NOM BLOG

Rod Dreher Condemns Treating Orson Scott Card Like a "Thought-Criminal"

 

Rod Dreher writes at The American Conservative:

Orson Scott Card is one of the best-selling science fiction writers alive. He is also a devout Mormon who opposes same-sex marriage. A group of pro-gay comics fans is up in arms over the fact that DC has hired Card to write a new Superman series. The Guardian is making it sound like a huge deal:

... “Superman stands for truth, justice and the American way. Orson Scott Card does not stand for any idea of truth, justice or the American way that I can subscribe to,” said Jono Jarrett of Geeks Out, a gay fan group. “It’s a deeply disappointing and frankly weird choice.”

A film of Ender’s Game, co-produced by Card and starring Harrison Ford, is set to be released in November. Jarrett speculated DC was hoping pre-publicity for the movie would drive sales for the comic.

Fortunately, a gay comic writer quoted in the piece understands that blacklisting Card is offensive:

Dale Lazarov, a gay comic writer, said it was counterproductive to attack Card’s appointment: “I’ve known Orson Scott Card is a raging homophobe since the early 90s. I refuse to buy or read his work. But asking that he be denied work because he is a raging homophobe is taking it too far. Asking for workplace discrimination for any reason is counterproductive for those who want to end discrimination on their own behalf.”

True enough. What does Card’s view on homosexuality have to do with Superman? This is about trying to punish Card for thoughtcrime.

29 Comments

  1. Posted February 15, 2013 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    I missed the part where anyone is trying to deny Orson Card work. I see plenty of folks saying that he is not the right choice for this particular job, and that they will not buy his comic. People are still free to choose what comics, if any, they care to buy ... correct?

  2. FemEagle
    Posted February 15, 2013 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    If Orson Scott Card can be denied a job because of his beliefs, then homosexuals can be denied jobs for the same reason. Discrimination is discrimination. Either you're for it or against it. Count on the gay mafia to act like their fascist hypocritical selves.

  3. Zack
    Posted February 15, 2013 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    I love Orson Scott Card. He's a great writer, and a classic Democrat to boot.

    I loved reading Enders Game.

  4. Zack
    Posted February 15, 2013 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Why didn't my post go through?

  5. Chris
    Posted February 15, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    "The first one was his big vomiting up of crazy in 1990 about how gay sex should stay illegal, among other things:
    “Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books…to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens.”"

    "“How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn."

    These are quotes from Orson Scott Card. I have to wonder if NOM supports the Orson Scott Card's view that the government should be overthrown if there is legal gay marriage and that gays should not be equal members of society

  6. Randy E King
    Posted February 15, 2013 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    Any group that seeks to mandate acceptance of their depravity via the misapplication of language should be ostracized from decent society.

    If these miscreants truly believed their proclivity were justifiable they would not be working this hard to have it declared to be something other then it is.

    Obviously; they are the ones who have a problem with the choices they made.

  7. M. jones
    Posted February 15, 2013 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

    There is only one moral truth for marriage, and our children can be safe knowing that Superman has special access to that truth.

  8. zack
    Posted February 16, 2013 at 12:36 am | Permalink

    @Chris

    So he espouses a point of view that is entirely his and automatically we all must be in agreement? I would people who claim to be so open minded to not jump to such absurd conclusions.

    Orson Scott Card believes the GOP is rabidly xenophobic but I don't lump him in with people who favor an open border policy because of his outlandish views.

  9. Chris
    Posted February 16, 2013 at 1:27 am | Permalink

    Zack-

    I just find it odd that NOM supports someone who proposes making gays and lesbians "less than equal citizens" and claims in the same breath to not be anti-gay. I also find it odd that NOM sees fit to back someone who as advocated the overthrow of the government. Perhaps Brian or Maggie would care to comment on Orson's views.

  10. Randy E King
    Posted February 16, 2013 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    Chris,

    I find it odd that you insist on referencing these perverts as if they were the mythical Unicorn from antiquity.

    Sexual depravity does not turn you into a species of man unto yourself.

  11. zack
    Posted February 16, 2013 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    @Chris

    I think you're painting with too broad a brush there. NOM agrees with Scott-Card when it comes to his views on Marriage. You don't honestly believe they agree with him because he wants to overthrow the government or wants to make them "less than equal citizens"(which they never have been).

    That would be like saying because I agree with Gary Johnson or Ron Paul on fiscal policy, then I logically must vote for them. Never mind there's more to supporting someone(i.e. values) than agreeing with them on just a handful or one issue.

  12. Chris
    Posted February 16, 2013 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    Zack,

    NOM is misleading when they say the opposition is based purely on Orson's view of marriage. There is far more to it than that, namely that he views gays as being deserving of "unequal treatment". Asking NOM to comment on these views, in light of their defense of his views of marriage, is perfectly valid.

  13. zack
    Posted February 16, 2013 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    @Chris

    "NOM is misleading when they say the opposition is based purely on Orson's view of marriage."

    Perhaps you are seeing things that aren't there.

    "There is far more to it than that, namely that he views gays as being deserving of "unequal treatment".

    That's his viewpoint, not NOM's.

    "Asking NOM to comment on these views, in light of their defense of his views of marriage, is perfectly valid."

    Okay, but you are assuming that his views are NOM's and they aren't.

  14. Randy E King
    Posted February 16, 2013 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    @ Chris,

    What is your definition of "unequal treatment"; is it wrong to treat different things differently?

    According to the 14th Amendment you can treat different things differently providing a duly constituted law allows for it:

    "Cannot be denied equal treatment WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW."

  15. Chris
    Posted February 16, 2013 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    Randy,

    To quote Mister Card: "[Gays] cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." Basically, Card wants all gays to go back into the closet and have laws on the books against homosexuality. Card, in his own words, doesn't even want to tolerate homosexuality. That hardly seems fair, now does it, Randy?

    Card is more than "pro-marriage", he is anti-gay. That is why there is an uproar over him authoring Superman comics. Anyone who tells you it's simply because of his "promarriage" views is lying.

  16. Posted February 16, 2013 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    Chris:
    First you slightly change the words attributed to Orson Scott Card, which you yourself quoted (that's a great skill of Sophism), and then you complain that NOM supports someone who has a personal legal view, and is currently successful in business.

    Where is the word "overthrown" in the quote?

    Where in the quote is the term: "equal members of society"?

    Let me help you analyze this (no offense meant):

    Criminals, for instance, turn from acceptable, equal citizens to unacceptable citizens (and therefore with unequal rights) at the point they are found guilty.

    To "destroy that government and bring it down" does not mean killing the leaders or staff of that government. It merely destroys the political power of that government, and replaces it with another. By the way, this happens in the US either every 4 or 8 years, and is perfectly legal.

    You read what you want to read into the quotes you selected to quote. . . That's called "bias". it's perfectly obvious to readers, but not to you. But, then. . . that is how bias works (in all of us).

    You yourself quoted the date (1990) of the quotes.

    That was before DOMA (1996) or Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and therefore no government needs to be destroyed according to and by Orson Scott Card, and replaced. But you state he believes (now) the government should be destroyed (now). That's obsolete, man. . .

    As to 'equal members of society', the phrase: "those who flagrantly violate society’s REGULATION of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens" was and is lawful, as in the case of sadism, child molesters, and whatever the regulation prohibits. Again, after 2003, your claim is obsolete.

    Need more help reading English? :)

  17. Posted February 16, 2013 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    Orson Scott Card is a truly brilliant author, and I can't wait to see "Ender's Game".

    Thanks for the heads up!

  18. Chairm
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 2:38 am | Permalink

    Chris, is gay a race-like identity? The SSM campaign insists that it must be treated as such. Do you?

    If yes, then, why your racist-like attitude in your comments here?

  19. Chris
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    Little man-

    Impressive gymnastics, but all for nought, I'm afraid. Where did I say that Card advocated killing people? Learn to read ;)

    First: " Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society"

    Context is everything, showing it is in reference to homosexuality, not the case of sadism, child molesters, etc. that you seem to conflate with homosexuality. His reason for this advocation, you ask?

    "The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships."

    So basically, he wants to keep all people in the closet, Little Man.

    His advocation of the overthrow of governmnet: "“by whatever means is made possible or necessary." It's the "or necessary" comment that renders your interpretation of "voting" null and void.

  20. Randy E King
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Nice mischaracterizations Chris!

    "Homosexuality" as originally coined is a hypothesized subject who spends their entire life being exclusively attracted to like gendered partners.

    Mr. Card is speaking from a position that holds sexual promiscuity - what you are really pimping - to be aberrant behavior and a destructive influence if not kept in check - history shows this to be true.

    Promiscuity: miscellaneous mingling or selection of persons or things

    Aberrant: straying from the right or normal way

    Your vey biology testifies against you Chris; which probably explains why you are desperate to have it redefined into something it is incapable of ever becoming.

  21. Caroline
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    Chris, your statements you put up were from 20+ years ago. Do you have any RECENT statements from him? I do.
    http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html

    "Those who now use this essay to attack me as a "homophobe" deceptively ignore the context and treat the essay as if I had written it yesterday afternoon. That is absurd -- now that the law has changed (the decision was overturned in 2003) I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than I wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books."

  22. Sheryl
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 12:17 am | Permalink

    Marriage is a Biblical institution for one purpose to be FRUITFUL and multiply. Gays can NOT do this. Funny how if someone refuses to buy from or hire a homosexual its "discrimination". Yet when Card is pro traditional marriage "anti gay" those same homsexuals scream "BOYCOTT". Would be funny if it wasn't so sad...............There are already gay comic book characters, maybe its time for a mormon one :)

  23. Fred
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 12:27 am | Permalink

    Comic blogger Rich Johnston disagrees with Card's stance on marriage. Nevertheless, he thinks some of his peers trying to get Card is WAY scarier as he explains below:

    "There are a number of comic book creators who believe something very different to what I do. Some of those beliefs offend me. Sometimes they even inform their art, something that Card is unlikely to be accused of in Superman.

    Some try to draw a line between an opinionated person and an activist. I disagree, any famous person who expresses an opinion, especially in this day and age, de facto becomes an activist for that opinion.

    It’s a very dangerous game, it has led in the past to witchtrials, McCarthyite or otherwise, and it’s no better than the actions of, say, One Million Moms. And next time? It could be you… "

  24. Fred
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 12:30 am | Permalink

    Correction:

    The second sentence from my previous post was missing a word (see it in bold):

    "Nevertheless, he thinks some of his peers trying to get Card fired is WAY scarier as he explains below:"

  25. An American
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    NOM is not defended Orson Scott Cards views on everything he thinks they are defending his right to hold views different from other people. We can not police thought even if we disagree with that thought. We do not think that Gays need to be discriminated or even forbidden from any legal exercise of their rights to marry we just don't think that marriage needs to be redefined to include same sex couples. They don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex then they don't have to get married. They want to spend their lives with the person they love then call it something else.

  26. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    At the end of all the arguing, it remains that anatomically and physiologically, man was made for woman and woman made for man. Homosexual lifestyles are inherently aberrant.
    It also remains that acting out one's thoughts and feelings is a choice.
    And lastly, it is sin. Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

  27. Chris
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    Caroline -

    There is the book he wrote that suggested Hamlet's father was a pedophile who turned Rosencrantz and Guildenstern gay (in addition to other characters) by molesting them as children. Or the fact that he refers to gays as "tragic genetic mixups". None of this seems anti-gay to you, but instead is "pro-marriage?"

  28. Chairm
    Posted February 20, 2013 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    Chris, in your view is gay a race-like identity?

  29. Chairm
    Posted February 24, 2013 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    Chris, is gay a race-like identity in our view? Your comments are closely analogous with the group identity politics of white supremacism.

    Clarify please: Do you disavow the asserted supremacy of gay identity politics?