending Kerns?
Well that sure raises my opinion of her
/eyeroll
Right. He's just celibate, not homosexual.
The only suitable "legal action" is that she should be voted out of office next go around. I'd like to see them defend her against that.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 20, 2008 11:35 AM
That's a popular theory DaveL. It's probably true in some cases and it would be really cool if the answer were so nice and neat. But I really think that most of the hate is simply a product of the environment in which they were raised. They were taught to hate and fear homosexuals and those feelings override their reason.
We may like to think of ourselves as reasonable creatures. But sometimes we just don't make sense. Sometimes our beliefs are irrational. It may feel satisfying to come up with a reasonable rationale so we can happily go on feeling secure that it all makes sense somehow. But I just don't think it's true.
To paraphrase George Carlin, some people are stupid, some people are full of shit, and some people are just bug crazy. Hell, our president is a good example of all three.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 20, 2008 11:37 AM
Can you be prosecuted for death threats? My family had death threats fairly consistently when I was a kid, I don't recall any legal action against them.
Posted by: Andrea | March 20, 2008 11:44 AM
I'm surprised they have defended her given the actual comments she made. Not because they are hate speech, but because they are so far from reality, she could only have pulled them from out of her butt.
What's funny is that they are now complaining that splashing her actual unedited words all over youtube counts as censorship. No, we gave her a level of press coverage that her rantings would never normally receive...and this is how they thank us...sigh..damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Posted by: Richard Eis | March 20, 2008 11:45 AM
Andrea - that's terrible, Why (if you don't mind me asking)? - DJ
PS Please ignore if it's not my business.
Posted by: DingoJack | March 20, 2008 11:51 AM
She needs a team of lawyers to defend her against teenagers who can write complete English sentences. That, at least, is the biggest threat I've seen getting in her face so far. Which gives us a pretty good idea how low her kind have sunk.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 20, 2008 12:00 PM
Regarding the death threats - according to news coverage here in OK, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation looked into the "death threats" and found none...they made the point that saying "you should die" isn't a death threat.
Posted by: IanR | March 20, 2008 12:01 PM
IanR - Yep, well I suspected as much.
Andrea - you (and you family) have my sympathies. NO ONE should have to go through that. - respectfully DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 20, 2008 12:04 PM
I'm surprised they haven't offered her a job.
Posted by: MartinM | March 20, 2008 12:09 PM
A Gay Person actually took notes on her husband's sermon? And went into a church, too? Oh, the horror!!!
What morons....
Posted by: Coragyps | March 20, 2008 12:20 PM
I strongly agree, and I do not suppose that it holds that most homophobes are closeted homosexuals. Religious authoritarianism is certainly sufficient for the propagation of these ideas. I do, however, have to wonder how these ideas came to be in the first place. This idea of a 'homosexual agenda' to 'recruit' straight people doesn't come from the Bible, that's for sure.
Posted by: DaveL | March 20, 2008 12:21 PM
DJ - It's OK. Dad was a newspaper writer who didn't like teen fondling preachers, extortionist evangelicals, the mafia, or white supremacists. Mom was an attorney who did a lot of family law and occasionally parents who felt like they were "losing" their kids told her that she'd better watch out or she might lose hers too.
Now, if there had ever been a case when my parents had received repeated threats from the same person/group, photos, dead animals on the porch or something, I'm sure we would have taken it more seriously. And I guess they did a couple times when I was very young (no dead animals or anything, just repeated threats) and had to be watched by the authorities. I don't remember it, but I guess it was suggested to my father by the FBI that it might be safer for us to move. Anyway, as we got older, it got to be kind of a joke, with no more than a "kids, someone told me that they're going to kill you, might want to lock the door and just keep your eyes open."
In other words, probably much the same as any kind of death threats Kern has gotten.
Posted by: Andrea | March 20, 2008 12:51 PM
IanR:
Do you have a link to those stories in the Oklahoma papers?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 20, 2008 1:04 PM
DaveL: It probaly came from times of organized hunts, defense against large predators, and clan/tribal warfare, where males had to be -- and always appear -- consistently tough, and any characteristic that could be seen as a sign of "weakness," real or not, was something that would attract opportunistic robbers or predators and thus endanger everyone near the apparently-weak male. In situations like that, it would not be enough just to BE strong -- you had to APPEAR strong, 24/7, to deter any attempts to rob you or anyone who depended on you.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 20, 2008 1:13 PM
Dover
Schiavo
Judge Moore
MSU same-sex partner bennies
Has the TMLC ever won a case?
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | March 20, 2008 1:13 PM
I'm not IanR, but here's one from the Tulsa World.
Here's the money quote:
They are continuing the investigation though.
Posted by: Alex | March 20, 2008 1:19 PM
TMLC to Defend Sally Kern... Against what, exactly?
ACTIVIST JUDGES.
Posted by: Coin | March 20, 2008 3:00 PM
the Law Center has agreed to represent her in any misguided legal action arising out this controversy
That seems to be very carefully parsed phrase to me. Clearly, TMLC intends to represent Kerns in the misguided legal action she plans to initiate.
Posted by: HP | March 20, 2008 3:21 PM
That's not the point, though. The point is that it sounds sinister and vaguely threatening.
Posted by: twincats | March 20, 2008 3:22 PM
her son falsely accused of being a homosexual
Notice the subtle homophobia there. Being a homosexual is something you are "accused" of, like being accused of being a theif, liar or murderer. Perhaps we should start calling Kern an "admitted Fundamentalist".
Posted by: Science Avenger | March 20, 2008 3:39 PM
Science Avenger, I think Rep. Kern and her cohorts are far, far beyond "subtle homophobia".
Posted by: Shygetz | March 20, 2008 4:24 PM
With the distorted usage of the word homosexual by fundies (as in meaning active engaging in homosexual acts), someone should ask her son Jesse if he is attracted to men or to women. I think there won't be an answer.
Posted by: Kim | March 20, 2008 5:41 PM
Ya, I was one of those who wrote her as well, and when I heard about them searching for death threats I got a little panicky and had to go over what I had written in my head. "Did I say anything that might be taken as a threat?...no..no ok i'm fine." Mostly I told her she was a moron who didn't know what homosexuality was, there was no agenda other than equality, and that she has no business making law. At the end I got a bit venomous and said she's a disgusting person and I expect her to be voted out of office, but otherwise I think I was more polite than I should have been lol.
Posted by: paul | March 20, 2008 6:13 PM
Im going to throw up Im so angry.
Im hoping you can deal with this better than I can right now, Ed.
Posted by: ERV | March 20, 2008 7:08 PM
Oh my fucking god. Thanks ERV, there are just no words to describe. She is the epitome of everyone who thinks like her. Every fucking talking point is there. She has the audacity to quote Thomas Paine to support her Christian views, and she's a teacher???? Well, at least we know now she's not just a nut who spoke something at the wrong time and is being wrongly assaulted. She's deeply entrenched in the fundamentalist Christian movement to subvert our history so she can then subvert our laws and our education to suit her worldview. I'm appalled.
Posted by: paul | March 20, 2008 8:23 PM
Wow. She's your typical fundie nutjob alright.
Posted by: Rick R | March 20, 2008 9:50 PM
What law is it that TMLC thinks Kern has violated that she needs a lawyer?
What do they know about Kern's actions that we don't?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | March 20, 2008 11:29 PM
It's simply a classic propaganda technique. Parents deal with perceived threats to their children emotionally rather than rationally, so claiming that a group is a threat to children has frequently been used (quite effectively) to get people to act against their better judgment.
I'm also not inclined to assume that most homophobes are closet cases (some certainly are, since there are plenty of gay people who report that they thought and behaved homophobically at one point). Most of them display generalized traits associated with prejudice, and by and large those who are prejudiced against one group tend to be prejudiced against others. I think one additional factor with some religious homophobes is that they're scared of their own heterosexuality; they've been taught to believe that their own sexual desires are sinful, so they rationalize to themselves that when they have sex, they're fulfilling some sort of duty (procreation, keeping women in their place) rather than acting on their desires. That rationalization can't apply to gay people, so it makes them angry.
Finally, I suspect that some homophobes are afraid that gay men will think of them the same way they think of women.
Posted by: ebohlman | March 21, 2008 8:24 PM