March 21, 2013

"My statement equating repeal of [Proposition] 8 with the coming of the End Times was neither literal nor ironic..."

"... it was a description of how some folks – not me – feel about gay marriage.... I believe intolerance comes from fear, and these folks are genuinely scared. I believe in a God who loves everyone... and my faith tells me to do my best to also love everyone. Everyone: gay or straight, stridently gay, self-righteously faithful.... I may disagree with someone's most fervently held belief, but I will not hate them.... I am damn sorry.... If I could repeat the evening, I would make a clearer distinction between a set of beliefs I abhor, and my human sympathy for the folks who hold them … In this controversy, [my position] means speaking for Christians with opinions I in no way share about homosexuality. Will I endorse them? Never. Will I disavow them? Never."

Michelle Shocked explains herself.

This is a difficult position to take — attempting to be a bridge. Almost everyone gets mad at you. But that's what makes the bridge so important.

62 comments:

edutcher said...

Nice weasel, but hardly the Full Alinsky Grovel.

She'll have to do better if she ever wants to show her face in San Fiasco ever again. Think Imus.

whoresoftheinternet said...

lmao.

And people think it's silly when others complain about a Gay Mafia in show business.

Paging Michael Ovitz...I'm sure he's enjoying the decline.

jr565 said...

If you'll note, that's exactly what I said she was doing, describing others feelings and fears about what would happen of gay marriage were legalized and try to have a dialogue and find some middle ground
. And for that Yoni cancelled the concert because "as a gay man he couldn't allow it to go forward". Yoni doesn't want dialogues nor do most gay activists. It's their way or you hate gays.

chickelit said...

She pontificated.

AprilApple said...

So where does shocked stand? I'm not clear on her explanation.

Pogo said...

She violated the US Constitution's Gay Amendment, which declared them the bestest most special unique snowflakes evar, and you must support everything the Precious does and says, no matter if it changes from one minute to the next.

So she needs to get on board and be a rebranded Christian. She shouldn't try to build a bridge to bigots.

jr565 said...

You'd think some of the fans who recoiled in knee jerk fashion who withdrew as soon. As they heard something they thought the didn't like
Would have a little self reflection and at least question why they so adamantly refuse to even entertain having their values questioned, to the point where even saying that other people have a fear about the consequences of an action (which may even be irrational) and relating that in a conversation is enough for all gay men to disown Michelle.
Clearly the problem is YOU. You didn't listen you idiots.your gay militancy overrides your ability to have a conversation or even hear about opposition second hand through one of your own.

Marshall said...

Those people are so intolerant.
I can not tolerate people like that.

It's amazing the number of people who see no hypocrisy in those those two statements.

jr565 said...

And people actually said that she was saying to tweet that god hated fags. NO she's pegging you idiots who can't understand dialogue as bein demagogues who will twist what she's trying to say into "michelle shocked
Says god hated fags". The problem is not Michelle shocked, but you.

creeley23 said...

It is a tough spot. Shocked was rash to insert herself between the sides, but that's who she is and always has been.

Make no mistake: Shocked is a born-again Christian through and through. She came to the Lord in a black Pentecostal Church. That kind of conversion is not a pose one tries on for grins and takes off later. Christ is the meaning of her life now. The Bible and her church are her guides.

But she's still an artist and in her heart as much a "skateboard punk rocker" as when she wrote her hit "Anchorage." She's not cutting off that part of her heritage either.

She can manage the contradictions herself, but in the rest of society we are having ourselves a cold civil war and neither side is taking prisoners.

Pogo said...

So did the sheriff make a visit to her hotel room?

I mean, she done some pretty awful hate speech. I understand a few gay people fainted, or their hearts fluttered, or they were aghast , or something.

Pretty much death penalty territory.

n.n said...

Perhaps we should up the ante and challenge the resistance of homosexual and heterosexual men and women to change, to progress.

Either they support all forms and kinds of unions or they are arbitrarily discriminatory. They have no legitimate basis to distinguish between sexual, platonic, and other relationships.

bagoh20 said...

This is exactly my position. I fully understand and accept both sides. They are both right. Gays are not being treated equally, and gay marriage is not equal intrinsically. We may choose to legally try and pick sides, but that's the truth of it.

William said...

Apparently she has a history of paranoid-schizophrnia. Maybe her crazy outburst was just that--a psychotic episode. Shouldn't we all be more tolerant of people with mental health issues? And shouldn't tolerance be an especial responsibility for those who preach tolerance?

jr565 said...

Lets talk about the fear that these ministers have. Part of the problem is they don't want to have to marry gays in their church. They don't want to be compelled by govt to act in ways that violate their conscience. Now, can gays accept that?
So, if there is a middle ground position it would be one that allowed gays to get their rights but didnt force people to
Marry them in a church. You see where I'm going with this right?
The ministers may in fact be irrational with ther fears, bit
Shouldn't advocates for gay marriage try to allay their fears?
If even bringing up those fears for debate is enough to get rational people to walk out of the room then
How rational are those people?

creeley23 said...

I posted this YouTube of Shocked performing with her church's choir the other day.

If anyone wants to understand where Shocked is coming from, this is a good place to start.

Mark said...

She is trying to desperately cling to her nostalgia tour which just evaporated. In Madison, her cancelled show was at the Harmony ... a fun venue for a show, but it is a stage my band has performed at, neither a big paycheck or large place.

Pogo said...

"Apparently she has a history of paranoid-schizophrnia."

I doubt the diagnosis. It was made in the 1980s and no doubt involved drug use at the time.

Rusty said...

Marshall said...
Those people are so intolerant.
I can not tolerate people like that.

It's amazing the number of people who see no hypocrisy in those those two statements.
Some of em even hang around here.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, we either approve of gay marriage or we hate homosexuals.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Mitchell the Bat said...

Michelle Shocked is ideally situated to explain to some people that marriage is no longer an irrevocable license to engage in sexual intercourse.

Henry said...

If you're going to be a bridge builder, develop some self-control.

Writ Small said...

Could her position be any more reasonable?

If you've seen any polling by age, you know adoption of SSM is simply a matter of time. The question is how the transition will play out. Is one historically marginalized community going to humiliate another minority in the adoption of new rights? Maybe they feel they're entitled to some payback, but it's remarkably short sighted.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

And for that Yoni cancelled the concert because "as a gay man he couldn't allow it to go forward"

Wait... Yoni is gay?

Jay said...

Writ Small said...
If you've seen any polling by age, you know adoption of SSM is simply a matter of time.


Actually, if you're read the polling you will see people's views change over time.

Presuming people who the same views at 25, that they will at 45 or 65 is silly.

Jay said...

This woman is a mealy mouthed goof ball.

creeley23 said...

William: As I understand it, Shocked's mother, a Mormon BTW, had Shocked committed in high school. Hard to say what that means. Anything from adolescent defiance to drug use to lesbianism to the real crazy.

I too get a schizzy vibe from her, but that's true of many artists (Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, Leonard Cohen) who have gone deep and been through it.

When I first read about her performance, I thought she had gone over the edge, but now I think she was misreported by liberal journalists and fans who can't hear anything which challenges their worldview.

Certainly she had gone off the reservation of an ordinary show. Probably she shouldn't have said anything. God knows she could have been more articulate. Her meta-comment that her fans should tweet that she said that God hates fags was a guaranteed loser and sealed her fate.

I think this could die down and her career could recover somewhat, but the odds aren't good.

Shouting Thomas said...

The fascist tactics of the gay activists tell you everything about what this crap is all about.

Althouse really has her head up her ass on this one.

You cannot separate this issue from the spoiled child tantrum tactics being used to promote it.

Clyde said...

She looks awful! The years have not been kind...

Jason said...

This just in: Room full of San Francisco residents who all own Che Guevara T-Shirts condemn woman for outrageous, hateful, out-of-touch political views.

Humperdink said...

n.n. said "They have no legitimate basis to distinguish between sexual, platonic, and other relationships."

I do. It's called the Word.

MnMark said...

I wish liberals would get over this laziness of assuming that conservatives oppose homosexual "marriage" because we're "afraid".

We're not afraid of homosexuals.

What we object to - what *I* object to - is equating a sexual disorder with normal sexuality. Putting them on the same level, treating them as if they are interchangeable.

They aren't. Homosexuality is a disorder, whether it occurs because of genetics, environment, or choice. For the social health of a society, it is ultimately going to be destructive to pretend that homosexuality has no social implications that are different than normal sexuality, just as it is destructive to pretend there are no differences between men and women that matter. But we live in an age where we are taking the idea of "equality" to its logical, highly destructive end. And so, apparently, we are going to be forced to pretend that homosexual pairings are just the same as normal married couples.

This is going to result in all sorts of dysfunctionalities that are going to further weaken our society and make it vulnerable to conquest by other societies more in tune with actual human nature. One obvious destructive consequence will be the effect this has on innocent children adopted by well-meaning homosexual couples who simply are by nature not equipped to provide a normal social/sexual upbringing to a child. But we will be forced to pretend that there's no difference until it gets so bad that the liberal establishment has to institute another "unprincipled exception" of some sort to fix the problem. (E.g., give normal married couples preference in adoptions even though supposedly they are no better than homosexual couples.)

creeley23 said...

Presuming people who the same views at 25, that they will at 45 or 65 is silly.

True. But I'd sure take the bet that most people's views do solidify at 25 and don't change much thereafter.

MnMark said...

To expand a little more on the concept of the "unprincipled exception," this is an idea Larry Auster came up with, I believe. It is the idea that liberal egalitarian society is full of contradictions and dysfunctionalities due to the fact that reality does not correspond to the liberal's highest value of equality. In order to resolve this, liberals make an unprincipled exception to their ideology of equality. For example, they claim that men and women are not different in any important way. Yet if you allow women into the military, for example, and hold them to the same physical standards that the men are expected to live up to, the women can't do it. So the liberals make an unprincipled exception and hold women to lower physical standards (in a field as highly physical as the military!) while at the same time continuing to claim there's no meaningful differences between the sexes.

Without the Unprincipled Exception, liberal society could not function at all.

Freeman Hunt said...

"Will I endorse them? Never. Will I disavow them? Never."

She puts this very well, that is: tersely.

Freeman Hunt said...

"Will I endorse them? Never. Will I disavow them? Never."

She puts this very well, that is: tersely.

creeley23 said...

"Will I endorse them? Never. Will I disavow them? Never."

She puts this very well, that is: tersely.


Agreed. But will her former fans including some friends be able to hear her? Lotsa luck on that one.

creeley23 said...

Here's an interesting excerpt from an interview between a conservative blogger and Tammy Bruce, a lesbian and ex-officer in the National Organization of Women who has morphed into a conservative talk show host yet still considers herself a progressive feminist.

John Hawkins: A related question, I guess you would have been pretty surprised when you said in the book that while Christians "hold religious beliefs against homosexuality," they are some of the most tolerant, understanding, and kind people I have ever met." So was that a big surprise for you when you weren't getting condemned?

Tammy Bruce: Yes, it was; it was shocking. For me it was quite life-changing in my sense of how I viewed the world and I was also, when it comes to my view of Christians, quite surprised by how happy they were. I mean, I remember being on the left; no one is happy, trust me. They (are the) biggest group of miserable people you would ever want to meet. Everything is wrong, everything is going bad, everyone is after you, everyone wants to get you, people are building camps.

To speak with finally, on talk radio, with Christians, I was struck first by the genuine happiness from these people and also the fact that even though they disagreed with me, finally I was having conversations with people who were curious, disagreed with me, but didn't want to hurt me, were interested in persuading me, and it was quite a revelation, I have to say. I owe my beginning in talk radio to that kind of --- it's the only place really where you can have that kind of exchange between someone like myself and conservative Christians and have it be safe and have it be really life-transforming.

Dante said...

Those people are so intolerant.
I can not tolerate people like that.


PC Newspeak.

Crunchy Frog said...

Tammy Bruce was the head of the LA chapter of NOW during the Clinton scandals, and watched in horror as NOW not only gave Bubba a pass for his indiscretions, but cheered as the women that came forward were savaged in the media. The complete betrayal of feminist principles for political expediency (abortion rights uber alles) were what drove her to renounce her NOW membership.

I remember listening to her on KFI. I didn't necessarily agree with a lot of what she had to say, but I had to give her props for integrity.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Michelle Shocked : Anti-gay Christians :: Barack Obama : his grandmother.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
phx said...

Beliefs you abhor and the sympathy for those that have them. We need more of that actually.

I'm not sure we need more rants like the one she pulled in SF, but I like current stance.

n.n said...

Humperdink:

Is "Word" a reference to the Torah or Bible?

"They" refers to men and women, irrespective of their "orientation", who demand normalization of homosexual behavior.

My interest is to identify objective, reproducible standards which guide the development of society and humanity. The natural order is one. Articles of faith (not exclusively what is described as "religion") are another. Our base desires are another yet. Finally, there is coercion, either through democratic leverage, physical force, or extortion.

There has been a claim made, that standards are not necessary to prevent dysfunctional convergence. That people's instinct and inherent moderation will serve as a barrier to catastrophic progress or change.

Perhaps that is true. However, in absence of objective standards, how do people justify selective standards, including discrimination of various kinds and forms of unions? Why is one dysfunctional behavior more normal than another, and while homosexual behavior is not inherently lethal, unlike abortion, deserves to be normalized? What value does homosexual behavior have to society and humanity? The individuals who choose that behavior may offer positive or negative contributions, but their behavior is wholly unproductive. So, why should it be normalized, while other unions be discriminated?

Why are "they" selective? Why do they engage in progressive, incremental efforts to normalize dysfunctional behaviors? Are they concerned about provoking an overwhelming response, and a permanent resistance to what they would like others to classify as "normal"? It's certainly effective, but also insidious.

It is at minimum condescending to their peers that they will not reveal their full motives and intentions. It's counterproductive when a conversation is ended with an emotional appeal or threat of extortion.

jr565 said...

Phx wrote:


Beliefs you abhor and the sympathy for those that have them. We need more of that actually.

I'm not sure we need more rants like the one she pulled in SF, but I like current stance.
but now I'm wondering, did she in fact perform a rant or did those listening to her not hear her properly and get offended at her words without actually hearing her words.
I imagine she does rant at things like corporate America, like a good lefty. My guess is, because her religious views, or the views of her church I should say, are in conflict with her leftist views, she probably modulates her discussion to be much more nuanced.

If push comes to shove, I really don't think she even has a problem with gay marriage. I think she was trying to get some sense that the lefties pushing gay marriage are not out to break the back of the church and make them kneel.. Based on this response to her, I'm not sure how comforted she should be

EMD said...

Several completely unknown and unnamed critics believe Murphy only made things worse by attempting to refine his remarks, in which he stressed he ‘was not filled with Jew hate, but with Jew hate hate.'

jr565 said...

EMD, wow that's a horrible story. The guy is on the verge of getirng fired for hating people who hate Jews.
I though hating Jews was a bad thing and we were supposed to hate people that hate Jews. Suddenly this is considered a fire able offense?!?

creeley23 said...

The incident reminds me of Lennon's notorious remark that The Beatles were bigger than Jesus. He meant it as an observation -- that people thought more about The Beatles than Christ, not as a knock to Christ.

But no matter how often Lennon and his bandmates explained the remark, reactionary yahoos kept burning Beatles records and complaining.

For the past ten years it has seemed to me that the reactionary yahoos today are the current liberals who just go nasty-vicious-nuts, vandalizing property, throwing pies or glitter, shouting down, outing people, smearing and snarking constantly, when confronted by any reminder that conservatives exist and disagree with them.

TMink said...

Actually, that explains what she said. It does not explain what she was widely portrayed as having said in headlines, but it does explain her actual quote.

I am glad I misconstrued what she was reported to have said.

Trey

Humperdink said...

n.n. asked: Is "Word" a reference to the Torah or Bible?

The Bible. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (The Word being Jesus).

n.n. said: My interest is to identify objective, reproducible standards which guide the development of society and humanity. The natural order is one. Articles of faith (not exclusively what is described as "religion") are another. Our base desires are another yet. Finally, there is coercion, either through democratic leverage, physical force, or extortion.

There is no mystery here. The natural order is God's order. Take a look around, dysfunctional families do not a great society make. God fearing families are the bedrock of any society. The mainstream church has endorsed the evolving theology regarding homosexuality. It will not be pleasant to watch what unfolds.

phx said...

But no matter how often Lennon and his bandmates explained the remark, reactionary yahoos kept burning Beatles records and complaining.

I wasn't there but it does seem like Lennon comported himself with a certain amount of dignity when he made his statement. It sounds as if Michelle Shocked conducted herself like a banshee.

I don't think you can blame people much for having a negative reaction to what they heard about this incident. Your comparison is off IMO.

creeley23 said...

phx: I'd have to see a video or at least hear a tape of Shocked.

Lennon didn't comport himself with any particular dignity or lack thereof. It was an offhand remark during an interview that blew up on him later.

phx said...

No matter how you cut it Michelle Shocked is no John Lennon.

creeley23 said...

Yeah. I can't imagine Michelle Shocked ever competing with Lennon for sheer, vicious, self-absorbed buffoonery as in these direct quotes used in the "Magical Misery Tour" satire.

Lennon was a wonderful guy except when he wasn't.

phx said...

Stick to your guns. Michelle's rant was as perfectly rational as John Lennon saying the Beatles were more popular than Christ. Any argument to the contrary is not doubt due to "the current liberals who just go nasty-vicious-nuts, vandalizing property, throwing pies or glitter, shouting down, outing people, smearing and snarking constantly, when confronted by any reminder that conservatives exist and disagree with them."

Game, set, match, creeley23.

Saint Croix said...

This is a difficult position to take — attempting to be a bridge. Almost everyone gets mad at you. But that's what makes the bridge so important.

Althouse strikes me as somebody who is trying to bridge the two sides on abortion. She's talking about herself here, I think.

I can't tell you how fond I am of Althouse and how I appreciate what she does.

creeley23 said...

Current liberals do go nasty-vicious-nuts as I said. Do you need cites?

phx said...

Current liberals do go nasty-vicious-nuts as I said. Do you need cites?

Please, no. Piling up random examples of liberals acting badly and unfairly, despicably even, will only be the coup de grĂ¢ce to your well-thought out argument. I give. I give.

Lawyer Mom said...

Here's another bridge to get mad at, from CNN no less, re the definition of marriage.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/george-gay-marriage/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

hombre said...

Foolish woman didn't understand that in 2013 genitals rule. More important than economics, foreign policy and, certainly, being a loyal Shocked fan.

We are, figuratively speaking of course, a nation of effete cocksuckers.

Rusty said...

This is a difficult position to take — attempting to be a bridge. Almost everyone gets mad at you. But that's what makes the bridge so important.

Why bother?

R.B. Glennie said...

This is smarmy, but I pronounced myself... shocked.

I was a fan of her record from the 1980s, Short Sharp Shocked, a really good listen, in fact.

My assumption - from the photograph of her on the record being grabbed by the throat by a burly policeman - that she was some kind of lesbian leftist feminist... and from the lyrics on the record too.

A lot's changed in a quarter century, evidently.