– 57.5 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-male homosexual bias.
– 27.3 percent were victims because of an anti-homosexual bias.
– 11.6 percent were victims because of an anti-female homosexual bias.
– 2.0 percent were victims because of an anti-heterosexual bias.
– 1.6 percent were victims because of an anti-bisexual bias.

The FBI notes that with the recent passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, it will now “begin the process of adding the collection of hate crimes motivated by gender and gender identity and incorporating them into our annual report.”

BUTTARS: I meet with the gays here and there. They were in my house two weeks ago. I don’t mind gays. But I don’t want ‘em stuffing it down my throat all the time. Certainly not in my kid’s face.

Watch it:

In the past, Buttars has said that gay men and women are “the greatest threat to America going down.” “I believe they will destroy the foundation of the American society,” he said in February. “In my mind, it’s the beginning of the end. … Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide.” Last year, the NAACP called for his resignation because of his comments about a controversial bill: “This baby is black, I’ll tell you,” said Buttars. “This is a dark and ugly thing.”

She calls it a “massive mistake” and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.

“You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says,” said Radnofsky, who will be at Texas Christian University today as part of a five-city tour to kick off her campaign.

Abbott’s spokesman Jerry Strickland replied to Radnofsky’s charge by saying, “The Texas Constitution and the marriage statute are entirely constitutional.” This isn’t the first time the reach of the second section has been questioned. Before the amendment passed, a group called Save Texas Marriage warned that a judge could potentially void all marriages in the state if the language became part of the Texas Constitution.

Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell (R) is proposing to use the same argument and tactic to try to exempt his state from the recently-passed Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act — which extends hate crimes protections to gays and lesbians — because he claims it infringes on freedom of speech:

Russell said because the government has decided to intervene on issues of morality, he is worried that religious leaders who speak out against any lifestyle could be imprisoned for their speech.

“The law is very vague to begin with,” Russell said. “Sexual orientation is a very vague word that could be extended to extremes like necrophilia.” [...]

Russell said Oklahoma can opt out of the law on the basis of the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“The bill gives the federal government power that was not given to them in the Constitution,” Russell said. “I am aware of the supremacy of the federal government over state governments, but the federal requirements are vague enough for us to make actions. We just have to be very careful on how we proceed.”

Hate crime protections have been on the books since 1969, but Russell seems to object to only those which protect gays and lesbians. Moreover, Russell and the other tenthers have flimsly legal basis for their claims. The Constitution gives Congress broad power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare,” but as Ian Millhiser noted, tenthers “insist that these words don’t actually mean what they say.” The right-wing fringe believes landmark federal programs such as Medicare, Social Security, the federal highway system, and rules regulating airplane safety are unconstitutional.

Other right wingers have echoed Russell’s concern about the new hate crimes bill: Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said on the House floor that the measure would lead to Nazism and the legalization of pedophilia and necrophilia. But as Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) said, “Nothing in this legislation diminishes an American’s freedom of religion, freedom of speech or press or the freedom to assemble,” because the law “targets acts, not speech.” These acts need to be targeted. In 2007 — the most recent year for which data is available — 16.6 percent of all hate crimes reported reported to the FBI “resulted from sexual-orientation bias.”

Now, the movement to repeal the ban on gay men and women from serving openly in the military has gained even more momentum. Three former military chaplains are announcing today that they support a full repeal of the DADT. In a Q&A released by VoteVets, the three men, Charles D. Camp, Chaplain (Colonel), USA (Ret.), John F. Gundlach, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret.), and Jerry Rhyne, Chaplain (Colonel), USAF (Ret.), also addressed implementation concerns regarding a repeal:

What would be the impact of changing the current law on unit cohesion and morale?

The 2009 Joint Forces Quarterly article states clearly, “After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.” A 1993 RAND Corp. report concludes the same, as do several other military-commissioned reports. In addition, 68 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan troops said, according to a 2006 Zogby poll, they either knew for certain (23%) or suspected (45%) there were gays in their own unit. That means there are tens of thousands of known gay service members currently working and fighting alongside their straight peers, and there is no demonstrable negative impact on unit morale, cohesion or combat readiness. In fact, 73% of troops in the poll said they were “comfortable” in the presence of gay peers. [...]

Polling data from current U.S. troops combined with the experience of our foreign military allies demonstrate that known gays in a unit do not degrade morale, cohesion or operational readiness.

Disputing the claims often made by supporters of DADT, Camp, Gundlach, and Rhyne argue that repealing the policy would actually help the military’s recruitment and retention:

What would be the impact of changing the current law on recruiting and retention?

Repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would help recruiting and retention. The recent issue of Joint Forces Quarterly, an article—reportedly signed off on by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen–convincingly makes the case that current law has been “costly both in personnel and treasure,’’ referring to the cost of discharging service members and recruiting replacements, including those with language or other specialized skills. Approximately two service members are discharged each day under DADT. This number includes linguists, physicians, pilots and others highly trained personnel in mission critical specialties. Costs for the training of replacements are in the hundreds of millions. According to the UCLA’s Williams Institute, an estimated 2500-3000 service members either leave the service, or choose not to re-enlist, because of the law. When the number of involuntary discharges under “don’t ask, don’t tell” is combined with the voluntary attrition because of this law, the result is an annual loss of 4000 trained, experienced and often combat tested troops. Replacing these veterans with recent graduates of recruit training or newly commissioned officers would naturally reduce unit readiness.

VoteVets is “gathering names of veterans to give to the White House and Congress to let them know now is the time to overturn this discriminatory policy.” Veterans can sign the petition here and civilians can sign a petition of support here.

Access the full release and Q & A here (pdf).

“I was always well aware of my own personal struggles, but my desire was to be more Godly,” said Haggard. “I was never a religious right, hateful, anti-gay guy — secretly running off, except right at the end. I’d say right at the end, before the crisis. That did develop a little bit stronger.” [...]

“It was good for me to go through the Christian hatred of people believing that I was a gay man — and hating me so strongly because of it. And so because of it, my compassion for the homosexual community has gone up incredibly,” said Haggard.

Haggard has experienced what it’s like to be on the receiving end of “Christian hatred,” and it’s reassuring to know that he now has more “compassion” for gay men and women. But despite his claims, he was responsible for dishing out this hatred for many years.

Haggard catered to the Christian Right’s demonization of gays, calling homosexuality a “sin” and arguing, “We don’t have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity, it’s written in the Bible.” Haggard also said that Western civilization could be devastated by same-sex marriage:

“[W]e need the Federal Marriage Amendment is for the sake of children. … It would be devastating for the children of our nation and for the future of Western civilization for us to say that homosexual unions or lesbian unions or any alteration of that has the moral equivalence of a heterosexual, monogamous marriage.”

Will Haggard finally practice what he preaches by pushing for equal rights for gay men and women?

This week, they’re bringing their hateful message to children in Washington, DC, planning pickets at a handful of local schools. This morning, they showed up outside of Sidwell Friends, the school that Sasha and Malia Obama attend. On Twitter, Megan Phelps-Roper — one of Fred Phelps’ grandchildren — posted a picture of the protest:

Washington Post education reporter Michael Birnbaum said that he spent the morning at the protest, and MSNBC host David Shuster wrote, “Hopefully, some of the more rational conservatives/republicans will condemn this stuff today. It was beyond the pale.” ThinkProgress contacted Sidwell for more details on the protest and are awaiting a response.

In the past, extreme anti-choice activist Randall Terry has also targeted the Obama children’s school, saying, “We will continue to show images of aborted babies at high schools, no matter what the cost.”

The company sent a letter to Myracle’s editor asking the author to omit certain words such as “geez,” “crap,” “sucks,” and “God” (as in, “oh my God”) and to alter its plotline to include a heterosexual couple. Myracle agreed to get rid of the offensive language “with the goal—as always—of making the book as available to as many readers as possible,” but the deal breaker was changing Milla’s two moms.

“A child having same-sex parents is not offensive, in my mind, and shouldn’t be ‘cleaned up.’” says Myracle, adding that the book fair subsequently decided not to take on Luv Ya Bunches because they wanted to avoid letters of complaint from parents.

Change.org reports that after thousands of people contacted Scholastic to complain, the publisher has decided to offer the book in its spring book fairs. “Over 200,000 kids in America are raised by same-sex parents. … It’s not an issue to clean up or hide away,” said Myracle. Read Scholastic’s statement here.

In reality, HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does! The movement is only a few decades old, and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn’t grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle.

Of course, the real tragedy here–apart from the unnecessary spending–is that, given the risks of homosexual conduct, few of these people are likely to live long enough to become senior citizens! Yet once again, the Obama administration is rushing to reward a lifestyle that poses one of the greatest public health risks in America. If this is how HHS prioritizes, imagine what it could do with a trillion dollar health care overhaul!

A 2008 Newsweek article noted that over the next 25 years, LGBT individuals “will comprise 7 to 10 percent of that senior population.” Pam Spaulding adds, “It doesn’t matter whether or not the specific number of elderly lgbts are known. The point is finding out who they are and taking care of their needs, i.e. a perfect reason for the creation of this national resource center.”

Stewart also pointed out that Fox was more than happy to get out the tv cameras and an on-air reporter to cover an empty sidewalk where there had apparently been a protest about students singing a pro-Obama song. (HT: Andrew Sullivan and Raw Story)

HOLT: But in general when you look at the left as a whole, have there been conversations about some things they thought would have been done but haven’t?

HARWOOD: Sure, but if you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90 percent or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the “Internet left fringe,” Lester. And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

Watch it:

On Saturday at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner, Obama sent a far different message. “I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight,” said the President, candidly adding, “I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe that progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that. Because it’s important to be honest amongst friends.”

OBAMA: This story, this fight, continues, now, and I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight. (APPLAUSE)

For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot and we will not put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I’ve received from many in this room. I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe that progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that. (APPLAUSE) Because it’s important to be honest amongst friends.

Obama also addressed right-wing criticisms being hurled at his LGBT nominees and staffers, such as EEOC nominee Chai Feldblum and Department of Education official Kevin Jennings. Both have been the subjects of extremely homophobic slurs. WorldNetDaily editor and CEO Joseph Farrah said that Obama must find “people” like Feldblum on “Perverts.gov,” and the Traditional Values Coalition wrote that she wanted “the gay agenda to trump the First Amendment and religious freedom.” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has claimed that Jennings wants to push a “homosexual agenda” in U.S. schools.

While Obama didn’t specifically point to any of his nominees, he strongly reiterated his support for them and condemned homophobic slurs:

OBAMA: For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law. Nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It’s not fair, it’s not right, we’re going to put a stop to it. (APPLAUSE)

And it’s for this reason if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms. (APPLAUSE)

Watch it:

Transcript:

OBAMA: This story, this fight, continues, now, and I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight. (APPLAUSE)

For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot and we will not put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I’ve received from many in this room. I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe that progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that. (APPLAUSE) Because it’s important to be honest amongst friends.

Now, I said this before, I’ll repeat it again. It’s not for me to tell you to be patient, anymore than it was for others to counsel patience to African-Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. (APPLAUSE) But I will say this: We have made progress, and we will make more, and I think it’s important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community. [...]

For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law. Nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It’s not fair, it’s not right, we’re going to put a stop to it. (APPLAUSE)

And it’s for this reason if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms. (APPLAUSE)

The right put its homophobia on full display in an attempt to kill the legislation, with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) saying that it would lead to Nazism, and the legalization of necrophilia, pedophilia, and bestiality.

Today in an interview with Radio America/WorldNetDaily, Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
– who has said that hate crimes legislation creates “sacred cows” and puts the “victimizer’s focus on someone else” — tried to argue that such a bill is unnecessary. His argument? Matthew Shepard himself wasn’t actually murdered because he was gay:

KING: I didn’t make the point, but others did, that James Byrd was sentenced to death in Texas, and I don’t know if that sentence has been carried out yet. But he received highest penalty available under the law for the dragging death of James Byrd. And the Matthew Shepard case, there’s been a fair amount of information that came out that that really wasn’t the motivation of the people who killed him, but they did receive the maximum penalty under the law.

Listen here:

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) made this same claim in April: “We know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay.” Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solomnese wrote the congresswoman a letter calling on her to make a full apology. Foxx eventually said that she was “sorry” if Shepard’s “grieving family was offended by my statement,” but she stood by her comments that his murder may not have been motivated by hate.

Both Foxx and King are completely out of line. As Salon reported in November 1999:

Speculation has persisted for the past year that Matthew Shepard, rather than being the victim of gay-bashing, might really have been nothing more than a hapless robbery victim who was exploited by gay activists to reap unwarranted sympathy and advance their own agenda to enact hate-crimes legislation. Statements made by one of the convicted killers, which were revealed for the first time Thursday, reveal these accounts to be false. [...]

According to detectives who interviewed both of the convicted murderers, there is no evidence that Shepard made any sexual advances to the pair — and the detectives dismissed the idea that the murder was the mere result of a robbery gone bad. “Far from that!” scoffed Sgt. Rob DeBree, the chief investigator in the case. “They knew damn well he was gay. … It started out as a robbery and burglary, and I sincerely believe the other activity was because he was gay.”

Will King now follow Foxx and apologize to the Shepard family for making these comments?

(HT: Michael O’Brien)

GOHMERT: If you’re oriented toward animals, bestiality, then, you know, that’s not something that can be used, held against you or any bias be held against you for that. Which means you’d have to strike any laws against bestiality, if you’re oriented toward corpses, toward children, you know, there are all kinds of perversions, [...] pedophiles or necrophiliacs or what most would say is perverse sexual orientations but the trouble is, we made amendments to eliminate pedophiles from being included in the definition. [...] But people have always been willing to give up their liberties, their freedoms in order to gain economic stability. It happened in 1920 and 1930’s. Germany gave up their liberties to gain economic stability and they got a little guy with a mustache, who was the ultimate hate monger. And this is scary stuff we’re doing here when we take away what has traditionally been an important aspect of moral teaching in America.

Watch it:

Several times in the speech, Gohmert credited the conservative Christian “C Street” leader Chuck Colson for inspiration. Oddly, Gohmert also meandered into a self-defensive monologue about how he is not racist because he once voted for Alan Keyes, the birther leader who has said that President Obama is “a radical communist” who “is going to destroy this country, and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”

The thesis has since become a central issue in McDonnell’s race against Democrat Creigh Deeds. On Fox News Sunday today, host Chris Wallace asked McDonnell if his thesis represented a “radical agenda.” McDonnell replied that it did not:

WALLACE: … it was revealed that in 1989 you wrote a master’s thesis in which you said — and let’s put up some of the things on the screen — this has obviously been a big issue here in Virginia — The new trend of working women and feminism that is ultimately detrimental to the family. You criticize tax credits for child care. And you even opposed a Supreme Court ruling legalizing birth control for married couples. Mr. McDonnell, isn’t that a pretty radical agenda?

MCDONNELL: No. I think those are a couple of quotes out of a 100-page document, Chris, and what the whole purpose of the — of the thesis was to say, Look, families are the bedrock of society. And I think there’s broad agreement on that, and that government programs should not undermine the family, because that will lead to more government spending for problems that occur when the family’s not intact.

Watch it:

When McDonnell said the thesis was “20 years ago and some of my views over time have changed,” Wallace played a clip from an ad being run by Deeds, which said that McDonnell has supported his thesis agenda as a legislator. “In fact, we checked the record. As a legislator, you voted against a resolution that would have called for ending wage discrimination based on gender,” said Wallace. “You voted against extending child care services. And you voted against extending or requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control. So it’s not just the thesis.”

KING: Well, we’ve had a significant percentage of people that have come to Iowa as same-sex couples to get married. And that, that percentage is up there some place over a fourth, if I remember correctly on the data that I have seen, and I don’t know that anything is complete at this point. I said that if this is allowed to stand, Iowa will become the Mecca for same-sex marriage and that is becoming the case. I know that there have been buses that have been, have gone to Iowa with loads of people in them in order to get married under the judge-made law.

Earlier this week, the Des Moines Register released a poll showing that “Iowans are almost evenly divided about whether they would vote for or against a constitutional amendment to end marriage for same-sex couples.” It also found that “the overwhelming majority of Iowans – 92 percent – say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives.” Asked about the poll, King complained that many Iowans do not have “a very good understanding of what same-sex marriage does to the overall institution of marriage.” After claiming that “Rick Santorum was right” when he said that expanding gay rights would lead to a “right to incest,” King asserted that same-sex marriage is “a purely socialist concept”:

KING: But if, there also would be no rational argument against group marriage. And I just take this along the rationale even further and would say if relationships between individuals cannot be prohibited by the state legislature then there is no ban that can actually be constitutional that would ban group marriage. And it wouldn’t have to be for reasons of, let me say, love or lust. It could be reasons of profitability or avoiding taxes or accessing benefits.

So in the end this is something that has to come with a, if there’s a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together, living collectively off of one pot of resources earned by everyone. That is, this is one of the goals they have to go to is same-sex marriage because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation. They want access to public funds and resources. Eventually all those resources will be pooled because that’s the direction we’re going. And not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis.

Listen here:

Transcript:

HOST: As many of our listeners are aware, of course, your state by judicial fiat earlier this year legalized gay marriage and did not even put a restriction on requiring that those gay couples getting married be from Iowa. What has been the impact on your state as a result of that decision?

KING: Well, we’ve had a significant percentage of people that’ve come to Iowa as same-sex couples to get married. And that, that percentage is up there some place over a fourth, if I remember correctly on the data that I have seen, and I don’t know that anything is complete at this point. I said that if this is allowed to stand, Iowa will become the Mecca for same-sex marriage and that is becoming the case. I know that there have been buses that have been, have gone to Iowa with loads of people in them in order to get married under the judge-made law. And I believe that the judge-made law in Iowa is an extraconstitutional decision. It’s completely not based Constitution, our constitutional rights. They draw an assumption that a same-sex couple is similarly situated to opposite sex couples and therefore they’re covered by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. And we know that they are not similarly situated. That once you assume that, the rest of the logic follows. And I said at the time that if this can stand in Iowa, they will use this rationale in other states and it looks like they’re using it in the federal courts in the district that is dealing with a case in Massachusetts right now.

[...]

HOST: Congressman, you’ve explained how difficult it is to amend your state’s Constitution, needing the legislature to go through the process before it ever gets to the people. Are you still confident, I know back when we talked at the time of the court’s decision you were confident that if it ever got to the people it would overwhelmingly choose traditional marriage only. There’s a new poll out showing its pretty much split in the state. Do you think there’s a shift or do you think if it still got on the ballot in a couple years from now that the folks would choose traditional marriage?

KING: I think that there’s been a little bit of a shift and part of it is because people have not noticed a change around them. And they are teaching the young people that there is an equal protection right to same-sex marriage and then they all argue that it doesn’t effect your marriage, you can still marry a person of the opposite sex in the same fashion that you always could. We haven’t come to grips with this thing very well yet in that there’s not a very good understanding of what same-sex marriage does to the overall institution of marriage itself. And we need to carry that argument out and let’s do that over the next couple of years and get this on the ballot so that Iowa isn’t the only state outside of the northeast that has same-sex marriage within it. And I, and I just would extend that rationale and argue this, that if marriage is something other than union between one man and one woman. If it can be, if the argument is that there’s an equal protection law, if there’s a right to same-sex marriage, if that right exists then that means Rick Santorum was right. The right also exists for any other relationship that one might argue. Then there would exist no ban, no rational foundation to prohibit incest, for example, between father and a son or a daughter or a mother and a son or daughter, for example or brothers and sisters. Every civilization has had a prohibition towards incest and every civilization has at least promoted relationships between a man and a woman, even though some have tolerated same-sex relationships more or less than others.

But if, there also would be no rational argument against group marriage. And I just take this along the rationale even further and would say if relationships between individuals cannot be prohibited by the state legislature then there is no ban that can actually be constitutaional that would ban group marriage. And it wouldn’t have to be for reasons of, let me say, love or lust. It could be reasons of profitability or avoiding taxes or accessing benefits. So in the end this is something that has to come with a, if there’s a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together, living collectively off of one pot of resources earned by everyone. That is, this is one of the goals they have to go to is same-sex marriage because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation. They want access to public funds and resources. Eventually all those resources will be pooled because that’s the direction we’re going. And not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis.

– Donald Rumsfeld had to be talked out of editing his own entry on Wikipedia, which he referred to as “Wika-wakka.” He was a Drudge Report reader and used to watch YouTube clips that made fun of his press conference performances.

– Bush, when told that Idaho Sen. Larry Craig had been the latest GOPer to be caught in a sex scandal involving boys or men: “What is up with all these Republicans?”

– While Karl Rove was appearing on Fox News and writing op-eds as an independent political analyst, he was privately smearing Democrats. “Karl spread rumors through the White House that one of Obama’s potential vice presidential running mates — and a United States senator — had beaten his first wife. ‘Karl says it’s true,’ the president assured a small group of staffers. Then knowing Karl, he quickly added, ‘Karl hopes it’s true,” reports Latimer.

– For a commencement address at Furman University in spring 2008, Ed Gillespie wanted to insert a few lines condemning gay marriage. Bush called the speech too “condemnatory” and said, “I’m not going to tell some gay kid in the audience that he can’t get married.” (Of course, Bush ran his 2004 campaign telling that kid just that.)

– Bush on Jimmy Carter: “If I’m ever eighty-two years old and acting like that have someone put me away.”

A few minutes into his speech, Schwartz moved to the topic of pornography, calling it a “blight” and a “disease” that parents’ “sons” would encounter. Noting that he was about to get “politically incorrect,” Schwartz said that it is his “observation that boys at that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people”:

SCHWARTZ: But it is my observation that boys at that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that’s because they don’t want to be that way. They don’t want to fall into it. And that’s a good instinct. After all, homosexuality, we know, studies have been done by the National Institute of Health to try to prove that its genetic and all those studies have proved its not genetic. Homosexuality is inflicted on people.

Schwartz then recalled “a very good friend” of his “who was in the homosexual lifestyle for a long time,” saying that he “had good conversations about, about the malady that he suffered.” He then relayed “an astonishingly insightful remark” his friend had made about the relationship between pornography and being gay:

SCHWARTZ: And one of the things that he said to me, that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark. He said, “all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards. Now think about that. And if you, if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants.” You know, that’s a, that’s a good comment. It’s a good point and it’s a good thing to teach young people.

Schwartz then added a slight caveat, saying, “if it doesn’t turn you homosexual, it at least renders you less capable of loving your wife. And it’s something you need to be healed of.” Watch it:

Schwartz is no stranger to extreme rhetoric about the gay community. In 2005, he denounced the Supreme Court for giving Americans “the right to commit buggery.” Later, he told Max Blumenthal, “”I’m a radical! I’m a real extremist. I don’t want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!” In 1987, Schwartz co-wrote Gays, AIDS, and You, which according to Blumenthal, alleged that the gay community was “using the AIDS crisis to pursue [their] political agenda.”

Transcript:

FAGAN: Mike Schwartz is an old friend. I first met Mike when we were both at Family Research Council, or, Free Congress Foundation under Paul Weyrich, who is one of the great architects of the modern social conservative movement. And both of us learned a huge amount from Paul, with Paul and owe a huge debt to him as I think probably everybody here in the room does. Mike then went on to do great things on the Hill, great things on television, and truncating stuff here, he was first of the staff of then-Congressman Coburn, who then retired. Then thought of coming back to the Senate, chose Mike as his campaign manager and I remember somebody in the Senate saying, “my goodness, the Republicans are really afraid of Tom Coburn coming back, but they’re ten times more afraid of Mike Schwartz being with him.” With that — and everybody who knows Mike knew exactly what they meant. He is very effective behind the scenes, mainly. Occasionally, he gets the liberal press all riled up by dissing Mike to do that. Most effective, I give you now, Mike Schwartz.

SCHWARTZ: One thing Pat, one thing Pat was kind enough to do was to omit what I was doing between Dr. Coburn’s tenure in the House and Dr. Coburn’s tenure in the Senate. And in light of the topic of this panel, it’s most ironic because for those four years I was a Concerned Woman for America. And I used to tell people, if you looked like me, you’d be a concerned woman too. Now, now I’m totally unconcerned, so much so that I’m not even a woman. Pat’s given me a difficult assignment because he said — you know, I could do this policy stuff, that’s what I do — but he said, “no no no, I don’t want you to talk about policy. I want you to talk about how men, who already are good husbands and fathers — we take that for granted — but if you’re already a good husband and you’re already a good father, how do you change the culture?”

[...]

SCHWARTZ: You know, if you don’t have love in your life, it’s not a very complete life. And yet, we don’t want to talk about it. And we especially fail to talk about it to our sons and to our friends. They’re the ones who need to hear it the most because they’re still making up their minds about what do I want to be when the time comes. And believe me, the temptations are out there. One of the temptations that your sons are going to run into is pornography. Pornography is a blight. It is a disaster. It is, it is one of those silent diseases in our society that we haven’t been able to overcome very well. Now, I may be getting politically incorrect here. But one — It’s been a few years, not that many, since I was closely associated with pre-adolescent boys, boys who are like 10 to 12 years of age. But it is my observation that boys at that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that’s because they don’t want to be that way. They don’t want to fall into it. And that’s a good instinct. After all, homosexuality, we know, studies have been done by the National Institute of Health to try to prove that its genetic and all those studies have proved its not genetic. Homosexuality is inflicted on people.

I had a very good friend who was in the homosexual lifestyle for a long time and then he had a religious conversion in the eighties. And he bought a old motel and turned it into a hospice for some of his former associates who were dying of AIDS. He helped, he helped almost 300 men die. This man was a real hero. But he knew that he wasn’t as healed as he thought he was. He was able to resist temptation. He was able to resist sin. But he wasn’t healed enough to take on the responsibilities of marriage. And he was a brilliant man in the sense that he knew himself. And he knew his limits. And he and I had good conversations about, about the malady that he suffered. And one of the things that he said to me, that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark. He said, “all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards. Now think about that. And if you, if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants.” You know, that’s a, that’s a good comment. It’s a good point and it’s a good thing to teach young people.

His name is Jim Johnson. He’s a friend of mine. He ran an organization called Beyond Rejection Ministries. And I consider him one of the most heroic men I’ve ever met. But all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards. And that in fact is what it does. I know couples now who are struggling with the husband’s addiction to pornography. It’s a terrible thing. And that’s what happens. And, you know, if it doesn’t turn you homosexual, it at least renders you less capable of loving your wife. And it’s something you need to be healed of.