Our Dallas Voice Life+Style Editor Daniel Kusner has a real knack for coming up with blog posts and headlines that really manage to aggravate the hell out of some folks, especially, it seems, Mormons and extremely conservative Christians.
Just look back through the recent posts about Marie Osmond and her lesbian daughter and Miss California Carrie Prejean and the uproar over her marriage comments at the Miss America pageant and subsequent appearances, then read the comments and you’ll see what I mean.
I can understand some folks have very strong opinions about Daniel’s posts. What I can’t understand is why the non-gay Mormons or conservative Christians thinking they are going to get a positive response by posting anti-gay comments on a gay newspaper’s blog. I mean, surely they don’t think we gay people are going to respond positively to a comment that ends with the term “Faggots!”
As an administrator for Instant Tea, my first impulse is usually to delete those posts. But then I think again and leave them be. I mean, it would be hypocritical of me to say I support free speech and to practice free speech in the blog and then use my administrative power to throttle the free speech of others.
And then I think to myself, I can’t imagine any religious blog, surely not one operated by the LDS church, allowing us to post comments to there talking about members of their group they way they talk about gays on our blog. And that’s the deciding factor in NOT deleting those comments.
I may be a sinner bound for hell because I am gay and feel no need to repent for it. But I am NOT a hypocrite.
WAHOO!!! Go Tammye! Let them show their ignorance so we can sit back and laugh at them.
I didn’t post anything about hating gays in my posts. What concerned me was the absolute disregard for fact-checking by Mr. Kusner and the disregard for a daughter who isn’t a celebrity.
Why quote a tabloid?! I mean, really. Well, I know why. To get attention and stir the pot. But, what the blog constituted, really, was an outing of Marie Osmond’s daughter. I would think the Dallas Voice would be better and bigger than that. Why put the spotlight on a young non-celebrity woman just trying to live her life?
Even more, it was obvious to Marie’s fans (of whom I am one) that the tabloid story, focusing on Marie’s supposed heart ache and disappontment, was rubbish.
A call to Marie or her people – heck, a twitter to her – a call to people who work around her in Las Vegas, a check with her colleagues at ET or Insider – anything would have disproven the tabloid report. But, it was given credence by the blog, which seemed to attempt to incite Mormons (I am not one) with the headline. And which seemed to be designed more as a backdoor way to take a stab at Donny, who isn’t involved in this at all. In essence, the outing of Jessica was used here (and by many others on the web) to attack her uncle for his views. If that’s not case, then why did Mr. Kusner devote most of his blog to a Donny quote and a snide remark about him? I’m sure Jessica didn’t enjoy reading that (and she very well may have) and she didn’t deserve it.
It’s so easy to wrongly discredit someone and to hurt someone in this viral society. Why not just try to check a fact before printing a tabloid story as if it were true?
To Get the Facts:
So Is Marie Osmond’s daughter not a lesbian? Did Donny Osmond not say what the Instant Tea blog post says he said? That’s what Daniel’s post said: That a tabloid has reported that the daughter is a lesbian and Donny spoke out against gay marriage.
Not being snarky here, just asking, what in Daniel’s post is not factually correct? The fact that Marie Osmond’s daughter is not a celebrity does not mean it is not factually correct to say she is a lesbian.
I bedazzled your hand basket Miz Nash. Ill be at Illusions tonight pickin’ up trade if you wanna pick it up gurl
I am Mormon. Let me just clear something up. I dont agree with people wanting to be Gay or be a Lesbian. Thats up to them I will not judge them. I do not HATE them. GOD does not hate anybody. What he does hate are their actions. You will not hate your son for breaking something you will hate what they did etc. You are judging Mormons for something one or 2 or 3 kids said who probably do not even go to church on a regular basis or maybe goes because his friends and family go. Not everybody is like that I am not like that. A true believer will not say those things. As for freedom of speech i think we all have it wrong i dont think our forefather had in mind one could just say mean things and say well thats alright because we are free. I think what they meant was free to express themselves or to make an opinion without the need of insulting or degrading somebody. So you would not be a hypocrite if you took ofensive things off. You would be a hypocrite if you are offended by what he said and then turn back around and talk bad about something or somebody . You dont have to say something and do the opposite to be a hypocrite actions count too.
For the record, I’ve done my share of pissing off Mormons here, too, as evidenced by this post from February that drew 81 comments:
https://dallasvoice.com/instant-tea/2009/02/06/mormon-church-defender-compares-dallas-voice-to-hitler/
It seems as though any headline with “Mormons” or “Miss California” in it is going to attract its share of anti-gay Web trolls.
I’m just not sure this type of dialogue is productive or worth any increase in comments/hits on our Web site.
I just wanted to add that the title Carrie Prejean holds is “Miss California USA”. She competed in “The Miss USA Pageant”. She has never been “Miss California” and that titleholder competes in “The Miss America Pageant”. They are two completely separate organizations and contests. In other words, if you are writing about a Volkswagon, you don’t call it a Mercedes-Benz. Thank you.
Hi – did my response to your comment not go through? Maybe too long…..
If a blog wants to hold pretensions to democracy, fine I guess.
But it’s not really necessary. The internet is about discussion. Anything that facilitates the kind of discussion you want to have should be encouraged. Stuff that shuts down the kind of conversation you want to have should be deleted without feeling too guilty about it.
I don’t know about you, but I’d delete any Mormon commenter (or otherwise) who came on here shouting “faggot” (and for the record – yes, I am a believing Mormon). They really contribute nothing to having a serious discussion about the issues. But, that assumes of course, that you want a serious discussion.
Such people make fun target practice for people who don’t want to really bother with addressing the good arguments from the opposing camp. Bigoted troll crashes in and yells “faggot” and everyone has a grand ole time shooting him down and ridiculing him. He feels happy, because he wasn’t really in it for much more than getting attention and venting steam after being dumped by his girlfriend. So he gets what he wants. And maybe you get what you want for “courageously standing up against the forces of bigotry.” Everyone leaves happy. And maybe that’s all you want.
But it doesn’t do anything to advance the societal dialogue. It merely further isolates us from each other.
I’ve long felt that the Salt Lake Tribune should shut down its comments section entirely for instance. Any time an article so much as mentions the LDS Church in passing, you get about 5 or 6 regular loudmouths who immediately hijack the topic with gleeful talk about how Joseph Smith was a pedophile, or whatever else (regardless of whether it has anything to do with the topic). And the paper just leaves them up. Thus the conversation ends up having nothing to do with putting in a new stoplight, or the last city council meeting, and instead jumps the rails and plows off into stupid conversations about how Mormons are brainwashed, or how Brigham Young was a Satan-worshiper, or something else. The Tribune would be doing a public service if they just nuked the entire site from orbit.
There’s actually common ground between Mormons and the gay community.
But not if you allow the guy with the biggest mouth and the dumbest ideas to monopolize the debate.
In response to Tammye, whether or not Marie’s daughter is a lesbian is none of anyone’s concern. As for Donny, before anyone may judge Donny, you must first read his entire response to the questions posed to him and not select portions of his entire response.
“QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT MY FAITH
Donny Home >> My Beliefs >> Questions And Answers
Gay people who consider themselves married? Your thoughts?
Dec 5, 2003
Question: Here is my question. How do you think Christians should respond to Gay friends who consider themselves “Married” I know you have some friends like this (Rosie)? And one of my dearest friends on earth, a guy, also born 12/9/57 is like this? I support President Bush on his recent stance on this, that Gay marriages should not be recognized, yet I love my friend dearly and would NEVER want to hurt him. This one is a toughie I know and you are in a more vulnerable position than myself as you are so in the public eye, but our beliefs and faith in God should and do come first. How do you as a Christian treat your friends who consider themselves married. I know you are nice, that’s a stupid question , I think react is a better word. God Bless you always.
Response: My beliefs about marriage is beautifully stated in The Family – A Proclamation To The World, a document published by the leaders of our church back in 1995. I am going to include it here.
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
All human beings-male and female-are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.
The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives-mothers and fathers-will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society. (End of Proclamation)
There are many gay individuals that are members of our church. I know many of them. In fact, some of my best friends are gay. You ask how I react regarding their marriages. Well, I do support our Church leaders who say that we can accept those with gay tendencies in our church as long as they do not act upon their temptations. Everyone has tenancies to succumb to temptation, but we all have the same standard given to us by our Father in Heaven. Whether we may be tempted to be immoral with members of our own sex or of the opposite sex, we are expected to live chaste lives. This is very well explained not only in the Book of Mormon, but in the Bible as well.
You see, the whole beauty of God’s plan is that we all have our free agency to live our lives the way we want to live them. Personally, I believe in the words stated above and that they came from a living prophet, so I abide by them.
We all determine for ourselves what is right and what is not right for our own lives and how we live God’s commandments. I am not a judge and I will never judge anyone for the decisions they make unless they are causing harm to another individual. I love my friends, including my gay friends. We are all God’s children. It is their choice, not mine on how they conduct their lives and choose to live the commandments according to the dictates of their own conscience.
I hope this helps.”
His last paragraph says it all….”We all determine for ourselves…”
Trying again to respond to Tammye’s response to me.
Tammye asked, “So Is Marie Osmond’s daughter not a lesbian? Did Donny Osmond not say what the Instant Tea blog post says he said? … Not being snarky here, just asking, what in Daniel’s post is not factually correct? The fact that Marie Osmond’s daughter is not a celebrity does not mean it is not factually correct to say she is a lesbian.”
I probably wasn’t clear enough with my criticism, which boils down to two separate points regarding the use of a non-celebrity to attack a religion and that non-celebrity’s uncle, and the facts themselves:
(1) To me, Daniel’s post seemed primarily aimed at Mormons and Donny Osmond. In essence, he outed, or at least spotlighted, a 21-year-old non-celebrity just to take a smack at her family’s religion and her uncle, specifically. Jessica’s sexual orientation and her alleged life was used to make a point. To me, that’s not right. She didn’t ask to be plastered on The Globe tabloid, and she didn’t ask to have her picture then picked up and transmitted all of the web. She has never taken part in one public event. Why do that to a young woman, when you know it can’t be easy for her in her family and in her community? Why make it more difficult by shining the media spotlight on her? Just to give you the opportunity to make a snarky commment about her Uncle? And to write a headline “Yo Mormons!”?
(2) Several facts in Daniel’s story are at least questionable. First, according to packages put together while Marie Osmond was on DWTS, Jessica lived with her. She was certainly in all the behind-the-scenes family stuff. When Marie moved to Las Vegas, according to numerous interviews, Jessica lived with her. This was less than one year ago.
Jessica herself and a few of her friends posted on some websites about this story and suggested she is not in a relationship and hasn’t been for a year. Daniel’s claims that she lived with a woman in LA, and has for three years, are then at least suspect.
Daniel suggests that “back in December, Donny said” and then excerpts a quote off Donny’s website. In fact, that quote was written in 2003 (according to the site), in answer to a question submitted on the website. I simply googled the quote and found it. Of course, that doesn’t change the content, but it does change the context. Jessica’s lifestyle was first the subject of discussion in some media in Utah in 2005. I looked for a more current statement from Donny and can’t find one. I would be surprised, given his niece, if he had said anything recently. He may have (I don’t exclude the possibility) – but I haven’t seen it.
Daniel and others have attempted to pull Donny and Marie into the Prop 8 question, *assuming* both would be in support. Now you see that the assumption about Marie was wrong. By suggesting that Donny said something about same sex marriage in the midst of the Prop 8 debate, you attempt to link him to it. But, in fact, if he didn’t say anything, that attempt is very unfair. It is possible, I believe, to be opposed to gay marriage and to also be opposed to the actions of members of the Mormon church in CA. I know Donny told a fan privately that he wanted “nothing to do with” the Prop 8 issue.
Do you suppose that Donny’s views could have moderated a bit, given his niece? Is it possible? How would Daniel know, since he didn’t bother to ask. Isn’t it time for dialogue instead of snarkiness or assumption?
I’m very bothered when any journalist gives credence to a tabloid story and then bases his views on assumptions. I’m also bothered by the use of a celebrity’s child to hurt that celebrity’s family member(s). I do recognize that people can get carried away about such an emotional issue and that blogs are written quickly.
For the record, I support same-sex marriage rights and am not a Mormon. I live in a state that allows same-sex marriage.
Those were my points. I appreciate your allowing this discussion – it’s very informative.
NOM is feeling the pressure.
It’s amazing whom the NOM organization will use to promote their cause. I am a card-carrying member of this great organization….just to get their next strategies.
Today I received an email from their executive direction, Brian Brown.
Black pastors in DC rise up when the city council passes a bill to recognize same-sex marriage performed outside the district. City Council member Marion Barry, the former mayor of DC, suddenly decides to switch his vote and vote “no.” The rhetoric became a little hot for my taste, but the important message is what Barry told the Associated Press: “The black community is just adamant against this.” Does the political establishment care? Or are they going to keep taking their most loyal voters for granted? One drama unfolding in our midst.
Hmm….Mr. Crack-head is a now a person NOM wants to use to promote their cause. WTF?
BTW, Barry used to support Gay rights when he was a mayor and needed our votes. Now that he is merely a council person in a small district….he suddenly has turned against us. Go figure. Surprise, surprise!
Now they are looking for Next-Gens to recruit.
NOM is cosponsoring (with the Ruth Institute) a student conference with students from all over the country, coming together to figure out how to stand up to the bullies, to find the courage in community to continue to speak for truth on some of the most hostile territory in America–college campuses. Help us find next-gen leaders who want to mine the intellectual resources of The Ruth Institute’s Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse and other top scholars in the marriage movement, and to learn how to articulate the pro-marriage message on their campuses.
Finally, they are getting desperate in NH and will start a new ad series called Promises.
Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, may yet save the people of New Hampshire from this unfair imposition of the “base’s” values and priorities over those of the majority of the people. As I write, he has not yet publicly said whether he will veto the gay marriage bill in New Hampshire. NOM and the Cornerstone Policy Research Action have launched a new ad, “Promises,” showing all the times the Governor has repeatedly told the voters he opposes same-sex marriage. Will he be a man of his word? Here’s another important drama–and another area where we need your help. Can you consider making a monthly donation of as little as $5?
They sound pretty desperate to me even begging for a few coins to help their cause.
Only a matter of time. Only a matter of time!!!