Browsing the archives for the proposition 8 tag.
Cialis fr


It’s good to be a bigot but it’s bad for Mozilla

revenge of the box turtles

The developer of JavaScript and Firefox, Brendan Eich, becomes CEO of Mozilla for a couple weeks but then he’s ousted.

Brendan Eich, the well-known techie who has gotten swept up in a controversy about his support of California’s anti-gay marriage law Proposition 8, is resigning as CEO of for-profit Mozilla Corporation and also from the board of the nonprofit foundation which wholly owns it.

Eich donated $1,000 to California’s gay marriage ban back in 2008, a fact that became the source of controversy in 2012. The question for today: Is it fair to fire him? Seeing as how the matter gets back to free speech, it’s a good question.

I think about about the issue this way. Let’s invent a second version of the KKK, one that does not extend its activism to violence. Let’s say they aren’t interested in blowing up churches. We’ll call them the White Citizens’ Council. Let’s assume they are dedicated all the same to preserving a society where blacks are not equal to whites. Would it be okay for Brendan Eich to support their activities?

In addition let’s say Mozilla and the tech community know that Brendan supported the group previously, back when he was Chief Technology Officer. Should the company be careful about choosing this guy for its CEO?

I don’t see much difference between the bigotry of the White Citizens’ Council and the National Organization for Marriage, whose Prop 8 was thrown out by the courts. Both groups work hard to appear civilized while pursuing a politics hell-bent on preserving inequality. I see nothing benign or mundane in their all-out efforts to maintain a second-class citizenry.

I think Eich is welcome to embrace those abhorrent views, but not without criticism. He’s been allowed to fund the activist bigotry of the National Organization for Marriage without being asked to resign, which is okay by me. But when your personal beliefs run hard up against a company’s practices, you’ve got no business running the place.

Any gay employee of Mozilla would be troubled if not horrified to have Eich making decisions that affect their lives. It’s not unreasonable for these people to think about resigning. And why wouldn’t the typical American wonder what the hell is going on at Mozilla? How many of their senior executives think like him? Why don’t they care about what millions of their users think?

There’s a great deal of cluelessness on display here, not the least of which is Brendan’s:

Ignoring the abusive comments, I’m left with charges that I hate and I’m a bigot, based solely on the donation. Now “hate” and “bigot” are well-defined words. I say these charges are false and unjust.

To prove his innocence he provides hotlinks back to the Merriam-Webster entries for “hate” and “bigot.” And when you click over, sure enough, you can’t find “Apartheid” listed below either word. There’s no mention of politics in either definition, so score one for him…

First, I have been online for almost 30 years. I’ve led an open source project for 14 years. I speak regularly at conferences around the world, and socialize with members of the Mozilla, JavaScript, and other web developer communities. I challenge anyone to cite an incident where I displayed hatred, or ever treated someone less than respectfully because of group affinity or individual identity.

You supported Proposition 8, the effort to deny gay people their equal status. You still haven’t denounced it, right?

Share
COMMENTS

Why he’s the invisible man

I do not think you are who you think you are, laws

If there were any point in putting your hard-earned money down on the long odds Justice Antonin Scalia would rule in favor of gay marriage, you can forget about it now:

With a potentially ground-breaking decision on gay marriage expected next week, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday morning that he and other judges should stop setting moral standards concerning homosexuality and other issues.

Why?

We aren’t qualified, Scalia said.

For those of you unfamiliar with Nino’s schtick, this is him being humble. Imagine Billy Idol putting down his bong, his beer, and his portable looking glass.

. . the outspoken and conservative jurist told the N.C. Bar Association that constitutional law is threatened by a growing belief in the “judge moralist.” In that role, judges are bestowed with special expertise to determine right and wrong in such matters as abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, the death penalty and same-sex marriage.

Scalia said that approach presents two problems: Judges are not moral experts, and many of the moral issues now coming before the courts have no “scientifically demonstrable right answer.”

Not exactly David Copperfield, is he? Won’t even flatter us with a misdirection. It’s because the legal case for gay marriage is such a no-brainer that Scalia’s deigned to mix among the slack gobs and remind us how complicated the matter is. Homosexuals marrying each other is like quantum mechanical Parcheesi. Other judges think they can understand it. How arrogant!

His earlier statements about the legal rights of gay couples are even more outspoken. During an October speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Scalia described the death penalty, abortion and “homosexual sodomy” as “easy” constitutional issues. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years it was criminal in every state.”

Then you roll the clock back six months, and he swears the law is a piece of cake. Whatever the states were doing before the War of 1812, that’s what is constitutional.

Share
Comments Off

Too Megan to be drawn into boring discussions

flat out dumb

Sorry about the meager posting, I’ve been busy. But here’s a piece from Megan McArdle that just popped up on the internet [where else?] and which provides us with a chance to jeer and hoot. You didn’t think we’d be left with only standard issue wingnut jabbery as regards the same-sex SCOTUS tilt? Did ya?

In some sense, it doesn’t really matter how the Supreme Court rules on the gay marriage case it’s hearing today. The culture war is over on this front, and gay marriage has won. Even if it loses at the Supreme Court this term, it will win in the legislatures . . . because it is already winning in popular opinion.

As usual Meg will prefer to cut to the chase because that’s smart, which is kewl. If only the gays with their tedious legal gripes could be so chill. South Carolina, who waited 150 years after the Civil War to outlaw slavery, would have no problems at all with dozin’ on the couch and playin’ video games and generally smokin’ a doob Dixie-wise instead of going el-seven Bill Lumbergh over the latest civil rights denial. M’yeah, I’m gonna have to ask you to legalize this before 2014, mmmkay, that’d be great. That’s not how they roll.

The ways the rest of the world will roll, you read and you marvel at:

At this point, it’s just a matter of time. In some sense, the sexual revolution is over . . . and the forces of bourgeois repression have won.

Any smarter and Megan cuts past the chase. Then we don’t even recognize her any more. ‘Honey? Gay people are the new Amish?’ ‘Ha. Pity the poor fool that wrote that.’

That’s right, I said it: this is a landmark victory for the forces of staid, bourgeois sexual morality. Once gays can marry, they’ll be expected to marry. And to buy sensible, boring cars that are good for car seats.

Gay people famously do whatever silly thing the straights want them to do. In the past it was sucking each other off, and enjoying it. Next up, after the nod from Scalia, the gays get delivered the twin delicacies of privilege: Velveeta and Viagra. We had to wait some time before Megan figured this out — the squares and hipsters have been locked in a game of master n’ slave. Wait until Pat Robertson hears, there won’t be enough twink porn (or Kleenex) in all of Christendom.

I know, it feels like we’re riding an exciting wave away from the moral dark ages and into the bright, judgement free future. But moral history is not a long road down which we’re all marching; it’s more like a track. Maybe you change lanes a bit, but you generally end up back where you started. Sometimes you’re on the licentious, “anything goes” portion near the bleachers, and sometimes you’re on the straight-and-narrow prudish bit in front of the press box. Most of the time you’re in between. But you’re still going in circles.

I see little good in that. Better to do homosexuals a cultural ‘solid’ by denying them their rights. Given how well they interpret Cole Porter, probably best that we go back to the days when it was alright to beat them in the alley. Just to be safe.

Share
Comments Off

Rev. Harry Jackson: Black people are not gays

I doubt that, I'm not gay, shorter

Pictured (l to r): past, present

Shorter Reverend Harry R. Jackson Jr., Townhall.com:

“You homos have some nerve. We were netted, sold, and branded before we won our civil rights. Currently, you’re not even legal.”

Share
Comments Off

Court on Proposition 8: “serves no purpose” other than homophobia

bigots, gays, laws

The Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling on Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriages in California, came down today. By a vote of two to one, they ruled it was unconstitutional.

National Review were outraged (gotta love this headline):

Ninth Circuit to 7 Million California Voters: You Are Irrational Bigots
By Maggie Gallagher | February 7, 2012 1:50 P.M

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Boy, you couldn’t be more wrong there, Maggie. It was an illegal exercise in rational animus, otherwise known as legislated homophobia. Are all you misanthropy-flogging lessons in un-Christ-like behavior really so shocked? You must know an historically un-American law like this won’t pass judicial muster. Yet you shove it down our throats. Aren’t you wise? Too bad there’s no way to construct legal bigotry so that the Constitution won’t tear it pieces. To quote another famous document, the court said: “All Men Are Created Equal.”

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted. Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State or any other authorized party, an important right — the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less . .

. . Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996).

I’m no legal scholar, but as far as seeing through the pretense of the legislation, the majority hit center bullseye. The NR headline was spot on, as well.

Share
Comments Off

Wedding singer Elton John all too happy to serenade Rush Limbaugh

*holes, gays, media

June 7, 2010
Why I’m disappointed in Rush Limbaugh
By Matt C. Abbott

This column may open up a can of worms, but here it goes…

matt cI guess we conservatives (and, for the record, I don’t consider “socially moderate” Republicans to be in the conservative camp) should be grateful that Rush Limbaugh, a prominent media critic of the left for a number of years, hasn’t been silenced by the powers that be.

However, as a pro-life, pro-family Catholic, I’m disappointed in Rush. He just got married for the fourth time and even paid Elton John, the anti-Christian queen of pop-rock, a reported $1 million to perform at his wedding . .

What?! Elton John got a million bucks to play Viet Cong Ass-Pimple’s 2010 divorce launch? Yeah:

Rush Limbaugh Weds for 4th Time, and Elton John Sings
By Stephen M. Silverman

Talk about an odd couple: conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh and outspoken gay-marriage advocate Elton John.

But, according to a News Corporation (which owns Fox News) wire report, the Rocket Man, 63, serenaded the 400 guests into the wee hours Saturday night to celebrate the marriage of Limbaugh, 59, to Kathryn Rogers, 33, in the Ponce de Leon ballroom of Florida’s fabled Breakers hotel in Palm Beach. Sir Elton’s fee: $1 million, the report notes.


Limbaugh, of course, will tell you the silly wife just likes Elton’s music. Elton, of course, will tell you to fuck off and then throw a fit.

Share
Comments Off