I received a call from a reporter [CAROLYN LOCHHEAD] at a national newspaper [SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE], which will remain nameless until I see if she actually uses anything from the interview with me, and if she quotes me honestly. This was a newspaper to which I've sent a few editorials and letters to the editor, which never saw the light of day. I have a file of 50 different such submissions to American newspapers, none of which ever got acknowledged or published.
It was quite stunning to hear the reporter say that she wanted to interview me about my involvement with antigay hatred in Uganda and Russia. After taking a few deep breaths and holding back from saying, "huh?!?!?!", I asked her why she would be interviewing me about two countries that I've never been to, have said almost nothing about, don't have any contact with, don't work with, and can't communicate with since they aren't countries that speak the eight languages I've studied -- Greek, Latin, English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese [NB: Uganda's official languages are Swahili and English, so I am not sure how to count that, on second thought]. Maybe I could understand if she wanted to interview me about Latin America, which I visited on business long before I was active in any social justice movements. It would be a stretch, but plausible.
But Uganda? Russia?
After all the work I've done on children's rights in the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Italy, to protect a child's right to -- 1) be born free, not bought or sold; (2) have a mom and a dad; (3) connect with their origins -- why on Earth would I be asked to comment on laws about propagandizing to minors in Russia and threatening severe penalties to homosexuals in Uganda? I've referred obliquely to those places in here and there, in a half-dozen out of the 1,200 columns I've written on children's rights. But it honestly makes no sense. I told her, "I shouldn't even be included in this interview. I am not involved in Russia or Uganda."
She explained to me, "well, I'm sure you've seen this around, but gay groups have named you as one of the 'rising stars' of the antigay movement, and they say you are fomenting antigay hatred with your trips overseas. So I wanted to ask you about what the role is of Americans who speak out against gays overseas."
[NB: At the risk of getting conspiratorial, it is of course rather strange that the few scraps that Carolyn Lochhead got from me in this interview ended up not in the San Francisco Chronicle but rather in the Human Rights Campaign's infamously wrong Export of Hate report four months later--especially the point about my being a "rising star."]
So regardless of whether this woman is seriously tied to the San Francisco Chronicle, she seems about as solid in her thinking as the many trolls who have harassed me with peculiar accusations for the last two years. I realized, at this point, that Jeremy Hooper, Scott Rose, Straight Grandmother, and the rest of these ridiculous trolls in the gay blogosphere aren't merely incredibly dangerous because they use desperate tactics to distract people from real, serious issues and impose their totalitarian agenda on others through character assassinations and psychological operations. They are also incredibly stupid!
I am not saying the reporter is stupid -- after all, she did take the time to call me for a quote, which is better than many other journalists. But let's take a step back and see what we can learn about the "gay rights groups" -- which I refuse to call gay rights groups, since they are really anti-children's rights groups -- from this bizarre encounter.
1. They have zero sense of geography. Below is a map of Europe which I have downloaded from the Internet.
I have never set foot in any part of Europe east of Venice. The only countries I have visited in Europe are the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, and Italy. I never even made it to Holland. And when I went to Venice in 2005, nobody knew who I was and I was there to look at great Titian exhibits and such.
In my travels to Europe since 2013, to "speak out" for children's rights, I have visited the following cities:
Paris, Brussels, London, Strasbourg, and Milan.
Notice how none of these cities are anywhere near Russia. And please be reminded that Uganda is not part of Europe.
Now, I suppose they can get huffy and puffy about the fact that I went to the European Union in Brussels. Please note that I was there for approximately forty-five minutes in March 2013, and was translating what other people were saying, for almost the entire time. Also please note that Russia is not part of the European Union. If you are awake and following the crisis in Ukraine, you will note that is quite an obvious fact for people in Europe.
2. They define "pro-gay" as anti-children and pro-slavery, and then get mad when people debate about children's rights and the history of slavery. Pope Francis, who was Advocate's man of the year for 2013, recently issued a statement that children have a right to a mom and dad. That's all I'm saying -- what the pope is saying, even though I am not Catholic, and note that this Pope is beloved by people at the Advocate. The entire basis for calling me a rising star of the "anti-gay" movement depends upon a belief that it is anti-gay to protect children's rights against slavery or deprivation of a mother/father. This is why Jeremy Hooper tries his psychological operations routine where he says "Robert Oscar Lopez equates same-sex marriage with slavery." Slavery is defined as purchasing and ownership of human beings as chattel. If you pay a price to someone else for control of a child, you have engaged in human trafficking and are a slaver. Gay parenting depends on pairs of people acquiring children whom they can't conceive, so often, when there aren't orphans conveniently roaming around for the picking, they end up paying people for their genetic materials or directly for their children. To be considered "pro-gay," apparently, you have to be completely fine with this and cannot even call it what it is. So I told the reporter quite specifically, "they are not gay rights groups, they are groups devoted to taking other people's rights away," since "they are anti-children's rights, and I am pro-human and by extension pro-gay." Why am I pro-gay and not them? Because gay people have a right to a mother and father, and that right will be eliminated if the LGBT lobby gets its way.
3. They don't read or think. If I can piece together the claims of these people who have accused me of fomenting anti-gay hatred in Uganda and Russia, I think -- though I am not sure -- their reasoning rests on this sequence of logic: Bobby Lopez has a passport and goes overseas to deliver speeches in other countries, sometimes in other languages. Uganda and Russia are other countries that do bad things to gay people. It's his fault. I know it's hard; it would take a lot of time to read through the various speeches I delivered in Europe and the 1,000+ pieces I've written here on English Manif, as well as in American Thinker and Public Discourse. But it's probably a good idea to do some homework before you throw up a web page with a bunch of out-of-context quotes and then accuse someone of things they haven't done. There are laws against libel and slander. If they had read through my work, they would know:
- One of the first things I published on English Manif was this. It clearly lays out what my objections to the gay lobby are, and what I oppose and support. I denounce antigay violence but support a child's right to a mother and father as well as other human rights threatened by the LGBT movement's overreach.
- I have never worked with people from Russia other than giving interviews to Russian journalists, who asked me about my personal experience growing up with a lesbian mom. Since gay adoption is a hot topic and Russia recently dealt with the topic, and seeing as I do not support gay adoption for rational reasons I can explain quite succinctly, this is fair game. These interviews were conducted, though, in the United States.
- I repeatedly say that gay people are not the same as the gay lobby.
- I support gay foster care but not adoption. I support civil unions for gay people but not marriage. The reasons are complex, like most aspects of these debates.
- English Manif denounced the anti-gay laws in Nigeria, Cameroon, and Uganda. My views on these laws, nonetheless, is that the American gay lobby makes things worse by pushing its agenda too much at the United Nations and at the EU. To the extent that Africans can legitimately perceive an "International Gay War on Black People," it doesn't help when we confirm these fears by engaging in cultural imperialism under the guise of advancing LGBT rights.
- In the piece I wrote entitled, "Why I Can't Blame Russia and India for Taking on the Gays," I state very clearly in the first paragraph that "I would ostensibly oppose on principle" the Russian law against gay propaganda and the Indian law against sodomy. The point of that essay is, however, that the West's gay culture is sick with disease and unhealthy social interactions, plus the West's gay lobby has become callous and aggressive, so people in places like Russia and India have a legitimate reason to feel protective. Please notice that India is not Uganda and neither Russia nor India is in Africa. I end the piece by saying "Who am I to judge?"
5. They are completely clueless about cultural differences. Consider two very different things: Going to France and speaking out about the dangers of gestational surrogacy, when the country, which has had domestic partnerships for gay people since the late 1990s, is in the midst of a debate about gestational surrogacy. Or, on the other hand, going to Russia, where the rhetoric against homosexuals has gotten overheated and there is a real danger of antigay repression if things go the wrong way, and telling people, "round up those homos and send them to jail!" Context, people, context. You will never find me on video or in print urging people to abuse homosexuals. Regardless of how offended some prickly and hypersensitive gay activists feel when confronted with someone who talks about the effects of pederasty on young men or the loss one feels at having been deprived of a dad or mom, there is a big difference between offering a counterpoint in countries that have massive pro-gay legislation already in place, and denouncing homosexuality in a place that is passing loads of anti-gay legislation. France, Italy, Belgium, and the United Kingdom, are in a totally different place; the context is different, the concerns are different, the role of the gay lobby is different. In France, Italy, Belgium, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the gay lobby is a powerful elite and people who object to its overreach need support because they are being oppressed by pro-gay governments. Capisce?