Laurie Higgins Has a Conniption


Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute is, even among the anti-gay Christian right, an extremist. She distinguishes herself with her amazingly hysterical overreactions to pretty much everything. Like this BarbWire column where she loses her mind over two entirely innocuous things. The first:

A justifiably irate parent from Deerfield, a liberal community on the North Shore, contacted me to tell me that one of the scoutmasters and a couple of the scouts he leads in her son’s troop (Troop 50) decided to add rainbow-colored bandannas to their official uniforms to demonstrate their support for something. Perhaps they were showing their support for the change in Boy Scout policy which allows openly homosexual boys to become members, or maybe they were advocating for a change in policy so that men who are attracted to males can serve openly as leaders of males, or maybe they wanted to signal their affirmation of homosexuality, or perhaps they want men-wannabes (i.e., cross-dressers and the genitally mutilated) to serve as leaders.

And the second:

Angry parents of young children in Wheaton, a conservative community which is home to Wheaton College and a dozen theologically orthodox churches, contacted me to express their frustration that for the second year in a row, the homosexuality-affirming organization Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) had marched in the parade. No one opposes friendships with homosexuals, but, of course, that’s not really what this deviously-named organization is promoting.

These weren’t drag queens acting out in public or some of the naughtier things you sometimes see at gay pride parades. These were just people who support their gay family and friends. That’s it. But their mere presence, Higgins says, is going to bring calamity.

Communities now take pride in affirming shameful behaviors, with our elected leaders marching pridefully in celebration of that which no man or woman should celebrate let alone celebrate on Main Street in front of children. What a barbarous affront to families and an insult to our veterans. No Christian should bring their children to any event that celebrates and affirms soul-destroying sexual perversion. If Christians are unwilling to make even this small sacrifice, they are woefully unprepared for what’s coming.

Some will be tsk-tsking me (or worse) for criticizing these intrusions into what should be occasions to celebrate the founding of the greatest nation that has ever existed on this planet—a nation founded by men who understood that God exists and absolute, objective, transcendent, eternal moral truths exist. These men of diverse theological views would share in common a sense of outrage that their vision for liberty has been twisted into a sickening defense of sexual predilections that will hurt individuals and weaken the country that so many have died to bring into existence and to defend…

The proverbial writing has been on the wall for quite some time, and it doesn’t take a Daniel to read it. There will be no square inch of life that will be left untouched by the sullied hands of homosexual perversity–no celebration, no public school, no career path, and no church will be left unmolested.

If your community parade included participants who celebrated ideas to which no young children should be exposed, call the appropriate village, town, or city officials to express your opposition, telling them that next year you will find a child-friendly activity way to celebrate the founding of this increasingly uncivilized nation.

Well that escalated quickly. From a handful of people in a pair of parades making the most mild and symbolic pro-equality statements to ZOMG! They’re going to destroy the country that people have died for! Seriously, lady, get a fucking grip. If the mere presence of people who don’t hate gay people as much as you do sends you into such a hissy fit, you might want to seek help.

Comments

  1. says

    Angry parents of young children in Wheaton, a conservative community which is home to Wheaton College and a dozen theologically orthodox churches, contacted me

    Or, maybe one did. Or perhaps you imagined it.

  2. eric says

    I have a little sympathy in the first case. Were I a scout master, I would probably be very self-conscious about expressing my own political views to the kids. I don’t want to be the guy who abuses his position to push his own beliefs on minors, even in a voluntary club setting, even when I think it’s a good cause (because EVERY adult who seeks to sway kids thinks they’re doing it for a good cause). So, personally, I probably wouldn’t suggest bandanas and I’m not sure I would wear one (even though I support ssm and gay rights). However, I’d have absolutely no problem with the scouts themselves doing it, and would strongly support their activism.

    I also recognize that I might be being a bit overly-concerned about my own influence, and if other scout masters wanted to support it, I probably wouldn’t object.

  3. sketchvac says

    I live in Illinois. Once, I left a comment on the IFI website when Ms Higgins was warning against the collapse of our military if DADT was repealed. She actually emailed personally and we had a very brief email conversation that was as painful as one might expect. She is the perfect caricature of the Deranged Christian Bigot. Interestingly, she has never weighed in on why the US Military still exists.

  4. alanb says

    Ms. Higgins’ column has a picture on it, presumably of Troop 50 boy scouts and I can find no rainbows on it. Also, Troop 59 has their own website with other 4th of July pictures and there are no rainbows that I can find there either. Might Ms. Higgins be spreading false rumors?

  5. reddiaperbaby1942 says

    Speaking as an ethnically Jewish secular humanist, it seems to me that there’s something admirable in the teaching of the original Jesus. It can be summed up very simply: thou shalt not use another human being as a means toward an end. But that’s definitely not what 99 % of “Christians” either teach or practice. In fact, this principle (similar to that taught by many other philosophers, e.g. Kant’s categorical imperative) could well replace most of the Decalogue of the Old Testament; the only ones it doesn’t cover are those concerned with enforcing monotheism. (Thou shalt have no other god but me — pretty egotistic and arrogant, when you come right down to it.)
    In my lifetime (and I’m 72),I’ve known three people who called themselves Christians whom I see as living up to this basic principle. One was a Quaker woman whom I knew in the 60s, the other two (a married couple) were colleagues of mine before I retired. None of the three made the least fuss about their faith, but it shone out of them and appeared in every aspect of their lives. These people were GOOD, in the strongest sense of the word. And none of them EVER judged the behavior or thinking of others, the way these zealots spend their days (and nights?) doing.

  6. dugglebogey says

    Help coming out of the closet. If even mentioning that you are friends with and support gay people throws someone into fits, that person is GAY and needs to find a way to deal with it.

  7. dhall says

    “A dozen theologically orthodox churches . . .”
    Until they find out that they don’t all practice exactly the same precise doctrines. And presumably not the actual Orthodox Church.

    “These men of diverse theological views . . .”
    So, in one sentence, she apparently praises everyone for believing exactly the same thing, and in another sentence, she’s just fine with the Founding Fathers not all believing exactly the same thing.

    But then, this blather is so wrong on so many levels . . .

  8. dhall says

    “. . . no church will be left unmolested.” There’s been a serious, tragic history of molestation in churches, but maybe that doesn’t bother her. Amazing crap.

  9. says

    “Communities now take pride in affirming shameful behaviors, with our elected leaders marching pridefully in celebration of that which no man or woman should celebrate let alone celebrate on Main Street in front of children.”

    My god!!! They made children watch people walk? How horrible for them! Their very souls must be in danger!

    “Some will be tsk-tsking me (or worse) for criticizing these intrusions into what should be occasions to celebrate the founding of the greatest nation that has ever existed on this planet”

    I would call that a subjective opinion. Personally I think the Roman Republic was the greatest nation ever founded on this planet. Gainsaying otherwise is to challenge the divine protection placed upon the Roman Republic by the Gods. Yes I said Gods. I want to see your God fight my Gods, I am pretty sure my dozens can kick the crap out of your one. Suck it.

    “a nation founded by men who understood that God exists and absolute, objective, transcendent, eternal moral truths exist.”

    Thomas Jefferson didn’t believe in a transcendent God, so your statement is false. Ergo your argument is without justification.

  10. bmiller says

    duggle: This is a bad meme. People can “other” other people and hate them without being secretly a member of the hated class. Especially if their hatred earns them influence (and even income) within their own little groups.

    Plus, I hate this meme. It smacks of “You are criticizing icky gays. That must mean that you are an icky gay yourself”.

  11. John Pieret says

    There will be no square inch of life that will be left untouched by the sullied hands of homosexual perversity–no celebration, no public school, no career path, and no church will be left unmolested.

    No church needs be touched by homosexuality. Churches are absolutely free to decide who can and cannot joint their congregation or participate in their rituals. Public schools, on the other hand, aren’t churches and can neither discriminate against gays nor, if they are going to fulfill their duty to educate their pupils, ignore the cultural revolution that has occurred in the last decade. As to celebrations and career paths, those depend on the circumstances but it is obvious where the trend is going.

    If you just can’t stand to know that there are gay people out there and, apparently worse to you, that there are people who don’t hate them, my advice is to buy the best blindfold and earplugs that money can buy and hide in your basement.

  12. matty1 says

    advocating for a change in policy so that men who are attracted to males can serve openly as leaders of males

    Two things stand out in this.

    1. The disgusting conflation of homosexuality with paedophillia

    2. She almost certainly has no problem with men who are attracted to females serving openly as leaders of females.

  13. says

    There will be no square inch of life that will be left untouched by the sullied hands of homosexual perversity…

    It’s about time. My place is looking a bit bland. I don’t even have a whatever-a-duvet-is.

     
    sketchvac “She is the perfect caricature of the Deranged Christian Bigot.”
    She’s not a caricature. She is a Deranged Christian Bigot.

  14. says

    reddiaperbaby1942@6

    I recall a phrase, I believe from one of Gordon Dickson’s Dorsai books. Something along the lines of:
    The difference between a true believer and a fanatic is that the true believer justifies everything in the name of his god. The fanatic justifies anything in the name of his god.

    Sounds like your friends were the former.

  15. Nomad says

    Oh my god (so to speak). I just realized something. The phrase “men who are attracted to males can serve openly as leaders of males” struck me as an awkward, unnatural construction. But I didn’t understand why until Matty1 drew attention to it.

    I thought that maybe she was just trying to dehumanize gays, by saying “attracted to males” instead of “attracted to men”. But then I saw it. The implication that gays are sexually attracted to any human with a penis, no matter the age.

    There’s one odd thing in these two stories. In both of them she feels the need to describe the overall political leanings of the region, describing Wheaton as being conservative and Deerfield as liberal. But why? Presumably Wheaton being conservative is supposed to be why gays or even friends of gays aren’t allowed to march in public parades, but then surely the same logic means in Deerfield scouts can wear rainbow bandannas if they want to and the prudish objector can just stuff it?

  16. gardengnome says

    the greatest nation that has ever existed on this planet“?

    No false modesty here then.

  17. dingojack says

    bmiller – you can believe anything you like – I tend to go with the evidence.*

    ‘The greatest nation on Earth’? Surely in terms of land area (and land area conquered per year, and persisance) that’d be the Empire created by Alexander of Macedon. What were you saying about ‘men who are attracted to males ‘ as ‘leaders of men’ again?

    Dingo
    ——–
    * OBTW dugglebogey — CITATION REQUIRED.

  18. caseloweraz says

    Laurie Higgins: A justifiably irate parent [***] contacted me to tell me that one of the scoutmasters and a couple of the scouts he leads in her son’s troop (Troop 50) decided to add rainbow-colored bandannas to their official uniforms to demonstrate their support for something.

    Of course! They were demonstrating their support for God’s rainbow covenant, as described in Genesis 9:13.

    I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

  19. caseloweraz says

    Ed: She distinguishes herself with her amazingly hysterical overreactions to pretty much everything. Like this BarbWire column where she loses her mind over two entirely innocuous things.

    Well, you know, “innocuous” sounds so much like “iniquitous.”

  20. caseloweraz says

    Well, you know, “innocuous” sounds so much like “iniquitous” to them.

    FTFM (Fixed that for myself.)

Leave a Reply