July 16, 2008
Who is David Benkof?
That’s a good question, one I’m not sure Mr. Benkof himself could answer. In fact, I’m certain he can’t.
In short, David Benkof, a.k.a. David Bianco, had a mercifully-brief career condemning the marriage equality movement — and condemning gay and lesbian people in general — on his blog, GaysDefendMarriage.com, billed as “A website for LGBT folks who support marriage as the union of husband and wife — and getting the gay leadership to return to more pressing LGBT issues for our community.”
Just another member of the 101st Gay-Basher Keyboard Brigade, you say?
Oh, no. No, no, no.
There’s much more to David Benkof that that.
Want to know more? OK. Grab that popcorn, pop that Coke can, settle back, and I’ll fill you in.
David Benkof:
• equates prison rape with gay sex, and blames the gay community for the existence of violent pornography (Exchange on prison rape,” June 25, 2008; “Why don’t gays care about prison rape?,” July 3, 2008; “Cleaning up gay porn,” July 7, 2008);
• equates gay sex with pedophilia (”Cleaning up gay porn”; “I’m really, really sorry,” July 9, 2008), because, after all, sexual predators coerce children “into sexual activities that are precisely the same as the ones gay and bisexual men do in bedrooms, bathhouses, parks, and piers with each other”;
• insists there is a direct connection between the gay community and NAMBLA, and that he has “tons of data that shows how a significant subset of the gay community in America has always supported adult-child sex,” citing a “historical entanglement between gays and pedophiles in America” (comment, “The Real David Benkof,” Truth Wins Out, June 16, 2008);
…yet insists that he has not compared “gay people to child molesters” — then tries to worm out of it with “I never compared all gays to child molesters” (”Banned by Wayne Besen,” June 23, 2008);
• imagines that homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom has something to do with child rape: “If a lizard who can’t speak or count to ten is ‘gay’ when it sodomizes another same-sex lizard, what exactly is “not gay” about a Scoutmaster who does the same thing to a 12-year-old?” (”I’m really, really sorry”);
• concludes that gay-for-pay actors are ultimately rape victims: “If the stars of the movie - either their characters or in real life - literally cannot pay their rent unless they agree to engage in gay sex, that’s hardly consent.” (”Cleaning up gay porn”);
• swears AIDS is a “gay disease,” that gay people are reponsible for heterosexual transmission of AIDS, and that “quarantine should have been on the table” (”I’m really, really sorry”);
• thinks gay sex is in and of itself immoral (as in his email to me, quoted below) — yet insists that he doesn’t “make a habit of calling other gay people or their sex lives immoral.” (”The gay moral compass not only wrong-headed; it’s broken,” 2008);
• opposes teaching Mormon children in public schools that polygamy is immoral — and that polygamy “certainly is not a redefinition of marriage,” while same-sex marriage is (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote,” June 20, 2008);
• insists that the Stonewall Rebellion was a “horribly immoral” and “unprovoked violent attack,” and that the cops (who were “nearly murdered”) were “innocent of any wrongdoing, especially since the Stonewall Inn was an illegal mafia-run institution” (”I’m really, really sorry”);
• opposes hate-crimes legislation, using the “thought crimes” argument, and insisting that “anti-bullying laws” are the “latest trend in pro-gay legislation mandates indoctrination in pro-gay attitudes under the guise of preventing bullying.” (”A selfless gay agenda,” July 2, 2008);
…yet while using the “thought crimes” argument against hate-crimes laws, says he “would be a happier person if I lived in a country in which Holocaust denial was illegal” (”A fascinating proposal,” June 30, 2008);
• says that gay people simply are not equal to straight people (”A selfless gay agenda”; A fabulous compromise,” June 20, 2008), and believes that there are good reasons “to privilege male-female families” (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”);
• believes that the gay community is responsible for state anti-marriage amendments, and thus gay people are responsible for destroying the rights of unmarried couples, both gay and straight;
• calls the LGBT community “the most selfish American movement since the Hippies” (comment, “Exchange on prison rape”);
• is opposed to marriage equality for gay and lesbian people because “Marriage needs protection from groups that don’t believe in monogamous relationships” (comment, “Gay newspaper editor responds to David Benkof’s L.A. Times article,” We the People, June 6, 2008);
• says that the California marriage ruling “harms … religious liberty” (”Why California gays shouldn’t celebrate state court ruling,” May 20, 2008), which “restricts the religious freedom of traditional Americans to use the definition of marriage they believe in in the way they run their businesses, raise their children, and perform their jobs,” while simultaneously dismissing it as a “semantic squabble” (comment, “A selfless gay agenda”);
• believes that if “gay ‘marriage’ becomes permanent in California,” parents “who want to teach their children that they should only marry an opposite-sex person will have some of their freedom taken away.” (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”);
…while simultaneously insisting that a Gentile half of a Jewish/Gentile lesbian couple married in California should have been forced to adhere to Jewish marriage law (”Jewish ‘marriage equality’ - hold the Jewish,” May 19, 2008);
…and while justifying the imposition of his religion on the rights of others because “my religion doesn’t just believe it’s immoral for me to have gay sex. It believes it’s immoral for you to have gay sex.” (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”); “The prohibitions against [the Torah’s prohibition on gay relations] … and against same-sex marriage are ‘Noahide’ commandments. Those are laws that apply to every human being, whether Jewish or not.” (”What’s Next - Jews for Meat Equality?,” April 21, 2008); “…Judaism doesn’t just oppose me having a same-sex marriage. It opposes the government I am a citizen of recognizing any same-sex marriage. … I want my values, that marriage is between a man and a woman, to be reflected in the government of the place I live in.”; “Text #4 (the Lubavitcher Rebbe) and many more like it indicate that Jews should try to get the government to enforce the Noahide laws, which include the prohibition on same-sex civil marriage.” (comments, “Benkof Loses Last Gay Newspaper,” Box Turtle Bulletin, June 26, 2008);
…while cherry-picking the Noahide laws: “Jews want the government to be run according to the Noahide laws, and for years, they have been. Now, the gay community is trying to change one of those laws that is consistent with the Noahide laws, and we are fighting back. But do we want laws to prohibit making garments with both linen and wool, and to shut down pig farms? Absolutely not.” (comment, “Benkof Loses Last Gay Newspaper”);
…while emphasizing that “any means” (make of that what you will) would be acceptable in order to enforce his beliefs on the rest of us: “Jews are bound to enforce all the Noahide laws by any means necessary. They include murder, sexual sins such as incest, and cruelty to animals. Jews have never been involved in opposing same-sex marriage because nobody ever tried to legalize it before.” (comment, “Benkof Loses Last Gay Newspaper”); “The notion that Jews must try to establish the Noahide laws for everyone is well established. For example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe insisted that we enforce Noahide laws by any means at our disposal: ‘We must do everything possible to ensure that the seven Noahide laws are observed. If this can be accomplished through force or through other kinder and more peaceful means through explaining to non-Jews that they should accept God’s wishes [we should do so] … Anyone who is able to influence a non-Jew in any way to keep the seven commandments is obligated to do so, since that is what God commanded Moses our teacher.’” (”An Open Letter to Conservative Rabbis,” May 31, 2008);
…yet insists: “I never said I wanted a theocratic government,” (comment, “Benkof Loses Last Gay Newspaper”) and that while our lives are subject to his beliefs, his beliefs are sacrosanct, unquestionable, and off-limits: “I certainly don’t have to answer to you on my life decisions” (comment, “A Post for David Benkof,” The Political Spectrum, May 28, 2008);
…while also insisting (in many, many blog posts and comments on other blogs) that he fully supports the Constitution of the United States — the First Amendment of which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”;
…while telling Rex Wocker: “I don’t give speeches urging all Jews to follow my lead, but I won’t deny that I believe that the Torah is for all Jews — Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, secular, etc.”;
• believes that the social and cultural values of people with whom he disagrees are plainly inferior: “Yes, your values that same-sex ‘marriage’ is a good thing are inferior to my values.” (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”);
• told Justin at The Political Spectrum that his — Justin’s — religious beliefs were “a perverted joke,” calling Messianic Judaism “a slimy attempt to trick Jews into becoming Christian.” (”A Post for David Benkof”), yet finds offense at any perceived insult to his own religion (in this case, a commenter told Benkof his interpretation of Noahide laws — not Judaism — was “bullshit”): “And that’s the last time I’m going to converse with someone who uses a foul word to describe my beliefs. If I used the same word to describe your sexual practices you wouldn’t tolerate it.” (comment, “Benkof Loses Last Gay Newspaper”);
• insists that the reality that no church will be forced to marry same-sex couples is a lie (”Bad ‘Faith’ Marriage Arguments,” May 19, 2008);
• thinks that Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health — on which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage violates the Massachusetts Constitution — derailed the fight for equality in the workplace (”Marriage equality for some gays delays equality for all gays,” June 1, 2008);
• claims that “the gay and lesbian community barely understands marriage” (”Monogamous same-sex adultery,” June 26, 2008);
…yet does not understand the first thing about the differences among marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships: “You want to fight an American Revolution because same-sex couples in California have all the rights of married couples in that state but have their feelings hurt by having the government use the term ‘domestic partnership’ instead of marriage? Go ahead. The U.S. troops will probably be too busy laughing at you to actually mow you down for your insurrection” (comment, We the People); “The June weddings that can now be expected for same-sex couples all over California actually will provide little tangible advantage to anyone. California already has a domestic partnership law providing all the state benefits of marriage to same-sex couples…” (”Why California gays shouldn’t celebrate state court ruling”); “The fact is, the initiative in California takes nothing away from you but the word marriage, yet it protects millions of people like me from lots of potential harms to our freedom.” (comment, “Exchange on prison rape”); “The California campaign is a semantic squabble as far as the same-sex couples are concerned; they get all the same rights whether it’s called a domestic partnership or a marriage.” (comment, “A selfless gay agenda”); “If [the California Marriage Protection Act] passes, same-sex couples will lose no rights other than the word “marriage”; “I do not think there is any compelling reason for the government to call the relationship you have with one of the men you have sex with a ‘marriage.’” (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”); “They [sic] gay and lesbian community is concerned that being forced to use a different term - even if it provides the exact same benefits as in California - gives the appearance that they are second-class citizens.” (”A fabulous compromise”); “The California Supreme Court gave same-sex couples only one new right - the word ‘marriage.’” (Marriage equality vs. gay equality,” May 30, 2008); “…the amendment makes only a semantic difference. Every right of domestic partnerships, which are completely equal to those of married couples, will remain the same.” (”Don’t Take it Personally,” June 29, 2008);
• claims gay people do not “understand the fidelity aspect of marriage” (”Monogamy by the book,” July 1, 2008);
…while he himself has been in a relationship with another man only once, for a total of six months; they did not live together (”David Bianco Would Rather be a Traditional Jew than Gay,” Rex Wockner, Gay Today, 2008);
• insists that gay people are by nature promiscuous,* that adultery represents “mainstream gay and lesbian values” (”Monogamous same-sex adultery”), and warns that same-sex marriages are inherently “sexually open and more likely to dissolve” (”Either they’re experts or they’re not,” July 12, 2008) — yet claims he never said “that lots of gay people have open relationships,” only that “gay people don’t think open relationships are a problem” (”Benkof’s Continuing Parade of Lies and Deception,” Box Turtle Bulletin, June 23, 2008); “I’m not surprised that you have been completely sexually devoted to each other for 15 years. But I bet you won’t take the Monogamy Pledge found at GaysDefendMarriage.com. Like most gay people in sexually exclusive relationship, they see that as their choice, one of many legitimate ones which in clude open relationships, three-ways, etc. If you take the monogamy pledge, I will acknowledge you’re one of the perhaps 1% or 2% of gay people who actually do know what marriage is.” (comment to a blogger in a 15-year monogamous relationship, “Reporter’s National Columnist a Fraud,” Sillanpaa: Old Man’s Road, June 23, 2008);
…yet, when interviewed by Rex Wockner, sounds like he wants to give a free pass to gay Jews who cheat on their opposite-sex spouses:
David Bianco: … There are tons, tons of traditional gay Jews who married women and have never had gay sex and don’t regret having made those choices. You think they’re all doing it in the public restrooms?
Rex Wockner: The steam room. The sauna. AOL.
David Bianco: Maybe some of them are. And I don’t think there’s anything pathetic about that. I’m not advocating it.
Rex Wockner: You don’t think there’s anything pathetic about it?
David Bianco: Right.
Rex Wockner: As long as they’re open with their wives about what’s going on?
David Bianco: I don’t know. Actually, I would advocate that someone in that situation should talk to his rabbi and figure out how to handle it. It’s tricky, but not pathetic. …
• doesn’t think that homophobia is bigotry, or that homophobia is as bad as racism (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”);
• calls Wayne Besen “a petty, self-hating, ignorant Jew” (”Banned by Wayne Besen”); Besen, Emily Kesselman, and Timothy Kincaid liars (”Silly activists,” June 30, 2008); “The Lyin’ Kings,” July 6, 2008), Pam Spaulding a liar and a “nasty bitch” (a comment he defends as “true” at Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters)**, Gavin Newsom San Francisco’s “adulterer-in-chief” (”Watch your tone, Mayor Newsom,” May 27, 2008), the Rev. Mel White “a practitioner of violence” (”No pride in Stonewall,” June 23, 2008), and accuses Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples (perhaps the oldest, and certainly one of the most well-researched and highly-respected information sites for gay and lesbian couples on the Web) of being “hostile to sexual fidelity” and encouraging “working adultery into your marriage” (”Monogamous same-sex adultery”; “Monogamy by the book”);
• believes himself “uniquely qualified to help set an agenda for cooperation” between the LGBT community and social conservatives (”An agenda for strange bedfellows,” Jun 11, 2008);
• avoids calling the anti-gay movement what it is — anti-gay — by using the phrase “man-woman marriage,” repeatedly;
• relies, with predictable, monotonous regularity, on straw-man arguments, red herrings, and the “some say” fallacy; i.e.: claiming that gay people fighting for marriage equality are responsible for transgender prison rape (”Why don’t gays care about prison rape?”; “Protect transgender prisoners,” July 2, 2008), and that the marriage equality movement is wrong because “some gay marriage proponents” condone “adult consensual incest” (”No idea what marriage is,” May 18, 2008; “Still confused about what marriage is,” June 25, 2008);
• tells spurious-sounding tales, recounting decades-old conversations from memory verbatim, involving sources he refuses to name (”No idea what marriage is,” et al.);
• twists others’ words into pretzels and quotes others out of context to serve his purpose of the moment; see, for just a few examples, his exchange with Michael Taylor-Judd in “A fascinating proposal”; his misquoting the ACLU in the comments of “Banned by Wayne Besen”; Washington state Senator Ed Murray’s clear and public denouncement of Benkof’s “borderline libelous” misrepresentation of Murray’s views on marriage equality (”Letters to the Editor,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 25, 2008); Triangle Foundation policy director Sean Kosofsky’s statement that Benkof “is misleading folks about my quote. He selectively removed several minutes of our conversation between statements and did not disclose that” (”Sean Kosofsky Responds To David Benkof,” The Political Spectrum, May 22, 2008), adding: “David, it is flat out immoral to do what you did. It is not my repsonsibility to track you down to correct a lazy, stupid and inflammatory misrepresentation. You should be ashamed of yourself, your journalistic integrity and your misrepresentation of your agenda during our call. The right wing is using your article all over the country to smear my good name because of your sloppiness or outright slant. I did leave a correction at the LA Weekly sight so I did try to correct you. This is horrible of you to do.”; National Center for Lesbian Rights executive director Kate Kendell’s shocked reaction — “utter distortion and clearly intended to inflame” — to Benkof’s implication that Kendell was in favor of childhood sexual emperimentation (”Benkof’s Continuing Parade of Lies and Deception”);
• often blames these mischaracterizations on poor memory, being forced to edit an interview down to the bare bones (while still capturing the “spirit” of the actual quote), a Web link not working, computer “troubles,” deleting an original mail, or losing an email in his spam filter;
• is either stunningly ignorant, or simply lies: “No lesbian ever died a painful death because the government called her relationship a domestic partnership instead of a marriage.” (”Why California gays shouldn’t celebrate state court ruling”). If Benkof is such an expert, then surely he has heard of Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond;
• is definitely (or conveniently) ignorant for one who claims to have “a master’s in Jewish history from Stanford and is getting a Ph.D. in the subject at NYU,” and who has “written books on both Jewish history and gay history”; e.g., he “vaguely remember[s] learning that Moses never murdered anyone,” while conveniently forgetting about the very clear recounting of Moses’ premeditated murder of an Egyptian slave (after which he buried the body, then fretted when he learned that there was a witness to the crime) in Exodus 2:11-14 (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”);
• constantly flaunts his knowledge of the Torah and its prohibitions on male-male sex, yet claims: “I rarely talk about my specific religious beliefs about the Torah’s obligations on Jews in the area of gay sex” (”Banned by Wayne Besen”);
…as well as claiming that neither does he “spend much time specifically spelling out the disturbing evidence that a signicant minority of the gay and lesbian community has no objection to adult-child sex” (”Banned by Wayne Besen”), contradicting his frequent propagation of this damaging lie.
And that’s just scratching the surface.
Here’s the kicker: David Benkof claims to be a gay man.
Well, sometimes.
While it’s not up to me to decide whether he’s telling the truth about his sexual orientation (compare the “No True Christian” fallacy), the reality is that Benkof’s self-identity is positively schizophrenic.
In 2003, he was “moving away from gay identity,” considered himself bisexual, and was hoping “to meet a “woman with whom I can bring pleasure and joy, and with whom I can have a nice-if-not-spectacular bedroom life.” Still, the piece noted: “Benkof also reserves the right to be gay again. ‘Everybody should be able to have whatever lifestyle feels right for them at any point in their life,’ he said.” (”Gay Jewish writer gives up sex with men,” Southern Voice, December 19, 2003)
In April, 2008, he was no longer gay-identified: “I was once gay-identified” (”Don’t vote your conscience on marriage,” April 24, 2008)
In May, he was not not gay anymore: “I am certainly not ex-gay.” (comment to “Good As You,” May 21, 2008)***
In June, 2008, he responded to a commenter at Box Turtle: “You imply I’m somehow deceptive for not always describing my sexuality the same way. I have been up front that none of the labels fit me well. If I could use ‘queer’ without people hearing an epithet, I would. But neither ‘gay’ nor ‘bisexual’ perfectly fits my internal, personal, unique-as-a-fingerprint sexuality, so I go back and forth.” (”Benkof Loses Last Gay Newspaper”)
By July, Benkof was once again gay — “just as gay as Wayne [Besen] is.” (”I’m really, really sorry”)
Similarly, he wavers between the claim that he’s still very much a part of the gay community, and… he’s not.
And as far as his vow never to have sex with men again, that appears debatable, too. In his interview with Rex Wockner, Benkof doesn’t sound too sure about the permanency of his commitment:
Rex Wockner: You get an iota of my respect for being consistent. The form of Judaism you have embraced is completely incompatible with homosexual sex. The problem I have with you, David Bianco — and I’ve told you this 14 times off-the-record — is that I’ve seen other men who didn’t feel right about having gay sex for whatever reason — often because of religion, maybe because they were married to a woman — try to stop doing it permanently. I’ve never seen one of these guys, in the long run, end up in a better place. … What makes you think that’s possible? It’s such a fundamental, core piece of who you are — whether it’s nature or nurture. … If somebody was making as much of a stink about being monogamous for the rest of their life as you’re making about this, and they were a public figure, I might interview them too.
David Bianco: When did I say for the rest of my life?
Rex Wockner: David, it’s not like God’s gonna say it’s OK this month but not next month.
David Bianco: That’s true. … I haven’t made a stink. I’ve never emphasized this idea of forever.
Rex Wockner: You could have just quietly drifted off.
David Bianco: Which I did for the first eight months of it. …
Rex Wockner: I’ve seen I-don’t-know-how-many guys try what you’re about to try. God doesn’t want me to have gay sex, so I’m not going to.
David Bianco: Do I seem wracked with guilt? Do you think I have this angst, this religious frustration? I don’t think I do.
Rex Wockner: Well, in a way, you’re kind of in a born-again phase.
David Bianco: Yeah.
Rex Wockner: So of course you’re not going to have any angst right now.
David Bianco: And if I have it someday, I’ll deal with it. I am certain that this is what’s right for me now, and my writing about it is less to justify it to myself than it is to help … to let those who may be facing a similar conundrum understand that it is a reasonable way to go. …
Rex Wockner: But what makes you think that this fundamental, core piece of who you are, regardless of how it got there, can be put away and sort of just ignored or not acted on? It’s not like you’re deciding not to eat Big Macs because you know that they’re bad for you. This is something much more core to who we are. … This is sex.
David Bianco: And I believe that American culture and the gay community have overly glorified sex to the point that it’s expected to be the most important piece of our lives. And historically that never happened before the last couple hundred years. And I don’t accept that it’s natural for us or that it’s what God wants for us. I think it is Western culture that is out of whack, not me.
Notice Benkof doesn’t answer Wockner’s question.
In any case, David Benkof may be a homosexual, but he is not gay.
Near the end of the film Boys in the Band, a campily entertaining but severely dated snapshot of a group of mostly self-loathing gay men, Harold dresses down Michael, the acerbic host who, despite his flippancy, turns out to be the most self-loathing of all — and who has spent the night projecting that self-loathing onto his party guests:
“You’re a sad and pathetic man. You’re a homosexual and you don’t want to be, but there’s nothing you can do to change it. Not all the prayers to your god, not all the analysis you can buy in all the years you’ve go left to live. You may one day be able to know a heterosexual life, if you want it desperately enough. If you pursue it with the fervor with which you annihilate. But you’ll always be homosexual as well. Always, Michael. Always. Until the day you die.”
That, I believe, is the kind of homosexual David Benkof is.
Or bisexual. Or “ex-gay.” Or whatever he’s presenting himself to be at any given moment.
In any case, he makes Andrew Sullivan (a.k.a. “Bareback Andy“) look like the paragon of healthy self-esteem.
David Benkof also claims to be “a columnist for several gay newspapers across the country.” As Timothy at Box Turtle Bulletin explained in “David Benkof: Behind the Mask:
Benkof has written some opinion pieces and has been published in at least two gay magazines. But Benkof is most certainly not “a columnist in several gay newspapers across the country”.
Which left me wondering as to his motives for using this description.
I think it is because by suggesting that he has credibility within the gay community and is in some manner respected, he can plant in the mind of the straight reader the notion that there is some movement from with the community to restrict marriage to heterosexuals. He creates a false following to prop up an argument that most gay people find reprehensible.
And this is not the only place where Benkof uses this tactic.
Indeed, it is not. In “Marriage equality vs. gay equality,” he boasts that his “most recent column … is up at the Web site of the Boulder, Colorado Daily Camera.” Funny, but the Daily Camera identifies Benkof’s “column” as a mere “letter to the editor.” Ditto “No pride in Stonewall Rebellion memory”; Benkof calls it a “column,” while it was printed as just another letter to the editor. (See Benkof’s blog post, “Silly activists,” for similar delusions.)
Now, normally, David Benkof wouldn’t be worth the attention I’ve given him here. In fact, I’ve never written one word about him before; Benkof’s story is worth a look now, in part because he is a living, breathing example of the tragedy of internalized homophobia — and mostly because an interesting thing happened: He wrote his “last post.” Let’s all hope he’s serious:
David Benkof’s last post
It is with great sadness that I announce that I feel I must withdraw from openly supporting man-woman marriage in the United States. I recently learned quite a bit of disturbing information that makes it impossible for me to continue supporting a movement I no longer respect. I have not yet decided when or even if I will write about why I’m ending my participation in this debate.
I’d like to thank Maggie Gallagher of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy who got me started with blogging at MarriageDebate.com and encouraged me to create my own blog, which ultimately became GaysDefendMarriage.com. I’d also like to thank the dozens of commenters, both those who agree with me and those who disagree, who have made this Web site a true place of conversation rather than just another pro-man-woman-marriage site.
In case you’re wondering:
1) I do not advocate that people give time or money to the Proposition 8 campaign in California.
2) People should vote their consciences on the ballot measure. I’m not a California voter, but if I was, I’d probably hold my nose and vote yes, though I can’t be sure.
Have a good summer, everyone!
-David Benkof
And then, sometime yesterday, the GaysDefendMarriage.com site simply vanished.
Nevertheless, Benkof was, in his usual fashion, cruising the Web for reactions, and responding to them. On Wayne Besen’s blog, Benkof put aside his attacks on Wayne long enough to respond to a comment by a reader named Scott:
[That Benkof is disturbed is] my impression as well…
He either:
(a) Took Wayne’s advice, and FINALLY got on some much-needed meds.
(b) Got sick of the homosex-obsessed rhetoric of his right wing and fundie friends.
(c) He’s pulling a silly “publicity stunt”, to get attention.
To which Benkof replied:
It’s not polite to gloat. I have surrendered unilaterally. What else do you want from me?
I know what I want: an explanation. And so do a lot of other people.
With the “gloating” exchange on Wayne’s blog in mind, I left my first and last comment on Benkof’s blog:
I won’t gloat if you’ll elaborate on your reasons for quitting. If you’ve _really_ have had a true change of heart, you can begin to undo some of the damage you’ve wrought by coming clean. Frankly, it’s the least you can do. The very least.
Benkof didn’t reply to my comment on his blog, but emailed me directly:
Subject: Re: [GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE] Comment: “David Benkof’s last post”
From: DavidBenkof@—.com
Date: Mon, July 14, 2008 5:33 am
The only way I would do that - and I have no plans to do so - is to detail what I think is wrong with *both* the man-woman marriage movement and the “marriage equality” movement.
While I have really had, as you put it, a “true change of heart” about the man-woman marriage movement, I still think the “marriage equality” movement is overwhelmingly selfish and cruel, and is far more responsible for the pain of same-sex couples in the 18 states with constitutional amendments banning both same-sex marriage and any marriage-like status than any “anti-gay” group ever was. I still think gay sex is immoral, and the refusal of the LGBT community to lift a finger, compared to the obsession with marriage, to help LGBT people disproportionately affected by prison rape, lesbian alcoholism, and the rapidly rising rates of syphilis shows deep moral confusion as well.
Do you really want me to speak out about what I really believe?
-David Benkof
I’m responding to David here, and not by return email, because I know, with David’s propensity for Googling all references to himself, he will find this post, quick-smart:
David, all you’ve ever done is speak out about what you really believe. I don’t care to hear a rehash of all the reasons you’re so dead-set against my equality — I want to know the specific reasons you abandoned your crusade.
You’ve already detailed what you think is wrong with the marriage equality movement, ad nauseam. Why not detail the flip side? Are you afraid that if you expose the anti-gay movement (not the “man-woman marriage movement,” David, but the anti-gay movement) for what it is, you’ll be forced to expose your many twists and turns of “logic” for the fallacious, gossamer-thin “reasoning” they really are, too?
One more thing, David: I’m not going to debate you, on my blog, or anywhere else. Your views are already well-known, and I’m not going to do any troll-feeding here. You are welcome to respond to my direct question about the real reason(s) you decided to quit hounding the gay community (at least on the issue of marriage), but any “detail” about what you think is “wrong with *both* the man-woman marriage movement and the ‘marriage equality’ movement” is a dealbreaker. You’ve done more than enough of the latter; let’s see you commit to the former, resisting any compulsion to use yet another blog as a platform for your anti-gay crusade.
Finally, if you do start on another anti-gay harangue, you will have completely discredited yourself — again — by going back on your withdrawal “from openly supporting man-woman marriage in the United States.”
You’ve had your say, David. And now, I’m having mine.
You’ve had ample opportunity to explain your position — and it was your decision to stop attacking the gay community.
Are you able to keep your word, David? If so, I’ll be waiting for your answer about what happened behind the scenes of the anti-equality movement you embraced. Anything more than that, and don’t even bother wasting the keystrokes.
In the meantime, there is the barest hint of a clue to Benkof’s reason for quitting in a late-June blog entry, “Exchange on prison rape”:
“There is one prominent marriage-defense organization that I once worked with very successfully, until I found out the appalling extent of their bigotry. I will never work with them again. Once I gather all my information, I will blog about their hidden attitudes and maybe publish a major expose [sic] in one of the publications I’ve been working with. There are other groups that do annoying things like call themselves ‘pro-family’ (I blogged about them) but I’m willing to work with them nonetheless. It’s a balancing act, and I’d appreciate some slack because unlike some people on my side I do draw lines in the sand.”
Never mind Benkof’s whiplash-making switcheroo (previously, he wrote that homophobia is not bigotry); the clue lies in the “major expose” [sic] line.
David Benkof fancies himself a big-time journalist, and one far more important than he really is. That Benkof is being so coy about his sudden withdrawal from the “man-woman marriage movement” suggests that his crusade has been nothing but an act all along — a publicity stunt to drum up interest in this big “exposé” he has planned.
I think — again, I think — David Benkof is a fraud, a huckster, a compulsive, narcissistic (in the clinical sense) solipsist, and an attention whore — nothing more, nothing less.
Well, I also think he’s a self-loathing homophobe — a Boys in the Band “Michael,” only without the wit or insight.
If he stays true to his word, we will not hear of him again. But I believe he is pulling a “New Coke” on us. Look how much attention his “disappearance” has won him (here, too), even from bloggers who had never heard of him before.
Now, David, none of this is gloating. I simply don’t believe you are sincere — nor will the legions of LGBT Americans you have hurt with your lies, unless you live up to your commitment to stop your crusade, for life.
And, again, if you are sincere, if you are indeed so “appalled” by the bigotry of our enemies (they’re your enemies too, David; they’ve used you like an old rag, while laughing at you harder than any gay person ever could), you can begin to make amends by exposing names and tactics. But your story must be impeccable and verifiable — no more of this “I was told by an unnamed source…” garbage; you’ve undermined your own credibility enough already (and to the point that even if you do tell the truth now, chances are few will believe you anyway).
You want to be a real journalist when you grow up, then you learn to write like a real journalist (think Mike Royko, not Jayson Blair), and back up your tales with unimpeachable facts.
But if you dangle this “exposé” in front of us with a $19.95 cover price on it, then we’ll know what your real motivation was.
Further reading:
Is Uncle Tom A Gay Man? (Part One)
Christ, The Gay Martyr, May 28, 2008
Is Uncle Tom A Gay Man? (Part Two)
Christ, The Gay Martyr, May 28, 2008
Responding to David Benkof
Kevin Naff, Washington Blade, June 6, 2008
FGB Saturday: Big Discussion on Marriage
Hunter At Random, June 14, 2008
David Benkof: Behind the Mask
Timothy Kincaid, Box Turtle Bulletin, June 16, 2008
The Real David Benkof
Wayne Besen, June 16, 2008
Benkof Loses Last Gay Newspaper
Timothy Kincaid, Box Turtle Bulletin, June 26, 2008
COWARD: David Benkof Quits NLGJA Panel In Huff
Wayne Besen, July 2, 2008
More denialism and fear-mongering from vaccine-o-phobes
Fallacy Findings, July 10, 2008
David Benkof Abruptly Halts Fight Against Marriage Equality
Wayne Besen, July 14, 2008
Skeptical Over Benkof’s Change of Mind
Dave Rattigan, Ex-Gay Watch, July 14, 2008
David Benkof shows his ass
Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, July 14, 2008
David Benkof Closes Down His Blog, and Releases Odd Statement
The Political Spectrum, July 14, 2008
Extremist Makeover
Wayne Besen, July 15, 2008
From Now On, Marriage Must Defend Itself
Emily Kesselman, July 15, 2008
David Benkof Calls it Quits
Fannie’s Room, July 15, 2008
Googling Gay Marriage: Putting a Fork in Prop 8
Chino Blanco, DailyKos, July 15, 2008
Over The Rainbow archive
David Benkof
Wikipedia
* On the subject of promiscuity — and, IMO, projection — this part of Benkof’s chat with Rex Wockner is enlightening:
Rex Wockner: You said a few moments ago that you’ve had sex with a lot of men, and you emphasized the words “a lot.”
David Bianco: A lot of men.
Rex Wockner: Is this a rebound?
David Bianco: Right. One of my friends told me that I must be celibate [now] because I was tired and needed a break.
Rex Wockner: Yeah. Maybe you were the worst example of American culture overemphasizing sex.
David Bianco: I’m not rejecting that that could be a piece of it. …
** Why did Benkof call Pam Spaulding a “nasty bitch”? Because she opined that Benkof is an “ex-gay.”
*** In fact, Benkof has insisted, repeatedly, that he is not an “ex-gay,” and has denounced traditional conversion “therapy” — even though he believes one can become “ex-gay” through “time and prayer” (”GayThink, freedom, and the California vote”). Yet, I believe that Benkof wishes to be “ex-gay”; while embracing (and, repeatedly, wishing for) a miraculous conversion to heterosexuality, his real problem is only semantic: He doesn’t like the term “ex-gay,” as he tells Rex Wockner:
Rex Wockner: Do we have to fear that you’re going to become an ex-gay activist and go on Larry King Live and embarrass us?
David Bianco: I hope I can help bridge the gap a little because I can confront Christian homophobia and Jewish homophobia with a credibility that you can’t. … I don’t think the gay community should be embarrassed by me at all, especially since I still affiliate with it. I know it and I understand it and I’ve been writing about it and involved in it passionately for a decade.
Rex Wockner: Are you going to become an ex-gay activist?
David Bianco: I don’t like the term “ex-gay.” I think it implies affiliation with a movement that believes one can and should change one’s sexual orientation through therapy and Christianity. I don’t accept that. So, no. Am I likely to continue to speak out within the Jewish community and the wider community about my beliefs that we are not our genitals, that we are not our libidos, and that other things can influence our sex lives and our identities? Yeah. I know it’s threatening to a lot of queers, and I don’t relish that. I regret [that there are] people that are hurt by what I’ve done. But I think if they keep listening, they’ll come to a general respect for what I’m doing. I might even win you someday.
Rex Wockner: It remains to be seen.
Previous comments on this post:
Thank you for publicizing my views. You got about 75% of them right. With the rest you either misunderstood me, or deliberately twisted what I said. On a couple of occasions you claimed I believe the exact opposite of what I believe. I would be annoyed or even angry at your post, if it wasn’t for the fact that you used a very old picture of me when I was still thin and cute. Like most gay men, I am extremely vain and narcissistic. I just can’t stay mad at you!
Hugs,
David Benkof
P.S. You implied, but did not state, that you would not allow me to post anything but a narrow set of comments that hurt the cause I used to support. I don’t want to waste my time typing things in that will be deleted. If you promise you will post whatever I write, I’ll consider giving a thorough response.
David Benkof | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 6:39 am
Excellent article!
Dan B | 07.16.08 - 9:28 am
David: I didn’t imply anything — I stated it very clearly: I’m only interested in the reason(s) for your disillusionment with the anti-equality brigades (I’m guessing you discovered just how anti-Semitic they really are, just as I’m guessing your vehement opposition to “ex-gay therapy” hinges on the fact that its ultimate, if unstated, goal is Christian conversion).
I won’t give you free rein to write anything you want; you’ve had all the time and opportunity in the world to do that, and it was your decision to cease your anti-marriage crusade. You’re not going to continue the debate here. That part of the discussion is over.
Maybe you’d like to prove you can stand by your word, but, since since neither “integrity” nor “consistency” is the first word I associate with you, I don’t trust you to play by the rules.
Re-read my request, and take all the time you need to decide. I assure you, I will still be here — at least when I’m not on the street, trying to mop up some of the debris you’ve left in your wake.
Glad you like the picture. I’d be happy to publish a current photo. And don’t worry about the way you look. A healthy sense of self doesn’t let a little thing like vanity stand in the way of showing one’s real face to the world.
Sapphocrat | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 10:19 am
Sapphocrat-
I like your proposal that I not be allowed to correct the many false statements you made about me - either through poor reading comprehension skills or purposeful misrepresentation - but that I nonetheless give you the secret information that many Web sites and print outlets, including those of some of my friends gay and straight, are very eager to be the first to have. I will take your suggestion and think about it. I always like the element of surprise, so who knows? Maybe I’ll agree.
I’m happy to restate, though, something that isn’t a secret that you implied I think is a secret. The Jewish ex-gay group, JONAH, mostly because of the ignorance of its heterosexual Jewish leaders, serves as a de facto front for Christian conversion. I know of one definite case and one possible case of Jews who started to believe in Jesus in part or in whole through their involvement in JONAH. Since they also became “ex-gay,” it is my impression that the leadership of JONAH does not really care, since they’re far more interested in fighting homosexuality than in following Jewish law. When I have challenged them about all of the pro-Christian, non-Jewish ideas on their Web site, they have refused to change a single thing. It’s really pathetic.
David Benkof | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 1:30 pm
David: I’m snapping my fingers and kicking myself for not mentioning it, as I did wonder if JONAH had anything to do with it. I just figured JONAH was too small an organization (or perhaps nonexistent, the creation of a single mind) to concern anyone.
I was wrong about that — but I had a feeling about the “Christian front” angle. That’s one of the things that drives me the craziest about the Christian Right: Hardly anyone can see that their supposedly selfless devotion to Israel and Judaism is a huge, revolting crock. At least Gary North, for all his bone-chilling fundamentalism, admits the real reason for pandering to Jews — the end-of-timers are convinced they’re going to need X number of Jews to be sacrificed as a blood atonement so Christians can all fly to heaven on a cloud at Rapture time. Beyond that number, they think they’re duty-bound to convert everyone else — Jews, Gentiles, godless heathens like myself… Where it gets downright terrifying is when the Dominionists start talking about dealing with non-believers through Levitical law.
In any case…
FWIW, you have my sincere empathy. Yes, empathy. There is nothing worse than putting all your faith and energy into a cause, and then being smacked across the face by the brute reality that it was not what it appeared to be. (I should know; I’ve spent my life as a Democrat.)
And, David, brushing aside the snark (go ahead and blame my take on “poor reading comprehension skills” if you like, but my take is exactly how I read your writing), I applaud you for standing up to your end of the deal.
I thank you — and I wish you nothing but peace, and an easy transition out of this. This scale of disillusionment is a punch in the gut. I know.
Sapphocrat | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 2:41 pm
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: "Ex-Gays", Bisexuality, California, Civil Rights, Gay Republicans, HIV/AIDS, Health & Wellness, Heterosexuality, Homophobia, Judaism, Marriage, Mental Health, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right
January 25, 2008
I couldn’t agree more (probably because I can’t think of any more ways to say it than I already have) with Margaret Cho’s assessment of this CNN article:
Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C.
. . .
Recent polls show black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina’s primary in five days.
For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?
No other voting bloc in the country faces this choice. …
Writes Cho in today’s Huffo:
CNN received dozens of e-mails shortly after posting the story, which focuses largely on conversations about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that a CNN reporter observed at a hair salon in South Carolina whose customers are predominantly African-American.
. . .
An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: “Duh, I’m a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I’m illiterate I’ll pull down the lever for someone. Hm… Well, he black so I may vote for him… oh wait she a woman I may vote for her… What Ise gon’ do? Oh lordy!”
I too am insulted at the idea that just because I am a person of color and a woman that I should be expected to automatically vote for Obama or Hillary. Why are white men allowed to look at the issues and judge for themselves and the rest of us are expected to take sides grade school style? That is racist and sexist and dumb.
Amen to that. Detractors can believe it or not as they like, but I wouldn’t vote for a gay candidate just because s/he was gay, either. As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t want a woman President, or a black President, or even a gay President; I want the best President — and if that President happens to be female, or black, or gay (or all three), then happy day in the morning! But assuming my vote has anything to do with race, gender, or any other incidental is indeed racist and sexist, and insults my intelligence.
Certainly, I will vote for a pro-gay candidate over an anti-gay candidate, but that’s not the same as voting for the woman, or the African-American, or the queer just because s/he’s a woman, or an African-American, or queer. (For the record, again, my ideal candidate this time around was Dennis Kucinich, the most pro-gay candidate of the bunch, who is a white, heterosexual male. Oh, yes, I’m still angry as hell with him, but he is still my ideal candidate.)
So, good on Notorious C.H.O., for reiterating what needs to be hammered into many skulls.
However: What in the world is Cho thinking (or, more accurately, not thinking) when she allows herself to be seduced by the utterly meaningless “hope” mantra of the Obama camp?
Still, I believe Obama and Hillary are the best candidates. …
Why Obama?
You’re right, Margaret: Neither gender nor race should enter into your decision — but I would think that as a bisexual woman yourself, you would take Obama’s repeated and continuous betrayals of the LGBT community into account.
And you would also notice that Obama, for all his pretty talk about “equality,” simply does not support full equality for LGBT Americans, period. In fact, he maintains a crystal-clear position: Even the most cruel, most active form of homophobia (short of murder — although I would argue that the “ex-gay” movement is nothing less than passive murder) isn’t nearly as terrible as any verbal slight against African-Americans. There’s no way to spin his double standard.
I hate that people are saying that Oprah is some kind of gender traitor because she is backing Obama. Don’t even talk about Oprah unless you want to fight. I got a brick in my purse so watch it (remember, ladies — something heavy inside something light = weapon). I think it is wonderful that Oprah is getting involved in politics. It is brave and exciting and gives me lots of hope for the future.
Oprah? I think it’s a wonderful thing when anyone gets involved in politics — but Oprah’s track record isn’t exactly consistent. Let’s not forget that Bush’s 2000 campaign was languishing, badly, until his milestone appearance on Oprah’s show; the Oprah Effect on Bush was summed up quite accurately by both Kate O’Beirne and Bill Press:
O’Beirne: “[The race between Bush and Gore is] terribly tight. But we might mark George Bush’s boffo performance on ‘Oprah’ this week as the beginning of his comeback. And he certainly had no trouble explaining to that audience of women his tax-cut plan, how a single woman would get a tax cut under his plan, not under Al Gore’s, and it was very well received by those women.”
Press: “If I were the Bush campaign, I’d put George Bush on ‘Oprah’ everyday, I thought he did great today. Al Gore is on ‘Leno’ tonight. So it’s going to be the campaign of the talk shows, and we’ll see what happens. But clearly, Bernie, as we said the last time I was here, it’s a close race now, it’s going to be close, I believe, all the way down to the end.”
(Sure, Oprah had Gore on her show the week before — but talk shows aren’t bound by any “equal time” rules; heck, there isn’t even a Fairness Doctrine anymore — and the Republicans like it that way just fine.)
On the same edition of CNN’s “Inside Politics,” Candy Crowley said: “If you’ve got a gender-gap problem, and George Bush does, ‘The Oprah Winfrey Show,’ with its large and overwhelmingly female audience, is the place to be. … And whatever your dreams, if your quest to be president requires female, suburban, swing voters, then upscale, family-friendly Oprah is the one to, as she puts it, get a sense of politicians as human beings.”
Sure, Oprah smacked down Bush, hard… later, after the damage had been done. But Oprah was just one of a lot of people who woke up only after BushCo had been given free rein to bring this country to its knees. That doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in Oprah’s ability to judge a candidate on his merits, or predict what he’s going to do once he gets in office.
And while Oprah has been tossing a few nickels (to Oprah, $10,000 is just a few nickels) at Democrats since backing Carol Moseley Braun’s Illinois State Senate run in 1992, let’s not forget that she previously backed the Republican leader of the Wisconsin State Senate, Susan S. Engeleiter — who lost her ‘88 race, but who was chosen by George H.W. Bush as the next Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
And let’s not forget that it was Oprah who singlehandedly gave Donnie McClurkin the break he needed to become a gospel superstar: “[The song ‘Stand’] received a critical endorsement from daytime television superstar Oprah Winfrey. McClurkin told Jet, ‘She stood on television, held the CD up and said, “This is my favorite CD in the world. After you’ve done all you can, stand. You all need to buy it.”‘ The popular reception for ‘Stand’ and ‘Speak to my Heart,’ the album’s other standout single, earned McClurkin a certified gold record and a Grammy nomination, positioning him among contemporary gospel’s elite.” [Musician Guide]
And let’s not forget that it was Oprah who introduced Donnie McClurkin to Barack Obama.
And we know how that worked out.
I won’t argue that Oprah doesn’t do some good with her show — but she’s best at tasks such as, say, raising awareness about anorexia. Some might says she’s at her worst when letting Tom Cruise bounce around on her couch like a hyperkinetic jumping bean, but in reality, she’s at her worst when she uses her enormous influence indiscriminately. In endorsing Barack Obama — a candidate running on some fluffy cloud of good vibes, with virtually no plan behind his ethereal promises of “hope and change” (hope for what? change what?) — it is impossible to believe that Oprah has made any serious effort to pin down what Obama intends to do. The Big O has, like every other groupie, been seduced by a nice voice and good looks, happily oblivious to the lack of substance under the pretty surface.
Which brings us back to Margaret Cho:
I think that is what I love about Obama — he represents hope.
Hope for what, exactly?
He is all about change — a new beginning.
What kind of change? No matter who gets into the White House, Democrat or (God forbid) Republican, there will be change.
The question — for every Obama supporter, not just Cho and Winfrey — is: Exactly what kind of change are you expecting? That’s a difficult question to answer, because Obama himself has never offered a clue as to what kind of “change” he intends to deliver; at this late date, it’s obvious he doesn’t know the answer to that himself.
So, let’s try an easier question: What kind of change are you even hoping for?
And another hard question: What has Obama said or done that indicates he will deliver the kind of “change” you want? I want specifics. “He’s so inspirational!” just doesn’t cut it. L. Ron Hubbard was inspirational, too. So is the Dalai Lama. So is Suze Orman.
The difference is that I can tell you, specifically, what each of the three aforementioned leaders is all about, in ten words or less. I can’t explain Barack Obama after two full years of listening to him talk. Can you?
His youthful optimism appeals to me and his hope for the future enthralls me and these issues transcend race completely.
Arrrrrgh! Attraction to his “youthful optimism” and being enthralled by “his hope for the future” are not “issues” — they are emotions. An issue is healthcare. An issue is the war in Iraq. An issue is marriage equality.
I don’t care why you like him — I want to know why you support him. Hell, I like Cameron Diaz, but I wouldn’t support her if she ran for President on nothing but her good looks and charm.
On the flip side, I don’t like Hillary Clinton — I don’t find her particularly warm or endearing — but damn it, I know what she stands for. I don’t agree with her on everything (in fact, there’s a whole lot I don’t agree with), but I know what I’m getting, and I know I can live with it.
So my choice really for the next president is going to be very well thought out; I am between Barack and a familiar face.
Margaret, if your choice really “is going to be very well thought out,” then you’ll be voting for Hillary, not Obama.
Put the Kool-Aid down now, and start paying attention to what Obama is really saying — and not saying.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Tweet This Post!
Filed Under: "Ex-Gays", Barack Obama, Bisexuality, Celebrities, Christianity, Dennis Kucinich, Donnie McClurkin, Election 2008, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Homophobia, Marriage, Race/Ethnic Issues, Women
