Friend of Tyler Whitney: Gays are “poor creatures [doing] Satan’s work”


I have it from a good source that “Saint Joe McCarthy” on the Michigan State University’s Young Americans for Freedom’s Spartan Spectator is actually Kyle Bristow, a good friend of Tyler Whitney.

Whitney, 18 years old, started coming out a few months ago and a report of his coming out process made it into the LGBT media and eventually into the progressive LGBT blogosphere (where he was quickly eaten alive).

A few days ago, I spoke out against the cruel, vile comments being thrown toward Whitney.

“Saint Joe McCarthy” a.k.a. Kyle Bristow, had to have known one of his best friends was gay when he wrote the following on June 11, 2007:

At MSU, the homosexual agenda is readily evident. Posters advocating for sexual deviancy are strewn about MSU, deviants hold meetings at nearly every (if not all) residence halls on campus, and the deviants even get their own room to advocate their “cause” at the Student Services Building. Moral people view the homosexual activist as a poor creature that has crawled out of the pit of hell to do Satan’s work, but at MSU, these deviants are welcome — if not encouraged — to promote their sick beliefs. They claim that their lifestyle is “natural”, but they fail to explain why their fathers, their grandfathers, their great-grandfathers, and generations upon generations of their ancestors were heterosexual. Instead of believing the truth about homosexuality — that it is brought about by conditioning rather than nature — they believe that they are born with homosexual genes. Their lies are propagated along with their diseases. Being a sexual deviant is an abomination, an abnormality, and an oddity, and the truth of the matter is reticent at MSU.

In time, our society will once again appreciate morals and truth, or it will fall like Sodom and Gomorrah.

One has to wonder… Does Kyle believe his best friend Tyler Whitney to be a “sexual deviant” who is a “poor creature [doing] Satan’s work,” who is sick, diseased and an abomination?

Has he told his friend Tyler this? If not, why? If Tyler, as a gay man, does not fit this description, then why do I or any other gay person?

The situation with Tyler Whitney is certainly one that I hope will be a time for all of us to learn about ourselves and others… for all sides of the debate and all people across the wide political spectrum.

I hope that Tyler is able to impart upon his friends who previously thought cruel and vile things about LGBT people that we are not what people say we are. I hope that others are able to impart upon the progressive LGBT community and to those who have said vile and cruel things about Tyler, that just because someone is gay does not mean they are obligated to be a member of the progressive community.

Being gay and conservative or being gay and a Republican or Libertarian is okay. So is being gay and a Democrat. Political ideologies do not necessarily mean that a person is “this kind of person” or “that kind of person.”

What truly show the character of a person is how they treat other people and if they respect them and if they give them the inherent worth and dignity bestowed upon them by God Himself.

That is what truly matters. Hopefully, we can all learn that.

On a related note, I spoke to a person close to both Tyler and Kyle and he explains that Tyler’s political views aren’t necessarily “Republican,” but rather Libertarian. After long conversation the person admitted that, perhaps, Tyler’s extreme anti-gay behavior was nothing but a cover-up, or “over-compensation” due to what Tyler already knew himself to be. By demeaning other gay people, Tyler was able to somehow make himself feel better. Tyler may still be conservative, but I think his ways of treating other LGBT people will be changing. Even in his email to a Michigan reporter Tyler states, “As a conservative, I still believe in equality and I think its important for all wings of the political spectrum to be accepting of the gay community.”

But as I said before… Being gay and [insert political ideology] isn’t necessarily an indicator of a person’s character. The indicator lies in how one lives and treats other people. Hopefully, we all continuously learn and re-learn ways to treat other people and to truly show each other dignity, respect and consideration.

Previous Posts:
The “outing” of Tyler Whitney

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


Comments
23 Responses to “Friend of Tyler Whitney: Gays are “poor creatures [doing] Satan’s work””
  1. Craig says:

    You are completely misunderstanding both Tyler and Kyle’s views.

    One has to wonder… Does Kyle believe his best friend Tyler Whitney to be a “sexual deviant” who is a “poor creature [doing] Satan’s work,” who is sick, diseased and an abomination?

    “Has he told his friend Tyler this? If not, why? If Tyler, as a gay man, does not fit this description, then why do I or any other gay person?”

    George Bush spoke out very strongly against homosexuality when he was governor of Texas. Later he pointed out the attacks that homosexuals are launching against the sanctity of marriage. During that whole period he was very supportive of Mary Cheney and Heather Poe and even attended their original partnership ceremony.

    You are equating those who strongly oppose the homosexual agenda with being anti-gay. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Do your research about paleo-conservatives like Justin Raimondo and Tom Beddingfield. They have long since fought against the gay agenda but they are gay themselves. How can that be anti-gay? Raimondo ran Pat Buchanan’s campaign in California, and Beddingfield helped Pete Knight pass Prop. 22 in California. Both men were openly gay at the time.

    Tyler Whitney disagrees with the goals of homosexual militants and believes our country needs to return to the more traditional values that Tom Tancredo seeks to enact. It is quite shameful that other homosexuals are trying to demonize him and other paleo-conservatives/libertarians for supporting what they perceive as an anti-gay agenda.

  2. GayPatriot says:

    Matt, it seems pretty hypocritical of you to viciously ‘out’ Kyle Bristow when you have no proof that he has said these things in private. Just as people falsely claimed that Tyler Whitney held up a sign that said “GO BACK IN THE CLOSET”, there is no proof that Bristow actually did anything anti-gay.

    Both Kyle Bristow and Tyler Whitney are entitled to voice their opinions and I find it despicable that militant gay activists would try to ‘out’ them without their permission or any definitive proof.

  3. Matt says:

    Craig said: “It is quite shameful that other homosexuals are trying to demonize him and other paleo-conservatives/libertarians for supporting what they perceive as an anti-gay agenda.”

    I’m not trying to demonize any person. In my post on Tyler Whitney, I strongly condemned demonizing him or any other person. Even in this post, I state: “Being gay and [insert political ideology] isn’t necessarily an indicator of a person’s character. The indicator lies in how one lives and treats other people. Hopefully, we all continuously learn and re-learn ways to treat other people and to truly show each other dignity, respect and consideration.”

    GayPatriot: It seems quite ironic, to me, that a few days ago I was being accused of this or that from people in the progressive LGBT community and now I find myself being accused of something totally different from a conservative gay person. For the record, I’d think it would be fair to say I’m not at all being “vicious.” Honestly, I think my post here was quite polite and I didn’t utter a single condemnation or demonization of any person, on either side of the political spectrum.

    I have stated numerous times on my site and in public that there is a serious distinction between being cruel, vile and vicious and offering legitimate, intelligent debate and asking questions. I think my post here falls into the latter category.

    But if I’m being accused of different things here and there from both sides of the political spectrum, then I must be doing something right.

  4. John says:

    Craig: “You are equating those who strongly oppose the homosexual agenda with being anti-gay. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

    Really? Disagreements over the “gay agenda” (whatever that may be) is different from what Bristow, or whomever “Saint Joe McCarthy” is, commented on here. The remarks he posted online are anti-gay for they go beyond whether one believes same-sex marriage should be legal or not.

  5. Cliff says:

    This is somewhat related to gay Republicans or people in general struggling, but does anyone remember the blog called something like “Shattered …(?)” in which a gay guy was struggling with either staying gay or turning straight? He wrote the blog for a long time then I think disappeared about a year ago.

  6. Pat says:

    Matt, I commend you for speaking out against ALL the hateful comments towards Tyler Whitney. It seems like many people are either excusing or remaining silent when the hate is coming from someone with similar ideology. And you haven’t.

    As to the identity of “Saint Joe McCarthy,” I guess if I was that hateful, I might hide behind a hateful moniker. Regardless of the identity, those comments are hateful. Kyle Bristow, under his own identity, has said disparaging things against homosexuality, and should be condemned for them by all. Whether he said them to Tyler specifically or not is irrelevant, the sting is the same.

    As for “outing,” I am against all outing someone regarding their sexuality. I have to think about outing an identity of a writer. Whereas there are privacy concerns for someone who may have not come to terms with his/her homosexuality, I’m not so sure the same for a case such as this. Does the person want to hide because he/she doesn’t want everyone else to know what a wretched character they are, and feels more comfortable spewing hate that they believe in? Anyway, some thing I’ll have to think about.

  7. Sarah says:

    i’m not going to pretend to even really know about the people you’re talking about here, because i haven’t been keeping up.

    But i will say that just because someone has and supports a gay friend doesn’t mean that they have to agree with what said gay friend is doing. i’ve been friends with people who have done illegal things, but that doesn’t mean i’m not actually friends with them. And it also doesn’t mean that i’m going to go and tell them my opinions on everything they do. (Oh, and don’t try to say i’m comparing being gay with criminal acts. i’m not.)

    There’s probably a reason the guy didn’t use his real name when posting his opinion. (And, as always, just because he doesn’t agree with you doesn’t make him wrong. Doesn’t make him right, but doesn’t make him wrong either.)

    i’m going to continue to stand behind my firm belief that if gay people can proudly put their thoughts and opinions out there, so can anti-gay people. What people say might not be right, but they’re allowed to say pretty much whatever they want.

  8. Matt says:

    Cliff, Sorry to say that I don’t remember that blog you are talking about. Wish I did remember it and wish I could find it. It would be interesting to read.

    Pat… I am now too starting to reconfigure some of my thoughts on the outing of elected officials and high-level staffers. I’ve been against what Tyler Whitney has been going through, first because of his age and secondly because he doesn’t fit what I would describe as an elected official or a “high-p?). level staffer.” I seriously, seriously doubt that an 18 year old webmaster has any serious impact over the creation or implementation of public policy, law or important matters within a campaign. He may not be little old community activist in rural North Carolina, but neither is he Chief of Staff.

    Sarah… You haven’t kept up? The previous post on the issue is a doosy (sp?). Like 40-50 comments or something like that.

    I have always (well, not always but pretty much a lot of the time) really appreciated the clarity that you can bring to a situation. Most times you have an outstanding ability to remain non-biased and approach the situation from the middle instead of from any particular, political or ideological standpoint. You have a gift of which I wish I had more.

    Sarah said:

    i’m going to continue to stand behind my firm belief that if gay people can proudly put their thoughts and opinions out there, so can anti-gay people. What people say might not be right, but they’re allowed to say pretty much whatever they want.

    I firmly agree, but I would also say that differing sides on a political and social debate also have the right to challenge what either side says. It is a game of politics, of speech, of trying to out-do the other side.

    Like all social issues throughout history, this debate will fade away and one side or the other will “win.” Until then, our basic American ideals, principles and values do, indeed, guarantee that all have the right to express their opinion. If that opinion is hateful, vile or cruel, I’m certainly going to call it out and I challenge people to call me out if I should do the same.

    As for me, calling me out when I have been wrong or leaning toward wrong has helped to pull me back into reality. I appreciate it when you do it Sarah and I wish that more American citizens would take the same approach to watching their elected officials, government workers, government agencies, journalists, other public figures or folks with a platform to speak, etc. etc. and “calling them out” when they do not do their jobs.

  9. JT says:

    Matt,

    I have two big-picture points.

    I. In your latest comment (10:25am), you correctly acknowledge that people have the right to speak out about topics in ways that: (1) make others uncomfortable; (2) offend others b/c of their content/viewpoint; and (3) include hateful words of condemnation against others, provided they do not amount to incitement.

    However, if I understand your other postings correctly, you are taking an inconsistent position with this free speech ethic that you appear to espouse. It’s hard for me to understand why any person should refrain from speaking out against the views of someone with whom they disagree.

    Certainly, as the Supreme Court has continually acknowledged, the proper response to bad speech is not the suppression of speech, but, indeed, more speech. And in your latest comment (10:25am), you acknowledged this when you wrote: “Like all social issues throughout history, this debate will fade away and one side or the other will “win.” Until then, our basic American ideals, principles and values do, indeed, guarantee that all have the right to express their opinion. If that opinion is hateful, vile or cruel, I’m certainly going to call it out and I challenge people to call me out if I should do the same.”

    I cannot tell, then, if you support or oppose the right of gays to speak out against Whitney in cruel, crass, and offensive ways. I wonder if “cal[ling] it out” is enough. I am not defending or supporting the offensiveness of certain commentary or viewpoints. What I am doing is suggesting that you would be better off giving a substantive rebuttal to their vitriolic comments, instead of simply exhorting anonymous bloggers and commenters to refrain from making offensive comments.

    (I worry that you haven’t actually made a substantive point, beyond saying that people should try to be nicer.)

    And this brings me to the crux of my first point. Pluralists and cultural relativists (like you, insofar as I can tell) spend far too much time encouraging the expression of viewpoints by others, thus depleting their own intellectual and political capital when attempting to mount a substantive discussion of their own. There are times when you must simply make your point, instead of engaging in protectionism about speech rights.

    II. In the spirit of following my own advice, here’s my substantive take on this situation.

    As obvious as it is, it needs to be said: Whitney has, due to his upbringing and environment, fallen prey to the prevailing Log Cabin view that gays should appease those who believe that they are sub-human. This appeasement strategy informs all aspects of their agenda. Most importantly, it gives rise to the idea that gays will be treated well enough if they just stay in the closet, don’t make too many waves, and act grateful when they are finally thrown a bone of antidiscrimination legislation. All of this, of course, comes under the guise of “American Values”-newspeak.

    Well, it’s one thing for gays to stand up for “American Values.” Indeed, this is a great idea! America has always been about individual liberty and freedom from government intrusion. The only catch is that fine line described by John Stuart Mill that says, in paraphrase, “the government may intrude when an individual’s conduct imposes costs on the larger society without an equal or greater benefit to society.” Moreover, the government has no authority to discriminate based on status, which punishes the individual for simply existing, and not even for conduct itself. When viewed objectively, the conduct and status of gays fall well within the realms of the Millian definition of liberty.

    Whitney and the Log Cabins support a way of thinking that doesn’t extend Mill’s definition of liberty to gays–indeed, propaganda machines within the right wing exist solely to manufacture in-credible evidence that gays, by their very existence, harm society (through marriage, adoption, employment, housing, or what have you). The appeasement strategy thus seems to concede that, yes, there is a moral fault inherent to gays that rightfully condemns them to second-class status, and that gays do not have a birthright as Americans to possess first-class status until the first class deigns to give it to them.

    It is this internalized homophobia that has likely sparked such a widespread and vitriolic response to Whitney throughout the blogosphere. Such hate strikes at the very core of gays as human beings and as Americans, telling them that they are worthless and that they deserve everything they get (beatings, firings, marriage amendments, AIDS, etc.). So, it seems understandable that many gays would experience deeply-felt, personal responses to Whitney and his kind that manifest themselves in spiteful, crass, and offensive criticisms of his conduct.

    Does this itself provide a defense of the war of words being waged by gay commentators? Of course not. But by explaining it, we begin to understand that Whitney’s conduct inherently offends what it means to have the status of “gay.”

    Dan Savage, despite any authorial faults, said it best when he wrote that the right wing brought this fight to us. All we gays want is to live our lives in peace, unfettered by government intrusion (e.g., sodomy laws) or government sanction of private prejudice (e.g., marriage amendments). Everything that Whitney stands for supports the very opposite, despite coming to us cloaked in the flag and carrying the cross.

    Whitney’s personal history speaks for itself. He is clearly an intelligent, well-educated young man. (Just Google his name and read up on his exploits with trying to get a conservative student paper published in his high school.) He knows what he is doing, and he is doing it anyway. Gays and non-gays alike are certainly permitted to heavily criticize him for it. In my opinion, such criticisms are entirely justified.

  10. Joe T. says:

    Sarah : That’s a good point to remember. One CAN be friends with someone and not agree with everything he or she does or says. I’m close to a heterosexual couple who disagree with the legalization of gay marriage (which I totally disagree with them on), but when my boyfriend wound up in the hospital and needing an operation they were the first ones there.

  11. Joe T. says:

    JT : There’s some truth in all that, but it’s still no justification for the ferocious mean-spiritedness and anger from gay Leftists : Wishing rape, beatings, and AIDS on an 18-year-old? No, I can tell you from personal experience (and the Whitney thing just reaffirmed it) that a lot of gays, especially gay activist Leftist types, are mean nasty people. (By Leftist I don’t mean Liberal. Two different things. Matt is a liberal).

  12. JT says:

    (I apologize if this is a repeat post.)

    Joe T.,

    But of course! And it should be apparent from my post that hate and vitriol are not things that I support. But I absolutely support the right of people to believe and say what they will. Liberty demands it.

    Moreover, being an ardent supporter of robust First Amendment rights requires me to adopt some strange bedfellows in order for my beliefs to remain internally consistent. (This especially extends to all that stuff about John S. Mill.)

    Do I wish that people wouldn’t say such things? Most definitely. They are hurtful and cruel, and I wouldn’t wish them on anyone.

    What matters to me is that Matt–who is, by all accounts, an intelligent and articulate advocate for our community–needs to take substantive stands on these issues by condemning the *content* of the speech (as you have, with your criticism that it is substantively unhelpful to wish rape, beatings, and AIDS upon tragically-misguided members of our own community) instead of condemning the *quality* of the speech.

    That said, I commend both you and him for combating bad speech with good speech, and for not giving in, despite being faced with some awfully tempting invitations.

  13. Joe T. says:

    JT : Yeah. It can be tempting. (I still half-fear some day Matt will be letting fly with a torrent of four-letter words that would make a longshoreman blush).

  14. Matt says:

    Wouldn’t it be so amazingly awesome if the JT posting on my blog was really Justin Timberlake?! LOL just kidding 🙂

    JT, I appreciate your insightful comments. I do support Freedom of Speech and sometimes I’ve had to battle fighting against the urge to want to completely silence those with whom I disagree. Perhaps that is a basic human reaction: Silence those you don’t agree with. Perhaps that is why our Founding Fathers saw it necessary to protect all speech and insert into our American fabric a sense of liberty hardly, if ever, seen at any other point in human history.

    In 2005-2006 at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, during my first year of serving as the chairman of our Student Senate Legislative Committee, I spoke up in full support of students who had been punished for holding a political event outside of the so-called “free speech zones.” The “zones” were completely, utterly unconstitutional. I and a friend (come to think about it, it was a Republican friend) were assigned by our Student Body President to serve as the two student members of the committee our Chancellor created to re-write the assembly policy (what the University and others had informally called the “Free Speech Policy”). Although I firmly stood for having as little restriction on free speech and constantly battled the University Administration on it, I still had to face a tough question. One of the students who had been punished asked me if I truly supported their cause. She asked me what I would think if, say, Fred Phelps came to protest at our school. It was a tough question. At the time I think I just told her that I’d have to think about it. Now, I’d say that there really wasn’t anything that I could do to stop him, so whatever.

    On my comment about one side of the political and social debate “winning.” Honestly, I don’t want to actively do anything to stop the right to free speech for any person. People have the right to speak freely, as guaranteed by our Constitution and the inherit dignity and rights given to each person at birth. What I really want to happen is for my side of the debate to win out with truth, with honesty and by using tactics which call for respect and an offering of dignity and worth for every person. Maybe I am optimistic. Maybe I think people will just eventually be nice to each other as we continue to learn about each other. Maybe I’m dreaming.

    I hope to see the day when such open and hateful speech is quelled on every side of the political spectrum.

    In the mean-time, calling people out and exerting pressure on people by saying, “What you are saying is wrong and inappropriate,” is not limiting the Freedom of Speech. It is simply using your own Freedom of Speech to tell others that you think what they are saying is wrong and inappropriate. They are free to do whatever they wish after that: They can listen or not listen. They can continue to speak in vile, cruel, inappropriate ways or they can stop. Ultimately, I have no control over what they say or do, but in the end I’ll feel better about standing up for what I think are our best qualities and character (and this is where my Southern nature may come in): Civility, courtesy and mutual respect.

    JT, you said: “What I am doing is suggesting that you would be better off giving a substantive rebuttal to their vitriolic comments, instead of simply exhorting anonymous bloggers and commenters to refrain from making offensive comments.”

    This goes back to my just previous comment on civility and courtesy. Perhaps I think that should be enough of a reason. Perhaps I think that being kind to other people and treating them with respect and civility is enough of a request. Perhaps I think that people, adults, should know better and should be able to talk in intelligent, respectful ways.

  15. Chris says:

    Very good points. I only disagree with you in that I think vicious and vitriolic statements are perfectly legitimate ways to express yourself when dealing with disgusting dregs like Whitney.

    I’m a 27 year old hetero guy who really isn’t affected at all by homosexual issues, I just get REALLY frustrated by hypocrites, and find no problem with calling out hyprocrites in the worst ways possible.

    Good can’t exist without bad. If there were no bad people than you couldn’t say that people you love are good because everyone would just be perfectly equal.

    This Whitman guy is bad. Really bad. All axe murderers and pedophiles and rapists are misguided, that’s just an excuse and I’m really not big on excuses. They rank right after hypocrites on my list.

    So, my point is, if someone is a bad, horrible, disgusting dreg, I feel that it’s perfectly reasonable to speak of them horribly.
    If not, than speaking of people I love in a respectful way really doesn’t mean anything if I’m going to also speak respectfully of horrible people.

    Also, stop making excuses for his age. He’s old enough to die in combat and he’s old enough to be killed by antigay psychos. So that makes him old enough to be spoken of disrespectfully.

  16. Joe T. says:

    Chris : 18 IS too young to die for one’s country, AND be torn apart by vicious gays. But if you’re not gay, this really should be a relatively minor story to you. Why would you be onto this particular “hypocrite” story? If your Whitney criticism is solely based upon your overall disdain for “hypocrites”, then can we find posts all over the web with your commentaries on Al Gore, Mike Nifong, Rev. James Bevel, U2’s Bono….?

  17. chris says:

    You didn’t address my contention that it’s perfectly acceptable to be horrible to horrible people.
    Also your mistaken. 18 is old enough to die for your country. 16 is old enough with parental consent. 18 is also old enough to be a victim of vicious gays because antigay self hating psychos like whitney are WAY more vicious than the “vicious gays”.
    Gay people are attacked, yes attacked, unrelentlessly by psychos like Whitney and for the most part turn the other cheak.

    Evey once in a while an opportunity comes along to pounce on one of the horrible creatures who are attacking them and they do it. I commend them for it.

    Al Gore is a pretty big hypocrite but he’s not trying to ruin anyone else’s life. Mike Nifong tried to grandstand and nail some white kids even after it was clear that they were innocent. He’s pretty bad.
    Not familiar with Bevel. Don’t really care about Bono.
    You can also add that Congressman from Florida who was on the missing and exploited children panel who was going after pages to my S list. Can’t remember his name.
    Ted Haggard too. Jeez he’s horrible.
    The combination of devoting their life to smearing other people and being hypocrites really gets me going

  18. Joe T. says:

    Look up Bevel. Not surprising you don’t know (the way the media has hidden it). Though, in fairness, he’s only been arrested and not convicted so I have to presume his innocence. In some ways I suppose it’s acceptable to be horrible to horrible people. Your mistake is equating Tyler Whitney with such horrible people, like axe murderers. He’s not espousing anti-gay violence. It’s like….looking at it the other way around: statistically, white people in the U.S. are murdered by blacks every day. Does that make a white person who fights for Civil Rights a hypocrite, since any white member of his/her family could easily be murdered by a black psychopath? Is someone saying “We don’t want prostitution in our neighborhood” responsible for every future Jack the Ripper? Give the boy the benefit of the doubt, and the time to develop, and lay off him for now. Funnily enough, Michelangelo Signorile admits taking part in a queer-bashing assault when he was a teenager to cover his true feelings. Much worse than Tyler Whitney. And he didn’t “come out” until older than Tyler Whitney. Seems he’s another hypocrite. And yes, I know the legal ages for serving in the military, but I still think that’s too young, and either way I’m not letting that be the guage for what is age appropriate for everything else in life.

  19. Matt says:

    Joe… I’m sorry your comments, along with others, keep getting caught up in spam filters. I’m going to look in to seeing if their is an upgrade to the spam filter or seeing if there is another program.

    I just can’t afford to get rid of it, or else I’m going to have to manually filter out hundreds of spam comments and pingbacks per day.

  20. Leo says:

    Chris : “18 IS too young to die for one’s country, AND be torn apart by vicious gays”

    I don’t understand why liberal gays keep calling Tyler “vicious” or “hateful”. He is nothing of the sort. When he chanted “Smash Left-Wing Scum” it was just a figure of speech. Tyler is not talking about any kind of violence or denigration of people for their beliefs or lifestyle. I think some of you homosexual activists need to cool your jets.

  21. Matt says:

    Leo… I think that in his statement, “18 IS too young to die for one’s country, AND be torn apart by vicious gays,” Joe T. was referring to the “vicious gays” who had attacked Tyler with messages of violence, rape, wishing AIDS upon him or asking for him to be shot. I don’t think he was referring to Tyler.

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] University of Wisconsin Link to Article Friend of Tyler Whitney: Gays are “poor creatures [doing] Satan’s work” » Posted at InterstateQ.com – LGBT activism news, views, opinions & more by youth activist/student Matt Hill Comer on Monday, June 18, 2007 Friend of Tyler Whitney: Gays are “poor creatures [doing] Satan’s work” June 18th, 2007 by Matt I have it from a good source that “Saint Joe McCarthy” on the Michigan State University’s Young Americans for Freedom’s Spartan Spectator is actually Kyle View Entire Article » […]

  2. […] Many InterstateQ.com readers may remember Bristow’s name from the 2007 dust up over Tyler Whitney, the young conservative (also involved in the college hate group) blasted after his coming out. In June 2007, I posted about Bristow and his comments on LGBT people. […]



Leave A Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.