Deal Cut to Give Jenner Award Aids LBTGQ Nudge Effort—and Ratings


The bizarre Bruce-to-Caitlyn Jenner saga that started as a distraction in the aftermath of Jenner’s involvement in a fatal car crash (see photo and story from TMZ here) only resulted in Jenner’s controversial ESPY Award because of a deal made behind the scenes among two companies owned by Disney, according to

TMZ further reported that the fact that Jenner smoked rather than texted before the accident meant he could not face criminal prosecution, and further that the step children who filed the wrongful death suit against him actually had little relationship with the victim who died in the accident.

“ESPN has come under fire for awarding Caitlyn Jenner the prestigious Arthur Ashe Courage Award at the ESPYs Wednesday night. But has learned, it wasn’t initially their idea! According to an insider, Jenner’s reps approached the network suggesting she receive the award — and offering PR plugs on her upcoming docuseries in return,” according to “Her agents approached ESPN, which is owned by Disney like Sawyer’s ABC.”

Jenner’s journey from relative has-been to to reality-show star coincides with efforts by NPR and other liberal organizations to add a letter to a familiar acronym to now use LBTGQ. The “Q” stands for “questioning,” and if you expand the group so that anyone questioning their sexuality identifies with a group that votes 3-to-1 Democrat (according to the Washington Post) you theoretically enjoy a better chance of winning votes.

However, Jenner reported on air he is a conservative Republican, and Grover Norquist was quick to say Jenner was an anti-tax champion in a tweet shown in the same Washington Post story.

The focus on publicity and scoring political points misses the essential point: happiness. LBTGQ groups believe those questioning their sexuality will be happier proclaiming it to the world, while groups such as Courage International believe people will ultimately be happier avoiding homosexual attractions.

An important distinction is that “transgender” notes an individual who has chosen to reject the gender assigned to them. Some people (less than 0.1% according to the Intersex Society of North America) are not transgender but were physically born with something other than the XX or XY chromosome. To their credit, The Atlantic did correctly report this fact in the recent case of an adopted “intersex” (not “transgender”) child operated on as a baby.

I’ve spent as much time as anyone figuring out how to win elections, and others focus their lives on ratings, but there are more important matters.

If it is fine for someone with an LBTGQ group to tell someone they will be happier as a member, is it not equally legitimate for a Christian to tell the same person they believe they will be happier joining Courage or a similar group and avoiding a homosexual attraction the same way some people need to avoid their natural attraction to cheating on their wife, stealing, using drugs, or drinking 18 beers a night, etc.?  Sure, all may bring short-term pleasure, and all may be “natural” attractions. No one said Adam and Eve’s attraction to the fruit in the garden wasn’t “natural,” only one pleasurable experience they needed to avoid for all the other pleasures available to them.

You may believe the LBTGQ member is correct. Or, you may believe the Christian is correct. But if both have the courage to voice what they believe will help make people happier, there is no reason to silence the one you disagree with and accuse them of, ironically, a “hate” crime—as you question their religions liberty and 1st Amendment rights.



Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.