Gay activists’ alleged attack on prayer, even if not true, highlights the Left’s profound animus to traditional Judeo-Christian religion

Cassie Jay is a young woman who makes unabashedly Leftist films.  Back, in 2010, she made a documentary called “Daddy I Do” that attacked abstinence-only education.  Even in liberal Marin, this movie caused a bit of a kerfuffle, as the local art cinema first agreed to show it, then backed off from that agreement, and then, when the liberal fit hit the media shan, finally agreed to show the movie.  The debate garnered headlines, and undoubtedly drew more people to the movie than would otherwise have attended.  My bet is that, at the end, a lot of people paid for tickets, not because they actually wanted to see her movie, but because they wanted to show solidarity.

Ms. Jay now contends that she’s stumbled into cultural clash, and she didn’t see this one coming at all.  On its face, Jay’s newest movie ought not to have ruffled any feathers on the Left.  It’s a straight down-the-line Progressive encomium for the virtues of gay marriage.  The Marin Independent Journal assures readers that her latest, “The Right to Love: An American Family,” is “a compelling case for legalizing gay marriage.”  Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.  I haven’t seen it yet — indeed, few have — so I’m not qualified to comment.

(Photo by Giovanni Dall’Orto)

Jay claims, however, that there are those in the gay community who have seen it and they are very unhappy with the movie.  You see, in addition to promoting gay marriage, which is a good thing, the gay activists watching the preview discerned a Christian subtext, which is a very bad thing indeed:

“The Right to Love,” which premieres Monday at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco, focuses on the Leffew family of Santa Rosa, a legally married gay couple and their two adopted children. When the trailer was released this past fall, it included a scene of the family saying a Christian prayer at their breakfast table.

The reaction it unleashed from a segment of the gay community was angry and venomous, and caught Jaye off guard.

“It just erupted online,” she recalled. “It totally caught me by surprise. I was shocked by the backlash. All these LGBT (lesbian-gay-bixexual-transgender) people were attacking the Leffew family for being religious, saying, ‘How can you be a part of an institution that doesn’t see us as equals and thinks we’re an abomination? How can you be a member of that club?’ I never intended to include that prayer as a controversial issue, but there was a lot of hatred toward them being Christian.”

Here’s the incendiary trailer (the prayer shows up 38 seconds in):

As for me, I think this is a publicity stunt.  I scrolled through the 280 comments at the trailer and found a few comments to the effect that “religions should let us marry and they’re bad ’cause they don’t” stuff, but I don’t see any evidence of the firestorm Jay claims erupted over her film — more specifically, that she claims erupted because of that two second prayer scene in the trailer.  Unless Jay deleted all the hardcore anti-Christian comments as spam, they’re just not there.  I also did a couple of Google searches for the name of the film along with the words “Christian” and “religion” but, aside from several dozen sites singing rapturous praises about a pro-gay marriage movie, found only a few newspaper articles quoting Jay about the claimed firestorm.

I’m willing to acknowledge that my research skills may be abysmal, and that I’ve managed to miss the dozens of comments and posts in which activist gays threaten to burn crosses on the lawns of those gay families who are stupid enough to cling to Christianity.  I may also have a different idea of Jay as to what constitutes a truly controversial issue.  She may think one crackpot makes a controversy.  I don’t.

What’s rather amazing, though, is that Jay is promoting her film by pointing to a subject that has nothing to do with the film itself.  The film is about gay marriage.  There is a built-in audience for this movie.  Gays will see it.  Elites who want to prove their moral superiority on the issue will see it.  But Jay is promoting it, not by pointing to its substantive issues, but by talking up the fact that (according to her) many in the GLBT (or LGBT or whatever other order the letters should appear) community are no longer asking for religion to change.  Instead, they’re attacking religion at the root.  For her, this is a selling point.

Jay’s right, too, in her assessment that, in Obama-world, attacking religion is a selling point for any movie that one markets to the Left.  The Obama administration’s direct, frontal attack on the Catholic church (and other religious institutions) demonstrates as nothing else could that the Left, now that it holds two out of the three seats of power in American government, intends not to amend religion, or carve out secular exceptions, but to destroy it entirely.  Under the new ObamaCare mandate, the churches are left with only three choices all of which range from damaging to destructive:  they can deny their principles and provide insurance, which destroys them morally; they can refuse to provide the insurance, which will trigger penalties or lose them so many employees they’ll be destroyed financially; or they can simply shut down their outreach, which destroys their place in their community and the missions that are an intrinsic part of their doctrine.

Destruction of Damascus Christian Quarter, 1860

My guess is that Jay is astutely tuning into a strong cultural subtext roiling the Left in order to market her film.  Even if there is no fight between gay activists and religion, there ought to be, and she’s going to use that paradigm to broaden her audience beyond the Prop. 8 crowd.  She can expect to see attendance increase as those on the Left attend the film, either to show their solidarity with religion (Christ’s gospel is good, even if the church has perverted it) or to protest the fact that anyone in the LGBT (or GLBT) community would dare to ally itself with a hate-filled, archaic institution that should be destroyed, rather than reformed.

I think the saying is that, in show business, there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

What do you think?

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Libby

    Wait – Ms. Jay is surprised that some in the LGBT community are intolerant of the film family’s religion? What rock has she been living under? Religious folk must bend to the demands of the LGBT agenda, but the LGBT community is not required to accept anything those icky godbotherers do or believe in.
    Current Lefty wisdom is that religion and support of gay marriage (or science, for that matter) are mutually exclusive.

    • Bookworm

      Libby: I don’t think Ms. Jay is surprised, because I don’t think there have frenzied firestorms of attacks. I think she’s just looking at something that is, as you say, an integral part of her world, and using it to publicize her movie.

      Michael Adams and pst314: I think gays would say that the reason they’re attacking now is because the world is at a tipping point, meaning this is the time for maximum return on minimum effort, with minimum risk. And yes, there is no doubt that their are Marxist gays, gay Marxists, and just plain old Marxists who see this as a marvelous opportunity to pave the way for a socialist paradise. The barbarians are always at the gates — and we’ve left the gates unlocked.

      Charles Martel: When will you stop trying to use logic on Leftists? It’s like poking the monkeys at the zoo. It might amuse you, but they’re still going to be monkeys when you’re done. 😉

  • Michael Adams

    There have always been homosexuals, as they never tire of telling us. Their practices may have been illegal, but, unless one did it in the road and scared the horses, it was fairly rare for anything to be said, much less done, about private behavior. Why the furor, now, when there is even less legal inhibition of gaiety?  Simple, again, the destruction of the bourgeoisie.  Religion, per Rousseau, is bourgeois. (and hypocritical, BTW) Attack religion and you attack the bourgeoisie. Christianity, and Judaism, too, are not only bourgeois in nature, but also a vehicle for transmitting bourgeois values to another generation.
    There is no shortage of priests, nor of soldiers.  Why, then, the demand that homosexuals as a group be recruited into the armed services, and that men who engage in homosexual practices be ordained to the priesthood?  It’s Cloward-Piven, on a huge scale, and very little else. Destroy the institutions of the bourgeoisie by forcing them to conform to all of their own rules. Alas, so far, it’s working.

  • Charles Martel

    “How can you be a part of an institution that doesn’t see us as equals and thinks we’re an abomination? How can you be a member of that club?”
    One of my IQ tests for leftists is whether they can discern the difference between actor and act, as manifested in the Christian practice of loving the sinner but hating his sin.
    Unfortunately, to a man or a woman, none of them are equal to the test. By their lights, a gay person is solely that, defined by his or her sexual inclinations and bedroom practices. You are what you want to screw. Now when you gently prod a leftist and say, “I notice that your three year old just shoved that little girl on the slide. What a despicable thing to do. You must hate him, of course.” the wide-eyed reaction tells me, “How could you think such a thing?”
    I point out that since all actors in Leftist World are defined by their acts, leftists are required—logically—to hate the actor. Then I point out that Christians do not think that way, that it is sinful for them to consider homosexuals to be “abominations” even as they consider their acts to be. That’s when I am met with the great cop-out that spills out whenever you catch a leftist committing racism, sexism, or cognitive dissonance: “Well, that’s different.”

  • pst314

    “Why the furor, now, when there is even less legal inhibition of gaiety?  Simple, again, the destruction of the bourgeoisie.”
    Close, but incomplete: The larger goal of the Left is, as it has always been to absorb all institutions into the State–and to destroy any that resist this.
    Futhermore, religion, as a competing source of moral guidance, is by its very existence a threat to the power of the left–to its legitimacy, even. Marx, always the twisted monster, understood this.

  • jj

    She’s hoping for a firestorm, of course.  Not just because it would translate to a bit of box office, but because there’s little worse then being ignored.    (“… even if they hate me or fear me, just so they do not ignore me.”)  Being ignored means you disappear silently, and in the dark.  The firestorm is far, far, preferable.
    I have little problem belonging to an organization (not sure the Roman Church qualifies as a ‘club’), that considers lots of things an abomination, even including – some days – probably me.  The organization is not – which it has in common with most organizations; indeed, with most people – one thing.  To define it for all time on the basis of that one thing with which you don’t happen to agree is to miss the point, and to miss a somewhat broader experience.  The gay lobby, as was the case with the ‘women’s lobby’ – as is the case with most ‘lobbies,’ does this as a matter of routine, missing many a point with almost insolent ease, certain of their own righteousness.
    I agree the world is at a tipping point.  I know which way the church – churches – will go, for the most part.  Less certain of what the poor old stupid, benighted, clueless American electorate will do.  If only we’d preserved the idea of the schools – but we didn’t.  Alaska Airlines will get you out of here at 10:30 PM, put you down in Miami at 7:00 AM – and Costa Rica’s an easy jump from there with many choices to make the trip.

  • Charles Martel

    I’ve thought about Costa Rica as a fallback, but there’s a problem: Costa Rica, which has no military, exists next door to an on-again/off-again Marxist thugocracy, Nicaragua, which would be only too happy to turn that beautiful little country into a prison camp.
    However, for now there is one obstacle: the United States of America. Costa Rica knows that its survival depends on the Yanqui colossus. But if our Jew-hating socialist sissy boy is re-elected, peaceful, democratic Costa Rica will be a pleasant memory inside of five years.

  • Depfox

    As one of the fathers in the film I would love to take the time to respond to your post. There are so many LGBT people that are raised from all kinds of familes from what you would call “Left thinking liberals” to conservative Christians. I was raised in a very conservative home with parents who believe as you, “if I take the comments above as windows into your beliefs” I will say that both Casey and I have been surprised by the response we got from LGBT blogs and our followers. We have been lucky to have a big following on our channel, Gay Family Values on youtube and have had many blogs, Queerty, JoemyGod, Towleroad, and many others share our channels videos. When the trailer came out for Right To Love An American Family it didnt get a lot of support from the LGBT press and it kinda caught us by surprise. When I reached out to these bloggers I was informed that the trailer wasnt a good fit for their blogs and that the prayer might offend the audiences that follow them. I wasnt a 100% surprised by this because from the first day we started posting our vidoes online we have been attacked by two groups. 1. Conservative Christians who want to tell us that we are not a family and that our kids will be damaged by our little experiment. and 2. By people in the LGBT communtiy who have accused us of being diaper sniffers and naive for wanting to recreate the kind of life, values and spiritualty that we were raised with…that we were some how pretending to play house. I hope you will take the time to watch the film and give it a real review not one biased by your past beliefs but by taking the time to see that our family truly only wants the same thing yours does.  Jay Leffew. 

    • Bookworm

      Jay: Thank you for taking the time to leave a comment. Because you do have conservative values, might I suggest that you check out the Gay Patriot blog? The guys there are working on a paradigm shift, one that says that there isn’t a contradiction between being gay and embracing conservative values, patriotism, and politics.

      My blog is a conservative blog that veers into libertarianism lite. My readers know that, when it comes to gay marriage, I’m against it — not because I don’t think gays should have formalized relationships, but because I think the state should be out of the marriage business. States should do “civil partnerships,” with the rationale for those partnerships being the fact that stable family relationships advance the good of the community and the good of the country. Religious institutions should be able to have a say over what constitutes “marriage.” In this way, we avoid the type of state versus religion clash that has recently appeared with the ObamaCare mandate that religious organizations must fund birth control and abortion for their employees.

      As someone who grew up, lived, and worked in the San Francisco Bay Area, I’ve seen the gay movement development from its lifestyle euphoria in the 1970s, to its lifestyle fear in the 1980s and 1990s, to its current political activism. In this last incarnation, I believe it’s gotten to be politically incestuous, with enormous pressure on those who are gay to march in lock stop when it comes to their politics and values.

      I hope that the protest that’s greeting “Right to Love,” makes conservative gays realize that there are political and social alternatives that do not require them to deny who they are but, instead, allow them to embrace the full spectrum of their values.

  • Ymarsakar

    If gays wish to be kept as low economic house serfs by the Left, I’m sure the Left will be their patrons if asked. Just look at blacks and see how well they have done under the Left’s tutelage and patronage. What’s there to worry about for gays being under Democrat dominion?


  • Ymarsakar

    If America falls, it will primarily be because of the sentiments spoken by JJ and Martel. The idea that when trouble comes, it’s time to leave, rather than fight it out like the 300.

    There are some things you don’t say even as jokes, because it exposes the deepest depths of your heart’s weakness. Which is also America’s weakness. The inability to destroy the enemy, because of a desire to simply run away and avoid conflict.