General Interest > Tacitus' Realm
Why is the GOP so scared of gay people?
Anne Bonney:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/smi ... t-exhibit/
Smithsonian Museum Removes An LGBT Art Exhibit After GOP Threatens To Defund It
Last month, the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery (NPG) unveiled “the first major museum exhibition” exploring gender and sexual identity in American culture. With 105 major works by artists like Georgia O’Keeffe and Andy Warhol, “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” the NPG pioneered a show that “celebrates gay and lesbian art and delineates its place in the history of American painting and photography.”
But it appears that a celebration of anything LGBT-related cannot exist without inciting right-wing backlash. In yesterday’s release of its expose, the conservative CNS News complained that the exhibit featured images of “male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, [and] Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts.” The report saved particular scorn for a four-minute video exhibit that included a depiction of ants on an image of Jesus. Entitled “A Fire in My Belly,” the exhibit was intended “to depict the suffering of an AIDS victim” but, instead, set off a firestorm of religious indignation and outcry over the Smithsonian’s federal funding.
After the Catholic League deemed the exhibit an “assault on the sensibilities of Christians” and demanded the government defund the NPG, the Republicans were quick to pile-on. Decrying the exhibit as an “in your face perversion paid for by tax dollars,” House Appropriations Committee member Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) demanded a look at the NPG’s budget, advocating for “calling them up in front of the Appropriations Committee, asking for some resignations, auditing all their budget – all their books.” The House GOP leadership seconded the outrage and Kingston’s call for a Congressional probe into the museum’s funding:
And Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., called it an “outrageous use of taxpayer money and an obvious attempt to offend Christians during the Christmas season.”
“When a museum receives taxpayer money, the taxpayers have a right to expect that the museum will uphold common standards of decency. The museum should pull the exhibit and be prepared for serious questions come budget time,” Cantor said through a spokesman.
Incoming House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he condemned the use of taxpayer money for the exhibit but would not call for the removal of the exhibit.
“American families have a right to expect better from recipients of taxpayer funds in a tough economy,” Boehner said…”Smithsonian officials should either acknowledge the mistake and correct it, or be prepared to face tough scrutiny beginning in January when the new majority in the House moves to end the job-killing spending spree in Washington.”
In the face of such right-wing brow-beating, the NPG has decided to remove the video exhibit. In a statement released this afternoon, the NPG Director Martin Sullivan said, “I regret that some reports about the exhibit have created an impression that the video is intentionally sacrilegious. In fact, the artist’s intention was to depict the suffering of an AIDS victim. It was not the museum’s intention to offend. We are removing the video today.”
It is important to note that, as is common with recent GOP arguments, Republican bluster over NPG’s federal funding doesn’t actually hold water. While 55 percent of the Smithsonian budget is federally funded, those funds are only used to “pay for the buildings, the care of collections exhibited at Smithsonian venues, and museum staff.” Museum exhibits are funded solely by private donations, including “Hide/Seek.” But regardless these facts, history proves that, despite the NPG’s hope, conservative outrage will lead institutions to remove whatever is deemed offensive, regardless of what it may celebrate.
Anne Bonney:
http://wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=2182930
Va. lawmaker claims pat-downs part of 'homosexual agenda'
November 30, 2010 - 3:30pm
WASHINGTON - A conservative Loudoun County lawmaker says controversial airport pat-downs by the Transportation Security Administration are part of a "wide-scale homosexual agenda."
Eugene Delgaudio, a Republican representing Sterling on the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, made the comments in a widely distributed e-mail sent in his capacity as president of the conservative nonprofit Public Advocate of the United States.
In the e-mail -- reported by WUSA9 -- Delgaudio also says the TSA's non-discrimination hiring policy is "the federal employee's version of the Gay Bill of Special rights."
"That means the next TSA official that gives you an enhanced pat-down could be a practicing homosexual secretly getting pleasure from your submission," he wrote.
Delgaudio confirmed the quote to WTOP. He was first elected to the Loudoun board in 1999 and has previously been criticized by his colleagues for anti-gay comments.
In a petition urging opposition to The Student Non-Discrimination Act introduced in Congress by Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado, Delgaudio said the bill would turn America's "playgrounds into homosexual breeding grounds."
In a fundraising and survey appeal, Delgaudio also reportedly said the homosexual agenda in Congress promotes same-sex marriages and adoptions, which will lead to "men hand-in-hand skipping down to adoption centers to 'pick out' a little boy for themselves."
Delgaudio's Public Advocate organization says it supports ending same-sex marriage and pro-life initiatives, along with "equality under the law, regardless of one's sexual orientation."
The group says it has 100,000 members.
Samara:
I don't know but since they always quote the Constitution, where is their support of 1st?
I am so sick of theocrats. If there is a god, he ain't peering in 6 billion people's bedroom windows. Unless he's a peeper. Some are like that ya know.
Whatever it says in Leviticus, it doesn't warrant a mention in the Top Ten.
BuzzKill:
You miss the point entirely.
Its tax dollars. My money. Our money. Taken from us to subsidize worthy causes and supply the needs of government and society. Because it is tax payer dollars it should not be used in ways that denigrate and insult said tax payers, while doing no demonstrable public good.
This is the kind of exhibit that should be supported with private donations by those who value it - not public money.
No one is saying the artist don't have the right to make it; or that you don't have the right to view it. I would argue it does not belong in a public museum like the Smithsonian. In my opinion having such a display greatly diminishes the stature of the Smithsonian; not unlike the diminishing of the Nobel prize by granting it to Obama and Gore; but my objection is over a tax supported museum displaying porn and blasphemy as if it were art. Such exhibits belong in privately owned studio and galleries.
And folks, take a moment to think on this - What if the figure being eaten by ants were Mohamed? How tolerant do you suppose the powers that be at the Smithsonian and with academia and the media would be with such a display? Should all the peaceful Muslims who pay their taxes be forced to support something like that? Wouldn't that be seen as intolerably intolerant and hateful?
Froderik:
--- Quote from: "Buzzkill" ---No one is saying the artist don't have the right to make it; or that you don't have the right to view it. I would argue it does not belong in a public museum like the Smithsonian. In my opinion having such a display greatly diminishes the stature of the Smithsonian; not unlike the diminishing of the Nobel prize by granting it to Obama and Gore; but my objection is over a tax supported museum displaying porn and blasphemy as if it were art. Such exhibits belong in privately owned studio and galleries.
And folks, take a moment to think on this - What if the figure being eaten by ants were Mohamed? How tolerant do you suppose the powers that be at the Smithsonian and with academia and the media would be with such a display? Should all the peaceful Muslims who pay their taxes be forced to support something like that? Wouldn't that be seen as intolerably intolerant and hateful?
--- End quote ---
One should concede that there is sometimes a fine line between porn and art...
That's an interesting hypothesis there with the Mohamed thing. I agree a veritable shit-storm would erupt over a thing like that, if they ever allowed it (which they probably wouldn't).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version