Gay Groups Against Freedom & Introspection
I have theory about which I am so certain, I’m going to blog on it before I complete my research, indeed before I begin it. If I’m wrong, I will make a $25 contribution to each gay group (Equality California, Freedom (sic) to Marry, NGLTF, NCLR, HRC and Lambda Legal Defense) about which I offer my prediction.
I predict that none of the gay groups will be criticizing the judicial intervention which forced eHarmony to offer a companion site offering dating services for gay couples. None will be concerned about the implications of this settlement — that it could be used to limit the freedom of gay online services to cater exclusively to same-sex couples.
Furthermore, I predict that on none of the sites of the aforementioned groups will there be any serious introspection about the passage of Proposition 8. Of course, people might quibble about the meaning of “serious.” So, we may have to leave that open to debate. Should the situation allow, I promise to be open to persuasion from those who weigh in in the comments section.
Now to post this, then to update as i check each site. (To qualify for my contribution, criticism of the eHarmony settlement and serious introspection on Prop 8 must have appeared on their site before the publishing of this post, though i would certainly commend any statements which follow.)
ADDENDUM:Â You’re welcome to forward me links to statements by the leaders of these organizations which may not appear on their web-sites.
UPDATE:Â Searching the sites. . .
EQUALITY CALIFORNIA: Their post-election press releases define sore loser. Instead of accepting the result and accepting their responsibility in the passage of Prop 8, their first post-election press release announces a “Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8, Should It Pass.” In none of the group’s subsequent releases, do its leaders take any responsibility for the passage of 8, they just lash out at their adversaries. There is no mention of the eHarmony lawsuit on their web-page. This only strengthens my conviction that Geoff Kors should step down as the group’s executive director.
FREEDOM (sic) to MARRY: Just one post-election press release. No introspection. No mention of eHarmony’s settlement and its threat to gay websites.
NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE: A lot of self-congratulation on the efforts to defeat 8, but no introspection. No mention of the chilling potential of the eHarmony suit and settlement.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS:Â Ditto.
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN. Ditto again, but did come across this gem from Joe Solmonese: “As free and equal human beings, we were born with the right to equal families.“ Huh? We were? And, uh, what is an “equal family”? Does this mean I get to sue my parents for only taking us to DisneyWorld once whereas other kids from other families got to go multiple times? Joe, Joe, do you even have a rudimentary understanding of our founding documents and principles? Or do you just paste “equal” and “equality” into every statement you make because your organization’s logo is the equal sign.
LAMBDA LEGAL: No mention of eHarmony. No introspection.
My search complete, my theory proven, my funds secure. I’m actually surprised that none of the gay groups praised the eHarmony settlement (not yet at least). So maybe they’re not against freedom, hence, my decision to strike through that word in the title of this post. While I’d rather they join me in criticizing the settlement, it’s a good sign that they’re not praising it. Maybe they do recognize its chilling implications.
12 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
There was nothing judicial about this. New Jersey, the Garb… Garden State legitimately enacted a law that says that you can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The court merely enforced this law.
Nor will this have any effect on the freedom of gay online services. Neither could an online dating service disallow Jews from joining. But that doesn’t mean that it is illegal to target a niche and have a dating site that is exclusively Jewish.
How sad that some gay people spend more time making excuses for anti-gay bigots than anything else.
Comment by Diocletian — November 20, 2008 @ 3:59 pm - November 20, 2008
does this count? Tonight On Bilerico: A LiveBlog To Ask LGBT Leaders What Went Wrong
Tonight at 7pm EST there will be a LiveBlog hosted on the Bilerico Project during which the public can pose questions to Kate Kendell, Nadine Smith, and Barbara McCullough-Jones – the three women who led the anti-amendment movements in Florida, Arizona and California. The live Q&A will be hosted by Bilerico editor Bil Browning and Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend.
Comment by rusty — November 20, 2008 @ 4:36 pm - November 20, 2008
Kudos to Billerico for doing this. Since the live-blog follows my post, it doesn’t count for the $25 contribution, but if they do offer some introspection, I will blog on this.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 20, 2008 @ 4:49 pm - November 20, 2008
Is Dan Savage a group?
Probally not, but he will take your 25 bucks!
When is the last time you two share the same thoughts?
Comment by gillie — November 20, 2008 @ 5:26 pm - November 20, 2008
#3 – That depends. When was the last time Dan Savage had an original thought? Or better yet, one that wasn’t rated NC-17.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — November 20, 2008 @ 5:31 pm - November 20, 2008
Actually, Gillie, in my post on another eHarmony suit, I noted that he and I were on the same page on this issue.
But, he doesn’t speak a gay group. Given his clear-headedness on this issue, would it that he did.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 20, 2008 @ 5:32 pm - November 20, 2008
Of course he doesn’t. Joe Salmonese is a leftist and secular humanist first and foremost. The way he has run the HRC should leave that beyond doubt.
The principles of the Left are contrary to the founding principles of the United States. For leftists the founding of the U.S. was a false start toward freedom. The real march toward human liberty for them begin with he pseudo-Hegelian nonsense of the 19th century.
So you see expecting a leftie like Joe to understand and hold to our founding principles is like expecting water not to be wet.
Comment by Dave — November 20, 2008 @ 5:54 pm - November 20, 2008
Wait a sec, if I’m not mistaken this eHarmony lawsuit wasn’t filed by a gay activist group but by an individual. I can’t believe I’m going to actually pipe up and defend them even this teensy bit, but with this in mind aren’t you misfiring when it comes to that.
I agree with you about their lack of introspection on Prop 8 as well on other things. 0-30, Joe Solomnese. Great record you have! NOT! The of course there is HRC’s failure on DADT, ENDA, etc., etc., etc. Pretty useless group IMO unless of course you’re eager to buy crap with their logo on it.
Comment by John — November 20, 2008 @ 6:19 pm - November 20, 2008
But that doesn’t mean that it is illegal to target a niche and have a dating site that is exclusively Jewish.
The operative word is exclusively. The decision implies that it may be or become illegal to exclude based upon any plaintiff’s criterion who decides to make headlines or ‘win one for the community’ for the heck of it. I find it difficult to accept that public accomodations considerations apply to websites.
How sad that some gay people spend more time making excuses for anti-gay bigots than anything else.
I assume you’re gay. When you choose to spend an evening with your gay friends, is it logical to consider you an anti-straight bigot?
You’re going to have to do a bit better than that.
Comment by Ignatius — November 20, 2008 @ 6:28 pm - November 20, 2008
Nor will this have any effect on the freedom of gay online services. Neither could an online dating service disallow Jews from joining. But that doesn’t mean that it is illegal to target a niche and have a dating site that is exclusively Jewish.
Really. No effect on the freedom of gay online services? The court, in its wrong-headed interpretation of the law, not only took away the freedom of eHarmony to run a niche business, but it threatens the freedom of gay online dating services from running its niche businesses. Same goes for JDate (where a good friend of mine found his Jewish wife and are extremely happy).
The court, and many Americans, are under the erroneous impression that all forms of discrimination are wrong. Interpreting constitutional rights properly requires weighing any discrimination in relation to personal or (perhaps) societal harm. Purposely denying blacks access to educational opportunities does actual harm. Purposely denying blacks access to clean and convenient drinking fountains does personal and societal harm — and is, at its base, unjust.
But what about setting up a health club just for women—like Curves—so that women can feel more at ease about working out? That harms no man. What about setting up retirement communities with an age-requirement above 65? That harms no young people. That discrimination is OK—or at least is for now. Who knows what the future holds thanks to the court tossing out common sense and any proportion of “justice.”
By the court’s decision here, it is saying that any discrimination whatsoever is impermissible, regardless of harm—indeed despite the harm it may do to eHarmony.
This is a question of our constitutional right of free association. But, I suppose, in the new world we are going to be living in soon, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, any niche social club, and (why not?) even the Catholic Church are going to be destroyed in the name of “equality” and “fairness” and “justice.”
Comment by Dr. Zaius — November 20, 2008 @ 7:15 pm - November 20, 2008
Isn’t gay.com’s services discriminating based on sexual-orientation. Remember, the laws say “sexual orientation” which includes heterosexuals are also a protected and can not be discriminated upon because they are heterosexual.
Comment by OutliciousTV — November 20, 2008 @ 7:20 pm - November 20, 2008
[...] Gay Groups Against Freedom & Introspection [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Gay Groups’ Silence on eHarmony Lawsuit — November 20, 2008 @ 11:56 pm - November 20, 2008