Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Gina Loudon Says She "Could Have Speculated" Reporter Was Gay Because He Has Psychological Profile of Person Who Attacks Children-Updated

Earlier in the year, Gina Loudon compared gay marriage to people marrying animals. She later compared people who wanted to build an Islamic Community Center in New York City to nazis. Amazingly, her bigotry managed to reach a new low in this past week, as she claimed on the Stage Right Show that she could have "speculated" that Vanity Fair reporter Michael Joseph Gross was gay because he has a "psychological profile" of someone who "attacks children." Here's the video:

Transcript of the relevant section:
Larry O'Connor: Just for the record it's not a secret...Michael Joseph Gross is actually an out-of-the-closet gay man, so I don't think he has any children that I'm aware of...

Loudon: Oh! See and that...I mean I'm sorry I did not know that Larry, I honestly didn't, and I could have speculated as much just by several little pieces I had picked up in looking at the sort of psychological profile of someone who behaves like this...attacks someone's children. And then you just don't even want to consider the whole hidden-on-the-deck-next-door-thing.
The "hidden-the-deck-next-door-thing" is referring to the fact that Gross visited a reporter who had rented a house next door to the Palin's mansion.

Outright, unhidden, unapologetic bigotry. And yet the St. Louis tea party chooses to have Loudon as one of their leaders. What does that say about them?

Update: Palingates has a nice take on Gross's reply.


  1. St Louis has so many wonderful thoughtful people politically active across the whole spectrum of political
    thought. Why is this small mined intellectual bereft bigot given any voice. Show her the door and refuse to accept her responses as anything other than a misguided fart.

  2. Is she saying that he "attacked" Palin's children? And that meets the psychological profile of a gay person?

  3. Yeah, she claimed that Gross attacked Palin's children, because he included quotes from them in his original article that were critical of the parents.

  4. I read the entire VF article today. I do not see how it was an attack on her children. Simply his observations of her.