Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay Marriage Advocates to Gay Mafia: “Calm the —- Down”

Rather belatedly, a group of prominent Gay Marriage supporters has signed an open letter politely asking the Gay Mob to stop persecuting people like Brendan Eich and be more tolerant of people who disagree with them.

The signatories of this statement are grateful to our friends and allies for their enthusiasm. But we are concerned that recent events, including the resignation of the CEO of Mozilla under pressure because of an anti-same-sex- marriage donation he made in 2008, signal an eagerness by some supporters of same-sex marriage to punish rather than to criticize or to persuade those who disagree. We reject that deeply illiberal impulse, which is both wrong in principle and poor as politics.

As a viewpoint, opposition to gay marriage is not a punishable offense. It can be expressed hatefully, but it can also be expressed respectfully. We strongly believe that opposition to same-sex marriage is wrong, but the consequence of holding a wrong opinion should not be the loss of a job. Inflicting such consequences on others is sadly ironic in light of our movement’s hard-won victory over a social order in which LGBT people were fired, harassed, and socially marginalized for holding unorthodox opinions.

Don’t expect cooler heads to prevail; the real force behind gay marriage activism has never been the desire for equality, but the desire for vengeance.




  1. And the hilarity: the biggest bigots like Rob Tisinai, Jim Burroway, and Jon Corvino are being absolutely TORCHED in their own comments section, the response being overwhelmingly negative.

    The sweetest schadenfreude: they’re being called collaborators and compared to Jewish Nazis who want gay people murdered.

    Keep in mind, all of these people are Progs who wanted Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh arrested and jailed for the Tucson shootings, insist that Barack Obama must be unquestioningly obeyed or you’re a racist, and have whipped the gay and lesbian community into a frenzy of hate toward conservatives, especially gay conservatives.

    It’s like Michael Vick being eaten by his own fighting dogs.

    And it isn’t like we haven’t been telling them for the past ten years the so-called “gay rights” movement is nothing but fascist leftism and antireligious bigotry with better wigs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 23, 2014 @ 8:24 am - April 23, 2014

  2. Irrational and hysterical calls for the heads of the signatories of this letter will start before nightfall. “Three… two… one…. “

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — April 23, 2014 @ 8:25 am - April 23, 2014

  3. Irrational and hysterical calls for the heads of the signatories of this letter will start before nightfall. “Three… two… one…. “ Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — April 23, 2014

    Sadly, very true.

    Comment by Charles — April 23, 2014 @ 10:33 am - April 23, 2014

  4. The open letter addresses diversity of opinion in a most eloquent way:

    The natural consequence of true liberty is diversity. Unless a society can figure out a way to reach perfect agreement, conflicting views will be inevitable. Any effort to impose conformity, through government or any other means, by punishing the misguided for believing incorrectly will impoverish society intellectually and oppress it politically.

    The test of our commitment to liberal principles is not our eagerness to hear ideas we share, but our willingness to consider seriously those we oppose.

    The writer refers to “liberal” principles. We conservatives are “classical liberals” who oppose the tyranny of the state and favor the compromise of representative government as the vehicle for carrying out the consent of the governed.

    The modern conservative is engaged in protecting and defending what was the classical liberalism of the founding fathers. Therefor, the principles the writer claims as liberal are, in fact, the principles of the modern conservative.

    This letter reads like great common sense to the modern conservative, because it is based on our principles. It acknowledges the status quo of the difference of opinion. Differences of opinion were the subject of the Federalist Papers which demonstrated the brilliance of reaching respected compromises when “either – or” is not practical.

    The gay agenda for gay marriage takes the notion that one man and one woman marriage is “an imposition of conformity by the hand government.” I agree. That is why I have always said that the dialog must be about whether the state has any compelling reason to regulate marriage in any way, shape or form. If there are compelling reasons (and I believe there are) how do we favor one change in the formula and not other changes?

    Spousal “legal rights” to property and inheritance might be easily adapted in one man and one man marriage, but would that be so in one man and plural wives marriages? This is the nitty-gritty involved in the exercise of pulling the wheel off of the cart in order to solve one problem without regard to the cascade of related effects.

    George Orwell noted: “In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer…” We are forever thinking we are smarter than past generations and even smarter than the next generation. In fact, most “progressive” ideas and ideals stumble rather quickly into the game of gaining the power to impose them through force. Therefore, they are not the power of the idea whose time has come, but the controlling conceit of those in power.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 23, 2014 @ 10:48 am - April 23, 2014

  5. I have always been convinced that there are two elements within the same-sex marriage group: those who are sincere about it and see it as a matter of getting legal recognition and economic benefits for all couples (these are the folks who have expressed willingness to settle for civil unions), and the ones who are using it to get revenge/silence opponents/eradicate marriage.

    The sincere group has naively assumed that everybody who supports gay marriage does it for the same reason. They have now been forced to accept the fact that there are fascists and totalitarians in their ranks, and they need to decide if their ends justify the means, or if they will clean house. It looks like they are at least attempting to address the problem, but it remains to be seen if it is genuine, or just a smokescreen.

    Comment by Sean L — April 23, 2014 @ 11:05 am - April 23, 2014

  6. In some respects, I find it frightening how fast gay marriage went from a chimerical philosophical-construct to legal reality in many US States. If you had asked me back when I was in College in the 1970s, I would have said that it would take a 100-years for the American volk-geist to shift that dramatically.

    I always figured that FIRST we’d have ENDA, then military-participation…eventually civil unions in a few liberal Metropolitan-bastions that would slowly-evolve to SCOTUS-sanctioned civil marriage several generations later. And just BEING gay when and where I went to college was illegal back-then.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — April 23, 2014 @ 11:21 am - April 23, 2014

  7. You have to realize that the GLBT Mafia don’t want to eradicate hate and bigotry, they want to replace it with their own version of hate and bigotry. This is tribalism, pure and simple.

    Comment by Juan — April 23, 2014 @ 12:00 pm - April 23, 2014

  8. I only have one problem with the open letter:

    Inflicting such consequences on others is sadly ironic in light of our movement’s hard-won victory over a social order in which LGBT people were fired, harassed, and socially marginalized for holding unorthodox opinions.

    They would be absolutely right if being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transsexual were an opinion. They are not.

    Comment by Craig Smith — April 23, 2014 @ 12:07 pm - April 23, 2014

  9. A lot of leftists fighting for gay marriage actually don’t favor it but want to use it as a weapon against conservatives. Its about power not rights. That’s why they support & don’t news report Muslims that commit arson against gay clubs, or go on shooting sprees. When leftists came to full totalitarian power in many countries they killed gays they previously supported.

    One funny thing is the vice president of the local community college is most likely against gay marriage since he has parties of guys from his college too young to go out to the bars. He probably thinks he is providing a “safe space” for sex. He wouldn’t be able to afford to impress college guys as easily if he was gay divorced and paying alimony.

    Comment by Steve — April 23, 2014 @ 1:10 pm - April 23, 2014

  10. If elements of the GLBT community is going to continue being enemies of America, then maybe they need to be treated like The Enemy. I have long supported GLBT issues, including gay marriage, and have a number of close GLBT friends. This is not about how you play with your plumbing, or who you marry, or how you relate to your gender.

    It is about the Gay Mafia’s vicious, hateful, intolerant, hypocritical attacks on anyone who doesn’t toe their political line. It is about their Totalitarian Liberalism. Liberalism is a cult of hate and violence, and they are among the biggest haters. Not everyone gay, but the activist community. But the rank and file apparently support that, so they are just as bad.

    It’s not that they are gay. It is that they are damned Liberal scum.

    Comment by Mannie — April 23, 2014 @ 2:03 pm - April 23, 2014

  11. 8. They would be absolutely right if being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transsexual were an opinion.

    Craig, being LGBT is not an opinion, but believing that you are within the “spectrum of normal human variation” and are not some freakish anomaly is an opinion.

    And believing that it’s better to be out-of-the-closet than to hide the fact that you’re “differently normal” is also an opinion.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — April 23, 2014 @ 3:57 pm - April 23, 2014

  12. Opinion? Perhaps “option” is the working concept.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 23, 2014 @ 4:24 pm - April 23, 2014

  13. kabuki theatre. Those people are not interested in liberty, fairness or justice. I hope they will reap what they sow.

    Comment by Susan — April 23, 2014 @ 5:04 pm - April 23, 2014

  14. Throbert, they were not fired, harassed, and socially marginalized for holding an opinion. That is the point.

    Straights who believe that homosexuality should be within the spectrum of normal human variation or who think gays should come out of the closet are not, and have never been fired, harassed, and socially marginalized.

    It is not the opinion that got them fired, harassed, or socially marginalized.

    Comment by Craig Smith — April 23, 2014 @ 6:17 pm - April 23, 2014

  15. I was almost impressed by this letter, then a couple of things caught my attention. One was the “gay is an opinion” line already highlighted by Craig at #8. The other was the repeated labeling of opposition to SSM as “wrong” and “misguided” rather than just different. These Freudian slips suggest that the writers and signotaries of this letter are up to their eyeballs in “gaythink”, and that their real purpose is to give the gay rights movement a PR makeover without requiring any real change in its methods or goals.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — April 23, 2014 @ 9:59 pm - April 23, 2014

  16. @ Seane-Anna: I have reread the letter a couple times, and I’m inclined to agree with you. The comparison of being homosexual to having an unpopular opinion is so flawed as to be self-contradictory. That, and the attitude towards their opponents is closer to “patronizing” than it is to “understanding.”

    My solution to the whole problem: eliminate civil marriage altogether, and replace it will “civil union,” “domestic partnership,” or whatever. This would be a contract between two consenting adults, regardless of sex, romantic interest, or consanguinity. The terms of the contract, including responsibilities of the partners, levels of sexual contact and exclusivity, and acceptable grounds for the dissolution of the contract. If the couple also had a marriage presided over and blessed by a cleric, then the couple could use the requirements for valid marriages and grounds for divorce/annulment of the contract, with the cleric acting in the stead of a justice. If the dynamic of the relationship changed (i.e., roommates become lovers, lovers grow apart, etc.), the contract could be renegotiated or rescinded at any time.

    The contracts would also void behavior that was illegal in a given state. For instance, a contract between a brother and sister could not provide for incest, as incest is illegal. Thus, the siblings would not be able to publicly break the laws against incest, and the contract would be voided if it was discovered that they were having sex. Similarly, since adultery is not illegal, polygamy could be “legalized” by recognizing one couple, but the language of the contract allowing for the husband to carry on with other “female partners.”

    Marriage, at least in the public arena, is no longer what it once was. We should stop acting like it.

    Comment by Sean L — April 23, 2014 @ 11:17 pm - April 23, 2014

  17. Sean — well, I suppose there’s some argument to be made that conservatives should just throw in the towel on the word “marriage” and stick to their guns on the point that “holy matrimony” (or whatever term they might use) is ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — April 24, 2014 @ 7:33 pm - April 24, 2014

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.