Last week, I was reading a book for one of my grad seminars called Murder Most Foul: The Killer and the American Gothic Imagination. The book traces the American obsession with and view of murder from the sixteenth through the nineteenth century. I read about men in years past who cheered the murders of women who didn’t know their “place.” Killing a prostitute or a woman deemed to be a “whore” was seen by many as justifiable, even noble. “Bad cookery” was seen as a justification for a husband killing his wife in cold blood. It may not have held up as a defense in court, but it was nonetheless brought up and seen by many as a reason that a man might suddenly get the urge to murder his wife. Try to follow the logic (to cite an example from the book): A woman brings her husband pot-liquor when he asks for coffee, so the husband flies into a rage and brutally kills her. Then he actually thinks the wife's "mistake" is a defense! (Often, it was framed as: “Well, killing her was wrong…but, you know, she was really a horrible cook, sooooo...”)
As I read this, I (foolishly, without really thinking) thought, Wow, I’m glad we’re beyond that.
But, of course, we’re not. We may be beyond the outrageously blatant examples listed above, but blaming the victim still exists, in cases from rapes to beatings to murders. Now, we often see it in the “gay panic” defense. In other words: “Well, I shouldn’t have killed him, but he was just being so gay around me and I didn’t know what to do!” It’s disgusting. Even more than disgusting, it’s accepted as a justification to brutally beating and murdering another human being by so many people.
With a mistrial in the tragic Larry King murder case having been declared, we see the latest incarnation of the “blame the victim” mentality coming from Michael L. Brown, a Messianic Jewish author who penned such classics as A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been. A viciously anti-gay personality, Brown took his latest screed to the fundamentalist Christian “news” outlet OneNewsNow.com, where he penned an article called “Did gay activism play a role in the murder of Lawrence King?”
Follow me below the fold, if you have the stomach.
At the beginning of his article, Brown, perhaps well aware of the absurdity of the argument he is about to pose, is quick to point out young Larry King’s real killer: Brandon McInerney. After all, who could deny that it was McInerney who, in full view of his classmates and teacher, shot King in the head?
Of course, there is only one real killer, Brandon McInerney, just 14 years old at the time of shooting. He confessed to killing Larry in cold blood in full view of his classmates.
But then, perhaps bored with the real line of events or just looking to dump yet another crime on the collective doorstep of the “homosexual agenda,” Brown decides to make the water a little murkier.
But there are others who are complicit in Larry's terribly tragic death, and rather than point the finger at a "homophobic" society, they should point it at themselves. I'm speaking of course of gay activists, who have made Larry into a martyr for the cause of gay activism when, in reality, he was more a victim of gay activism.
You might want to reread that a few times to let it truly sink in. Larry King died not because he was shot in the back of the head by a virulently homophobic classmate with neo-Nazi sympathies, but because of the vague monster known as “gay activism.”
If that were the only point Brown wanted to get across in his article, as disgusting as it may be, I might be able to better deal with it. After all, as someone Brown would probably label a “gay activist,” I’ve been blamed for everything from Hurricane Irene to the kidnapping of children’s brains. Why wouldn’t I be responsible for Larry King’s murder?
Brown’s motive is just a bit more sinister than that, though. A couple of paragraphs down, Brown gets to his real point:
At the tender age of 10, Larry announced to his friends that he was gay, and by the time he was in middle school (having been left back in first grade), he was openly, flamboyantly gay, sometimes coming to school in high heels and girl's makeup, occasionally even wearing a dress. And despite his slight frame (he was just over five feet tall), he was not shy about his sexuality, often flirting with straight guys, chasing them down the hallway in his stilettos, telling them he loved them, and spreading rumors that he was dating them. According to Brandon's attorneys, Larry sexually harassed their client, provoking the murder -- which under any circumstances, is a totally unjustifiable, horrific and deplorable act.
What does all this have to do with gay activism? And how can I claim that gay activists are complicit in Larry's death? To start, there are plenty of unstable children in our schools today, just like Larry and Brandon, yet gay activists are encouraging kids to come out at young and younger ages. This is downright irresponsible.
Now we’ve gotten to the heart of Brown’s argument. This innocent child, the victim of a brutal killing by a white supremacist and homophobe, was the one truly at fault. Yes, the gay activists are named as accomplices in the murder, but only because we encouraged what Brown sees as King’s misbehavior. Larry King brought this on himself by being flamboyant and shoving it all up in everyone’s faces.
But, just as in the examples listed in Murder Most Foul, this is subtly done. Brown makes clear that he doesn’t approve of the murder. He calls it “horrific” and “deplorable”…but then, he just has to tack on: “But, Larry King was flaunting himself. McInerney was provoked.”
Brown goes on to blame everyone from “gay activists” to King’s assistant principal, yet never strays too far from emphasizing that King (with the help of others) flaunted himself, unacceptably threw himself around in a flamboyant manner, provoked his killer. He stops just short of saying, “King deserved what he got and deserves the hell he’s suffering right now,” but I think we all know that’s not too far removed from the tip of Brown’s tongue.
After all, it is gay activists who constantly remind us that LGBT kids are bullied and even beaten up at school. They tell us how dangerous the school environment is for kids who identify as LGBT, and yet at the same time, they praise kids like Larry for coming out at 10. They even want more Gay Straight Alliances in our middle schools, where pre-teens can declare their gay identity to their peers and faculty advisors without their parents' knowledge. Why? So they can become targets of hatred and potential violence? If our schools really are so "homophobic" and dangerous, why not encourage these kids to keep their sexual orientation to themselves until they're in a safer environment?
Some of the teachers in Larry's school, along with his adoptive father, specifically accused former assistant principal Joy Epstein, an open lesbian, of encouraging Larry's flamboyant behavior in order to promote her "agenda." If there is any truth to this, it is not just irresponsible, it is reprehensible. (At the least, there is no indication that she discouraged his pushy, sexual behavior.) How could an experienced educator act in such a way, especially with a boy who had such a troubled history? And is it possible that Larry could have benefited from ongoing counseling about his sexuality? Yet gay activists adamantly oppose any form of counseling that does not affirm homosexuality.
What about the other administrators? Why didn't they prevent Larry from dressing up like a girl when teachers reported to them that it was causing disruption among the students? The official school answer is that California law, passed at the urging of gay activists, prevents discrimination based on gender identity or expression, and so Larry was able to come to school wearing women's accessories and makeup. Was it fair to push this on Larry's classmates, themselves young teenagers sorting through their own issues of sexual identity? Was it fair to Larry?
Brown must really think he’s done a great job feigning concern for Larry King and others who find themselves in similar circumstances. But really, when you boil this article down, the central message is this: King deserved it.
That’s repulsive. But you know what’s even more repulsive? Reading the comments on the article:
The more the gay addenda is pushed on young and younger childern the more dysfunction we re going to see. Homosexuals think they can stop bulling of “gays" by demonizing Christians.
THE ONGOING effort to encourage children and adolescents to see themselves as homosexual, a campaign that seeks the destruction of innocence, will result in more bullying of children not less. That is a prediction based on common sense. When children are encouraged to flaunt homosexual attractions, they are more likely to arouse hostile responses.
Why should students be flauningt their sexual orientation to everyone anyway?
If they're happy with the choice they've made, there's no need to convince the entire world of it. I've never felt I needed everyone's approval of my sexual orientation. It sounds to me that those who feel the need to flaunt their sexual orientation are foremost trying to convince themselves rather than everyone else. My question is why? Good article Dr. Brown!
I'm not exactly sure how people are gathering that Dr. Brown is claiming that just because the kid was flaunting his homosexuality that he deserved what happened to him. Look, people, we can't just go around flaunting any type of sexuality. That goes for all of us. And if an adult sees it happening anywhere, they should do their best to correct it in a gentle but firm way. This is no justification for bullying or murder, but we know in society that different behaviors can provoke people to act out in wrong ways. I'm not saying this kid deserved murder but if you know that a child could possibly be bullied at school for his behavior, why would you encourage the behavior at all? Plus, school isn't for sexuality. School is for learning and how dare any school admin try to encourage any sexual behaviors.
Okay. 1) There is no such thing as homophobia. The idea if I disapprove of something I must therefore be afraid of it is absurd. 2) Joy Epstein most definitely contributed to the atmosphere that resulted in King's death. It is a matter of fact she encouraged him by giving him a gift card so he could purchase a pair of girls' shoes. 3) If King had a "right" to wear makeup at school, does this "right" actually extend to flirtatious behavior toward fellow students that do not want it? And since the sickos at GLSEN et al say not accepting this behavior is not an option, how long do you think it will be before they demand tolerance for these mentally warped kids when they come onto others?
The murderer had no right to pull the trigger and take a life of any person(homosexual or not). With that being said, homosexuality like murder is a sin and that student took the risk of identifying openly with his sinful lifestyle. These adults that are encouraging children and teens to "come out the closet" need to be held culpable for their actions. Homosexuality only leads to disaster the Bible clearly conveys that message.Secular studies also clearly convey the danger of homosexuality.This child was a unfortunate victim of man's sinful nature, but he also chose to put himself in danger by exposing his own sinful lifestyle.Sin is an equal opportunity destroyer.
This is a good look inside the minds of our enemies. Murder is wrong…but don’t flaunt that queer shit in my face, or you just might get shot. And you'll probably deserve it.