I have put off for some time posting on a suit a California lesbian filed last month against the dating service eHarmony “for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.” I had hesitated writing because I have much to say about this for a great variety of reasons, largely because it goes to the heart of what it means to live in a free society.

In short, let me say that I oppose this suit and hope the judge dismisses it. While I don’t approve of this web-site’s only offering services to individuals seeking romantic relationships with a member of the opposite sex, it’s not really for me to approve or disapprove. This is a private organization which provides a service for those seeking heterosexual relationships. Just as there are private organizations which provide on-line dating services for those seeking same-sex relationships.

It’s not as if Linda Carlson, the woman filing the suit, lacks online options to find lesbian love. There are a number of sites which cater to those seeking same-sex romance as well as those seeking more “traditional” forms of intimacy. And there are those sites which cater to those seeking same-sex intimacy (without providing options for those seeking heterosexual romance).

And some sites fill a niche market. JDate serves those who seeking to find Jewish partners. If Miss Carlson wins her case, then someone seeking Christian romance could sue Jdate for not serving them. I would daresay there are sites for Christians, Muslims — and others of a variety of different faiths, backgrounds or interests.

Not only that. If she wins, perhaps an evangelical Christian will sue gay.com demanding that it provide matchmaking services for straight couples.

Twelve years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, Hurley v. Irish-American Gay Group of Boston affirmed the right of an Irish-American group to exclude a gay Irish group from their annual parade. The court held that it violated the First Amendment for Massachusetts to “require private citizens who organize a parade to include among the marchers a group imparting a message the organizers do not wish to convey.”

While gay activists were gnashing their teeth over their defeat at the nation’s highest court, I think they were short-sighted in their dismay. Had they won, then ex-gays and anti-gay groups would have had the right to march in Gay Pride parades.

I believe the same issue is at stake here. If Miss Carlson wins, not only will eHarmony have to accomodate those seeking same-sex romance, but gay web-sites will have to accommodate those seeking heterosexual marriage.

The issue here is freedom. It’s a shame that in their zeal to root out all discrimination (or perceived discrimination), some gay activists seek to undermine the freedom of others. Their freedom to speak as they will, to associate with whom they choose and to seek romance with the types of people with whom they hope to find intimacy.

Just as eHarmony should be free to focus on heterosexual romance, so should gay.com be free to promote gay relationships.

Please, Miss Carlson, drop your suit. For you may well find that the result you seek in this case will compromise the freedom of many gay organizations to promote same-sex relationships.

- B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)

My friend Rick Since has posted an excellent piece on this — which I highly **HIGHLY** recommend. And I expect I’ll have more to say in subsequent posts.

UPDATE: While I think Dan Savage goes a little far is calling eHarmony “anti-gay,” he makes a point similar to my own:

I hardly think eHarmony is worth the trouble of suing. Unless, of course, we’re going to insist that Lesbotronic and Slave4Master and Dudesnude, etc., all start accepting ads from “men seeking women” and “women seeking men.”

(Via HardHobbit in Comment #3.)

In a thoughtful piece, Dale Carpenter says that the suit is a “bad idea” it trivializes the serious phenomenon of anti-gay discrimination. While Dale (unlike yours truly) supports extending anti-discrimination “principles to the private sphere on important matters like employment and housing,” he opposes this lawsuit because it

It doesn’t involve a core concern like employment or housing or even a traditional public accommodation, like discrimination in a restaurant or hospital. It’s also very hard to see how any gay person is really harmed by the policy. Gays aren’t lacking for match-making sites, either general ones or those tailored just to same-sex pairs. And personally, I wouldn’t give my money to eHarmony regardless of what policy they adopt at this point.

Make sure to read the whole thing not only because it’s a good piece, but also because I expect to get back to it in a future post.

I may have more to say later on the defeat yesterday of the immigration bill. While I welcome its failure, I found much to like in the bill (and a lot to dislike). Still, I was rooting for its defeat for two primary reasons, both of which my Athena articulated (giving words to my thoughts, helping me express ideas with which I was struggling — as do all great writers*) in her column last week (which I have already noted and praised.

I think more conservatives might have supported the bill had it been less unwieldy and had it focused more on securing the border, making that a necessary first step before all other reforms.

Peggy called the bill “a big and indecipherable mess.” Such legislation can lead to much mischief, particularly by activist courts. Peggy’s solution to this mess was to divide up the bill into several smaller pieces of legislation — and to first secure the border:

If they’d really wanted to help, as opposed to braying about their own wonderfulness, they would have created not one big bill but a series of smaller bills, each of which would do one big clear thing, the first being to close the border. Once that was done–actually and believably done–the country could relax in the knowledge that the situation was finally not day by day getting worse. They could feel some confidence. And in that confidence real progress could begin.

In the wake of 9/11, we have to think differently that we did beforehand. That is why (and for other reasons) securing the border is so important. Peggy’s right; if we’re serious about immigration reform, we have to first secure the border. At that point, we’ll be ready to confront the difficult task of how to deal with the millions of illegals who are already here.

And we should do so in legislation that is more concise, easier to understand, with fewer loopholes which would only serve to pass the problem onto future generations — as have previous reforms.

*UPDATE: Of course it’s Peggy who’s the great writer; she helped give words to my thoughts about why this bill troubled me so.

This thought just occurred to me, so I’ll put it out there as a part of my vow to do more T-shirt blogging.

It occurs to me that Ann Coulter and Paris Hilton have a lot in common. Both are blond, relatively good-looking* and delight in media attention. Only Ann Coulter is a pretty smart woman and can write (& speak) well. And she seems to be using her talents to accomplish what Miss Hilton does just by living her life — to promote herself.

Just a thought.

*******
*not that I’m a good judge of that, but a number of straight men with whom I have spoken on the subject have said as much.

Nope, not Iraq.  Nope, not Philadelphia.  Nope, not New Orleans…

Mexico.  It sounds like a reign of al-Qaeda-like terror is breaking out south of our border!

A combination of “explosive devices”, 9mm pistols, AK-47′s and AR-15′s have left 21 dead and 10 wounded throughout Mexico in the past 24 hours.

8 in Guerrero
5 in Chihuahua
3 in México State
2 in Sinaloa
1 in Tlaxcala
2 in Tijuana
21 Total

In addition, 3 police stations were attacked with explosive devices, 2 in Guerrero and one in Tecpan de Galeana, leaving 2 police officers wounded.

Some notes of prurient interest:

In Apizaco, Tlaxcala, a fellow waited for his appointment in attorney Joaquín Suárez García’s office, chatting with Suárez García’s secretary. When the counselor arrived, they went into his office where seconds later his client left him slumped over his desk, dead.

Of the 21 executed, 4 were taxi drivers. One of them died in a hail of bullets from several masked men wearing body armor and weilding AK-47′s. A protest over high taxi fares, perhaps? What’s with this, anyway? They’ve been machine gunning taxi drivers all over the country since the first of the year. The authorities haven’t said much, so I’ll have to assume that the drug cartels use local taxis to ferry shipments and money from point A to point B. Then they come back to eliminate the drivers — loose lips sink ships — or as punishment for inventory losses.

But this story wasn’t in the New York Times today.  Nor did Ms. Couric report it last night.  But it sounds very much like the kind of “end of the world” reporting we get from Iraq every day doesn’t it.

And Senator Lucy Graham (D-SC) wonders why conservatives want to seal the border FIRST.

By the way, the Drive-By Media isn’t reporting this news much either…

New Orleans’ 162 murders last year made the city the nation’s murder capital, with a murder rate that was anywhere from one-third again to two-thirds-again higher than the next-highest, in Gary, Ind., and Detroit.

“We have to look at what this does to the city, what it does to the economy, and what will happen if we don’t get it under control,” said Anthony Radosti, vice president of the Metropolitan Crime Commission, a watchdog group that often critiques the New Orleans Police Department. “These homicides are striking fear into certain communities.

“By year’s end, the population will be increased; the National Guard and the State Police may be gone,” he said Monday. “We have to ask, ‘What is the plan of action for the remainder of the year?’”

Hey…. I’m all for imposing the Pelosi Doctrine for New Orleans, too.   Let’s withdraw our troops from the civil war so we can fight the real terrorists.  Unless the duly re-elected government of Mayor Ray Nagin meets some political benchmarks, of course.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)