The major corporation I work for has just announced full medical benefits for domestic partners in same sex couples when one of the couple is employed by the corporation. The employees I talk to are VERY unhappy about it, not that it will change anything. It will mean more is taken out of our paychecks and less will go to our own insurance.

This is how the “Gay” agenda rolls on and on. The corporations cave in eventually. You might say my employer helds out longer than many. Anyone doubt that “Reparations for Slavery” will eventually be foisted on us the same way? Jonah Goldberg and National Review will accept that as well.

Anonymous,

There are some bright spots. When Exxon merged with Mobil Oil to form the largest oil company in the world (in fact, then THE largest company in the world at the time) they needed to merge the two companies’ benefits policies. Exxon had a long-standing policy of only recognizing legal, heterosexual marriages. Mobil had a domestic partnership benefits policy for gays.

Exxon won out, and so now ExxonMobil has no domestic partnership policy. That may seem like a small victory, but it still shows to me that corporate America hasn’t completely captiluated to pro-gay groups, not yet.

Thanks to Mr. Corrèges for that news. We need to hear of good signs occasionally!

Larry,

I think we might want to keep our mouths shut on this one. Knowing the kind of backbone most American corporations have, the first sign of a “discrimination” suit and good old Exxon would come screaming back into the tent with the rest of the pack!

Ok, I’ll be sure not to let the left know about it. :-)

Anonymous wrote: “The employees I talk to are VERY unhappy about it, not that it will change anything…This is how the “Gay” agenda rolls on and on.”

Most Americans are unhappy about most of the changes that have been and are now being forced upon them. But the fact is, what the people want no longer matters, and hasn’t for quite a long time. This is what the imposed egalitarianism of the 14th Amendment (and the radical corruption/expansion of the meaning of “equality” in the modern era) has wrought: the ‘druthers of the people are ignored when they conflict with the demands of egalitarianism…and lo and behold, isn’t it amazing how everything the people want these days somehow seems to conflict with the demands of egalitarianism?

THIS is how the gay agenda rolls on and on: by force and compulsion. When corporations seem to be acting unilaterally, they are really only acting preemptively, in a sycophantic attempt to gain favor with their master, the state.

Thank goodness for Derbyshire! Goldberg confesses that he is not happy about all this [gay marriage as a judicial and oligarchic fiat]; he is, in fact, “deeply ambivalent.”

Mr. Auster is right: Jonah Goldberg is a liberal.

Andrew Sullivan crows over Goldberg’s surrender statement, adding that victory is not quite here yet, but that the moment homosexuals win marriage rights and military service he will declare that full legal equality has been established, shut the gay civil rights movement down, and “get on with our lives.”

Yes, the left always “moves on” to more interestng things, after it has wreaked its destruction on whatever it has touched.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_06_15_dish_archive.html#105613026638173287

Bubba wrote:

“Most Americans are unhappy about most of the changes that have been and are now being forced upon them. … what the people want no longer matters, and hasn’t for quite a long time. This is what the imposed egalitarianism of the 14th Amendment (and the radical corruption/expansion of the meaning of “equality” in the modern era) has wrought: the ‘druthers [*] of the people are ignored when they conflict with the demands of egalitarianism … and lo and behold, isn’t it amazing how everything the people want these days somehow seems to conflict with the demands of egalitarianism? THIS is how the gay agenda rolls on and on: by force and compulsion.”

Here are excerpts from an article this month by two fervent E.U. supporters who admit the E.U. isn’t popular over there but is largely being forced down people’s throats by arrogant élites (the pro-E.U. authors, by the way, go on to naïvely recommend that E.U. bureaucrats schedule more referendums on things, in order to gin up public support by giving people a sense of being in control):

From the article’s introductory blurb: “The European Union faces a legitimacy crisis. Elites and publics are moving in different directions. … ”

From the article: “Europe’s rulers and ruled have less in common on the European Union than on any other issue. Surveys show popular support for the Union at close to a twenty-year low. In some member countries there is clear unease at the direction of the European enterprise; in more, there is a studied lack of interest; in none do people take to the streets demanding ‘more Europe’. But popular sentiment contrasts starkly with elite opinion. Almost every conventional political party in almost every country from the Atlantic to the Urals believes EU membership to be good. … Effectiveness does not by any means guarantee legitimacy. In Europe’s case it can even undermine it – many citizens perceive Brussels to be peopled by ruthlessly efficient Eurocrats who already have too much power over their lives. … “

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=3&debateId=51&articleId=1287

Here’s Richard Poe (writing in reply to a comment posted to the readers’ forum at www.RichardPoe.com ):

” … I see great trouble ahead for our land. Civil war is not out of the question. Many if not most of the people who are causing this trouble are elites or members of our nation’s so-called ‘leadership.’ ”

http://www.richardpoe.com/forum.cgi?article=2548&permLink=43236#43236

All I can say is, I hope there are U.S. and European élites reading VFR right now who will not continue to remain deaf to some of the thoughts — and, yes, to some of the alarm — expressed here.

[ * — “druthers,” for those not familiar with this consciously slang Southernism, means “preferences,” as in, “If I had my druthers, Bill Clinton would be prosecuted for high treason.” It comes from the same kind of slurred-over pronunciation as produced the slang words “injun” from Indian and “cajun” from Acadian — “I’d rather” became sort of “Idjruther,” giving birth in turn to “If I had my djruthers (or, druthers)…,” meaning, “What I’d prefer… .” Well … all I can say is, “Long live Robert E. Lee and Dixie!,” and “The South shall rise again!”]

For anyone who is tempted at times like these to be discouraged by the apparent victories of the left, I’d like to recommend this brief article by me including the subsequent comments, posted at VFR a year ago, and which I’ve also linked under “From VFR’s Archives” on the main page:

The Most Important Point for Traditionalists
http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/000424.html

So, ok - if Goldberg is a liberal on gays, where do you stand with respect to gays? Do you propose to:

1) Keep things as they are, with gays generally accepted but unable to marry. This is in fact a fairly liberal position.

2) Roll back the clock to pre-Attica times, where gays had a furtive subculture and were for the most part not positively depicted. Note also that lesbian porn actively consumed by 90% of college age males would be banned. I suppose this is where Derb would like things to be (?), but methinks his attitude would change if one of his children turned out to be gay.

3) Actively work to exterminate gays a la Hitler.

I honestly don’t mean to say that you guys are out to kill gays - I’m just pointing out that if you’re *not* out to kill gays, then there were people in history (and today) who’d consider you a liberal. So, you’re opposed to gay marriage - what rights, then, do you think gays should have? Should they be able to be citizens? Should there be gays featured in the media? Should they be generally shamed into keeping their sexuality secret? If you’re drawing a line somewhere, why?

Obviously, much of the debate boils down to whether or not you think homosexuality is genetic. There is quite a bit of evidence that it is at least partly genetic (e.g. see this review).

One last thing - it’s a bit defeatist to see the 20th century as the “march of leftism” in the US. It is true that the left (broadly stated) has won victories in terms of women’s rights, blacks’ rights, and gays’ rights. (I happen to think that the initial victories were desirable in all three of these cases, but radical feminists/multicultists/gays are now pushing undesirable things.)

But it is also true that the right has won glorious victories in economic and military policy. We would not have a free market and a strong military if it were not for right-wing policies. That’s nothing to be sneezed at…IMO, right-wing military and economic policy is why America is strong, while left-wing social policy is responsible for why America is a great place to live.

Anon wrote,

“Do you propose to: 1) Keep things as they are, with gays generally accepted but unable to marry.”

Homosexuals generally accepted? They’ve always been left alone as regards their homosexuality, provided they’ve been discreet about it. Nobody cares about their private vice, despite what they’d have everyone believe. I’ll say it again — people don’t care if particular homosexuals are homosexuals. But just don’t shove it down other people’s throats — that’s all we’re asking … not down their throats, or their children’s, or society’s in general. Let them abide by that and no one will bother them.

About keeping them “unable to marry” — you’re damned straight.

“2) Roll back the clock to pre-Attica times [do you mean pre-Stonewall times?], where gays had a furtive subculture and were for the most part not positively depicted.”

They still have every bit as furtive a sub-culture. They and their hetero supporters certainly don’t want details of their truly sicko, filthy sub-culture known to society in general, otherwise there would be far less tolerance of them and their whole “acceptance” drive.

“Note also that lesbian porn actively consumed by 90% of college age males would be banned.”

What’s this doing in here? First of all, so what? Second, this doesn’t follow from anything that’s been said. Male or female homosexual porn is not the issue and never was the issue. The issue is the ongoing drive by homosexuals to normalize their completely abnormal sexual perversion. There are people who say no to that. You’re looking at one.

“I suppose this is where Derb would like things to be (?), but methinks his attitude would change if one of his children turned out to be gay.”

Rumor has it that my brother is a homosexual. Don’t hold your breath waiting for my attitude to change.

“3) Actively work to exterminate gays a la Hitler.”

Has anyone ever heard anything remotely resembling this being called for by the side which VFR represents? What are you smoking, Anon?

“I honestly don’t mean to say that you guys are out to kill gays —”

Then don’t say it — not even rhetorically, unless there’s a good rhetorical justification.

“I’m just pointing out that if you’re *not* out to kill gays, then there were people in history (and today) who’d consider you a liberal.”

Sorry, but that’s not a good rhetorical justification. That’s number one. Number two: the side VFR represents IS the liberal side. (The other side isn’t liberal.) And it IS the progressive side. (The other side isn’t progressive.) The side VFR represents points the way — the only way — toward social harmony, progress, true liberalism, and true progressivism. The other side points the way only down, down, down, down to meaninglessness, degenerateness, and social destruction.

“So, you’re opposed to gay marriage —”

Damn right. Don’t look for that to EVER change, by the way.

“what rights, then, do you think gays should have?”

The same ones as everybody else — no more, no fewer, and no different.

“Should they be able to be citizens?”

MUST we go through this? OK … if you insist … yes, they may continue to be citizens.

“Should there be gays featured in the media?”

I have no objection, provided they keep their el-sicko sexual perversion strictly to themselves. There’s nothing wrong with Rock Hudson, Clifton Webb, Noël Coward, Cole Porter, and all the others having been big stars and celebrities.

“Should they be generally shamed into keeping their sexuality secret?”

They probably should but if they don’t want to, that’s up to them. (What is certain is that they shouldn’t be pushing for normalization of homosexuality by society at large. THAT’S the main problem today.) The appropriateness of society enforcing tha sanction of shame against sexually inacceptible behavior applies to heterosexuals as well, of course. When Roman Polansky raped a completely naïve eleven-year-old girl who was appearing in his film at the time (devastating the girl and utterly shocking her parents, as can be imagined), he was subjected to the sanction of shame imposed by society — as well as having to flee the country to avoid jail. When Woody Allen took his common-law daughter (with whom he had lived as common-law dad since her childhood) as his mistress once she reached her late teens, he was subjected to society’s sanction of shame at such ghastly behavior. Unfortunately, he couldn’t be prosecuted for it, as Polansky was.

“Obviously, much of the debate boils down to whether or not you think homosexuality is genetic. There is quite a bit of evidence that it is at least partly genetic … “

Genetic or not makes no difference. Maybe what made Roman Polansky do what he did was partly genetic. So what? Society still condemns it. We all have our weaknesses and defects which society expects us to control, or at least to keep private if we cannot control them. For all we know, some of them are partly genetic. The LAST thing we ought to expect is for society to undertake some sort of normalization of our weaknesses.

Anon writes:
“I honestly don’t mean to say that you guys are out to kill gays - I’m just pointing out that if you’re *not* out to kill gays, then there were people in history (and today) who’d consider you a liberal.”

There are people who would call us pink unicorns also. Anon’s post presumes that there is no objective thing called liberalism; that it is just what one person arbitrarily asserts about another. In actual fact liberalism — objectively - has done more murdering than all other political ideologies combined throughout all of recorded history.

There is a sense of course in which a traditionalist is out to kill all jaywalkers. If someone jaywalks repeatedly, refuses to pay the fines, refuses to show up for court, and resists the criminal justice system to an extreme degree then that jaywalker will end up dead in a shootout with police (or whatever). But to characterize anyone in favor of anti-sodomy laws — myself included — as being out to “kill gays” is engaging in hyperbole not making an argument. I am in favor of laws against jaywalking but that doesn’t mean I am out to kill jaywalkers. The “out to kill poor oppressed X” argument when applied to social conservatives is nothing more than mindless ranting against authority in general.

The “right of privacy” bubbles to the surface again here. If something is private — securely in the closet and causing no harm whatsoever to others, as it were — then it is untouchable by the law. The “right of privacy” is really about forcing public tolerance for despicable behavior. It is about a “right” to put despicable behavior on display in front of our children.

Goldberg writes: “There may be some wishful thinking in this analysis, but when so many elites offer wishful thinking it often translates into a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Permit me to comment in terms he will understand. Paraphrasing “The Simpson’s”, “Ah, wishful thinking; is there anything it can’t do?!”