Reader comments · Police: Gunman who opened fire at Family Research Council criticised the anti-gay group · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Police: Gunman who opened fire at Family Research Council criticised the anti-gay group

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. GingerlyColors 16 Aug 2012, 6:53am

    Congratulations, Corkins, your violent act has just handed the anti-equality brigade a propaganda victory and cost us the moral high ground!
    Over the last 50 years LGBT people throughout Europe, the Americas, East Asia and Austrilasia have made incredible progress from being treated as criminals (or worse) to the point where we are achieving full equality and social acceptance. Yes, there is a lot of progress to be made in those regions and LGBT people still suffer persecution or state-sponsored murder in areas such as Africa and the Middle East but we will never turn to violence.
    We will not kill, kidnap, hijack planes and fly them into skyscrapers, bomb school busses, rape or commit extortion to make our voices heard. Shame on you, IRA, ETA, PLO, Al-Qaida and now, Floyd Corkins II. We don’t need allies like you!

    1. STFU

      Where do you think we would be if the stonewall rioters didn’t kick ass. You shameful cowardly apologist

      1. You’re seriously going to compare fighting back against aggressive cops (in 1969, when NOBODY was on our side), w/ entering a lobby and SHOOTING a security guard? Really???

        …or maybe you’re just an agent provocateur, from some wingnut group *like* FRC. More likely.

      2. To say no we shouldn’t go around shooting people is not shameful, cowardly or apologist behaviour.

        It’s not helpful and doesn’t further the fight for full equality in the slightest.

      3. I’m with Gingerly on this one…
        there’s such a thing as dousing a fire with gasoline.
        If you can’t campaign for equality without shooting people the only ammunition you’ve got is being passed to the bigots who have you exactly where they want you – pegged as a ‘loose cannon’ cultural terrorist.
        This is a battle for hearts and minds, not a tally of how many people you shot in the process.
        Family Reasearch Council now have a martyr to their cause and they’ll milk him for all he’s worth in the coming months.
        If we can’t sustain the moral highground, don’t expect FRC to put up a clean fight.

        1. I agree and I am disgusted that anyone thinks that shooting is an appropriate campaign method for LGBT people – this has no correlation whatsoever with the Stonewall riots

        2. The FRC have never fought cleanly nor honestly, they are a thoroughly disreputable anti-gay group.
          In no way do I endorse this rare act of violence by one overwrought individual, nevertheless the FRC really is a dedicated hate group.

          1. All the more reason not to play into their hands by allowing them to present themselves as the victims.

      4. GingerlyColors 16 Aug 2012, 11:22am

        Sorry James! but the cowards are the terrorists and those who use violence to further their cause and I am not an apologist for terrorists.

        1. Absolutely.

          There is a massive difference between legitimate protest such as Stonewall Riots and terrorism.

          Terrorism is the work of cowards

          1. Stu is Nelson Mandela a coward?

          2. It’s very hard now to imagine Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. He is the most universally admired living human being, almost a secular saint, and the idea that he had a gun and was prepared to shoot people with it just doesn’t fit our picture of him. But that just shows how naive and conflicted our attitudes towards terrorism are.

            Nelson Mandela never did kill anybody personally. He spent the next 27 years in jail, and only emerged as an old man to negotiate South Africa’s transition to democracy with the very regime that had jailed him.

            But he was a founder and commander of Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), the military wing of the African National Congress, and MK, as it was known, was a terrorist outfit. Well, a revolutionary movement that was willing to use terrorist tactics, to be precise, but that kind of fine distinction is not permissible in polite company today.

            As terrorist outfits go, MK was at the more responsible end of the spectrum. For a long time, it only attack

          3. symbols and servants of the apartheid state, shunning random attacks on white civilians even though they were the main beneficiaries of that regime. By the time it did start bombing bars and the like in the 1980s, Mandela had been in prison for 20 years and bore no direct responsibility for the MK’s acts — but neither he nor the ANC ever disowned the organization. Indeed, after the transition to majority rule in 1994, MK’s cadres were integrated into the new South African Defense Force alongside the former regime’s troops.

            Mandela did not shoot anyone. Mandela did not carry out violence – he did not condemn it, but he did not carry it out.

            Comparing Mandela to a terrorist is simplistic.

            Neither terrorism nor military force has a very high success rate these days: Most people will not let themselves be bullied into changing their fundamental views by a few bombs. Even in South Africa’s case, MK’s bombs had far less influence on the outcome than the economic and moral pressures that

          4. were brought to bear on the apartheid regime.

          5. I’m not reading all that guff simple question is Nelson Mandela a terrorist yes or no?

          6. Stu, did you actually know all that about Mendella, or did you do a quick read up on wikipedia and cut and paste? Just wondered? Sounds like you’re a real expert if you wrote all that off the top of your head! Or are you just trying to sound like an expert?

        2. so nelson mandela is a coward?

    2. I would like to comment on this as someone whose experience in the gay liberation movement goes all the way back to Stonewall. I knew the scene, the times and the people well. Those times were different. We had absolutely no way to make ourselves felt – to give ourselves weight and presence but to stand up and fight – physically. We were pushed absolutely to the wall and had no “legitimate” (so-called) means of expression – no way to exercise influence or make our voices heard. If you kick a dog enough, sooner or later it will turn and bite you and we had been kicked enough by the NYPD and society at large. That was a long time ago and we have accomplished goals that, in those days, would have been considered inconceivable. The paradigm has shifted radically. The haters are now the disgraced minority. Once we forced open the door, all our subsequent victories have been by peaceful, constitutional means. Corkins would obviate all that and throw us back to the beginning.

      1. I am a gay man who has lived in San Francisco for many more years than I care to remember. I remember the days of Harvey Milk extremely well. I joined in protests around that time. To suggest that those protests of genuinely disenfranchised gay people could be compared to Stonewall, the time of Harvey Milk etc is shameful and those who try to compare the two demonstrate intense ignorance of the issues that were in play decades ago.

        Murder is not a tool we should use as a community to advance our causes. We still have battles to win – but we have integrity on our side and that is lost when you resort to horrific and unjustifiable acts such as this.

    3. GingerColors@ What has the IRA, ETA or the PLO got to do with this?

      1. GingerlyColors 16 Aug 2012, 4:03pm

        I mentioned those organisations as examples because it seems that many people who suffer discrimination deem it necessary to use violence to further their cause. Have we ever needed a gay paramilitary group to go round blowing up people who were against us and accept a bit of collateral damage along the way? They say ‘one mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ but freedom fighters do not murder indiscriminately.
        Here in Britain we experienced violence from the IRA. I have had arguements with Irish people who supported the IRA even though they had chosen to live here. Why come to live in a country that you hate? Would I (as a white, gay man) go and live in Zimbabwe?
        Not just gays but some other groups have used non-violence to get their voices heard. Mahatma Ghandi is a good example who gained independence for India. Civil disobedience maybe, violence no!

        1. Spanner1960 16 Aug 2012, 7:26pm

          “They say ‘one mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ but freedom fighters do not murder indiscriminately.”

          Sorry, but that is complete and utter COCK.
          As an example, the French resistance slaughtered hundreds of N@zis, whenever they got the opportunity. There are many instances where the means justify the ends, even if it means resorting to violence and even murder. It’s not a palatable concept, but nonetheless it has happened throughout history. it really all depends on which side you happen to be fighting.

          1. I know what you’re saying, but I think the key word here is ‘indiscriminately’. However, much depends on whom you include in the category of ‘enemy’, as anyone who has read about the Spanish Civil War and civil strife in the former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Palestine etc etc etc will know.

    4. Wow! “WE?” Drop the pretentious grandiloquence and stop pontificating for the rest of us. I may agree with your sentiments and your point, but you come across as a self-important ass.

      1. He speaks for me, more than you fatuous comments do.

        1. Spanner1960 16 Aug 2012, 7:28pm

          Maybe, but I wish people would assume that we are all bosom buddies just because of who we happen to sleep with.

          1. Spanner1960 16 Aug 2012, 7:29pm

            *stop assuming, should I say.

  2. “Today’s attack is the clearest sign we’ve seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as `hateful’ must end.”

    1) No. You, the FRS and your ilk *are* hateful, bellicose, fundamentalist fear-merchants and bigotry-peddlers who give Christians a bad name. Some guy taking shots at you doesn’t change the revolting, dark-age attitudes you try to impose on others.

    2) Corkins, you’re a gun-toting idiot who has done the pro-gay cause no good. You do not represent me.

    1. 2) Corkins, you’re a gun-toting idiot who has done the pro-gay cause no good. You do not represent me.

      He represents me. I am not a right wing apologist trying to be respectable and “normal” just wanting to fit in. Pussy

      1. James,

        Your mental problems are your affair, not mine. Get well soon!

      2. James!

        Perhaps you should be investigated as a hate monger if you genuinely believe these shootings are in any way justifiable.

  3. Well done buddy! Maybe know people will think twice before assuming that all gay people are pushovers. Let the cowards bend over and take it

    1. Sick, evil and ignorant.

      Such violence undermines the moral and legitimate aims of LGBT people (or at least the decent majority!)

    2. GingerlyColors 16 Aug 2012, 11:33am

      Sorry James but NOBODY here agrees with you. We do not advocate violence here at Pink News. The Stonewall Riots was a spontaneous reaction to continual police raids on the Stonewall Inn in New York in 1969 and were not orchestrated by any paramilitary organisation. People like you play right into the hands of the bigots.

      1. Absolutely.

        I will support legitimate protest, even where it steps outside of the law.

        Murder or attempted murder – or terrorism – is not a form of legitimate protest – its purely crime.

        Of course the FRC are criminal in their bigotry – but that does not justify murder, attempted murder or terrorism. Our cause is better than that.

      2. Chicken appeasing the agressors. you think you can win them over with kind acts. Hah you idiots

      3. Good you lot are cowards

        1. And your encouragement of violence is the epitomy of cowardice

      4. Spanner1960 17 Aug 2012, 9:41am

        I think what James! is trying to say is it takes all kinds.
        Just like there are good and bad straights, good and bad black people and good and bad gay people. In this case, they just happened to pick the wrong guy and he fought back. I do not condone his actions, but when people try to affect other people’s lives, one should be prepared for the backlash. The fact these people already employed a security guard demonstrates they were not feeling altogether safe.
        I just hope this incident might just get them to tone down their homophobic attitude in public, although I somehow doubt it.

        1. Wow i agree with Spanner.

  4. I could probably make some other comment about the story but..

    His name is ‘Floyd Corkins II’, haha!

    Floyd Corkins the second.. That’s hilarious haha

  5. “Gunman who opened fire at Family Research Council criticised the anti-gay group”

    Criticizing: Great.
    Shooting: Inexcusable!

  6. it’s not the security guards fault. And the only thing we should be shooting is our mouths off !

  7. Incidents like this prove that there’s idiots on both sides of the fence.

    Let’s not forget, however, that it’s the anti-gay hatemongers who put the fence there in the first place.

  8. Just wait for the headlines, folks. ‘GAY GUNMAN’ etc etc. Don’t expect any straight psychopaths to be dubbed ‘HETEROSEXUAL GUNMAN’.

  9. “…as well as all the people at the Family Research Council whose sense of security has been shattered by today’s horrific events.”

    Unsurprising that Romney seems incapable of sparing a thought for those who were never able to build up a sense of security in the first place, thanks to this sort of interfering cant-ridden group telling us we don’t fit in and are second-class citizens.

  10. What an idiot this Corkins guy is.

    Fascist groups like the Family Research Council will use this against us.

    Then again – let’s not overestimate its importance.

    It’s not even that newsworthy for the US.

    I have a lot of sympathy for the security guy who got shot as he was only doing his job.

    But it’s the US – a shooting where there is an injury is not a big deal there.

    Life is very, very cheap in the US where the murder rate is far greater than any other developed country, and where you can buy guns in the supermarket.

    This was inevitable and seeing as they have zero intention of regulating murder weapons let’s not over-react to this bad news.

    1. Spanner1960 16 Aug 2012, 7:36pm

      You have now written at least half a dozen threads on here referring to these so-called ‘murder weapons’.
      Could you please demonstrate an example of a weapon that is incapable of committing murder?

      You constantly get on these little rants and phrases all the time like “Call me Dave” and constantly referring to religious institutions as “cults”.
      OK, once in a while is faintly amusing, but your incessant repetition has become tedious in the extreme. Please give it a fcking rest.
      You are mistaking wit for sh|t.

  11. What a pity that he behaved like this. Does our cause the least of good! Violence should never have a part in society. Ever.

    1. The FRC is very much pro-gun though.

      I am sure they will defend Corkin’s ‘right’ to own murder weapons.

      1. So would you suggest that because the employers of the victim are pro-gun that this means the assault with intent to kill is somehow more justifiable or excusable?

  12. The gay groups must respond to this attack by condemning the shooter, but also by condemning the fascist hate group he targetted.

    The FRC are utter scum – they are extremists who would kill us.

    We can have sympathy that the shooter injured a guy just doing his job while also using the incident as a means of highlighting the extremism of the FRC.

    1. floridahank 16 Aug 2012, 5:30pm

      You said “fascist hate group he targetted.”
      There is a vast difference between “pro man-woman marriage” and
      “anti-gay marriage.”
      The fundamental Christian promotes man-woman marriage and does not
      promote anti-gay activities. There’s a major difference — and don’t label
      all “christians” as “real Christians.”
      Followers of Jesus Christ are the “true Christians” and we want all sinners
      to know they can be forgiven if they follow Christ.

      1. Jesus is a fictional character.

        And the FRC wants to jail gay people for being gay.

        They are fascist scum.

        1. Spanner1960 16 Aug 2012, 11:37pm

          Actually, that is very debatable.
          There is actually quite a lot of proof to demonstrate there was somebody of that description about that time.
          As to whether he was the son of God, performed miracles or rose from the dead is something else completely.

      2. So, Hank

        You support an apartheid approach towards LGBT people – how very “Christian” of you.

      3. David Myers 17 Aug 2012, 12:15am

        I gave your comment a down arrow because of your outrageous statement that “the fundamental Christian promotes man-women marriage and does not promote anti-gay activities”. There are plenty of fundamentalist Christian that do just that. On the other hand, I agree with you statement that the followers of Jesus’ teachings are true Christians (unlike the “real Christians”). I don’t personally believe Jesus would call gays and lesbians sinners just because they practice gay/lesbian sex! Unfortunately your negative statements out weigh the positive one.

  13. My problem with this incident is the victim of the shooting.

    it was a security guard who was simply doing his job.

    Luckily he was not severely injured.

    If he had managed to reach the head of the FRC then it woukld have been a massive cause for celebration.

    We must remember that this is a group that is classified as a hate group (like the KKK).

    The FRC wants gay men to be imprisoned.

    They regard us as no different from paedophiles.

    They are a dangerous and extremist group.

    Hopefully this incident will highlight the type of evil scum the FRC actually is.

    1. Thats not my only problem with this.

      Shooting the security guard who was doing his job shows the pointlessness of the attack.

      Shooting anyone undermines our aims and legitimate, moral campaign.

      We need to stand strong against the FRC but condemn this shooting.

  14. I’ve been wondering how long it would be before something like this happened. Whilst it’s totally inexcusable behaviour and action on Corkins part – it is understandable. When you continually victimise a group of people, pour hate at them, push them down with words and actions; it’s only a matter of time before you’re going to get a reaction. Corkins has done damage, but, it’s an isolated incident and must be seen in wider perspective. I can only hope that at his trial his lawyer has the sense to show how allowing “hate” to flourish fed into this sad event, and lead the public to see just how damaging groups like this actually are.

    1. Depends what you mean by understandable.

      Understandable that someone becomes angry, frustrated, bitter, and motivated to oppose an organisation such as the FRC … sure, thats something I can understand.

      Attempt murder – understandable – not in my world or in my name.

      1. Attempted murder? Do we have actual proof of that? A statement to the intent that he was going to go in there and kill people? We must tread somewhat carefully in assertions on what Corkins intent was.

        What he did was wrong – full stop. He walked into that place with a gun… regardless of whatever he intended it was not for the benefit of the people within the building. However, the FRC and other hate groups have, in many respects, set themselves up for this. And instead of being the ones to victimise, they are now going to play at being the victims. This is why a wider perspective is needed. You only need to look to the history of the last fifty/sixty years to understand why it’s actually quite remarkable that this hasn’t happened before.

        1. It is reasonable to suspect that someone shooting another person is carrying out an action which carries the possibility that the victim may die.

          A reasonable person would anticipate that if they shot a person, then that person may be killed.

          Ergo it is reasonable to suspect that this incident was an attempted murder – whether that can be fully proved in a court may be a different matter. However, if this had happened in the UK when I was a police officer then the arrest would have been on suspicion of attempted murder.

          According to the Washington Post the FBI are considering terrorism charges.

        2. I am fully aware of the FRC and how hate filled they are.

          I have been involved in various protests and other means to target their hatred and expose their inhumanity.

          Not for one moment would I seek to condone these actions – shooting people does LGBT people and our cause huge damage.

        3. He has been charged with assault with intent to kill (sounds like attempted murder to me!)

  15. This violence is wrong, however
    The Family Research Council is
    one of a hard core of listed anti-gay groups, most of them religiously motivated, have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities. These groups’ influence reaches far beyond what their size would suggest, because the “facts” they disseminate about homosexuality are often amplified by certain politicians, other groups and even news organizations. . Generally, the Southern Poverty Law Centre’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling.

    1. If you scroll down at link provided in my previous post you can read about how the Family Research Council operate .
      Not forgetting that Anglican Mainstream here in UK feature prominent links to resource material created by the Family Research Council on their website, which should tell you all you need to know about them also.

      1. All the more reason not to give them ammunition in this way.

        Ammunition which they will not hesitate to use.

  16. This won’t be the only incident like this. This will be repeated.

    In fact it is a form of sick progress.

    Every week there is some new mass murder in the US (the Batman shootings being the most high profile recent example).

    The fact that the LGBT community are now starting to be the perpetrators of these atrocities can be read as a sign that they are now a full part of American society, and that they have the same lack of respect for life that so many others in teh US has.

    Let’s not over-analyse this. What’s the point?

    If they insist on their ‘right’ to be allowed to buy murder weapons in the supermarket, then incidents like this are inevitable and no longer newsworthy.

  17. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Aug 2012, 12:45pm

    Just what we need! The right wing religious zealots are going to make hay out of this one painting us all with the same brush. Thank goodness this didn’t happen in the UK but then we have far better gun laws that would be construed as an abuse of freedom in America.

    Maybe this will serve as a wake-up call to hate groups such as FRC and NOM that espousing intolerance and denying equal rights can incite hatred towards LGBT people by it’s equally hateful rhetoric. Words have consequences even when freedom of speech is involved, not that this incident should be condoned no matter how much we disagree and despise those hate groups.

    1. But the FRC is pro-gun – they are a christian organisation after all and an integral part of christianity is the right to own murder weapons.

      They can try to blame us, but they are pro murder weapon so they should be regarded as hypocrites.

      1. dAVID

        We need to be very careful in our message here.

        We need to condemn this violence, regardless of what the FRC believe in regarding weaponry.

        1. Condemning violence is all very well but if you are living in a society where buying a murder weapon is as easy as buying a hamburger (well not quite but you know what I mean) then condemnation is a waste of time breath.

          Until the US wakes up and realises that their constitutional ‘right’ to own guns is sick and disgusting, then these types of events are inevitable.

          Why exactly is it do you think that the murder rate in the US is 20 times higher than than in the UK?

          1. You either condemn violence or you endorse it. I take it that by your petulent comments about condemning violence being a waste of time – that you endorse the violence?

            Disgraceful – but nor surprising!

          2. Oh I condemn violence for sure,.

            But the US encourages gun violence through its absurd lack of gun control .

            And don’t pretend otherwise.

          3. Where has anyone pretended otherwise.

            This, for me, is about standing against violence – not finding excuses for it.

      2. Spanner1960 16 Aug 2012, 7:22pm

        A plastic spoon can be a murder weapon in the right hands.
        You know how fcked up Americans are about their right to defend themselves. Frankly, if I lived in the States, I’d be armed to the teeth.

  18. Physical violence is not the answer. Violence begets violence. President Obama is with us most of the way and great progress is being made in many areas. Yes LGBT nerves are stretched and frayed by the constant verbal and other violence we have to suffer and endure and yes there is still a little way to go before we get our full rights. But two wrongs do not make a right. We are non violent and we must keep it that way – always, and not give fuel for the anti-gays to use against us! I pray that there are no further out bursts like Floyd Corkins ll

    1. However President Obama does NOT favour gun control therefore he cannot pretend to be shocked by this latest incident.

      If you are allowed buy murder weapons in the supermarket then these things will happen.

      It’s as simple as that.

  19. Am I the only one who thinks the man’s name is hilarious? I mean, if I were tasked with thinking up a ridiculous comedy name for a sketch show, I don’t think I could do better than Floyd Corkins II. The faux-regnal number just tops it of perfectly. What were his parents thinking?

    Though I can’t say I’m surprised that something like this has happened. Indeed, I’m more surprised it hasn’t happened sooner. Simply being a part of the LGBT community doesn’t automatically make people immune from the same cultural pressures and personal foibles that cause some people to do things like this. It’s a stupid and criminal thing, but there are stupid and criminal people in all walks of life.

  20. I expect he was driven mad by the escalating daily attacks on the gay community in the United States and the far-right media’s propaganda war. I sympathise with him. I don’t support what he did, but this was clearly an act of desperation.

    And this changes absolutely nothing about the FRC and AFA’s status as far-right hate groups. I will never in a million years feel a trace of sympathy for fascist thugs and will resist any attempt whatsoever to paint them as victims. They make a living spreading poison and wrecking lives. Plus I resent comparisons to terrorists. Say what you will. No civilians were targeted in this attack.

    1. I expect that he was depressed and/or angry, and seeing as you can buy a murder weapon in the Wal-Mart in the US he went off and did precisely that.

      People are massively over-analysing this.

      It is inevitable and it will happen again.

      We need to stop pretending to be shocked by these types of stories from the US. What else do you expect, if gun control is not even allowed to be discussed?

      (After the Batman shootings, gun control wasn’t even mentioned.)

  21. What a mistake on the part of the gunman. Best not to sink to the same level as there fruit-loop right-wingers who murder doctors & fill our lives with their hate

    1. Try to be optimistic about it.

      The fact that crazy killers who buy guns at Wal-Mart and go on a killing sprees, are now gay, means that we are making progress in entering the US mainstream.

      Going in killing sprees and having the far right defend your right to do so, is an all American hobby.

      This simply means that the LGBT community has entered the US mainstream.

      And they are just as protyected under the constitution as the christians when it comes to their murder weapons.

      1. That sounds like justification of the events, even though this may not be your intention.

        Its shameful to justify or celebrate these events.

        1. It’s not a justification or a celebration.

          It’s an explanation.

          If the US had proper gun control then this event more than likely would not have happened.

          If the US had proper gun control then that guy that murdered all those people at the Batman movie would probably not have done what he did.

          Being condemnatory about these typeof occurrences is absurd unless you are willing to also tackle the root cause.

          And the root cause is that buying guns is very, very easy.

          I don’t believe that Americans are more naturally violent than British people. Yet somehow they have a murder rate 20 times higher than that in Britain.

          Did you know that an American is more likely to be murdered in Washington DC than he is in Afghanistan?


          1. So do you condemn the violence.

            Or seek to excuse it with an “explanation”?

  22. Now the FRC can pretend to be the innocent victim, being attacked by ideologically motivated crazies just because of the way they live their lives.
    I guess we can expect some rather harsh remarks to not only be made by these guys, but also be given serious thought by others.

  23. Spanner1960 16 Aug 2012, 3:20pm

    One thing that does spring to mind – Why would a good, God-fearing Christian organisation with a nice fluffy, friendly name like “Family Research Council” need security guards in the first place?

    It’s not like they would do anything wrong, is it? ;)

    1. And why does a god-fearing christian group support the right of American citizens to buy murder weapons in the supermarket.

      1. Spanner1960 16 Aug 2012, 7:13pm

        Hmm. All patriotic Americans support bearing arms.
        Otherwise you’re just another scum-sucking commie red.
        Frankly, I personally don’t care if they blow each other to kingdom come as long as they stay in their own country to do it.

  24. Quite frankly I am surprised such an attack didn’t happen sooner. You can only hold such an extreme position that is damaging other people for so long before someone cracks under the pressure.

    We of all people should be more understanding of the forces that drove this man to this act of violence.

    Despite our rejection of the violence he perpetrated we should be organizing a legal defence fund on his behalf.

    Who knows, perhaps something good an come from this… I hope these anti-gay groups will be more circumspect about openly vilifying our community in future.

    1. A legal defence fund suggests you think there is a defence for this act.

      1. everyone deserves adequate legal representation … it is a basic principle of the justice system…

        1. Of course everyone deserves legal representation.

          Most people would only engage with a legal defence fund if there was a miscarriage of justice etc – this incident is either an attempted homicide or a serious assault – full stop. The fact the security guard worked in the building that hosts the FRC is irrelevant. The issue is that he was shot, and the person responsible should be held to account.

  25. With all the hysterical rhetoric which is pumped out against any organization or significant public individual who does not share the aims of the LGBTQ activist groups. Is it any surprise that such rhetoric can breed hatred?

    1. There is a difference between causing hatred and having righteous anger. That righteous anger can be productively and effectively used to target the cause of the hatred. Using that anger to maim, kill etc is placing oneself on a lower moral footing that the haters that are being targetted.

      1. Spanner1960 16 Aug 2012, 7:19pm

        Maybe there comes a point where there is enough talk.
        When was the last time you heard of somebody assaulted, bullied, attacked, punched, kicked or even killed for being a heterosexual?

        Maybe it is about time the worm turned.

        1. So we tackle bigotry, bullying, assault and murder by being more bigoted (in a different way albeit), bigger bullies, more serious assaults and more murders? What next, they encourage more of the right minded part of society who are on the side of fairness etc to feel marginalised because of the attacks on “heterosexuals” or “Christians” and we face worse violence, bigotry and bullying?

          Violence, murder, maiming and arrogance are not the answer. We are cleverer than that (I hope!)

          1. I agree Lisa,
            Marc’s ‘righteous anger’ sounds like some form of inverted fundamentalism. I also wonder if the influence of bullies like Dan Savage is coming into play here?

          2. Spanner1960 17 Aug 2012, 9:49am

            We are no cleverer than anybody else.
            You give the impression that LGBT people are some kind of organisation with a goal. We are not, we are simply a bunch of disparate people that happen to have the same sexuality.
            There is no “community”. End of.

            There are gay nutters with guns out there, just like there are straight ones. They do not represent us any more than any other gay person.

  26. For me one of the interesting aspects of this story is that police found 15 Chick-Fil-A sandwiches and a substantial amount of ammunition in his backpack.

    The two thoughts of mine are that he may have intended to murder or maim many more at the FRC and that Chick-Fi-A may need to reflect on the consequences of their homophobia. Not justifying the shootings but placing some of the blame at the feet of the bigots.

    1. The whole problem here is that equality at gunpoint is seldom a persuasive method to get a point across to bigots or anyone else.
      Don’t expect any serious soul searching here.
      If anything the FRC and Chick-fil-A will feel vindicated that gays (and yes they will generalise from a single incident) present a real and present threat and they were right to be paranoid about “the gay mafia” as they maintained all along.

      1. Spanner1960 16 Aug 2012, 7:16pm

        ‘they were right to be paranoid about “the gay mafia” ‘?
        Get real. Does every gay person threatened with homophobic abuse think its a conspiracy by the ‘straight mafia’?
        Or maybe the Catholic church has a covert queerbashing team out to do us all in?

        Stop trying to reinforce their already batsh|t stupid conspiracy theories.

        1. They don’t need any prompting from me, I’d wager they’ve already done the press release.
          All I’m saying is that far from making the bigots think twice, this just plays straight into their hands.

          1. Spanner1960 16 Aug 2012, 11:42pm

            Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean nobody is out to get you.

          2. Tim and Andy’s links below bear out more or less exactly what I’ve been saying.

  27. In all honesty, I hope this is the start of a more militant gay rights movement.
    Let’s not kid ourselves any longer. There is no compromise with these religious sorts. To them, our very being is an abomination, a form of terrorism. They simply will not stop until everything is taken, our dignities, our homes, our freedom, our families. This is not a “culture war”, it is civil genocide.

    Don’t tell me about the “moral high ground”. They gave it up thousands of years ago, with their rich history of murder, rape and conquest.
    Since Stonewall, our community has reported and point out the evil’s we have suffered. All of us have sat behind our keyboards, looked at news of Africa’s genocide of our people, the mass raping of our women through “cure” camps. We all know what these people are capable of.
    This man is not a terrorist in my eyes, but a soldier, and we, as a minority, a community, or a nation even should follow.
    I am not a violent man. I only advocate this out of sheer necessity.

    1. You clearly have no understanding of what Stonewall about if you think violence is a solution to the FRC. Its tarnishing the reputation and success that those of us who were at Stonewall achieved.

      Murder does not achieve moral achievements.

      1. What does morality have to do with this?

        This is about the defence of our people. In my eyes we are perfectly just in eliminating those who threaten our freedom and security.

      2. They declared war, and we are fighting back.

        For me, that’s all the justification needed.

        1. In other words your attitude is that of a playground kindergarten, stamping ones feet, and telling the teacher “they started it”.

          Violence is not the answer to problems with inequality.

          1. In all honesty, that’s pretty much all we have left, and its also pretty much how the world has always worked.

            No amount of finger wagging and sprouting “gee, all that genocide is just awful!” is going to stop them killing, raping and treating us like vermin. Something has to done and done now. One more LGBT victim is one too many. Drastic measures must be taken.

            As long as organisations like FRC exist, we can never be at peace.

            I’m all out of sympathy for the enemy.


    2. Too right connor these pussies want the scraps from the table when I’d rather eat at my own table with people who love and respect me unconditionally.

      1. I’d rather eat with people who recognise their argument is lost when they use or advocate violence

        1. Who cares if we lose an argument?

          As long as our people are safe, it simply does not matter to me.

  28. Aryu Gaetu 16 Aug 2012, 7:31pm

    Of the thousands upon thousands of suicides by Gay teens in religious families, or teens mercilessly bullied for years, I am very surprised it took this long for someone to turn the gun around.

    Religions are experts at making our children feel that they are the broken ones, apparently someone realized the destruction being caused to his friends and himself was coming from these organizations, and he didn’t want t wait for any more of his friends to commit suicide.

    I don’t condone it, but I understand it.

    1. Spanner1960 16 Aug 2012, 11:50pm

      You are the first person on here to bring this up, and I was thinking just the same. In Utah alone one gay kid kills themselves every week. That’s 50 a year, and 50 states, that’s potentially 2,500 people dying every year, where religious institutions such as the FRC, although indirectly responsible, have killed many of these as easy as if they had pulled the trigger themselves.

      This is a tragedy on a mammoth scale and nobody is standing up to this problem and saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
      The likes of nutcases like the Westboro Baptist Church are making a mockery of justice and it is allowed to continue unabated.

      I am like you and expected something like this to happen long before now.
      One never knows, it could be the trickle before the avalanche.

  29. I find it especially ironic that they draw a connection between the 100% accurate hate-group label the FRC has earned and the violence yesterday, but refuse to draw any connection between FRC’s hateful propaganda tarring all LGBT people as paedophiles and the thousands of violent attacks our community endures year in and year out. It is also beyond frustrating that the media continues to obfuscate this issue by framing the shooting and SPLC’s designation as all about their opposition to ssm; can they even be bothered to look at FRC’s website? You can find false charges of paedophilia against the LGBT community in less than two minutes there.

  30. Interesting debate going on in the US about whether this should be treated as a hate crime.

    Given that right-wing groups often decry the gays as getting “special rights,” and if this had been a shooter at an LGBT organisation its likely it would be billed as a hate crime. This man’s actions are just as heinous and should be treated as such.

    It also shuts the mouths of some right wing agitators who claim there is no such thing as a hate crime – if this is treated as hate against them, then they can not complain when their hate is dealt with similarly.

  31. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released a statement following the incident: “The police are investigating this incident. Our first concern is with our colleague who was shot today. Our concern is for him and his family.”

    Their second concern should be how their policy of hate would drive a kind, gentle and unassuming young man to this behaviour

  32. Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann 16 Aug 2012, 8:08pm

    “People that don’t love and support gays, are …well, WHAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa THEY DON’T LOVE ME…. WHhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!”

  33. Robert in NYC 16 Aug 2012, 8:20pm

    In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers since 1993 has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.

    The Family Research Council is one of 1014 official hate groups in the U.S. according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. During the abortion clinic murders, not one of them condemned the atrocity.

    I would nominate the BNP and the Christian Institute as two of them in our own country.

    1. But then the SPLC have a very loose interpretation of the word ‘hate’.

  34. I don’t condone what Floyd Corkins did despite my utter contempt for the positions the Family Research Council espouses. However, I can’t help wondering how those on the right feel about being on the receiving end of those “second amendment solutions” that right-wing politicos like Jan Brewer and Sarah Palin seem to be so fond of.

  35. The FRC are at it already:

    “Family Research Council President Tony Perkins took to Fox News Thursday to say groups that oppose his organization are responsible for creating the atmosphere that led to the shooting at its headquarters Wednesday.

    “Let me be very clear here that Floyd Corkins was responsible for the wounding of one of our colleagues and friends at the Family Research Council,” Perkins said. “But I believe he was given a license to do that by a group such as the Southern Poverty Law Center who labeled us a hate group because we defend the family and stand for traditional orthodox Christianity.””

  36. The Southern Poverty Law Center is correct — the Family Research Council is a legitimate hate group. The people who work at this institution get up each morning and essentially ask themselves: How can I distort the lives of LGBT people? How can I portray this minority group as sick, evil, and a threat to this nation?

    The awful and evil crime perpetrated against FRC yesterday does nothing to change the fact that this organization has earned its reputation and designation.

    Yet, despite the group’s endless screeds, lies, and distortions against LGBT people, the group’s president, Tony Perkins held a press conference today and said the following

    “Let me be clear that Floyd Corkins was responsible for firing the shots yesterday that wounded one of our colleagues … but Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations ‘hate groups’ because they disagree with them on public policy.”

    1. Perkins added that he “appreciates” those LGBT organizations that issued a statement of condemnation for the shooting but asked those groups “to join us in calling for an end to the reckless rhetoric that I believe led to yesterday’s incident.”

      As someone who reads Perkins’ anti-gay fundraising letters — make no mistake about it — this group loathes LGBT people with a special passion. Still, hate groups don’t deserve to be victims of hate crimes. They deserve the right to be safe and secure as anyone else. Thus, the crime against FRC was detestable and I hope Corkins will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

      But, that does not change the fact that the SPLC is 100% correct in labeling FRC a hate group. The organization supported prosecution of LGBT people for same-sex relations, they oppose hate crime laws and bulling legislation, they are opposed to equal rights in the workplace, they distort science for political gain, and flat out lie about gay life. Thus, their

    2. getting labeled as a hate group has much more to do with simply a disagreement on public policy, as Perkins cynically and dishonestly suggests.

      For example, FRC’s Peter Sprigg once said that he wanted to “export” LGBT people and that he supports criminalizing homosexuality. In March 2008, Sprigg responded to a question on Hardball with Chris Matthews about uniting gay partners during the immigration process by saying: “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them.” He later apologized, but then went on to tell MSNBC host Chris Matthews, “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied. Around the same time, Sprigg claimed that allowing gay people to serve openly in the military would lead to an increase in gay-on-straight sexual assaults.

      This rhetoric sounds pretty dishonest and hateful to me. Here is what SPLC said about FRC at the time

    3. they were designated a hate group:

      Headed today by former Louisiana State Rep. Tony Perkins, the FRC has been a font of anti-gay propaganda throughout its history. It relies on the work of Robert Knight, who also worked at Concerned Women for America but now is at Coral Ridge Ministries, along with that of FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey (hired in 1999) and Peter Sprigg (2001). Both Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia: Sprigg has written that most men who engage in same-sex child molestation “identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,” and Dailey and Sprigg devoted an entire chapter of their 2004 book Getting It Straight to similar material. The men claimed that “homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses” and similarly asserted that “homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.”

      Perkins has a right to be angry and claim to be a victim — because this time he absolutely is one and we stand in solidarity

    4. with him against all violence. But I’m not sure he is the one to be lecturing on the link between rhetoric and violence.

      The question the media should have had for Perkins is this: Given that you want to imprison gays and leave them without legal standing, subject them to ridicule and spiritual abuse — what role, if any, do you see LGBT people playing in society?

      This should have been followed up with the media reading Perkins his own fundraising letters and to then ask him how he thinks his own language has contributed to the debate in the US.

      Violence such as this can never be justified. There is no excuse for it. No justification for it. What happened to FRC is abhorrent on every level imaginable. However, that does not change the group’s reprehensible record. By any measure, SPLC is correct — the Family Research Council is a hate group.

      It pains me to have to make this point at this early juncture. But, we are left with no choice because Perkins is trying to exploit the

    5. sympathy rightfully generated by this crime to whitewash his group’s ongoing anti-gay activities.

      The good news is that there is a simple solution for Perkins’ problem: If you don’t want to be a hate group, stop doing and saying hateful things.

  37. That There Other David 16 Aug 2012, 11:18pm

    The USA is now so far down the path of division that gun-toting murderers are becoming the norm. Sooner or later this was going to happen.

    Now watch as it gets blown out of all proportion by the American news media and the Fundies start equating Corkins with the likes of Breivik.

  38. Part of me really wanted to be the “grown up” here, and just let it go. Ignore it and move on, the little voice of reason inside me said, there is nothing to gain by engaging with these people. And that little voice of reason is probably right.

    But you know what? Screw it. There is nothing reasonable about any of this. So let’s start with the facts.

    Yesterday in Washington DC, a man named Floyd Lee Corkins, walked into an office building. Allegedly voiced his opposition to the business that was head quartered there, pulled out a gun and fired at a security guard, wounding him in the arm. The wounded security guard then disarmed Corkins and held him until Police and FBI agents arrived on the scene.

    In the wake of yet another shooting incident in a public place in the United States, you would think the story here would be about another disturbed individual who was able with little or no trouble, acquire an incredibly dangerous firearm, along with

    1. ammunition and then commit an act of domestic terrorism. But in this case, the who, what and when are just the background for the much bigger issues of where this happened and the possible reasons why.

      It is important to make one thing perfectly clear. Domestic Terrorism is a crime against the entire nation (in this case America). Rights to the “pursuit of happiness”, the ability to go about lives without living in fear.

      Should it be proven that Floyd Corkins, was not just a crazy guy with a gun who wandered in a random building and opened fire; Then it would make him no different than the sick twisted madmen who recently shot up a Colorado movie theatre, and a Wisconsin Sikh Temple. Or for that matter, no different than the sick and twisted men who blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building, or assasinated Kansas Doctor George Tiller as he sat in Church one Sunday Morning.

      Terrorism is Terrorism. The ideological motivation is irrelevant

      We all can wish

    2. for the speedy recovery of the wounded FRC employee, and hold him, his family and his co-workers in our thoughts and prayers. Also we all can agree that any act of Domestic Terrorism is a tragedy and the gunman who attacked the FRC offices should face as swift and fair a prosecution as we would do with any domestic terrorist.

      Literally moments after reports of the shooting went out over the airwaves and internet, various surrogates and supporters of the FRC began to suggest that this attack on the offices of a Social Conservative Advocacy Group was a Liberal Hate Crime, and it was rhetoric critical of the FRC, by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, and LGBT Rights organizations that had perhaps motived Corkins to commit this act of terrorism.

      We do not yet know what Corkin’s motives for this were. Fox News has cited un-named witnesses who claim Corkins made statements about his personal dislike for the mission and positions of the FRC before he opened

    3. fire.

      Sources told Fox New that after guard took away his gun, the suspect said, “Don’t shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.” Authorities were treating the attack as a case of domestic terrorism, although James McJunkin, the head of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, said authorities do not yet know the gunman’s motive.

      The Conservative media and blogosphere has jumped on the “left wing hate crime” narrative with gusto. Speculating that “Left-wing hate speech against Christians ” motivated Corkins to do what he did.

      The Southern Poverty Law Center, after careful examination of the words, policies, and actions of the FRC recently added them to their list of groups that promote hatred and violence against minorities.

      The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community

    4. based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

      To make the case that the LGBT community is a threat to American society, the FRC employs a number of “policy experts” whose “research” has allowed the FRC to be extremely active politically in shaping public debate. Its research fellows and leaders often testify before Congress and appear in the mainstream media. It also works at the grassroots level, conducting outreach to pastors in an effort to “transform the culture.”

      Now in the wake of yesterday’s shooting, FRC President Tony Perkins, and numerous surrogates have fanned out across the media claiming, that it was the designation by the SPLC that is to blame for what happened. Brian Brown from the anti-civil rights group the “National Organization for Marriage” went on CNN to try to make the

    5. case that it was the FRC being criticised for its hateful speech, rather than the hateful speech itself that was to blame

      It is insanity to blame a victim of a crime for the actions of the criminal who committed it. Yet, the Family Research Council is quite happy to excuse the criminal when the victim of a hate crime or act of terrorism is Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual or Transgender. The FRC in fact, believes the victim had it coming. So if we are going to talk about hateful rhetoric then fine. I will allow the Family Research Council speak for itself. – in their own words:

      ” Gays are like a gun to the head of America. That’s what we’re talking about whenever you’re talking about gay rights. You’re talking about giving somebody a gun to put at the head of anybody who disagrees with them, whether it’s the Boy Scouts, whether it’s a local dry-cleaning establishment or a giant corporation like Shell Oil.” – Robert Knight, FRC

      Let’s be very clear

    6. here. If Gay Rights advocates ever used the same language when talking about Conservative Christians, Tony Perkins and those like him would be screaming for marshal law and suspension of the First Amendment. No LGBT rights group has EVER called for conservative Christians to be rounded up, imprisoned and killed. Yet Perkins and the FRC have publicly called for exactly that, for Gay and Lesbian Americans in their support for efforts to make being Gay a capital crime in places like Uganda.

      I don’t know what motivated Floyed Corkins to attack the offices of the Family Research Council. Latest news reports indicate Corkins has been arraigned, charged, and ordered held without bond for a mental health evaluation. Police and the FBI still are not saying what motive, if any Corkins has revealed for the attack. Yet the idea that there is this pervasive cloud of anti-Christian hatred in America, created by the Political Left, and sustained through hateful and violent

    7. rhetoric against Christians by LGBT rights groups is a load of opportunistic, hypocritical nonsense of such proportions as to truly boggle the mind.

      Many times I have referred to the FRC as being the “American Taliban” , and made the sarcastic suggestion that Perkins himself may be a closeted Homosexual. Is it possible that the words I have used could be taken to heart by someone as justification for acts of violence against Social Conservatives? Possible yes, probable? Not really.

      If fact, I will make Tony Perkins a deal. Mr. Perkins, I will own every thing I have ever written or said about you, your organization and your allies. I will accept that my words and writings may have contributed to a member of your staff getting shot in the arm. I will concede your point that rhetoric critical of your point of view and policy efforts has directly lead to the events of yesterday. I will agree to it all, but that means the same

    8. standard applies to you and the FRC as well.

      If we all accept the idea that calling the Family Research Council a “hate group” has resulted in a a climate where Floyd Corkins felt it was ok to shoot a member or its staff, that means Tony Perkins and the FRC can and must be held directly accountable for the impact of more than twenty years of their own campaign of hatred and dehumanization of Gays and Lesbians. I will personally apologize to the FRC’s wounded staff member and his entire family, and in return Perkins must do the same to the families he and his organization have harmed.

      Tony Perkins go on Television to fight against ANY efforts to address bullying of LGBT kids in schools. Going on to say that it was not the bullies who drove those kids to their deaths, or anti gay hatred that the problem, but rather, “gay activists” who in his view were “exploiting these tragedies to push their agenda.


      I don’t know of anyone who isn’t condemning the

    9. attack on the FRC. We ALL wish the brave security guard who was wounded, a speedy recovery. What I am saying is, it would be nice to see the Family Research Council accept their role in the massive litany of violence committed against LGBT Americans on regular basis, as eagerly as they are to have those who disagree with them, own the events of yesterday.

  39. Perkins’ accusation is outrageous. The SPLC has listed the FRC as a hate group since 2010 because it has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people — not, as some claim, because it opposes same-sex marriage. The FRC and its allies on the religious right are saying, in effect, that offering legitimate and fact-based criticism in a democratic society is tantamount to suggesting that the objects of criticism should be the targets of criminal violence.

    As the SPLC made clear at the time and in hundreds of subsequent statements and press interviews, we criticize the FRC for claiming, in Perkins’ words, that pedophilia is “a homosexual problem” — an utter falsehood, as every relevant scientific authority has stated. An FRC official has said he wanted to “export homosexuals from the United States.” The same official advocated the criminalizing of homosexuality.

    Perkins and his allies, seeing an opportunity to score points, are using the attack on their offices

    1. to pose a false equivalency between the SPLC’s criticisms of the FRC and the FRC’s criticisms of LGBT people. The FRC routinely pushes out demonizing claims that gay people are child molesters and worse — claims that are provably false. It should stop the demonization and affirm the dignity of all people.

  40. President Bryan Fischer has advocated kidnapping children away from gay parents, compared African-Americans to “drug addicts” on welfare, and argued that gay parents ought to automatically be suspected of child molestation. That’s just a sample; I could almost literally do this all day.

    But the clincher is the fact that in 2010, Family Research Council lobbied to defend a Ugandan bill that would’ve applied the death penalty to homosexuals. Seems to me that supporting genocide qualifies you for the label “hate group.”

    So, was a nut justified in trying to shoot up FRC HQ? No. Are the FRC the victims of a crime? Yes. But their victimhood doesn’t let them off the hook or make them respectable. A prick attacked by a criminal is still a prick. So FRC is still a hate group. Anyone who would argue otherwise doesn’t know the facts, has real problems understanding the concept of logic, or is a hater themselves, covering up for other haters.

  41. The shooting at the Family Research Council was a tragedy, and the wounded security guard and others who put themselves in harm’s way to overpower the shooter are indeed heroes. But how conservatives have responded in the shooting’s wake is incredibly disconcerting, an attempt to appropriate a tragedy to cover up the harm caused by their anti-gay views. As FRC readies its “Religious Liberty Under Fire” campaign, the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown has offered the most flagrant response, claiming that the use of the term “hate group” is an invitation to violence:

    “NOM has always condemned all violence and vilification connected to our ongoing national debate about the meaning and definition of marriage. For too long national gay rights groups have intentionally marginalized and ostracized pro-marriage groups and individuals by labeling them as ‘hateful’ and ‘bigoted’ — such harmful and dangerous labels deserve no place in our civil society and NOM renews its call today

    1. for gay rights groups and the Southern Poverty Law Center to withdraw such incendiary rhetoric from a debate that involves millions of good Americans.”

      This distortion of reality demands an understanding of the different ways the word “hate” is used. First, it’s important to point out that yesterday’s shooting should be investigated as a possible hate crime. The Family Research Council is a political organization — not a religious one — but it does couch its beliefs in religion. Religion does not justify the anti-gay positions the group has, nor does its extreme interpretation of Christianity in anyway represent what most Christians believe. If the shooter merely objected to FRC’s anti-gay political beliefs, then it probably was not a hate crime, but if the shooter was specifically targeting FRC for being a Christian or heterosexual organization, then it very well could be. FRC claims to oppose all hate crime laws because they “undermine the freedom of speech,” but any argument (like

    2. NOM’s) that uses the shooting to victimize all anti-gay Christians relies on the very same principles at the foundation of hate crime laws.

      The Southern Poverty Law Center defines “hate groups” as those organizations whose beliefs or practices “attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” Groups like FRC do just that, spreading lies to the public about the supposed harms of homosexuality and lobbying against LGBT equality. In fact, members of FRC have publicly supported “criminal sanctions” against people just for being gay. By advocating for hetero-supremacy in society, groups like FRC own the identity of “bigot” through their outspoken intolerance and the classification of “hate group” through their actions.

      What’s “incendiary” isn’t the label “hate group” itself, but the words and actions that earn such a designation. Equality and inequality are not just opposite beliefs, but competing philosophies about whether different groups of

    3. people should have equal standing in society, or whether some should have an advantage over others. Those who advocate for LGBT equality do so for the express purpose of reducing harm. They advocate for marriage equality so that same-sex couples have the same opportunity to care for their children and loved ones. They advocate for nondiscrimination protections so that LGBT people have the same opportunity to work for a living, maintain shelter, and participate in their communities. They advocate for hate crimes laws and bullying policies to protect LGBT people from the violence and harassment that plays out daily across this country. And at every step of the way, they work to reduce anti-gay and anti-trans stigma, to free LGBT people from the psychological stress that limits their ability to live and love freely in society. Groups like NOM and FRC intentionally work against that vision of inclusion, and regardless of their motivations, the effect of their efforts is indistinguishable

    4. from hate, bigotry, and intolerance.

      Violence is not the answer to solving any conflict and nothing justifies the actions taken Wednesday by Floyd Corkins. But any attempt to use the shooting to justify reinforcing the inequality LGBT people experience everyday is intolerance at its most basic.

  42. It doesn’t matter that the FRC is a hate group, violence is not the answer, ever – period. Violence is wrong, the shooting was wrong. Period.

  43. FRC’s status as a hate group does not change because some nut decided, wrongly, to use violence. The violence is abhorrent. It is wrong. But it’s also wrong for conservatives to suggest that the violence somehow changes the fact that the FRC routinely uses false claims to promote the hatred and demonization of gay people. It’s a fact that they do.

  44. Shooting people is never, ever the answer. We lose all moral credibility when we fail to condemn those in the LGBT community who harm others, even if they people they harm are bigots.

    I really used to think that gay people were, in general, more sympathetic and maybe even a bit more kind hearted because we know what it’s like to be shat on all the time, but now I realize after reading some of the comments on here that really that’s not true.

    1. Dave North 17 Aug 2012, 3:44am

      Remember. These “hate” groups see us as immoral by just existing.

      Hopefully when this idiot gets his day in court he wil point out just what drove him to this. The general public do not see how vile the FRC and NOM actually is.

      Perhaps this mess may just shed some light oh these sick orrganisations.

  45. Shooting someone is a horrible thing to do, but everyone who has power and equality knows and uses the power of the gun. Everyone who hides behind someone else whilst they use that power to intimidate others, thinking they are peaceful, and then judging that violence are hypocrites.

  46. Vo Dong Cung 19 Aug 2012, 9:34am

    FRC try continuously to push us to no hope at all. I’m wondering what the man withouh hope doing, kill himself or doing madness. I think before we judge him, we need him eaxamined by a psychiatrist first.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.