UPDATE #2: The hate goes on unabated. I don’t think this is winning gay rights any friends but they seem as oblivious to this as Governor Blagojavich.
UPDATE: Attacks on the Mormon Church are escalating and gay activists seem to be planning attacks on all religious institutions.
Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, says that, when religious liberty conflicts with gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” A National Public Radio report on the conflict noted that if previous cases are any guide, “the outlook is grim for religious groups.”
I have explained to my older son that I think the gay marriage issue is an attack on organized religion, on those churches like the Catholic Church, that do not perform gay marriage. Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay blogger (who seems to be having mental health problems lately) makes a great show of being a devout Catholic and a fervent advocate of gay marriage. My son dismisses this concern as a delusion of an out of touch old man (although he doesn’t say so openly). He recently sent me an e-mail about the “sinister conspiracy” behind the gay marriage advocacy, a sarcastic reference to my comments earlier. I think recent developments support some of my concerns,
A gay man has forced eHarmony, a Christian internet dating site, to settle a lawsuit by agreeing to establish a gay dating site.
“It’s a great victory,” said McKinley, 46, a computer programmer. “I tried to use their Web site, and you simply cannot. You only have two options: a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man. I’m a man seeking a man, and obviously I can’t force it to change its interface.”
The internet is full of gay dating sites. Craig’s List, a huge internet site that includes everything from jobs to prostitutes, has gay matching sites that are widely used. What did this gay man in New Jersey want ? I think it had to do with eHarmony’s Christian reputation.
The eHarmony founder, a psychologist, said that he had no expertise in gay psychology and therefore no particular talent in matching gay couples. His premise in eHarmony has been that members are looking for a marriage partner and that the intent of the service is matching people who are looking for a mate, not just a date or sex partner.
eHarmony founder Neil Clark Warren says the company has declined to serve the gay market because the compatibility research on which it relies to match people was done with heterosexuals and may not be applicable to same-sex couples.
He also states the free market argument for allowing him to decline business that he disapproved of.
But even if he decided to focus on heterosexuals because he disapproves of homosexuality, that should be his right in a free society. Potential customers excluded or offended by that choice then would have a right to go elsewhere, instead of forcibly imposing their preferences. Likewise, competitors would be free to take advantage of eHarmony’s perceived shortcomings, as they’ve been trying to do.
Talk radio appeared because of frustration on the part of conservatives with mainstream media, long perceived to be biased against them. This argument is dismissed as paranoia by the left, which claims there is no interest in reimposing the “Fairness Doctrine”. Read the comments on that post and tell me the concern about free speech is irrational.
Anyway, people who support free trade and freedom of speech and association tend to be on the political right. Those who would compel even dating services to toe the line tend to be on the left. I doubt most gays are interested in a membership in eHarmony. It is all about rubbing the noses of the majority in the “rights” of gays. I think the same applies to gay marriage. The rage about Prop 8 is the rage of frustration that the majority “got away with” something.
Tags: eHarmony, gay marriage
It is clearly and attack on organized religion. Gay rights activists are demanding that the mormon church lose their tax exempt status.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-11-13-Mormon-gay-marriage_N.htm
The LDS churd (mormon church) correctly responds that “churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society. While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues.”
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4713197&pid=1
These angry mobs pushing the gay agenda need to learn read up on the meaning of the 1st amendment. In their angry ignorance they themselves are breeding intolerance and making fools of themselves at the same time.
And its not stopping with the mormons. Gay rights activists are going after any and all churches that supported traditional marriage.
http://nationalgaynews.com/content/view/4247/176
That’s preposterous. Gays are not seeking to have RELIGIONS recongnize gay marriage. They seek to have THE STATE recognize gay marriage. Gay marriages have been happening for a long time. Guess where? Churches. I have attended several. Those marriages are recognized by the couples being married, the church that performs them, and the friends and family of the couple.
Gays seeking to get married do so because they want to be married. Same as you and me.
If they get married, does that constitute an attack on the Mormon church? When considering this question, ask yourself this: If you are married, and if you are not a Mormon (and hence were not eligible to be married in the Mormon church), and whether you are straight or gay, to what extent was YOUR wedding intended as an atack on the Mormon church? If you are not Catholic and yet are married, to what extent did you intend your marriage to obe an attach on the Catholic church?
I’m guessing that most of the people reading this who are married got married because they wanted to.
Here’s how it works:
If you are not attracted to people of the same sex, then don’t marry one. You do not have the right to insist that everyone must comply with your preferences.
If you are against abortion, then don’t have an abortion. You do not have the right to impose your beliefs on everyone else.
If your religious beliefs prohibit you from eating meat from cloven-hooved animals, that’s fine, but you don’t have the right to prohibit everyone from eating cloven-hooved animals.
Are there wingnuts out there who want to sue eharmony to get their names in the news? Sure. There are wingnuts of all shapes and sizes out there, and anyone with the $200 filing fee can file a lawsuit. The law partner of a lawschool classmate of mine was recently disbarred for filing nuisance suits against hair an nail salons for not changing the blue fluid that the combs were kept in or some nonesense. I think the guy was a Rebublican because he used to wear a tie to class when the rest of us wore sweatshirts and jeanns or shorts. Do I suspect a vast right wing conspiracy to bring down the hairdressing industry? Not so much. Does one wignnut’s suit against eharmony indicate a widespread consiracy by all those who are now getting married in church despite the State’s lack of recognition? That’s a big leap.
People don’t understand that the pernicious effects are on the margins of society: yes, most gays don’t care, but some nut will indeed be angry that he can’t have his wedding in the Bee-youtiful Catholic Church down the street. Or, better yet, it will be a less-threatening lesbian couple that will sue to have the tax exemption taken away for the transgression.
Or, the legislature will pass “hate speech” laws to punish people who speak out against legal gay marriages. Or, sensing continued resistance to gay marriage despite being legalized by the courts, activists will demand educational outreach at all grade levels to counteract “hateful” homophobia passed on by traditionalist parents.
It’s always the nutty extremists who push this kind of litigation. Normal people don’t bother. They will keep pushing and pushing, seeking the unattainable validation for something they sense at some level is deeply disordered.
With all due respect, you are letting your own partisanship invade your psyche. Notice how you write:
“…You do not have the right to insist that everyone must comply with your preferences….”
Indeed. I agree completely. Last I heard, people voted differently than you would wish on the subject of gay marriage in California.
Take it up with ACT-UP. Especially the charming people who spit on old ladies and snatch crosses from their hands. Or the ones burning LDS religious books. It’s not a few people.
There are plenty of gay men and women who promote gay marriage without all the tiresome and immature 60s trappings. That will get more traction than all the protests. Of course, the protesters get quite a bit of TV time. That couldn’t be the point, could it?
What the protestors don’t “get” is that they must imagine their actions and strategies in the hands of their worst enemies. But that is the trouble with relativism: its practitioners never, ever imagine the shoe on the other metaphorical foot.
P.S. Not a very mature attack on “Republicans” who wear ties. But then, I can usually tell a nutroot by the tie-died shirts and body odor. Not that I am making sweeping generalizations or anything.
Mike, I know you feel strongly about gay marriage. That fact remains that large segments of the population feel different. You dismiss my theory of why some of the gay activists are so determined on church marriage rather than civil unions which have identical provisions. It is ironic that Sarah Palin, the object of virulent attacks and ludicrous falsehoods by the left, vetoed a ban on civil union benefits for Alaska employees as her first official act as governor.
I can’t see any reason for this attack on eHarmony than the determination to battle any manifestation of religion or majority cultural symbols by gay activists. If these fools were ignored by society, there would probably be less opposition to gay marriage. The fact remains that the very power they wield because of the protected class status of gays makes people reluctant to open another cultural symbol to them. They cannot seem to take an inch but must have a mile.
I won’t take this whole things seriously until gays fight to have their wedding ceremonies held in mosques, as part of the katb kitab.
What? Insensitive to the Muslim faith?
Indeed. There is a name for people who pick fights with or attack people who do not fight back very well. And how typical to find those who have suffered from intolerance believe that their own intolerance is entirely different.
Mike, I know you feel strongly about gay marriage. That fact remains that large segments of the population feel different. You dismiss my theory of why some of the gay activists are so determined on church marriage rather than civil unions which have identical provisions.
It’s discrimination that I feel strongly about.
There already are gay church marriages. How the push to have the state recognize marriages that are already happening constitutes an attack on religion is the part I don’t understand.
Cassandra I’ve got some news for you. About 75% of America is not currenly eligible to get married in that beautiful Roman Catholic catherdal down the street. Has the Catholic church lost its tax exempt status? Not that I’m aware of. 98% of (straight) Americans are not eligible to have their wedding in the beautiful Mormon temple down the street. Please send me a list of resulting lawsuits at your earleist convenience.
Recently a woman in a park proudly strutted by me wearing her LOVE NOT H8 T-shirt. I told her that her message was offensive. It wrongly stated that my vote for prop. 8 was because I am a hate monger. This is a ploy to marginalize any reasonable debate.
The woman replied that it was about eqaulity. I told her that gays can have a civil union. That surely a man on man relationship is not the same as a man and woman relationship. Even nature concurrs as the results on male/female love produce children while same sex coupling does not. Pretending it is the exzact same thing does not make it so.
She then said that civil unions are not equal and that there are 300 to 400 rights not given by civil union. I told her I doubt that but if so then fix civil unions.
As a parting shot I told her that Elton John did not support gay marriage. Is he a hater too? She had no reply.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm
Our conversation ended there but I wonder about this.
So are the 3 California Supreme court judges who voted to maintain traditional marriage haters and anti-gay? Why then are they not forced out of their posts as California Supreme court justices?
I have come to learn this is not about “equalilty”. It is about societal approval for their lifestyle. I will never approve of it as I see it as immoral. If gays or lesbians need my approval to feel good about their lifestyle that is not my fault. They may live as they please, they are free to do so, but to mandate my approval is where I put my foot down.
I also do not approve of heterosexual couples living together before marriage. Do I hate them too? No, I just believe in traditional values.
Response to MTK jr ~
The state of California authorizes churches to perform civil marriages and make them legal. If gay marriages are seen as a civl right then it clearly is possible and likely that a gay or lesbian demand a mormon or catholic church marry them, even though they have several alternatives. As you said there are many churches which will marry same sex couples. But like in the e-harmony situation there were many alternatives to finding a partner but the gay man went after e-harmony.
Whether it be for money in law suit, societal approval, or mere spite it is conceivable that same sex couples could march into a church that did not approve of same sex marriage and yet demand they follow the law and marry them.
If not the state could legally mandate they marry same sex couples or deny those churches the right to perform legal civil marriages.
I don’t know of many gays that have lost their jobs lately because of their beliefs or lifestyle but if you supported prop. 8 you have lost the right to work and support your family according the gay activists.
Headlines indicatin Scott Eckern resigns basically mean he was forced out his job due to his support of traditional marriage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html
This whole issue is not anti-gay. It is pro traditional marriage between one man and one woman.
Those are my predictions, MTK. One of the things I do when contemplating a sea change like making gay marriage a new “right” is consider unintended consequences. Society is not static. Just from the stilly action against eHarmony alone, one can see where this is going.
Feelings over fact, again.
Cassandra, you are well named, and very, very correct. “Unintended consequences” do not seem to be on most people’s radar screens.
But it is interesting, again, how tolerance seems to be so fluidly defined…and how quickly those who seem most concerned with its lack in one area appear to restrict it in another. It’s right out of Greek mythology.
But, hey, I say let people vote. Certainly large segments of the population in certain areas approve of gay marriage…and guess what? Large segments of the population do not. The majority of the time, when it is left up to voters, it is NOT approved.
The losers need to convince with mature reason instead of foolish protests or insulting folks with whom they disagree. Many, many gay folk are doing exactly that…but they don’t get to be on television.
Why, some of them even wear ties in law school!
Mike, I’m glad you’re reading the blog. I read left wing blogs to see what they are concerned about. I’m also glad you got 88% on the civics test. If you want to post your own ideas, let me know and I will give you the password. Variety is the spice of life.
“But it is interesting, again, how tolerance seems to be so fluidly defined
and how quickly those who seem most concerned with its lack in one area appear to restrict it in another. ”
When one loses absolutes, its easy to mask intolerance and condemnation with self-righteous outrage. It has far less to do with any sort of fair play or equality and much more to do with self-indulgence.
I’m always amused when the left proffers their somewhat Procrustean view of diversity and tolerance.
It’s “Anarchy, My Way”, which isn’t anarchy at all, rather it’s a totalitarianism that suits me not you.
Now, what happens when a Christian sues to force a gays only matching site to include the needs and requirements of Christian dating. It’s ludicrous. Well, as Dana would say, Kettle, meet Pot.
Dana, Doug, Vivian Louise, great posts. And they are dead on. The problem with partisanship, I think, is that its practitioners genuinely believe that they are righteous, in and of themselves (religious folk, in my experience, are more aware of the need for humility—though there are exceptions here as anywhere else). Thus, their opponents must be the opposite. Therefore, *they* have different rules applied to themselves than those *nasty* other people.
Dana—nail on the head with the self-indulgence versus absolutes issue. Look at how nuts some aggressive atheists get. It’s as if they are outraged there is any judgement of their actions at all.
Vivian Louise is correct: the Left would be honestly confused by a religious group that, in the cause of equality, try to force inclusion into a gay organization. This is because the opposition “forcing” is…”good.” The other way is “bad.” But the fact remains that if it is wrong one way, it is wrong the other.
It’s like an interesting thing I have seen recently. Far Left students trying to join Republican clubs on campus (yes, they do exist) with the sole purpose to destroying them. They laugh about it, and many campuses say that inclusion is good and should be allowed. Yet those same college officials are unhappy with white students try to join a black student organization.
It partisanship. Thomas Sowell wrote a great book on this kind of odd doublethink: “The Vision of the Anointed.”
Vivian Louise, I liked your organizational chart for anarchy. It reminds me of what I used to think when I would listen to the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant Marxist groups on campus many years ago: “Do you own thing, man, so long as it is my kind of thing you do.”
Wow! You’ve got your blog on, Dr Capt. Mike K, and my compliments.
The eHarmony ruling disturbed me as well. I think people, religions and businesses should be allowed to discriminate against gays, blacks, Christians, atheists, or whatever, in personal and business relationships. The right of free association includes the right *not* to associate. If that principle was firmly established in law, much of the opposition to gay marriage would evaporate.
I just took the civics test and got 96.97 percent. I got the question about flood insurance wrong.
It helped that I’ve been reading a John Adams biography lately and recently re-read Miracle at Philadelphia.
I got 88% because I got the tax and spend question wrong. I sent them an e-mail about it because to say everyone is taxed the same is not the same as saying the average tax is the same. Anyway, that’s the way I am.
98% of (straight) Americans are not eligible to have their wedding in the beautiful Mormon temple down the street. Please send me a list of resulting lawsuits at your earleist convenience.
Our point, Mike, is that you are very unlikely to see any lawsuits. The people who are not aggrieved activists see no reason why they should have every right that everyone else has. I don’t need to go to gay bars and go on gay cruises. I understand gay cruises are cheaper, by the way, but I don’t need to prove anything. The angry left is the center of this sort of thing.
I seem to remember a quote about progressivism. Something about “what was once thought to be an absolute become optional; what was once optional becomes the law.”
It reminds me of an elderly magician I met once at the Magic Castle in Hollyweird. He did a great act, with old fashioned UK patter. My favorite line of his was about changes over the last fifty years.
While smoking elegantly, he intoned “Why, I remember a time when it was a terrible thing to live with a woman not your wife…but perfectly alright to smoke.”
Tru dat.
Here’s an interesting essay on academia and the tolerance of the left.
Atheists, communists, and abortion activists are all welcomed at Loyola College, but there is one category that is not: defenders of capitalism – the system that allows the parents of Loyola College students to accumulate enough wealth to pay those hefty tuition bills every year, and which provides the means of success for the College’s non-stop fund-raising drives. Defenders of capitalism may exist on campus, but it is clear that such views are not welcomed or appreciated. I learned this recently after John Allison, the CEO and Chairman of the Board of BB&T, contacted me and offered me a $350,000 grant for a program on “The Moral Foundations of Capitalism.” The BB&T Foundation funds such programs at numerous universities, including at least one other Jesuit school that I know of, Wheeling Jesuit College.
The BB&T Foundation generously offered to pay for the purchase of enough copies of the famous novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand for all of the students in the Sellinger School of Business and Management where I teach. I was told by the former dean that that would not be acceptable, however, because people might believe that Atlas Shrugged was “the official view of Loyola College.”
Ayn Rand, you see, was an atheist.
Horrifying and hilarious at the same time.
I like a lot in Lew Rockwell, but cringe at its contributors’ Confederacy fetish.
The always reliable Victor Davis Hanson wrote something interesting that is relevant in several ways to this thread:
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/ten-random-politicially-incorrect-thoughts/
Dr. K., wasn’t he on the NRO Cruise? I hope you had the chance to meet him. Every time I read his essays or books, I feel so bloody stupid. And yet I have seen commenters try to dissect him.
Disagree with Dr. Hanson if you wish, but never think him dull!
Eric, VDH was most entertaining when responding to a deranged attack by Bob Bateman.
Yeah, I found Bateman’s attacks redolent of the same emotion emanating from Kathleen Parker’s attacks on Sarah Palin: jealousy at the popularity of someone else.
I saw Hanson on the cruise and passed him, most evenings, while having my post prandial cigar on deck but he does not seem to invite discussion so I left him alone. His contributions are excellent. A number of people are enthusiastic about discussion, but not all. Hanson seems not to be but that may just be my reluctance to badger these people as many of the cruise participants did.
He strikes me as someone who is not a publicity-hound. Glad to hear that seems to have some confirming data…but saddened that you didn’t get a chance to chat with him.
I got two questions wrong (93.9) on the civics test. I would have done a lot worse in my 20’s. I hated history and don’t think I ever got higher than a C. My interest in history didn’t present until around 40 y/o. Perhaps I also did better because I’ve lived through a lot of the events tested. One tiny advantage to being 60 I suppose.
Wow Bradley. Only one wrong.
Mark Steyn was constantly surrounded by women. He and a couple of others hung out in a bar at the top deck called The Crow’s Nest. They were pretty approachable. Jay Nordlinger had dinner with us one night and is very interesting and interested in NR readers. He had a lot of questions about technology.
I took the test and also got only one wrong: the last one on “if taxes equal government spending.” If I had simply been energetic to do the math I’d have gotten it too. I test well. Sadly no aptitude for application.
An NRO cruise? That sounds interesting, something I wouldn’t say about many cruises.
It was better than playing Bingo or gambling. My last cruise was a history of medicine cruise in the Mediterranean. This is what cruises are good at. I think the NRO cruise next summer is in the Med.