Thursday, December 15, 2005

Miller Singing His Swan Song On HRO

With visions of an Indianapolis free of all forms of discrimination haunting him, the Grand Dragon of Moral Righteousness, Eric Miller, has begun singing his swan song. Miller, having now lost the moral debate over Indianapolis’ proposed Human Rights Ordinance, is serving up to his hooded faithful, more anti-gay bigoted rhetoric in hopes of pulling off a last-minute miracle.

A central argument Miller made to city-county councilors during the hearing on the HRO was that there is absolutely no evidence that people are discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. But he warns his supporters that, if Proposal 622 becomes law, “[m]ost businesses . . . could not refuse to hire anyone based upon their sexual orientation.” That begs the question of Mr. Miller, if their ain’t any discrimination goin on, why then would any business refuse to hire anyone because of their sexual orientation, and why would you warn your followers of this outcome?

Miller then goes on to warn the faithful that “[i]t will force these businesses to treat homosexual couples the same as a married couple involving a man and a woman.” Proposal 622 imposes no such requirement on businesses and Miller knows it. Indiana law provides no legal recognition for same sex couples, thanks in part to Indiana’s Defense of Marriage Act, another Miller-inspired idea to save us all from the so-called threat gay couples pose to heterosexual marriages.

Finally, he warns that passage of Proposal 622 “would be granting legal recognition to the homosexual lifestyle.” And you know what that means. “Granting legal status to the homosexual lifestyle is another step in moving toward homosexual marriages,” says Miller. Again, Miller ignores his own legal inspiration outlawing recognition of gay marriages in Indiana.

But wait, there’s more. Miller says, “It is wrong for the government to give governmental approval for the homosexual lifestyle . . . many consider immoral.” And, he adds, “[i]f the government can impose this requirement on businesses . . . then the next logical step . . . would be to require churches and schools to hire homosexuals too.” Churches have always been exempt from civil rights laws, including the proposed HRO, a fact well known to Miller. And, perhaps he didn’t know it, but the Indianapolis Public School District already has a non-discrimination policy based on sexual orientation.

Oh, how Miller must long for the days when the KKK’s D.C. Stephenson reigned supreme over state and local government in Indiana with little or no organized opposition. If Stephenson had just not made the mistake of impregnating that State House secretary after a night of wild partying, and of getting caught rubbing her out, he would have spent the rest of his life at the throne of power instead of behind bars. Oh, how different things would be today.

And then Miller pauses and wonders: “Am I destined for the same downfall? Will I be caught? Will people learn who the true me is? God, I sure hope not. But as long as these ignorant whackos keep throwing money at me, let the good times roll.”


Anonymous said...

Why can't the GLBT community file a class action suit against Eric Miller and Advance America for libel? He is trying to force us to lose our homes and incomes by publishing false information.

Gary R. Welsh said...

He's protected by that pesky little thing we call the First Amendment. If you've read my series on Miller and Advance America, you will see that I have raised questions about the extensive lobbying activities of the organization, which could cause it to lose its tax-exempt status. The organization's tax returns report very little expenditures for lobbying purposes. But we all know that's the primary purpose his organization fulfills.

Anonymous said...

I understand but what about the completely false information and out right lies he uses in his messages. Last spring he had blatent lies in his fear filled messages against the HRO. He stated that churches could be forced to hire men that wear dresses. The proposition clearly stated that churches were exempt from this ordinance. This time they weren't quite as blatant but were very apparent and still filled with false information. I feel that they may have been toned down because legally they were treading on very thin ice. Could this be true?

Gary R. Welsh said...

I think the criticism from the GLBT community, in particular, what we've written here about his false and misleading comments have caused him to choose his words more carefully. For example, he used to say that the HRO affected all businesses; he now concedes it applies only to those with 6 or more, meaning most of the mom and pop shops are excluded. But as are most recent posting on him singing his swan song, he's still making false assertions. He has no other choice; he's already lost the larger debate. These groups always resort to tactics which play to people's fears and prejudices when all else fails. That's exactly what he's doing. But it's still protected speech.

Anonymous said...

Stephenson did not impregnate and then seek to silence a secretary. He kidnapped a teacher (Madge Oberholtzer), forcibly intoxicated her, raped her, and chewed on her (mutilating her genitalia, biting-off one of her nipples, &c). She attempted escape-by-suicide, swallowing a mercury compound. At this point, Stephenson and his henchmen returned her to her home, where she reported her ordeal to authorities and then died (of the combined effects of the poison and infections from the bites). Stephenson thought that his power would win pardon if not acquital; he was largely wrong, though he was ultimately paroled on 22 December 1956, on condition that he leave Indiana.