My Response to "The Sounds of Silence" - a newspaper column by Dana Kelly of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette decrying the silence of "gay groups" in response to the murder of Jesse Dirkhising

Kelly decries the silence of "gay groups that can and do howl at the top of their lungs over tragedies like the Matthew Shepard murder in Wyoming", and then proceeds, best as I can tell, to howl at the top of his lungs over the lack of attention they give to this case.   If he doesn't approve of it in one case, why does he demand it in another?  But, more importantly, he ignores the question of what they were "howling" about, and what there is to say now.  Let me take a moment to address that. First, I'll note, as I have before, that, in the aftermath of Matthew Shepard's murder, some irresponsible public statements were made (on both sides of the issue).  Some people pointed blame at groups or individuals that speak out against homosexuality, homosexuals, and/or “homosexual behavior” and accused them of directly or indirectly complicity in the murder.  In at least some cases, that was over-emotional and counter-productive.  (And, in some cases, I'm sure that it was right on the mark.)  On the other hand, at least some (if not most) of that "anti-gay" rhetoric is inaccurate and unfair, and feeds unreasonable anti-gay sentiment that spills out as harassment and violence.  Believe me, every gay person (and every parent of a gay person) knows that there are a lot of people who would rather see a gay person dead than in the same room as them or their children.  So when someone actually kills a gay person just because they are gay, it is understandable that there is going to be a lot of grief and fear and angst over it. So, what was the "howling about in the aftermath of Matthew Shepard's murder? concern that anti-gay rhetoric is feeding anti-gay sentiment and exacerbating harassment and violence.  (Overall, despite some excesses, that seems reasonable to me.) Calls for “hate crime” legislation.  We can argue 'till the cows come home about the ultimate appropriateness or necessity of hate crime legislation, but the point is that the "howling" did have a specific objective that was intended to be constructive. And I should note that one of the big reasons that Matthew Shepard has become a watchword for concern about anti-gay violence is that his parents are helping to lead the charge.  Dennis and Judy Shepard have become outspoken advocates for hate-crime legislation and for achieving understanding and respect for gay people.  They are PFLAG members and they gave one of the keynote addresses at our national convention last year.  I was there, and heard their speech, and was impressed by their commitment. In the aftermath of the Dirkhising case, I know of no such active agenda on the part of people such as Dana Kelly -  just an atmosphere of mistrust and complaint.  While expressions of concern that children are not safe enough are valid, I haven't heard any suggestions for remedies, nor have I heard explanations of why this case illustrates that problem more than the thousands of other murders around the country.  Kelly certainly didn't voice any specific concern about social policies, the safety of children, or an implicit threat of sexual violence from gay men.  Nor did he offer any remedies.  He also didn't even attempt to explain why this murder is different.  All he did was complain that "gay groups" failed to respond more vocally. Point 2: Kelly went to various organizations' web sites, and, finding nothing there, accused the organizations of silence.  I realize that several "conservative" leaders - people who had personally spoken out against homosexuality in some way, or whose organizations had done so, were basically forced to make public statements about the Shepard case.  But I don't know whether any of them put such statements on their web sites.  The Boy Scouts of America didn't post a statement on their web site decrying the behavior of the Eagle Scout who murdered Matthew Shepard.  And I'm sure that neither Harding University nor the Marine Corps Band (to pick two organizations out of the air) posts condemnatory notices on their web site every time a Christian or a Marine commits a horrible crime.  Even on sites like Focus On The Family's www.family.org, which have articles and editorials about both murders, the condemnation of Shepard's murderers occurs only in the context of assertions that "it's not our fault; we didn't advocate murder", and the only thing they have to say about the Dirkhising case is "why isn't this case famous, too?" So I wonder what makes Kelly think that web-site-statements are called for or, more particularly, that the absence of comment on a web site represents the totality of either the public statements or private thoughts of "gay" organizations.   This sounds like quite a double standard to me. I will admit that I think that we may have missed an opportunity to respond to the criticism and re-assert that pedophilia is abhorrent to us, too.  But, while we haven't spoken out on the Dirkhising case as much as Kelly would like, we haven't been completely silent.  For example, on the PFLAG web site, at http://www.pflag.org/press/policy/exploit.html, there is a policy statement on the sexual exploitation of youth that rejects pedophilia and explicitly repudiates NAMBLA.  (It's quoted below.) Point 3: Kelly also seems to have a double standard about the public statements that were made in response to the Shepard murder. I'll quote his column: "Average, fair-minded folks grossly underestimate the radical, extremist advocacy of gay activist groups. Take the Shepard case as an example. Immediately after two drunken straight men brutally beat Shepard and left him to die--and long before any trial, much less a conviction--the attack was national news, with stories calling for tougher laws against "gay violence." Drunk men commit violent crimes every week, and they hardly represent an organized movement; the whole story hinged on Shepard being gay." I'll start at the end of that paragraph and work backwards.  The story didn't hinge on the fact that Shepard was gay.   Gay people are killed all the time (probably about 5-10% of all murders) without making national news.  The story hinged on the fact that he was killed specifically because he was gay.  That was clear from the beginning, and the murderers and their lawyers admitted it. So, from the beginning, it was clear that this was an anti-gay hate crime.  Consequently, people who believe that anti-gay violence is fed by anti-gay rhetoric spoke out against anti-gay rhetoric.  And people who believe that hate-crime legislation would help to address the problem of anti-gay hate crime spoke out in favor of hate-crime legislation. Kelly took those accurate assessments of the nature of the murder, and the calls for stronger laws, and twisted them into "radical and extremist advocacy."  Wow!  I really doubt that he would have used such labels to describe calls for the passage of tougher laws for crimes against children that cropped up after Megan Kanka was murdered.  Or, I wonder what Kelly thinks is implied by the assertions - made before the trial; before a conviction - that Matthew got what he deserved for leading a perverse and degenerate life?  He’s willing to stain all “gay activist groups” for their advocacy.  But I doubt that he’s prepared to stain all organizations that express objection to homosexuality. Point 4: I'm going to turn from Kelly's column for a moment to an article in the same online issue of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette to illustrate another point about the "sounds" and the "silence" that Kelly is complaining about. Andy Davis (evidently a Democrat-Gazette reporter) wrote an article (not an opinion piece) titled "Media coverage of trial still lacking, critics say".  He says: "Some critics, including a Boston Globe columnist and the Media Research Center in Alexandria, Va., have questioned why the case hasn't received as much coverage as the 1998 beating death of Matthew Shepard, a homosexual University of Wyoming student. The lack of coverage prompted 11 protesters from a Topeka, Kan., church to hold up signs with slogans such as "Pro-gay media shame" outside the Benton County Courthouse on Wednesday." I wonder if he realizes what's going on here.  Those  "protesters from a Topeka, Kansas, church" are (probably) members of the Westboro Baptist Church, and parishioners of the Rev. Fred Phelps.  These were the most avid of the "he got what he deserved" folks who spoke up after Matthew Shepard's murder, and they follow almost every gay-related case or issue around the country.  I saw them personally at the Millennium March on Washington and at the protest marches at the United Methodist Convocation in Cleveland, carrying their scripture-twisting signs and shouting their epithets.   I've also seen their evil, hateful web site, and pictures of them at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, declaring their count of the number of days he had been in Hell.  And, I know that they were hanging around the Dirkhising trial.  One big difference in the two cases is represented by the actions of those protesters.  Phelps and his cronies were not the only anti-gay protesters in Laramie, Wyoming.  But no one - I repeat - NO ONE rejoiced at Jesse' death, NO ONE declared that he was a vile sinner for just being a 13-year old boy, and NO ONE that I know of said that he got what he deserved.   Some people did say that about Matthew Shepard and that's part of what made that story significant. (I realize that can't say for sure at this point that the 11 people Davis mentioned were Phelp's followers, but my point doesn't really depend on that detail.  But still, it would be ironic to discover that a reporter who is describing complaints about the lack of coverage in the Dirkhising case missed out on accurately reporting the involvement of the hate-mongers who sought and received the spotlight in the Matthew Shepard brouhaha.) Summary: One of the complaints about the outcry over the murder of Matthew Shepard is that ideology and politics overwhelmed any discussion of the merits of the specific case.  Clearly Dana Kelly has also fallen into this trap.  He's not trying to do anything for Jesse Dirkhising or any other kid. He's not showing any concern for Jesse's family. He's only trying to blast "gay advocacy groups".  Clearly, some of that kind of scapegoating also went on in the aftermath of the murder of Matthew Shepard, but, of course, that doesn't justify it here. In start contrast, PFLAG (Parents, Family, and Friends, of Lesbians and Gays) PFLAG hasn't made public statements about the crime, but has been working quietly with Jesse's family and the community in Rogers Arkansas to help them deal with the tragedy. The PFLAG policy statement about sexual exploitation of youth has been online for years. Kelly must have missed it in his review of web sites.

A Straight Perspective on Gay Rights
Robin Richmond - www.robinrichmond.com
PFLAG Cleveland - www.pflagcleveland.org
November, 2001