The Gay Reaction to This Isn’t Doing a Whole Lot to Combat the Meme of Gays Wanting ‘Special Rights’

The John reposts something from Slate:

Anyone who manages to stay awake through even a portion of first-year criminal law can tell you that, if that sentence accurately represents what happened, the charge is valid.  Period.

Sure, I get it.  The woman intended it to be a modern-day counterpart to the flower children placing daisies in the barrels of the national guardsmen’s rifles.  I’m with her on the symbolism and her underlying message.


It was an assault.  A commenter actually had the temerity to point this out:

It is assault. She should control herself. i don’t want to be kissed by anyone I don’t know or like, and even most people I know and like. Yes, even a kiss is an assault.

The immediate response?

Well fiddle di-dee.

Comments over at Slate?


I live in NC and this version of the story leaves out a few points. First, the 74-year-old lady was at the rally with her HUSBAND to show support for gay rights. She isn’t gay herself so all you hate-mongering homophobes need have no fear that your brother in arms caught something from grandma. Next, the “preacher” doesn’t live in Salisbury, he lives in Taylorsville and is the pastor of a church in Millers Creek, NC. Basically, he traveled quite a few miles to spew his hate at people he has never met. Finally, since Mrs. Parker has been charged with simple assault, she will most likely receive up to 30 days of community service.


If he’d told her not to kiss him, and she did it anyway, I’d understand calling it an assault. If he expressed disgust after she kissed him, and she did it again, I’d understand calling it an assault. But if he didn’t object beforehand, and she only did it once, calling it an assault is ridiculous.

 The response to the following sane comment….

 Imagine an activist protesting in favor of women’s rights. This gets the attention of a man who doesn’t agree with her. In order to undermine her message, he kisses her on the cheek. Different result?

…was this rationalization:

The purpose of kissing the man was clearly not to demean his gender, or his sexual orientation, so they hypothetical doesn’t work.

The following legally accurate (yet nevertheless unnecessarily offensive – unless she was specifically referring to Joe Fudgepacker, in which case she should have been a bit clearer) observation…

The lady is very lucky he did not press sexual assault charges. People are making light of this on the comment section and it just shows me how two faced people are. The preacher is right that he would be in big trouble for unwanted kissing of a female. I’m not religious. I’m for gay marriage, I think gays should be able to adopt…they are chocolate pirates, not pedophiles….but I’m getting sick of hearing about how special you people think you are…you are EQUAL…not better.

…yielded this Cathy Brennan-esque rationalization:

One thing is overlooked in these comparisons, sexual assault and rape are about POWER and control. In general a male has more brute strength than a woman so a man forcing a woman is vastly different (in general, though of course cases of a small man being overpowered by a larger stronger, perhaps younger woman can and do occur). A 75 year old woman is NOT in the power position, the preacher was not helpless.

The caveat doesn’t negate the insanity of the rationalization.

The Slate story, at least, provides a bit of context:

According to the Associated Press, Joan Parker admits that she kissed preacher James Edward Belcher on the cheek at the event, at which Belcher was one of roughly 200 anti-gay demonstrators who had showed up to protest, despite lacking the proper permits.

Parker said that Belcher “was just waving his arms and has a Bible in one hand, up and down, and screaming at the top of his lungs, ‘sodomites’ and ‘you’re going to hell.’”

She said that at some point, she went in for the kiss, but denies the preacher’s claim that she was aiming at his lips.

Belcher saw things differently. “If I hadn’t turned my head, I’d have gotten it right on my mouth,” he said. “She ran her arms all the way around me and pulled me toward her.”

The local police chief said he was surprised to learn that Belcher wanted to press charges, but the preacher insists that police would have charged him if he had done the same thing to a 74-year-old woman.

“She might disagree with this, but it wasn’t done as a show of affection,” the police chief said. “It was an unwanted touching.”

The way The John presented it?  That didn’t really seem to matter.

The way more than a few people are reacting to the story?  Ditto.

Make no mistake: The preacher is a worthless piece of christianist garbage.

Belcher said that the kiss “was just one of many attempts to silence the preaching to those in need of salvation who practice a death style that they call a lifestyle.”

But, when last I checked, even worthless pieces of christianist garbage technically qualify as human – and, as such, have the legal right to expect to not be assaulted and/or battered.  Of course, as we all know, the gay rights industry only allows the concept of  ‘incremental progress’ to flow in one direction. 

Perhaps they feel the same way about the application of assault statutes.

Special rights – its not just for giving themselves the ability to discriminate against trans people anymore.

8 Responses to The Gay Reaction to This Isn’t Doing a Whole Lot to Combat the Meme of Gays Wanting ‘Special Rights’

  1. For what it’s worth, in New York an assault is “With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person…” etc.

    IANAL… however, the trivialization of the word “assault” in the law as it apparently is defined in North Carolina bothers me, as an offense against the common sense in which the word is used in English.

    “Harassment” sounds like a more appropriate term for the offense to me… (and yes, I believe that her behavior was inappropriate, and should be against the law… FWIW).

  2. Gay Art says:

    All I can say is that let’s just forget the incident.

  3. ValerieKeefe says:

    Oh goddess, the inevitable rationalization of second-wave abuse and rape apologists: Men (and I’m not talking actual men, but their definition thereof) don’t need protection from attack from women because we women are helpless little lambs and thus justified in inflicting whatever violence we see fit.

    I run out of time for anyone who rationalizes assault because the victim has privilege. Same way I wouldn’t hit Janice Raymond with an electric-pink Boston cream pie, I don’t think we have the right to kiss or glitter or generally physically accost other people without their consent.

    (Not that I don’t giggle a little at the imagery.)

    • Katrina Rose says:

      I wouldn’t hit Janice Raymond with an electric-pink Boston cream pie

      As an undergrad, I heard of someone who went up to one of the daily christianist psychopaths who would pollute the commons area near the student center and presented – as a gift – said christianist psychopath with an unopened fried pie. The christianist psychopath looked a bit perplexed, to which the giver replied: “Consider this to be a symbolic pie in the face.”

      • And that is the way to do it – a symbolic pie.

        Yes, the kiss was “unwanted touching” and if the victim wishes to press charges, they have every right to.

        Under these particular circumstances, they’ll look like assholes if they do, but that’s their right too.

        We can’t make an exception without removing needed protections – and this was battery, if not assault. I think the perp is lucky not to be charged with a sex crime, as technically, that is what it was, and I’m not joking.

      • ValerieKeefe says:

        I absolutely love that.

  4. Paige says:

    Just a note… I personally know Joan and the reason she and her husband are allies is that they have a trans daughter. They both have done a LOT of good in the community as representatives of PFLAG. They’ve also done a lot of work with trans youth. Her action was impulsive and I know she had no Idea of the attention this one action would get.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Hey, as I said in the post: I have no reason to believe that her heart wasn’t in the right place; I’m with her, as I said, on the symbolism and the underlying message.

      My issue is not with her at all but, rather, with the hypocritical legal ‘analysis’ coming from some corners of the gay world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: