Brendan Eich and the gay marriage zealots
[NOTE: In my earlier post today on the Charles Koch piece at the WSJ, I mentioned that I couldn’t get through the firewall to the article. Since then, the WSJ has kindly removed it from behind the wall, and this link will take you there successfully. Many thanks to all the readers who emailed me with either the text of the piece, or the news that the link was working.]
Charles Koch, who knows a bit about being criticized and even lied about for his beliefs, wrote this today in the WSJ:
Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society””and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.
People have the right to engage in such tactics against someone like Koch, unless guilty of libel—and the bar to proving libel of a public figure is very very high. But should they? Especially when, as in the recent case of Brendan Eich, who resigned today as CEO of Mozilla, the thoughtcrime committed by the targeted person was in taking a position that until very recently was considered completely mainstream.
You may have missed the case of Eich, but it is extraordinarily chilling. Eich was found to have made a donation in 2008 to a group supporting California’s anti-gay-marriage Proposition 8. For this horrific offense he has been pressured to resign, and that pressure succeeded despite his attempts at recantation and reassurance. Apparently, his mea culpa wasn’t maxima enough.
Ace of Spades has been covering the Eich story quite thoroughly, so I direct you to his posts here and here. Note, also, that even gay marriage proponent Andrew Sullivan has been made pretty queasy by the Eich persecution. In a column titled “The hounding of a heretic,” Sullivan writes:
Will Eich now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me ”“ as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today ”“ hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else ”“ then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.
Note, also, that the mechanism by which Eich’s contribution was outed was a leak by none other than our old friends at the IRS, who gave “a copy of the National Organization for Marriage’s 2008 tax return to a gay-advocacy group.” So although Eich was probably not the special target (there probably was no one individual target; rather, the potential targets were all the names on the list), the whole thing has unfolded exactly as planned. This was no accident, and it required the cooperation of someone or several someones at the IRS.
Unfortunately, we have become used to this level of outrageous, illegal, and yes, un-American behavior. And that’s probably most dangerous of all.
[ADDENDUM: Allahpundit at Hot Air says the leak was not by the IRS and that the mechanism was actually a disclosure through the LA Times, acting in accord with a California law allowing it. He also explains why such a law doesn’t seem to make sense except as a mechanism to hound people for their beliefs.
Here’s the history of the law. Interesting:
California’s Political Reform Act of 1974, and laws like it across the country, sought to cast disinfecting sunlight on the political process by requiring contributions of more than $100 to be made public.
[Some activist websites take] that data, formerly of interest mainly to social scientists, pollsters and journalists, and publishes it in a way not foreseen when the open-government laws were passed. As a result, donors are exposed to a wide audience and, in some cases, to harassment or worse…
Joseph Clare, a San Francisco accountant who donated $500 to supporters of Proposition 8, said he had received several e-mail messages accusing him of “donating to hate.” Mr. Clare said the site perverts the meaning of disclosure laws that were originally intended to expose large corporate donors who might be seeking to influence big state projects.
“I don’t think the law was designed to identify people for direct feedback to them from others on the other side,” Mr. Clare said. “I think it’s been misused.”
Many civil liberties advocates, including those who disagree with his views on marriage, say he has a point. They wonder if open-government rules intended to protect political influence of the individual voter, combined with the power of the Internet, might be having the opposite effect on citizens.
“These are very small donations given by individuals, and now they are subject to harassment that ultimately makes them less able to engage in democratic decision making,” said Chris Jay Hoofnagle, senior fellow at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology at the University of California.
It sounds as though even some liberals are perturbed by this. I bet not many, though. And I don’t see anything being done about changing the law, at least not so far.]
I have no dog in the homosexual marriage brouhaha, frankly I don’t give a damn. But I strongly support the rights of those who oppose it in the public square. Eich deserves no tears, he acquiesed to the PC lynch mob instead of standing up for what the messiah ‘believed’ in 2008. Until people like Eich (and the GOP) grow a spine the PC floggings will continue.
About how the information re his donation came to light — Allahpundit over at Hot Air says it doesn’t actually look as if it was leaked by anyone in government:
Ann:
Thanks. I’ll add a link to that in the post.
As a long-time user of Mozilla’s Firefox browser and Thunderbird email client, I’ll be switching to Opera’s version 12.16 browser and the Postbox email client. Have already installed the Opera browser and like it. I’ve chosen an older version of Opera, because the most recent version is an imitation of Google Chrome, but that’s just my preference. Tomorrow I’ll do the bookmark and email migrations, and then the uninstalls. There’s a certain satisfaction in saying good-bye to liberal fascist software, and would recommend it to you all.
Andrew Sullivan is so troubled by this outrage that he slips reflexly right back into his own: “hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else.”
I venture to say Sullivan probably knows no more about the “religious right” than I know about how to find a queer bar, but never mind….
This falls squarely within the social cultural/political parameters of the Marxist-method activist contest – the only social-political game there is.
Or it would were the Right actually playing the only social-political game there is, and not ceding activism to the Left.
As followed up, this isn’t a government v people issue. This is a people A v people B issue, except only people A are competing as activists. The only thing stopping people B from competing as activists is people B. As long as people B choose not to compete as activists, they only have themselves to blame for the social dominance of people A.
The law was drafted with the after glow of the 1896 election still in the body politic.
That’s one heck of an echo.
The campaign finance revolution of 1896 is still with us.
Indeed, virtually everyone even votes with the logic of 1896 — against the worser evil.
This nonsense will go away in a hurry once the economy collapses.
Of course, then we’ll have bigger problems to worry about. Best keep stocking up on ammo.
Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich mea culpa is, I suspect an example of someone whose inability to stand firm upon principled grounds is due to his not having established a principled position in the first place.
That’s true of most same sex marriage opponents.
How many cogent arguments are made against same sex marriage that are not theologically based?
But a theological argument relies upon the listener accepting the theology’s premises.
Absent those shared theological premises, no argument based upon them can be persuasive.
I suspect like many, Eich isn’t particularly religious and just feels ‘uncomfortable’ with the idea of same-sex marriage, he senses it’s a bad idea but can’t advance a non-religious rationale that supports his intuition.
The absence of both a religious or a secular rationale for opposition to same-sex marriage leaves one open to the accusation of opposing ‘equality’ and ‘love’ with no principle to stand upon.
Eich didn’t try to explain it because he couldn’t explain it. That doesn’t make him wrong but it does leave him unable to advance a coherent argument for his actions. Which left him no ground upon which to stand upon.
“Of course, then we’ll have bigger problems to worry about. Best keep stocking up on ammo.”
There is no such thing as too much ammo; but water, food, and fuel are equally important. Learn to reload what you shoot the most and purchase the tools and supplies necessary. 5,000+ rounds of 8MM is a hard rain.
Sul has no authority to tell us anything. Once he is staked out in the sun for 7 days in a row, maybe he’ll have an enlightenment worth the attention.
GB,
As stated above, homosexuality is not an issue as far as I am concerned (within certain parameters). I can not predict how societal tolerance of homosexual marriage will detract or add to the stability of society. What I do not understand is how someone holds to moral/ethical principles and then folds soggy dead when confronted by the PC goons. Eich, lacks a spine and must think that he will be at the back of the line that leads to the ovens.
Where has Eich apologized?
So far he fired himself, went Galt on the Left, and preferred to take a money hit instead of a faith hit.
How is that Eich caving in and of itself?
How did Eich fold? I have read that he didn’t back down from his beliefs — and he was obviously forced to resign. What was he supposed to do?
I don’t know about the CA law, but the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) prohibits using its data for any profit-making purposes. Yet many web sites harvest FEC electronic donation records and publish them on ad-bearing websites. This seems like a clear violation to me.
I wrote to our trusted public servants in the FEC, but they decided not to burden me with a response.
I am no lawyer, but this seems like the basis of a class-action lawsuit to prohibit these sites from displaying ANY ads.
BTW — I’ve been lurking on Neo’s site for months, and I enjoy it quite a bit, including the regular commenters. Neo, your personal story of transformation resonates with me. It was the “we deserved it” post-9/11 sentiment oozing from Donks and Progs that finally made me begin to wake up. Now I hate everything about the Left with a white-hot passion.
This is the beginning, not the end. With the progress of murder/abortion, and now homosexual behavior, there is no legitimate argument to deny normalization of any dysfunctional behavior.
I wonder what’s next. And, if there is any disagreement, how will they attempt to rationalize their positions, and placate a democratic population which has already voted and expressed its opposition.
Anyway, progressive biology or morality, or whatever semantic fantasy, has its consequences. This is indeed interesting times.
How many cogent arguments are made against same sex marriage that are not theologically based?
But a theological argument relies upon the listener accepting the theology’s premises.
Whoa, there, friend. Rectums weren’t built by Mother Nature to take the male organ, and the misuse of both leads to tears, fissures, sky-high venereal disease rates, etc. Promiscuity off the charts.
Then there’s the problem we’re not allowed to mention: the misogyny of the gay male community, and the misandry of the lesbian community.
Strictly from the biological and psychological standpoints, there are in fact very strong arguments to be made against the practice.
Under the guise of welfare, the Left destroyed black economic freedom.
Under the guise of marriage, the Left will gain the same control over homosexuals to the point where you become a gender traitor if you don’t vote as you are told. Just as a black is a race traitor for siding with white Republicans over his homies, the white Democrats.
Yet another example of why big business is not a friend of conservatives. They are fascists, interested in crony capitalism not freedom.
One of the things conservatives need to abandon is the idea that because you own something (land, business etc.) you have a right to establish any rules you wish, regardless of the Constitution or tradition. You don’t.
No business has the right to fire someone over their behavior or speech outside of the business.
No business has the right to abrogate the 2nd amendment and ban firearms from a property. No firings over political associations, blog postings, etc.
But in the end big business is an enemy of freedom, the Constition, tradition, religion.
Thanks Beverly for saying what needs be said.
Harold: Is Bigness the problem? If so, why?
There’s an outstanding article on Eich on the blog American Thinker today; Brendan Eich and the New American Totalitarian State
“How did Eich fold? I have read that he didn’t back down from his beliefs – and he was obviously forced to resign. What was he supposed to do?”
Refuse to resign and make them fire him. We all know that ‘resigning’ is code for, you’ve done something wrong and its better to leave than take the consequences. But we know the only thing Eich did ‘wrong’ was hold a non-PC opinion and privately, financially support Prop. 8.
As the American Thinker post above makes clear, there’s far more at stake here than one man’s misfortune. Eich, had he a reasoned rationale for opposing same-sex marriage had an obligation to express it publicly before leaving his position. So that it was as clear as possible that, after refusing to resign, his being fired was solely for having an unpopular opinion.
Beverly, re:
“Rectums weren’t built by Mother Nature to take the male organ, and the misuse of both leads to tears, fissures, sky-high venereal disease rates, etc. Promiscuity off the charts.
Then there’s the problem we’re not allowed to mention: the misogyny of the gay male community, and the misandry of the lesbian community.
Strictly from the biological and psychological standpoints, there are in fact very strong arguments to be made against the practice.”
You’re on very shaky ground with those arguments. While not entirely disagreeing with your points, they are insufficient as argument against same-sex marriage, which is the secondary subject under discussion.
If rectums are solely designed for excretion, why then did nature invest them with more nerve endings than the vagina? No argument as to the potential consequences of misuse but tying misuse, i.e. ignorance to “Promiscuity off the charts” is logically untenable. How does anal sex lead to promiscuity?
As for “the misogyny of the gay male community, and the misandry of the lesbian community” I agree its real. IMO it’s a reflection of both those ‘community’s’ non-attraction to the opposite sex and a logical consequence of heterosexuality at puberty never activating among those groups. Reflect upon how common is the utter contempt with which boys and girls hold each other prior to puberty…
You’re conflating arguments against gay homosexuality with arguments against same-sex marriage, which IMO are therefore insufficiently persuasive.
Kind of all over the lot: Some years ago, mentioning that certain anti-marriage radicals had planned to use SSM to destroy marriage, I was challenged to provide cites. This is a tactic designed to make the poster–me–do a lot of work providing the cites after which nothing changes. It the poster is unable to find the cites–because it was a matter of conferences, leaflets, obscure publications–or doesn’t want to bother, then the poster is a liar. As I say, providing the cites is meaningless because the challenger has no intention of buying the argument. Indeed, he may already know of it.
While thinking about it, I discovered somebody else had provided the cites. At which point the challenger wanted to know if I’d made up my mind before reading the material.
But there are certain people who oppose marriage and want to use SSM to destroy it. That would not include, for obvious reasons, those actually getting married.
Suppose they’re right?
I recall the Chik Fil A fuss. The LGBT were going to boycott the franchise for similar reasons. But when a couple of slimy pols–pardon the redundancy–threatened to make it impossible for Chik Fil A to do business in their town, people woke up. The reports of the buycott were hilarious. Don’t know how the franchises managed to keep their stock. Lines three times around the building, can’t park within a mile, park in the Home Depot lot across the street, cops directing traffic….
The opposite is going to happen to Mozilla. Great.
The show trials are coming. Admit your counter-revolutionary heterosexual tendencies and be properly apologetic for same OR ELSE!
I once supported gay marriage, but no more. It’s not a good-faith proposition. I was naive enough to believe that AIDS had sobered the gay community (male, that is) and made them want to join the joined. I was persuaded by all the stories about caretaker/lovers having no legal status to make medical decisions for their dying partners. I wanted to welcome them, and saw this as a step in their evolution toward a maturity that their marginal position vis a vis society had made difficult for them.
Now, this kind of dirty-tricks activism has completely alienated me. I feel snookered. What a low trick.
mizpants,
Same sex marriage has never been about ‘marriage’ or equality or any other publicly expressed rationale. Those are the rationalizations offered for the actual goal sought.
Same-sex marriage is a strategic tactic designed to achieve the goal, which is the full societal acceptance and embrace of homosexuality. That desire for acceptance is so great that most homosexuals and their advocates are willing to compel that acceptance, through whatever means are necessary. Indoctrination of the young and attacking the livelihoods of those opposed is just the beginning.
Refuse to resign and make them fire him. We all know that ‘resigning’ is code for, you’ve done something wrong and its better to leave than take the consequences. But we know the only thing Eich did ‘wrong’ was hold a non-PC opinion and privately, financially support Prop. 8.
The idea that none of us have the power to go Galt and decide whom we will break our backs working for, or else we are caving to the Left is an insult to individual autonomy.
For what reason is GB insulting and making fun of individual autonomy and will?
In my view, I’m not “insulting and making fun of individual autonomy and will” at all. Refuse to resign, knowing that the call to resign by the board is an implicit threat to be fired. Issue a statement stating your reasons and beliefs for the ‘offense’. Make them fire you to expose the hypocrisy of those who claim to support free speech.
He’s a CEO, so money is not really an issue, he can afford standing upon principle, which is why I originally surmised that he hadn’t a principled stand to make.
If they keep you on, it either means that when push comes to shove, that they respect your liberties or the board is looking to covertly muzzle you, if so, then go Galt on them, on your terms not theirs. We disagree as to tactics not in principle.
neo – You can often get around the WSJ firewall by searching for the article with Google. (The few times I have tired it with Bing, I didn’t get the same results.)
I try to be good at observing copyrights, but still use that trick from time to time.
Jim Miller:
Thanks. But I know that, and already did it, and it didn’t work this time for some reason. But then later they made it available quite easily. Odd.
Those who wanted him fired should be called McCarthyists–which will irritate them no end.
If GB wants to make Mozilla fire him, let him do it.
GB has no authority to tell Eich who to work for, how long, and what he must tolerate for his time and talent.
Not going to let individual free will be traded for the Greater Good here.
Pingback:Firefox | I Was Misinformed