GOP Congressional Candidate Told Gay Citizens to Go “Back to California”

…and he could win.

<a href="http://deanyoungforcongress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DeanSpeaking-420x280.png">Courtesy of the Dean Young Campaign</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Update: Former state Sen. Bradley Byrne narrowly defeated Dean Young on Tuesday night to win the Republican nomination for Alabama’s special election, all but guaranteeing him a spot in Congress. The outcome is being hailed as a win for Republican establishment, which poured significant resources into Byrne’s campaign against the tea partier Young. But as I explained on Monday, there’s little daylight between the two camps when it comes to policy. Even in a loss, the tea party won big.

It would be tough to find a political office-seeker less prepared for the job he’s running for than Alabama congressional candidate Dean Young. Asked by the Guardian last week to identify the current House majority whip, the Republican suggested House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who left his old post almost three years ago. Quizzed on the current treasury secretary, Young identified Henry Paulson (who left four years ago) and then Tim Geithner (who left his post 10 months ago). Young, who also called President Obama’s country of origin “the $64,000 question,” didn’t go so far as to suggest that the Gettysburg Address is where Lincoln lived, but that’s probably because no one asked.

On Tuesday, Young will face off against former state Sen. Bradley Byrne in a runoff for the Republican nomination in the special election to replace former GOP Rep. Jo Bonner, who resigned to take a job at the University of Alabama. (In March, Mother Jones reported that Bonner had gone on an all-expenses-paid African safari under the auspices of investigating Al Qaeda’s ties to poaching.) In a deep-red district, the runoff winner is all but assured a spot in Congress—which means that Young, who held a narrow lead in the final poll of the race, could soon be headed to Washington.

For the last two decades, Young has built his political identity on combating the scourge of homosexuality, which he has called “deviant” and “destructive.” In an interview with the Associated Press during his 2002 campaign for Mississippi secretary of state, Young suggested that gays were not indigenous to Alabama and must have moved there from more gay-friendly jurisdictions. “If they don’t like the laws of Alabama…then maybe they need to go back to California or Vermont or wherever they came from,” he said. He referred to gay rights activists as “nothing more than a gnat on the rear end of an elephant,” and nearly came to blows with his GOP opponent during a televised debate.

Before running for office, Young cut his teeth as a social-conservative advocate and spokesman for then-District Judge Roy Moore, who became a right-wing icon for keeping a stone sculpture of the Ten Commandments in his courthouse. “Either you get your lives straight or you get back in the closet where you came from,” Young told gay rights activists at a 1996 rally in support of Moore. “The people of Etowah County are going to stand against the homosexual lifestyle and against things that are against the laws of God,” he added.

At another rally at Moore’s courthouse one year later, Young said of homosexuality, “If animals tried it, they would get bit.” (According to biologists, animals try it all the time.) He added, “We love all homosexuals, but we don’t appreciate their lifestyle. To the homosexuals who will not change, you are not welcome here in Etowah County or in the state of Alabama.” (Young denied saying this in a statement to the Daily Caller‘s Alex Pappas, who first reported on his ’90s-era activism, but he repeated the refrain at multiple speeches.)

Young justified his position in 2002 by noting that under the state’s anti-sodomy statute, gay sex was technically a felony. Speaking out against the gay “lifestyle,” he said, “is no different than speaking against murder and other crimes. It breaks the law of Alabama to have homosexual conduct and is against the laws of nature and nature’s God.”

While running for Congress, Young has kept his gaze squarely on the wedding chapel. In August, he asked his GOP rivals to sign a pledge to oppose any recognition of marriage for same-sex couples if elected. “Marriage is between one man and one woman and no one needs to go to Washington representing south Alabama if they don’t believe that,” he said. “If you want to have homosexuals pretending like they’re married, they need to go to the Democrat party.”

At a debate in October, Young warned that America’s days were numbered unless it took dramatic steps. “We are witnessing the end of a Western Christian empire,” he said. “We will see the end of this nation if we don’t do something, and do it fast.” He summed up his views on stem cell research thusly: “Stem cell research, they tell me that fat has the same thing and there is plenty of fat here. We don’t mess with babies.” (The idea that fat cells could be a stand-in for embryonic stem cells is still being researched.)

Political pundits have framed the Young–Byrne as the latest front in an intraparty row between tea partiers and the GOP establishment. That’s not quite right—major tea party groups have largely stayed out of the race, and Young was preaching his particular brand of conservatism long before Rick Santelli and Sarah Palin helped launch a movement. Byrne, meanwhile, has given no indication that he’d be anything less than a reliable vote for conservative causes, and his failure to urge gay people to leave Alabama is one of the few real policy differences he has with Young. The contrast between the two is largely cosmetic. Byrne, like Young, opposed the deal that prevented the United States from defaulting on the debt. Byrne, like Young, believed that it was a smart decision to shut down the federal government over funding the Affordable Care Act. Byrne supported the teaching of creationism as a member of the Alabama Board of Education, thinks gun control is counterproductive, and rails against “the corrupt IRS.”

The usual term for someone like that is “tea partier.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate