Repudiation: Bigotry of Michael Brown

Michael Brown is a so-called Messianic Jew (not a real religion ... if you believe in Jesus as God, you are not Jewish) and wrote a column posted yesterday at Town Hall with many lies about homosexuality and ugly words about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

On December 6th, in a speech in Geneva marking international human rights day, Secretary of State Clinton called for all nations to embrace the goals of LGBT activism, declaring that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights,” and that, “It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished.”

Ms. Clinton's speech was insightful and eloquent.  If you have not listened to or read her speech, please take the time to read it now.

Unfortunately, her speech, which was hailed by gay activists worldwide, was an exercise in hypocrisy, not to mention an insult to several billion people worldwide.

No, Sec. Clinton is not the hypocrite.  Any insult is due to ongoing violation of the rights of others, not insult to who a person is.  An important paragraph from Ms. Clinton's speech before returning to Mr. Brown's objections:

Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding, and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere.

Again, please read the entire speech if you have not.  Sec. Clinton was careful to be respectful of all people.  Mr. Brown is insulted by his own choice, not her words.

She rightly stated that, “It is [a] violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave.” But this was only the tip of the iceberg.

Mrs. Clinton had the audacity to compare religious or cultural objections to homosexual practice to “the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation,” as if the religious and moral objection to men having sex with men is somehow equivalent to the Muslim practice of honor killings or the Hindu practice of burning widows.

So, what did Ms. Clinton say in context?

It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.

The comparison is direct and germane.  If Mr. Brown objects "to men having sex with men", then he should not have sex with men.  That was not the point of Sec. Clinton's comparison.

“In each of these cases,” she said, “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.” And she said this in our name, as Americans.

The cases are drawing a parallel to violence against women, murder, and slavery.  Yes, in our now as Americans.

She stated that “opinions [on homosexuality] are still evolving”, just as opinions evolved over time with slavery, and “what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.”

In other words, if you have an issue with the lewd sexual displays at your city’s gay pride parade, or if you’re not comfortable with a man who dresses as a woman using the ladies bathroom, or if you don’t want to see a kid raised by two lesbians and thereby deprived of having a father, or if you believe that God made men to be with women, then you are the moral equivalent of a slave trader or a slave owner.

No, those are not other words that have the same meaning.  First, those who are transgender are not "a man who dresses as a woman".  That would be a transvestite not a transgender person.  Second, children raised by parents of the same gender tend to do as well as those raised by parents of the opposite gender.  The problem of having "to see a kid raised by two lesbians" is Mr. Brown's problem, not a problem for that kid.  Third, moral equivalency is not in belief but in action.  Mr. Brown is welcome to believe what he wants, but denying human rights is where the moral equivalency to slavery is accurate.

All this (and more) came from the lips of our Secretary of State at the same time that President Obama issued a memorandum instructing government officials to “ensure that US diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, and transgender persons” around the world. (The president’s memorandum is far-reaching and should be read carefully.)

Yes.  I wrote an article praising President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

There was an immediate reaction from African leaders, and the Christian Science Monitor noted that, “The enshrinement of equal rights for homosexuals into US foreign policy activities has drawn quick ire from African nations, with one senior figure saying the notion is ‘abhorrent’ across the continent.”

As expressed by Uganda’s John Nagenda, a senior adviser to the president, “I don’t like her tone, at all. . . I’m amazed she’s not looking to her own country and lecturing them first, before she comes to say these things which she knows are very sensitive issues in so many parts of the world, not least Africa.”

Considering that being homosexual is a criminal offense in Uganda, this reaction should not be a surprise.

Of course, Mrs. Clinton stated that America still had a way to go on the issue of “gay rights,” but it is sheer arrogance to claim that the religious and moral views of several billion human beings must change. Based on what criteria?

The criteria are human rights.  It is not arrogant to call for human rights for all humans.

By all means we should champion the equal protection of all human beings, regardless of their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. But that is only a small part of our government’s agenda. The greater goal is the complete normalization and even celebration of everything LGBT, with the corollary removal of all opposition, be it in word or deed.

The truth be told, the modern gay rights movement is a fruit of the radical counterculture of the 1960’s, and it is grounded not in the civil rights movement (despite persistent claims to the contrary) but in the sexual revolution, a revolution for which we are still paying the price.

If Mr. Brown is correct and the call for equality for the LGBTQ Community is derived from the sexual revolution, that does not change the fact that human rights are for all humans.  Equality is for all, not just those acceptable to Mr. Brown's religion.

Mr. Brown goes on to claim that we, the United States of America, have enough moral problems that we should not be lecturing the rest of the world on morality.  He concludes.

While our country certainly has been a force for worldwide good in many ways, when it comes to sexual morality we should be hanging our heads in shame, not lecturing others.

Mrs. Clinton’s speech was a source of national embarrassment, not pride.

No, Mr. Brown, Secretary Clinton is a great and eloquent speaker.  We should be embarrassed by those Americans who encouraged Uganda to criminalize homosexuality.  Ms. Clinton has taken the first steps in righting a terrible wrong.  Shame on Mr. Brown for suggesting otherwise.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.