The National Organization for Marriage
(NOM), the nation's most vociferous opponent of gay marriage, on
Wednesday started a petition protesting the suspension of Duck
Dynasty star Phil Robertson.
A&E, which airs the reality series,
placed Robertson on indefinite filming hiatus over anti-gay remarks
he made in an interview with men's glossy GQ.
Dynasty's Phil Robertson calls gay sex illogical “sin.”)
In the interview, Robertson said that
engaging in homosexuality is an illogical “sin” and compared LGBT
people to drunkards, thieves, prostitutes and adulterers.
A&E acted following complaints from
gay rights groups HRC and GLAAD.
“Phil Robertson's remarks are not
consistent with the values of our faith communities or the scientific
findings of leading medical organizations,” said HRC
President Chad Griffin. “We know that being gay is not a
choice someone makes, and that to suggest otherwise can be incredibly
harmful. … the A+E Network should take immediate action to condemn
Phil Robertson's remarks and make clear they don't support his
In promoting its petition, NOM
President Brian Brown hailed Robertson's remarks.
“Well guess what – homosexuality IS
a sin in the bible, and virtually every other sacred text out there.
Engaging in homosexual sex IS considered by God to be sinful
according to the teachings of most religions. And sin is NOT
logical. Sin is deceitful, harmful and degrading to the human soul,”
“What Phil Robertson has done is
express the traditional Christian view of homosexuality – decry the
sin but love the sinner. It's what every major Christian leader
including Jesus Christ himself has taught us.”
“Do we want to live in a country
where we cannot express something we believe so sincerely and feel so
strongly without fear of reprisals, bullying and intimidation?” he
added. “Do we want to let groups like HRC that spew hateful
rhetoric and incite bigotry towards Christians dictate what is and is
not acceptable to say in the public square in America? What kind of
America will that mean for our children? And, more immediately, what
would that mean for the future of marriage in America?”