Andrew Sullivan asks: what’s the difference between Hillary and Eich, since they both once opposed gay marriage??
Here’s Sullivan[emphasis mine]:
Hillary Clinton only declared her support for marriage equality in 2013. Before that, she opposed it. In 2000, she said that marriage “has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.” Was she then a bigot? On what conceivable grounds can the Democratic party support a candidate who until only a year ago was, according to the latest orthodoxy, the equivalent of a segregationist, and whose [husband’s] administration enacted more anti-gay laws and measures than any in American history?
There are several grounds. The first is that a gay marriage heretic can be saved by recantation. Here’s the definition:
To formally abandon a belief or a particular statement of belief, generally under order from an ecclesiastical authority…to enforce an orthodoxy. If ordered to recant by such an ecclesiastical authority, one who refused to recant is anathematized or excommunicated.
Hillary Clinton (and President Obama) have recanted, which saves them and also turns them into poster children for the evolution of correct liberal thinking. It doesn’t matter whether their present feelings are their true ones—and actually were their true feelings all along, with their previous anti-gay-marriage stances the false ones—or not. What matters is their public declarations.
That is exactly what Eich stubbornly refused to do, and he paid for it.
As evidence that Eich’s recantation may always have been the goal, I offer this:
I guess this counts as some kind of “victory,” but it doesn’t feel like it. We never expected this to get as big as it has and we never expected that Brendan wouldn’t make a simple statement. I met with Brendan and asked him to just apologize for the discrimination under the law that we faced. He can still keep his personal beliefs, but I wanted him to recognize that we faced real issues with immigration and say that he never intended to cause people problems.
It’s heartbreaking to us that he was unwilling to say even that.
We absolutely don’t believe that everyone who voted yes on Prop 8 is evil. In fact, we’re sure that most of them just didn’t understand the impact the law would have. That’s why so many people have changed their mind in 4 short years ”“ because they saw the impact and pain that the law caused to friends and family members.
People think we were upset about his past vote. Instead we were more upset with his current and continued unwillingness to discuss the issue with empathy. Seriously, we assumed that he would reconsider his thoughts on the impact of the law (not his personal beliefs), issue an apology, and then he’d go on to be a great CEO.
The fact it ever went this far is really disturbing to us.
If that’s not enough to convince you, there’s also this sort of thing:
…[T]he ringleaders [were] men such as Owen Thomas, a tech gossip columnist and amateur tyrant who was so vexed by Eich’s employment that he saw fit to issue what can only be described as a catechism. Among the commandments that Thomas etched onto his website were: “Stop saying that this was merely a private matter that won’t affect your work as Mozilla’s CEO”; “Say that whatever chain of logic led you to conclude that your personal views required you to support Proposition 8 was flawed, erroneous, incorrect”; “Say that you support the rights of people to enter into same-sex marriages everywhere”; and “Make a donation equal in amount to the money you gave to Proposition 8 and candidates who supported it to the Human Rights Campaign or another organization that fights for the civil rights of LGBT people.” Elsewhere, a Credoaction petition accrued 75,000 signatures behind the demand that “CEO Brendan Eich should make an unequivocal statement of support for marriage equality. If he cannot, he should resign. And if he will not, the board should fire him immediately.”
The recantation was most important, and Eich failed to deliver. So he had to go. Let that serve as a warning to others.
I don’t think that Hillary Clinton would be quite so eagerly supported today had she not recanted. I also don’t think that act was the least bit difficult for her, since I don’t think her original anti-gay-marriage stance was sincere in the first place. But even without a recantation she still would have been supported, because her pluses (much like Obama’s in 2008) trump her negatives for the left, and the left feels no need to be consistent in its principles. As a liberal/left woman, she is a member of a protected group, and the left also knows that she can be counted on to do the left’s bidding, for the most part, once her presidency is secured.
[Hat tip: Instapundit.]
Eich had the same view at the same time Obama did.
Therefore, anybody who voted for Obama supports hate and bigotry.
Q E D
. . . and at the time His Anointed Magnificence believed marriage was solely between a man and a woman, His Ineffable Evilness Dick Cheney approved of same-sex marriage.
Go figure . . .
HRC must be defeated.
Carthage must be destroyed.
I don’t plan to recant. I won’t go into my reasons, which have nothing to do with religion, to utterly reject gay marriage since it is the antithesis of marriage.
This is about free speech. And more importantly the right to one’s own conscience. More is coming down the pike.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203687504577005972874755662
“The State Department vs. Free Speech”
An article about a State Department initiative to work with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to implement their preferred blasphemy laws. As happens in Europe.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/bloga.cfm/blog_id/51173/Will-There-Finally-Be-Justice-for-Elisabeth-Sabaditsch-Wolff-in-Austria-
Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff grew up the daughter of an Austrian diplomat. She lived, among other Muslim countries, in Iran during the US embassy takeover. She was convicted of blasphemy, I believe in Austria they consider it hate speech, for saying simple truths about Islam. The thing that got her in trouble was during what was supposed to be a closed seminar she said Muhammad had a thing for young girls.
Muhammad married Aisha when she was six, and deflowered her when she was nine. Breaking even Islamic law, BTW, when he did. I can cite the Hadiths that show Aisha had to stop playing with her dolls when Muhammad came to consummate their marriage. I can’t say how it works now, or everywhere in the Islamic world. But then girls weren’t allowed to play with dolls after their first menstruation, at which point they were considered adult and marriageable. Dolls were considered a form of idolatry, but in Islam when Muhammad was alive they made that concession for children.
And Muhammad had sex with Aisha when she was still playing with dolls.
Nobody disputes the truth of what Sabaditsch-Wolff said. But truthful speech about Islam is exactly what the OIC wants to ban. With the State Department’s help now.
The thing is, once the government acquires the power to ban “intolerance” then it can ban all sorts of things under the rubric of “intolerance.”
So, perhaps you don’t agree with me that once marriage is separated from procreation it ceases to be marriage (although that’s exactly why Scandinavian feminists such as Kari Moxness in Norway worked to achieve gay marriage; to destroy the horrid patriarchal institution). But at what point will you refuse to say 2+2=5? “How many fingers am I holding up, Winston…”
Neo,
Spot on.
It’s normalize and stigmatize socially.
Sullivan sounds good on this topic today, but I wonder if he’ll do a more “nuanced” take now that it’s been revealed that Eich supported Pat Buchanan in the past.
The Huffington Post’s Michelangelo Signorile thinks that’s what really convinced Mozilla to push Eich out, not his refusal to recant:
Bravo to Mr. Eich for not caving to the gay bullies.
Homosexuals have not been deprived of the right to marry. They willinging forfeit the right to marry by preferring same sex relationships.
And I have a right to call it sodomy. And I have a right to define marriage traditionally and I have a right to keep my job and my point of view and so does Eich. But the homosexual left wants to destroy the American family and control our thoughts and speech.
The new CEO of Disney World is a homosexual who has said that Disney employees cannot volunteer for the Boy Scouts of America and count it as Disney volunteer time. They must boycot the Boy Scouts until the BSA allows homosexual scout leaders. A homosexual employer does not have the right to dictate the volunteerism of his employees.
I find it so hard to believe that normal and wholesome has to be defended. I think wholesome, hard working, normal, run of the mill people are being greatly discriminated against They are losing jobs and liberty and life because of the left.
Things are getting worse and more perverse.
I have a formula that works. Whatever Odious Obama or Ms Hillary Benghazi think, think the opposite and you should be just fine.
Owen Thomas’s “commandments” that Neo quoted aren’t extraordinary.
Thomas’s demands are typical of the Marxist-method activist method.
Is it distasteful and objectionable? Does it seem intolerant, fascist, and unAmerican? Sure it does.
But the people of the Right need to learn to employ the activist method demonstrated by Thomas, and learn it well enough to compete for social dominance against passionate, dedicated, expert Left activists.
Again, the effectiveness of the activist method is not limited to the Left. It’s just as effective when used against the Left.
Thomas’s demand for a recantation reminds me of the Columbia student-veterans’ demand for a recantation in their response to Professor De Genova’s call for fragging and a “million Mogadishus” at a Columbia faculty teach-in protesting the Iraq enforcement in March 2003:
The University did not recant in 2003, but the seminal activist action was nonetheless a key step towards civil-military normalization at Columbia. The Columbia student-veterans’ activism of 2003 progressed to their activist breakthroughs in 2006 that set the foundation for civil-military normalization at Columbia.
Marxist-method activism works, for any cause. You don’t have to like it, but the Right needs to learn it and use it, because the activist game is the only social-political game there is.
Ann (and others who might know),
Isn’t there a prevalent libertarian streak among techies?
Pat Buchanan is a libertarian? News to me.
Ron Paul.
The Ron Paul support might not hurt him much more than support for, say, Ross Perot. But Buchanan is a problem.
“I guess this counts as some kind of “victory,” but it doesn’t feel like it. We never expected this to get as big as it has and we never expected that Sir Thomas More wouldn’t make a simple statement.”
–Henry VIII
I’m hearing lots of pushback from my friends and associates who were willing to tolerate a lot. This comes on top of a slew of federal judges overturning state marriage laws. Interestingly the judge who overturned Utahs marriage law doesnt seem to know much history. Congress demanded the Mormons renounce polygamy as a precondition for statehood. Since now the Federal government has overturned their one-man, one-woman marriage law is there any justification for outlawing polygamy (except that it hurts women and young men?)
Eric,
What should Mr Eich’s next move be if he played the Marxist method activiist stategy to beat the left at their own game.
And is there a way that people can help him?
Thank you.
Eric said:
“Owen Thomas’s “commandments” that Neo quoted aren’t extraordinary.
Thomas’s demands are typical of the Marxist-method activist method.
Is it distasteful and objectionable? Does it seem intolerant, fascist, and unAmerican? Sure it does.”
Very true. On a related note, people may be curious to know the roots of the HHS mandate you should read the decision in Stormans v. Selecky. It concerns a Washington state board of pharmacy rule that required licensed pharmacists to dispense Plan B or ella. It was aimed at forcing people to violate their conscience.
http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Stormans-Opinion.pdf
“C. Development of the Board of Pharmacy Regulations.
The Board’s regulations have been aimed at Plan B and conscientious objectors from their inception. The events leading to promulgation began in 2005, when Planned Parenthood and the Northwest Women’s Law Center contacted Christina Hulet, Senior Health Policy Advisor to the Governor, who began meeting with the groups. Ms. Hulet then referred the groups to Steven Saxe, the Pharmacy Board’s Executive Director, and in doing so, informed Mr. Saxe that Northwest Women’s Law Center was “looking into the issue of a pharmacist’s right to refuse to fill a prescription for moral/religious views” and that the groups “[were] considering pushing for national or state legislation on the issue.” Pl.’s Ex. 13. That cause–barring a pharmacist’s right of conscience–played a decisive role in the Board’s rulemaking. Indeed,
Plaintiffs have presented reams of emails, memoranda, and letters between the Governor’s representatives, Pharmacy Board members, and advocacy groups demonstrating that the predominant purpose of the rule was to stamp out the right to refuse.”
Of course, now these advocacy groups have their national rule. And it’s no longer aimed at just at pharmacists anymore.
No one can be allowed to hold or express heretical views. Not Eich, not Greens who run Hobby Lobby, and not the Little Sisters of the Poor.
I see it as similar to the NSA’s spying. People, like Lindsey Graham, will say they don’t care if the NSA has their data because they’re not doing anything wrong. But once they have and store the data, they have it forever. What you are doing today may not be wrong or illegal, but who knows what will be wrong next week or 10 years from now. And as the Eich case demonstrates they, the left, have long memories and are vindictive.
Similarly, no one knows what is considered an orthodox view today will be considered heresy tomorrow.
The left will use all its power to stamp out heresies. The Washington state case, the HHS mandate, the Eich case. Technically free speech will still be legal, just like technically “freedom of worship” is still legal. Just not, as the Obama administration is demonstrating, freedom of religion. You can worship as you please, Little Sisters of the Poor, but you are not free to live your religion. Free speech will go the same way. I have no doubt the left can define “freedom of speech” as narrowly as they’ve demonstrated they can define the “free exercise” of religion. You will be free to do and say what you are told. You will not be free to refuse.
The simple answer to your question is:
(1) that stating a position is the same as donating money, no matter how little and
(2) she has evolved. It is irrelevant that her celebrity had far more influence than and $1000 contribution.
(3) she is not a CEO.
To me these sound silly, but all have been stated to a more or less degree to me on Twitter.
Oh, nuts. The line should read:
(1) that stating a position is NOT the same as donating money, no matter how little and
We’ve seen this before, Neo, although some of you may not recognize it. This is a purge and it’s a purge for reasons not yet revealed but at the same time logical within its own framework. At the risk of boring the crap out of all of you I’ll engage in a bit of a history lesson.
On 06/30/34 an event took place that has come to be known as The Night of the Long Knives. It was at its most basic a purge of the Nazi Party, but there was more to it than met the eye. There was a wing of the Nazi party that was more concerned with the socialist promises Hitler initially made and probably would have found a way to join with the Communists; Georg Strasser was the leader of that wing of the party, and was the secondary target of Hitler’s purge.
The primary target was Ernst Roehm, the leader of the SA. He was targeted because he advocated turning the SA into a “people’s army” in opposition the the existing Prussian dominated German Army. The latter was a well-respected institution and as a politician Hitler sought to at least temporarily coopt it, so Roehm had to go. Along with Strasser.
But a funny thing happened that night. A team of SS assassins entered the home of retired general Kurt Schleicher and shot him to death in front of his wife. They wanted to make sure that there was a witness to that murder. Schleicher was retired and played no active role in the politics of the time, and it’s believed that he was killed to send a message to the German military to let the Nazis do as they please. Or else…
Mind you, Hitler did go on to coopt the German Army through blackmail and broken promises. The 1938 Blomberg-Fritsc affair cowed Germany’s military leaders into going along with the Nazis by means that would be very familiar to Mafiosi; Blomberg was forced to resign when it was revealed that his wife had a somewhat checkered past. Colonel Fritsch was blackmailed into resigning because the Gestapo found evidence of a Captain Fritsch participating in homosexual activity; they pushed the charge even though they had the wrong Fritsch. Both men resigned in disgrace, and the message was sent to the German Army loud and clear–cooperate with us or be prepared to have your noses rubbed in the vilest crap we can find. Even if we have to invent it.
Did I mention Hitler’s intention to woo the German Army was only temporary? He promised them that they would be the county’s sole bearer of arms; by 1944 the SS had far more firepower. You know, those guys who shot a retired general in front of his wife to make a point…?
Really, how is this any different than what was done to Eich? To me it’s just the final removal of the masks….
Oh my goodness, neo. I say this with absolute affection and respect for you. But this post is utterly incoherent.
I realize it is incoherent because of the goodness of your soul, and your lack of historical perspective.
But now I have to eat a meatball soup and might come back later to explain.
kit: “I find it so hard to believe that normal and wholesome has to be defended.”
That attitude, writ large, is why we are where we are social-culturally.
Norms are constructs, preferences – a point of view – only. Norms not only need to be defended, they must be reimposed, renewed, and reinforced constantly, generation to generation, both individual and collective consciously.
And when challenged, social dominance must be competed for. If you don’t compete, then others will stigmatize your preferred norms and ‘re-educate’ your community and children with their set of preferred norms. They’ll do it with activism, because activism is sociology weaponized. You have to be activist to compete with activists.
What should Brendan Eich do as an activist?
Don’t recant, number one.
Beyond that, the activism that effects social norms and stigmas is fundamentally social. Going Galt, while social in intent, falls short of Marxist-method activism because it’s contextually individual activity.
Individually, I don’t know that there is much Eich can do beyond penning a piece telling his side, maybe with an inside scoop of what happened behind the curtain. He may have a buy-out with a confidentiality condition, though.
Even if he wrote a tell-all, though, it would have limited effect. Merit is only one piece, and the job of propagandists is to manipulate merit. The activist competition to define social right and wrong is more about force, maneuver, strategic position, critical nodes, and mass in a military sense, than merit in a HS debate club sense.
The necessary move is a proper first, always, and non-stop, proseltyzing and spreading activist social movement by the people of the Right.
The move wouldn’t be to help Eich directly, like setting up a charity fund. Rather, it would utilize (but not wholly rely on) the Eich episode as a narrative symbol for a larger cause.
If that helps Eich in his life and career, so be it. If he’s willing to partake as a Rosa Parks type martyr symbol, that’s cool.
But it’s not about Eich. It’s about using the episode as a jumping off point to generate a larger activist campaign to construct, impose and reinforce the set of norms and values with which you prefer to define the American community for the advantage of “wholesome, hard working, normal, run of the mill people”.
The people of the Right, collectively, need to learn the how, what, and why of the activist method for competitive social cultural/political movements. They need to think like activists -overcoming the initial reflexive distaste for activism is an important step. There’s plenty of theoretical and how-to literature on-line and in books, eg, Bill Moyer’s Doing Democracy is a popular guide.
Observing Left activists with application in mind is a start, but simply cargo-cult copying the Left isn’t enough to win. The Right needs to be led by real activists, not poseurs.
Tonawanda:
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
If it’s the fact that I didn’t go into Soviet and Nazi precedents, I’m well aware of them and assume my readers are as well. This wasn’t meant to be a history post.
“Incoherent” means expressed in a way that’s incomprehensible or unclear. Is that really what you mean?
By the way, the Nazis and the Soviets used the technique mostly on their own members or previous members. Eich is a “member” of the Silicon Valley community, and as such was expected to recant. But it apprears he was never a member of the left or the liberal community, so he’s not an insider in that regard.
One line of thought that occurs is “then what?”
If ideological conformity is enforced, does it end after we all support SSM and AGW? Or will other conformities be demanded and enforced? What might these be?
I suspect that those who are glaad to see Eich forced out for failing to recant may be somewhat less happy with the second act.
This is a Rubicon of sorts. This is pretty much where the Left has told us that they aren’t playing and intend to either destroy or enslave us. This is where we must decide to resist….
katzxy:
Actually, I think most of them would be very happy with the second act–until it directly affects them in some way (which would be the third or fourth or fifth act, the one where they put people with eyeglasses into the camps). Most of them are so deeply into the party line that they would go along with coercion as long as it’s in favor of things they agree with.
For example, read about the work of Sarah Conly.
Steve57: “I have no doubt the left can define “freedom of speech” as narrowly as they’ve demonstrated they can define the “free exercise” of religion. You will be free to do and say what you are told. You will not be free to refuse.”
It’s important to keep in mind that legality is only one piece. It’s a necessary piece, but still only one piece.
A social movement is necessary because only a social movement can coordinate on the full spectrum of society. Elected officials alone can’t do it. Lawyers alone can’t do it. CEOs alone can’t do it. Priests alone can’t do it. Professors and teachers alone can’t do it. Entertainers alone can’t do it. Pundits alone can’t do it. Parents alone can’t do it. And so on.
This only works with Right activists taking control of all the various social-defining nodes. Left activists will not give them over easily.
“I wanted him to recognize that we faced real issues with immigration…”
Huh?
Neo,
Good point. You analysis is, I think, as good as the irrefutable logic of the main post. Sarah Conly and her fellow travelers are frightening.
The scene from “A Man For All Seasons” has another variant on the theme:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUqytjlHNIM
This enforced uniformity on same sex marriage reminds me of how Democrats used to be allowed to be personally against abortion while still stating they would do nothing to overturn/narrow the scope of Roe v. Wade. IIRC, Al Gore was at one time against abortion. However, now it is impossible to imagine any Democrat admitting to wanting anything short of implementing every Planned Parenthood and NARAL objective.
So what is next? If the http://beyondmarriage.org/ mission statement is still current, same sex marriage is just the opening act. Next comes state support of polyamorous unions (and then maybe non-romantic contractual relationships?). The entertainment industry has been busy prepping the battle space for cultural acceptance of this with shows like Big Love and Sister Wives. I think we’ve all figured out that when the Left succeeds it only leads to them wanting more; it’s never enough to give in.
neo,
Despite your post’s utter incoherency, you’ve convinced me. Who knew incoherency could be so persuasive? Then again, liberals and progressive leftists repeatedly demonstrate just how persuasive incoherency can be.
“when the Left succeeds it only leads to them wanting more; it’s never enough to give in.” Lizzy
In order to sustain itself, every socialistic system must eventually categorize and enforce ALL thought, speech and behavior, as either forbidden or mandatory.
Eric said:
“It’s important to keep in mind that legality is only one piece. It’s a necessary piece, but still only one piece.
A social movement is necessary because only a social movement can coordinate on the full spectrum of society.”
I completely agree. As a historical matter I’m reminded of the National Recovery Administration’s Blue Eagle campaigns during the depression. Theoretically the Blue Eagle campaigns asked employers to voluntarily abide by a “code of conduct” for business. The administration went as far as it could legally go to compel compliance. The administration sent a document to every employer in the country asking that employer to sign and return, personally promising the President to abide by the code. Every employer was asked to put up the Blue Eagle sign that said “we do our part.” And Roosevelt issued an E.O. that employers not in compliance wouldn’t get government contracts. Still, the government couldn’t legally compel compliance.
But where the law only went so far, the administration tried to gin up a social movement to go the rest of the way. Roosevelt made it abundantly clear in his fireside chats that businesses that didn’t display the Blue Eagle sign weren’t “doing their part” to help the economy recover. As Roosevelt’s NRA director, Hugh Johnson, put it, “the people simply cannot tolerate non-compliance with their plan.”
And the administration put on propaganda campaign unseen outside of wartime.
So the administration’s message was compliance was voluntary, but non-compliance would not be tolerated. They couldn’t openly call for people to boycott non-conforming businesses, but they made it clear that’s what they wanted. And they did get the social movement they wanted. They got the boycotts and the ostracism they couldn’t openly call for, but could only tacitly recommend.
I see much the same thing now. From Justice Kennedy on down government officials have said opposition to SSM such as Eich’s can only be the result of bigotry and hatred. So I see these leftists hounding Eich out of town acting not as individuals but as agents of those in authority.
I realize the IRS didn’t leak information about Eich’s donation to the Prop 8 campaign. But an IRS official did commit a felony leak the conservative National Organization for Marriage’s confidential tax information, its donor list, to the pro-gay Human Rights Campaign. Which released the information. But this official clearly will not be disciplined let alone prosecuted for said felony because the powers that be approve of the action. The administration and more than a few state governments have made it abundantly clear they view people like Eich as their political enemies. Thus people like that IRS official feel they have license to do whatever they want against conservatives.
It will be difficult to take back those social defining nodes considering what is arrayed against us.
besides recanting (aka groveling and/or converting) there will also soon be the paying of Jizya
Regarding Sullivan’s post, he doesn’t seem all that concerned about the thug tactics used on Eich. Instead, he’s just miffed that Hillary has not yet been targeted for her required public apology and showy acts of contrition. He has a point about how her husband actively implemented non gay-friendly policies such as DADT, but I’m still not on board with what Sullivan thinks is the solution: giving Hillary the Eich treatment, good and hard.
Honestly, why should Eich or any other regular citizen be forced to apologize for the “pain [they] once caused?” Are all of the supporters of a successful ballot initiative now liable for the “pain” experienced by those who didn’t support it? How about this: Has Sullivan yet apologized for the emotional pain he likely caused with his obsessive analysis of Sarah Palin’s gynecological medical history?
“the left also knows that she can be counted on to do the left’s bidding, for the most part, once her presidency is secured.”
In other words, expect them to lie through their teeth to say anything to get elected -the left is quite happy with professional liars with no morals, ethic, honor or sense of shame -a disease which unfortunately is being “caught” by many republicans as well.
By the way, earlier I brought up the Washington state case, Stormans v. Selecky, that was purely aimed at forcing pharmacists with religious objections to dispense abortifacients or face losing their license.
There was an earlier case that was almost exactly the same in Illinois. Barack Obama could not have failed to know about it.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/13/a-win-for-religious-freedom-in-illinois/
It was struck down for the same reason. It served no other purpose than forcing people to choose between violating their conciences or losing their businesses. I love it when the mask slips. Then governor Blagojevich helped the courts arrive at that conclusion by saying, pharmacists should “find another profession” if they had religious objections to his mandate.
As I said, Obama had to have known about it. He worked so closely with pro-abortion groups he had to have known that they wanted legislation forcing religious people to violate their conscience or they’d be put out of business.
Hence the HHS mandate, which also serves no other purpose then those Illinois and Washington pharmacy rules. It’s designed to make religious people get over what Nancy Pelosi called “that conscience thing.” I see the persecution of Brendan Eich the same way. He refused to get over “that conscience thing” and recant.
What’s the difference between A Sul and a fascist stormtrooper that does as he is told?
No difference.
The cultural war is now heating up in a way that may bite the progs in ways they didn’t foresee. In the past they have declared themselves to be the tolerant, reasonable force that wanted to counter all the intolerance of the Religious Right, patriarchy, and other cultural norms that “enslaved” certain groups in society. Now, as the battle seems to be going their way with SSM, Obamacare, and continued Green initiatives furthering their objectives, they are becoming quite confident that they have enough power to silence their opponents. What they don’t understand is that Obamacare is adversely affecting millions. Such that the “independents” are beginning to question whether the government knows what it is doing.
SSM may seem to be done and over, but as Lizzy points out, it is only the beginning – polygamy, polyamorous unions, Man-Boy unions (as advocated by NAMBLA), and who knows what else will be advanced as allowing freedom and equality with heterosexual marriage. There is a point at which the average citizen is going to ask what the H*** is this all about?
Surveys show that AGW is near last place on the voters’ list of things they want government to address. Yet, Obama and the Green-weenies are staunch in support of their positions that attack all but “approved” energy. This will demonstrably slow our economy, raise the cost of living, and hurt job growth.
These are the issues that can affect the “independents” – those hapless people with no real commitment to any life philosophy or world view – and their votes. By overplaying their hands, the progs may just be making a tactical error. Time will tell. Seven months from now we’ll know more.
Blacks are some of the most enslaved livestock in AMerican cities. If they can’t break off the plantation, what makes anyone here think the homosexuals can refuse the Authority of the Left and their homosexual thugs?
Nobody hates Pat Buchanan more than I do but it would be as ridiculous for Eich to be fired for having supported Buchanan – especially if the last known time was 1992 – as it is to fire him over Prop. 8. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is an attempt to try to justify his firing now that there is some blowback on Mozilla. There was an open campaign lobbying for his dismissal and it was based entirely on Prop. 8, not Buchanan as far as I know.
Communism is all about breaking your will.
In “1984,” they forced Winston, at last, to shout “Do it to Julia!” instead of him — that’s what they were after, to make him break and betray the one person he loved, even to the point of yelling for them to inflict on her the torture he feared the most.
It is demonic. Whittaker Chambers was right about that.
Also, I’ve been thinking this year that the Leftist regime is really a species of slavery: taking the products of people’s labor from them against their will, and giving it to others (and hogging most of it for themselves, the oligarchs).
Then I saw David Mamet make that same connection and use the same word to describe what’s going on.
We need a pro-AMERICAN tipping point, and badly.
Beverly, you make excellent points. Kevin Williamson expands on them in his article, The Liberal Gulag, at NRO.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375138/liberal-gulag-kevin-d-williamson
American leftism, called in an orwellian fashion liberalism since like all things leftist everything is the opposite of what they say, is really a totalitarian religion. And the goal, like in the Soviet Union, N. Korea, Cuba, etc. is to subordinate the individual to the will of the state.
Which is why I brought the HHS mandate and those pharmacy cases into it. Those, like the persecution of Brendan Eich, were simply efforts to subordinate the individual to the will of the state.
Last night there was an episode of E.R. on TV here that I caught somewhere in the middle. I watched it because I saw Carter feeling his pregnant wife’s (I think they were married) belly to detect movements of their baby. The baby died and labor had to be induced. Carter then had to get his wife to look at and hold their dead child. Going through that together seemed to symbolize what marriage is about.
I know that heterosexual sex doesn’t always involve the life of a child, especially in these days of hook-ups and Shades of Gray. But I think that a reasonably mature married couple can relate to Carter’s experience in a way that gays never can. They can be commited to a partnership, but procreation can never be a factor. They can rent a surrogate, but one of the guys will never be able to feel his child growing in the womb of the person he loves. There is something in that experience that changes a person forever. I just don’t like the idea of people who can’t have that experience or even truly empathize with it having an equal say in what marriage is about.
I know that the whole sexual revolution has diminished the idea of family, but I think there is still a core within us that recognizes something that transcends the temporary pleasure of an orgasm. Gays, especially gay activists, don’t seem to give a s**t about any of that.
I guess I’m a bigot.
This is sad: I just saw that Mickey Rooney died yesterday. 93 years old, God bless him.
He was a hell of an entertainer, take him for all in all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRZ5400UKSc
Recantation is, of course, the demand the Christian right makes of homosexuals. What is happened over Bernand Eich was just the Christian right’s ostracise-the-gays model reversed.
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2014/04/07/first-they-came-for-the-pagans-and-the-queers/
OK, Mr. Lorenzo, please define (A) The Christian Right and (B) their demand for recantation of “heresy”. It’s kinda funny but as a Catholic (not a very good one who last went to church for a funeral and had to follow everyone else just to know what to do) I don’t have an overwhelming urge to set people on fire for just disagreeing with me. Yes, there is a very real concept of heresy and it is indeed sinful, but ti is sinful because to be true heresy it must be deliberately chosen–accidental heresies are not really heresies due to their accidental nature.
You see, Mr. Lorenzo, that we on your so-called “Christan Right” recognize the agency of free will. We are free to live our lives as we see fit, not as some outsider would dictate. If our choices result in consequences, then so be it–hopefully we’ll learn. You too are free to live the same way.
You may well see me as some benighted Neanderthal knuckle-dragger with a cross around my neck, but consider this–I CHOOSE to reject the politically correct Moloch who will ultimately demand that I sacrifice myself and my loved ones to his insatiable appetite. I’m not so sure you will make the same decision, but I do not feel obligated in any way to press you in that direction. Follow your bliss, buddy–just don’t get the idea that you somehow need to drag me along with you….
OK, hmmm: as somebody who utterly despises Pat Pukecannon (and happens to belong to Pukecannon’s least favorite ethnic group): does this change my view over Eich’s firing?
The answer is: no. If there were any evidence that Mr. Eich had BEHAVED in a bigoted and/or unprofessional way toward coworkers, that would be another matter. If he funneled a Mozilla slush fund toward the Pukecannon campaign, toward the NOM, or (for that matter) toward the Romney or 0bama campaigns, then sure, fire his *ss. But small, private donations of his OWN money?
If we start firing people for such “thoughtcrimes”, we know where it starts, but we will not know where it will end.
Hell, Lorenzo, gotta start somewhere. Might as well be with pagans and queers. You guys just want to start at the opposite end of the spectrum, with Christians and parents.
(Not that I’m going to open your link, since I do not trust it’s cleanliness)
If same sex marriage comes to pass, then let’s pass laws that give families special rights. That is the real reason for marriage as far as I am concerned. Children first.
expat, I’m not really disagreeing with you that there’s something about the experience of parenthood that nonparents can never understand, and I certainly don’t think you’re a bigot. But it’s also true that your logic would result in drawing a distinction between heterosexual families with biological children and heterosexual families with adopted children, since the latter did not get their children by procreating, biologically speaking. I don’t think you meant to suggest any such thing, of course, but that’s where the logic leads. Gay parents can, of course, adopt in most (all??) states, and many do. I know, and am biologically related to, various families in which gay parents have adopted children. Although they did not experience biologic pregnancy, it’s clear that they nevertheless love their children as much as heterosexual adoptive parents love their children and as much as I love my biological children. They would suffer as much as any parent would if, God forbid, there was a loss. So I’m not comfortable with drawing lines on that particular basis, even if there are other good reasons to be concerned about children in gay families.
Lorenzo, if you believe that what happened to Bernand Eich was “just the Christian right’s ostracise-the-gays model reversed,” does that then make it OK? Wouldn’t gays who supposedly suffered at the hands at the Christian Right’s “ostracize model” know that two wrongs don’t make a right? If you want tolerance you have to be tolerant.
As I said in an earlier comment, just because Hillary could be depicted as being just as guilty as Eich in not endorsing same sex marriage (or more so given that unlike Eich, she has been in government positions where she could have enacted gay-friendly policies) doesn’t mean she deserves the same treatment. What was done to Eich was wrong. Full stop. And if this was done to gays in the past it was also wrong. And it would be wrong to do it to Hillary in the future. I don’t see how anyone could want to perpetuate this behavior, regardless of the target.
Mrs Whatsit,
I’m not thinking about the ability of people to care about the children. I’m really thinking more that the partners have a more intimate feeling about their sex act potentially or really creating a child. Infertile couples or those using BC can still imagine their sex act a potentially procreative. I don’t see how gays can have that feeling.
This has all become surreal. Take the case of Elton John. He and his husband now have two sons via a surrogate mother, and apparently both men donated sperm so that they’d not know who the biological father is. One’s called daddy and the other papa, and one’s listed as the father on the birth certificate and the other as mother.
They’ve created a make-believe world all of their own. And to much cheering.
Ann:
Not sure why you call it a “make-believe world.” It’s a real child and they are real parents. With modern science, artificial insemination is possible, and used by heterosexual parents as well (as are surrogate mothers, etc. etc.). It’s unconventional, non-traditional, and all of that, but hardly make-believe.
Make-believe in the sense that they are pretending they are both the biological parents of the children.
Ann:
Then, by your definition, many heterosexual couples who use artificial insemination by donor are also playing “make-believe” too, because that technique is sometimes used by heterosexual couples (mixing donor and husband sperm), for the same reason. I have no idea how often it’s used, but it’s described here.
Yes, I would apply the term in the case of heterosexual couples using that technique as well.
Lorenzo from Oz said:
“Recantation is, of course, the demand the Christian right makes of homosexuals.”
Uhh, no. I guess you missed it when the Pope was discussing a hypothetical gay priests. He didn’t say, “That homosexual must recant!” He said, “Who am I to judge them if they’re seeking the Lord in good faith?”
I went to your site. I looked at your links. I looked at your citations. And you are clearly confused. For instance you cite a passage from Deuteronomy and say:
“It is the modern, scaled-down, version of the theology of Deuteronomy 13. Deuteronomy 13 enjoins the killing of those who have wrong beliefs—i.e. worshipping pagan gods:”
Perhaps you should read that passage again. Maybe to or three times. Because that’s not what it says. Did you miss the words “…secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’?” It doesn’t at all say you should stone people with different beliefs. Others could have their beliefs. As a matter of fact when the ancient Israelites received foreign heads of state, if I recall they were permitted to practice their pagan beliefs. Israel did conduct diplomacy and it’s not very diplomatic to kill state guests for having “wrong beliefs.”
But Jews were forbidden to follow those beliefs. That’s what that passage from Deuteronomy means.
And in actual practice the Jews almost never carried out any death penalties. The rabbinical courts, the sanhedrin, were no where near as harsh as you believe for some reason they were. You may have heard of the Talmud and the Mishnah?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/talmud_&_mishna.html
The Mishnah is the oral legal tradition. And Mishnah 10 says this about rabbinical courts (sanhedrin):
“3)A sanhedrin that executes once in seven years, is called murderous.”
If they were executing more than one person in seven years then the rabbis who studied this for a living, as opposed to you just grabbing quotes that meet your amateur blogger’s preconcieved notions, concluded the court must be itself violating the law and in a sense committing murder.
So you have an uninformed view of the total meaning of that passage. It doesn’t mean what you think it does, both in theory and practice. Next time, talk to a rabbi first.
Similarly your view of Christianity exists almost entirely in your imagination. Where do you get this idea that the “Christian right” demands that homosexuals recant? Because you need to tell the Pope where it says that in the Bible. He missed it.
As far as corporate boycotts go, the issue isn’t whether you can boycott a company because you object to it’s corporate behavior. I can’t comment on those boycotts you link to as I’m Catholic and it’s the first I’ve ever seen them. I support the National Rifle Association. Why should I do business with a company that’s actively working against my 2nd Amendment rights by partnering with gun control groups? Especially if alternatives are available that aren’t going to turn around and give my money to the gun control crowd?
This is entirely different from boycotting a company because you want to destroy an individual employee’s livelihood by getting him fired because you dislike his private political behavior. It would never occur to me to try to look up individual donors to ballot initiatives or politicians that were trying to gut the 2nd Amendment, figure out where they worked, and try to get them fired. That’s an entirely different animal altogether. Why are leftists conflating the two?
Ann:
I’m not sure what your point is, then. In fact, in the case of the heterosexual couple where the man has a low sperm count and his sperm is mixed with the donor’s, it is highly likely that the donor is the father. But there is still a small chance that the husband is the father, and I see no harm (and some gain) in allowing him the sort of “make-believe” (as you term it) that he might be.
Whereas, in the case of Elton John and his partner, unless one of the men has defective sperm, it seems as though they each have an equal chance of being the father of each child. Fifty-fifty, more or less. So there is not as much “make-believe” involved as in the case of the heterosexual father I’ve described above, the one with the low sperm count (which, after all, is one of the main reasons for artificial insemination being used in a heterosexual couple). With Elton John and partner, it would be more a case of choosing not to know for sure who is the biological father each time, in order to make sure both are equally bonded to each child. That doesn’t seem to be especially make-believe-ish to me, because each man would be likely to have an equal chance of actually being that father. It seems a much better way to do it than to have each man in the couple know himself to be biologically related to only one of the children. Why do it that way if you don’t have to?
neo-neocon,
The issue is surrogacy. If the surrogate mother decided during her pregnancy she wanted to keep the baby, do the Elton Johns have a property right to that baby?
This is a separate issue from artificial insemination. I assume theirs a contract. There usually is. So does that contract determine ownership of the child?
That’s the problem with surrogate motherhood. Issues of ownership of a human being can arise.
Pardon me for introducing my comment into the above discussion and both Neo and Ann make excellent points, as always, but when I read Ann’s post about Elton John and his ‘husband’s” “make believe world,” I agreed because she says, on the birth certificates, one of the men is listed as the MOTHER.
It is total fantasy to list one of those men as the mother. Not all the laws of the left nor their propaganda nor re- indoctrination will ever make that so.
And one man calling another man his husband is just as ludicrous. It tries to strongarm the rest of us into playing, “Let’s Pretend.”
All this makes me so confused. This is a crazy planet filled with crazy people.
Eric is right. “When challenged, social dominance must be competed for.” Or it is lost.
Steve57:
The issues are not specific to surrogacy for homosexual male couples but also involve heterosexual couples who use surrogates. If a man (or, in the case of Elton John and partner, men’s) sperm is used to inseminate the surrogate mother, he is the biological father, and the issues of custody are the same for both heterosexual and gay couples in that situation. They are similar to custody issues regarding unwed couples who are separating, or married couples who are divorcing. There are always such issues.
An added wrinkle in surrogacy cases is when a fee (over and above the mother’s expenses) has been paid the mother. But that issue exists whether the surrogacy involves a heterosexual or gay couple.
Actually, a knottier issue involves lesbian couples who separate and have custody disputes, because in those cases one parent is quite clearly the only one who is the biological mother for each child.
kit:
Yes, it would be make-believe to say one is the mother. But I don’t think they really think that; I think it might be listed that way on the birth certificate because it doesn’t give the option of listing two fathers. They don’t have the children actually call one of them “mother”; both terms used are for father.
But take a look at what Ann actually said in her earlier comments. She wrote, “they are pretending they are both the biological parents of the children.” Not just the mother, but the biological parents. What’s more, she added that the same make-believe would be true for heterosexual couples who mixed the sperm of donor with the husband. They certainly aren’t calling the father a mother. So her term “make-believe” was more globally meant.
The blogger Bookworm recently posted about what Ann touched on:
Should the gay marriage debate include the biological reality of parenting versus stepparenting?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/mjj7gct
The Left turns the idea of same-sex couples having babies into a shallow fashion statement
http://preview.tinyurl.com/lk96lfx
neo-neocon, I realize the issues regarding surrogacy are for all practical purposes the same whether we’re talking about gay or straight couples using a surrogate mother.
I also realize that there can be issues regarding custody or visitation in all sorts of different situations. But the difference between surrogates and all the other examples you used is this is the only one in which a contract is involved concerning who “owns” the baby if some disagreement arises. Which would bother me whether the couple contracting for the surrogate was heterosexual or homosexual.
It’s a sort of a side issue. Although I do think it brings up a relevent point which you and others like kit and Lizzy have touched on. I think the next phase of the left’s war on wrongthink will be biology-denial. If somebody considers themselves transgendered we are all apparently just go with what they identify themselves as as opposed to what we see right in front of our faces.
Which will lead to insane consequences. Imagine being Bradley Manning’s prison doctor and being forced to refer to Manning as Chelsea and as a her and a she. While telling “her” that “she” has testicular cancer?
I just can’t bring myself to do it. No more if they identified themselves as Napoleon Bonaparte.
New Class Traitor: I stand by my statement that nobody hates, er, Pukecannon, more than I do. But I’ll allow that you may hate him as much :^). Glad to see we’re in accord that bringing him up now to get at Eich is BS.
Steve57 and Beverly are getting it right. Becoming enlightened as to the true nature of the Left is a good thing.
I mentioned months ago that hate, true hate, would be useful. This is how. Without hating the Left, one can never truly understand nor take seriously the Left when they say they hate you. You don’t understand what that means until you understand the emotion of hate first.
It’s pretty stupid though that it takes a single Democrat politician that can be frozen and hated, such as Hussein here, to clue people in on what hate really means in America.
Also, due to sources like Bella Dodd, we know the Leftist alliance with the teacher unions in 1930s infiltrated several Leftists into the Vatican priest training programs.
Later producing homosexual rapes, child molestations and what not… you can believe that’s coincidence if you want.
Now they want Boy Scouts to have homosexuals in. YOu can believe that’s coincidence if you want. But when the Left’s boot comes down, you won’t get that choice any more.
The issue in homosexuality, I think, boils down to whether it’s a natural variation, like being an albino, or whether it is in fact a sexual perversion, as it’s almost always been considered in practically every culture.
Trouble is, the gay activists have made it all but impossible to research the question, so it will just have to remain a bone of contention.
Meanwhile, for those who think it’s an innate, unchangeable tendency — What about NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio’s lesbian wife? SHE changed. They have two kids. But does anyone ever mention it, or similar cases? (crickets chirping….)
IOW, it could be a natural variation — if I were a lesbian and convinced of that fact, I’d strongly support research into the question. So the fact that the gay activists are so strongly opposed to it is interesting, to say the least.
A lot of lesbians don’t like or fear males, due to prior experience. While that doesn’t include everyone, much of the homosexual orgy farming the Left does doesn’t address the human concerns or the emotions of love and hate.
The Left needs storm troopers, slaves, and obedient cogs. They aren’t a relationship counseling service. They don’t want love between two humans, whether it is the standard or the forbidden kind, to bear fruit. That’s not their goal.
When will the Left start formally establishing forced “re-education camps”?
Bob, they already had the prototypes for Americans back during WWII under FDR, the Democrat God and Divine Being that died during 4 terms.
http://www.scifiwright.com/2013/11/saving-science-fiction-from-strong-female-characters-part-4/
Most of the Left’s ops aren’t isolated incidents. They are coordinated, if only loosely.
So what is my objection?
My objection is to falseness, insincerity, propaganda, bad drama, bad art, and treason against the muses. My objection is to using art for propaganda purposes. My objection is to Politically Correct piety. My objection is to the Thought Police.
My objection is to the spirit of totalitarianism.
For about ten years now, I have been writing and posting essays and articles on my electronic journal, and in all that time, I have been subjected to the Leftist mob tactics of mass hatred once and once only. It was the time I mocked the Sci-Fi Channel for kowtowing to Political Correctness. My motive for objecting was perfectly clear to everyone: I would like to write without censorship, formal or informal, based on political considerations. Formal censorship is state enforced; informal is enforced by organized mob-tactics, minority pressure groups, yelling, screaming, boycotts, hysteria and general bullying.
Because I would like to write without informal censorship interfering with my livelihood, I objected to Sci-Fi channel, or anyone in my field, surrendering to the minority pressure groups screaming and yelling and mob-tactics and bullying. So I mocked the Sci-Fi channel for encouraging the bullies by bowing the knee to them.
And in return the mob tried to bully me, of all people. As if I give a tinker’s damn for the opinions of these yowling halfwits. (There was exactly one person of the seven hundred or so who wrote in to me who seemed sincerely offended, and to him I apologized. To remaining six hundred and ninety-nine or so, I offered defiance in public, and in private prayed for their fool souls, hoping despite all appearances they were not damned fools.)
This taught me a lesson, but not the one the mob organizers wanted to teach. It taught me what they were afraid of. Not of me: no one can be afraid of a fat and balding nearsighted science fiction writer with a dull swordcane.
Nor were they offended by calling sodomy a sexual perversion, which I have done frequently before and since, never eliciting a single angry comment in reply, or attracting the slightest notice.
Since my legions of drug-maddened terror troops are all stranded on Salusa Secondus, the third planet of Gamma Piscium, 138 lightyears away, surely the mobsters of Political Correctness are not afraid of any physical force I can bring to bear. Neither am I in a position to deny any man any economic opportunities, nor am I influential enough to provoke public opinion or create any controversy. I doubt I could even do as much myself against them as they have done to me, such as hack a Wikipedia page or send around an open letter and expect it to be published and reprinted.
To explain what they are afraid of, I am afraid I have to explain something of the pathology of Leftism.
It feels satisfying to see the rest or others of the 3% telling it as it actually is, without the limitations of intellectual retardedness or unwillingness to face the true nature of the Left.
Also per chance I liked the books of that author, but I never read his politics or blog posts. My instinct for the sane must be getting refined over time.