A married Mormon who gave $1000 to the Proposition 8 anti-gay marriage campaign has resigned as director of a Sacramento musical theater company after being nationally targeted in the ongoing Big Gay Hissy Fit of 2008.
According to the exit poll, for whatever it's worth, the key to the passage of Prop. 8 was the huge black turnout in California in support of Barack Obama. Blacks voted 70% in favor of the ban on gay marriage, if the exit poll can be trusted. (Supposedly, Hispanics were split almost evenly, but I suspect that has to do with confusion over the wording of the ballot, since it was hard to remember that you were supposed to be for Prop. 8 if you were against gay marriage. Back in 2000, Hispanics voted 65% for Prop. 22, which banned gay marriage, and I can't imagine they've changed much since then.)
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
51 comments:
...to the Proposition 8 anti-gay marriage campaign...
Watch those hyphens! It was an anti-gay-marriage campaign. The second one is crucial.
Wealthy Mormons should put up billboards saying, "Thank you, African-Americans, for clinching Proposition 8!" Good locations would be on the edges of black neighborhoods where white folks pass at rush hour.
The marchers are cowardly marching on Mormon stakes and Catholic parishes during their services. They don't have the nerve to go after the National Baptists and Church of God in Christ, do they?
*sigh*
Plenty of gay activists, from Dan Savage to Andrew Sullivan, have noted the high "yes" vote from blacks on Prop 8 and have held them just as accountable as Mormons and evangelical whites.
So, why are they protesting at Mormon churches? Hmm. Could it be that the LDS hierarchy infused massive amounts of money to sponsor "Yes on 8" ads? Or that the laity was flat-out ordered to do house-to-house canvassing in non-Mormon attire (no tie, no white collared shirt) to build support?
Nah. The most obvious explanation is that white people like to protest other white people.
Bunch a Marys
I remember an Arabic professor I had who had grown up in North Africa but was an atheist. SWPL kids would come up to him and ask questions about Islam. He'd make the mistake of telling them the truth.
He recounted to me how they would get mad at him and tell him that he didn't understand. But he was around liberals enough to understand how much they hate Christianity. He asked me if I could make sense of this. I explained to him that liberalism isn't about being pro or anti any particular religion or cultural practice, but being anti-white.
Off topic post: Can someone explain something to me? I've always read the SWPL blog as satire, mocking the lefty's self-congratulatory conceit. I thought the WhiteRPeople were the butt of the joke.
But reading the comments lately, those very people seem to think that SWPL blog is just unironic admiration for all their more highly evolved goodness. You know, "Ah, ain't we cute." "We're so nice! Yay for us!"
Am I the idiot here? Is the joke on me?
I love the dilemmas SWPL whites face as they go extinct. Earlier this year I went to meet my wife at an apartment complex in Columbia, South Carolina (we were in from out of town). There I began chatting with an American Indian woman from the Pacific Northwest who'd lived in the city for a decade. She warned me, within minutes, of staying away from this or that part of the city, where they'd "rob [me] blind", a place where the people were "dark, if you know what I mean," she said, with those knowing eyes, before throwing in something like, "Though I guess you can't say that."
I thought of the SWPL crowd, reacting like a sci-fi robot given conflicting data, "She's a Native American woman, but she's making aspersions about African-Americans, but she's a Native-American..." In the old movies, the robots would confusedly repeat such a phrase until their heads blew up.
"The whole point of this exercise is for one set of white people to feel superior to another set of white people."
I suspect that a large sub-set (I'm wondering about that hyphen now) of the SWPL crowd secretly feels itself morally superior to blacks who voted for Prop 8. However, the ne plus ultra of moral rectitude on this matter is remaining silent on that score.
I have gotten two e-mails asking me to sign a petition to repeal prop. 8. Will this ever end?
Good post; the headline is worthy of The Onion.
Well. in "fairness," there is logic in focusing on Mormons and other white people, rather than blacks. The whites are the ones fueling it and who will surely be there next time as well. The blacks were sort of a fluke caused by Obama. They wont necessarily be there next time this fight goes down.
It was cute the way the first (doubtless white) liberal commenters at that website tried to immunize themselves from accusations of racism.
They made a big deal of saying it was all about dat ol' debbil "religion" and not race. They steered so hard away from the third rail I feared they would get whiplash.
But you do have to take pity on them. They know their time has come. They know they are dying out and being replaced with the black race and the brown race, and they are afraid to notice.
Rather than go after the black anti-homosexual religions like the AME church and COGIC, they go picket an empty Mormon Temple in a safe white area.
They are frantically shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic, carefully averting their eyes from the water that is ponderously and inexorably moving up the tilted deck.
It wasn't anti-gay marriage or even anti-gay-marriage; it was defense of marriage! It's out of fashion to be anti-anything these days (that's why it's "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life"), and framing your side as the victims is always a good move, too.
I'm sure straight Californian couples are relieved to know that their marriages are no longer in danger of being outsourced to gays.
"The marchers are cowardly marching on Mormon stakes and Catholic parishes during their services. They don't have the nerve to go after the National Baptists and Church of God in Christ, do they?"
Well put, Reg. The left has always traded on the good nature of the people they seek to change to the point of destruction. After all if goon squads of LDS thugs could be counted on to bust heads the "courageous" protesters would be elsewhere instead of "confronting the evil" at its source or whatever fantasy they are indulging in with these protests.
Steve--I obviously clicked over from TMS, I have never read you before so I don't know a lot about your writing style and other values. You obviously seem very intelligent and well read.
But may I suggest that labeling it the "Big Gay Hissy Fit" is not going very far in solving the problem of "one set of people feeling superior to another set of people."
Besides proving that gay activists are the biggest hypocrites on earth,* this shows once again that California's political-donation reporting law is evil.
(Oh, and I like the report about Eckern's boss, too-- the boss said he gave Eckern no support. Whatta pal, eh?)
*Imagine how the lynching rope would feel around the neck of anyone who pressured a queer or lesbian to leave a job because he or she campaigned for same-sex marriage by physically attacking people who disagree.
1. That married Mormon theater director *radiates* heterosexuality.
2. Have you seen the video of the Mormons doing a home invasion of a lesbian couple and ripping up their marriage license?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE
3. An anecdote about Mormons and gays: My brother was a member of a majority Mormon Boy Scout troop. He said his Mormon scout mates told him that the Mormon Church threatened to leave the Boy Scouts of America if gay men were allowed to become scout masters. Apparently, Mormons make up a very sizable fraction of Boy Scouts. And that this threat was instrumental in the unfashionable anti gay scout master position that the Boy Scouts decided to maintain.
The LDS bankrolled the anti-gay marriage campaigns. Mormons were also urged to provide foot soldiers and tithe for the cause. That is why the LDS, not, say, the Southern Baptists are having chickens come home to roost.
Neither minority population, separate or together, could have caused the measure to pass. The people trying to scapegoat minorities are clearly mathematically challenged.
Since you are a Californian and a numbers guy, I would think you'd have an interest in checking out or drilling down into the numbers behind "the blacks did it" thesis. No matter how much blacks may have voted for Prop 8 percentage-wise, their relatively small share of the population (6%?) means that they probably didn't have enough voting power to tip the issue from "no" to "yes" on this issue.
They're going to wash that man right out of their hair.
I ran across a group of gays picketing a Mormon church here in Seattle.
I asked why they didn't go down to the CD (Central District -- where blacks live) and try picketing a black Baptist church, because it's much closer to the local gay neighborhood anyway. No answer, of course, so I suggested they were afraid of getting beat up.
I expect a lot more amusing conflicts of interest to be exposed now that the Dems are in charge.
"Stuff White People Like crowd aren't going after blacks for voting against gay marriage"
Oh, yes they are. And it's hilarious. SWPL-frequented websites are still in an uproar discussing this, especially when SWPL icons like Dan Savage write outraged columns on "black homophobia". Of course, they'll all be brought to heel by the PC police eventually.
What a joke. Can people really claim to be embracing democratic liberalism and stirringly cry injustice at Prop 8, and then go ruin this guy for voicing his own opinions?
Hissy fit is the best way to put it..
This is quite entertaining. The SWPL crowd are ranting and raving about how the Mormons were an "out of state" influence group that had no business meddling in CA politics. What they omit is that there are many Mormons who live in the state of CA and that they had just as much legitimate right to "influence" this election as any other in-state group.
Mormons had a MUCH bigger hand in prop 8 than blacks did.
"SWPLs" ?
Ugh. Wasn't it this blog that popularized "whiterpeople" for this purpose? Yes, it was!
What percentage of the voters in CA were Mormons?
I wonder if the gay community would find it acceptable if researchers found out who donated to No on Prop 8 and fired them or fired them for belonging to pro gay groups (as opposed to being gay)? My guess is that the same people who are standing on their hind legs trying to get this Mormon fired would be the first to protest. I am not a betting man but I would bet a months wages on this one.
Every group (except Whites, lately) fights for its own, no holds barred, whether with fists or loopy arguments (e.g., two men "marrying" each other is a "Constitutional Right") or both.
In this case, the group is effectively-infertile biological perverts, whose dominance would mean the world of "Children of Men" more importantly than it would mean anything else.
Homosexuality is not simply an indulgence. It is a disease spreading necrosis in society. Homosexuals are to be pitied as individuals, perhaps, but their prevalence, attitudes, and agenda must be resisted by a healthy society.
That these rather obvious statements are regarded as shocking or "hate-filled" is evidence of how far this aggressive disease has spread.
It must be even more daunting for GLBTs to know that their support outside of California and New York is even weaker. Having lived in San Francisco for years I can say that the gay community in SF is a "ghetto". In order to reach a critical mass in population in one area they have depopulated themselves in other areas. The most radical GLBTs move to be amongst other radicals thereby depriving the rest of the country of people who agitate. The rest are locked into a world where there population never exceeds 2%.
"The problem with the gay marriage issue is that for those of us who oppose gay sex promiscuity, gay marriage is a solution. That is to say tat with widespread gay marriage there should be less promiscuous gay sex."
So gays need a piece of paper from the gov't of CA saying they are married to stop them from being promiscous? Why not just have a committed relationship regardless of a license getting issued? People, gay and straight, have been doing that for millenia, all over the world.
This whole gay hissy fit, and yes that is what it is, is that these spoiled brats didn't get their way and the attention they wanted. Well, they had better get used to it it. The way we are headed demographically, gays won't be all that popular. Maybe they should have thought of that before they decided to support liberalism.
"Mormons had a MUCH bigger hand in prop 8 than blacks did."
So either blacks people fell for the Mormon religious propaganda or didn't support gay marriage. Which is it?
For the record, "gay marriage" is more a symbol of a political victory, an ideological boot in the groin for real marriage, than it is something that homosexuals really want.
Here in the UK we have something called "Civil Partnerships" (CPs), effectively "gay marriage" by any other name.
So far, in three years, 25,000 pairs of homosexuals have entered into one, which, if homosexuals represent ten percent of the population, is less than one percent. Last year, the number signing up actually fell by half. Make of that what you will about the true nature of the gay lifestyle - I think, ironically, they have hoist themselves by their own petards. Which they were probably doing anyway.
If the whole concept wasn't so offensive, it would be a joke.
Slightly tangentially, it will be interesting to track the fate of societies which recognise homosexuality and give it legal status. Certainly in Europe the most pro-homosexual societies are seeing a population collapse faster than the rest - I think of Spain here, which has only 1.1 children per woman.
Which leads to the question, what will happen?
Well, if a society simply disappears such that in Spain nobody is actually left, then, obviously, "gay marriage" dies with that polity.
But, if it Islamises (which seems more likely), then the khuffar will probably be allowed to keep their sodomy and abortion and the like and accelerate their own civilisational decline. The indicator of this is that Muslims in the UK aren't that interested in getting into the whole pro-life movement, even though they reject abortion for themselves.
It would be interested to make similar projections for the red/blue states in the US.
Marriage means a public commitment to be sexually faithful to another person. If all male homosexuals were monogamous almost all of the gay public health problems would disappear.
For the gays, their "public" is often other gays - a public, I suspect, that won't much care about archaic traditions such as fidelity.
On a separate but similar issue - gays and underage sex - take the experience I had at a restaurant where one 40-something gay guy was thoroughly eager to introduce his sub-18 boytoy to a gay couple that had just walked in.
A few interesting points on the fundraising side of things:
1. Two of the top donors were guys named Alan Ashton and Bruce Bastian. Both ive in Utah. One gave $1 million to support 8. The other gave $1 million to oppose it. The irony? They used to be business partners who cofounded WordPerfect. Bastian was a devout Mormon, until he "came out."
2. Stephen Bing and Brad Pitt, those great Hollywood respecters of the bonds of matrimony, both gave significant amounts of money. to "No on 8."
3. Much talk about the Utah money supporting Prop 8, but the "No on 8" side got lots of money from out-of-state, too.
4. While there is much mention of how much money Mormons gave, there is little-to-no mention of the "No on 8" money that was forcibly extracted from stockholders via contributions from publicly traded corporations, like Pacific Gas & Electric ($250,000) & Apple ($100,000).
Chris,
Where did you get 6% from? This article says it was 10%:
http://www.slate.com/id/2204534/
Now that “Jew atheist” has admitted that a small religious (and ethnic) minority can have influence on politics and social policy far out of proportion to its numbers on the ground, I wonder if it is OK to talk about the following...
Witch hunts, assaults on religious groups, etc - Pandora's box has been opened, and the left opened it...
FWIW, I think Mormon involvement in Prop 8 could have its drawbacks. Inevitably the LDS Church, always a shrewd PR operator, will find some way to "make up" for taking a stand against gay marriage. My guess is that it will be on an issue like amnesty for illegals.
Already the LDS Church appoints rabid pro-amnesty zealots to head the media companies it owns. Both the publisher and chairman of the Salt Lake daily The Deseret News are open borders nuts, and the hosts of the local call-in shows on its radio station, KSL 102.7, are, too.
The Church leadership has given hints from time-to-time that it supports illegal immigration, but it's never taken an official position. I suspect they might do so in the coming year if they're in need of PR rehabilitation.
I actually hope they do. I think a lot of conservative Mormons would leave the Church with tithing dollars in hand if that happened.
"...But may I suggest that labeling it the "Big Gay Hissy Fit" is not going very far in solving the problem of "one set of people feeling superior to another set of people."
Never!! To read phrases like "Big Gay Hissy Fit" is exactly why the rest of us have been here! What, did you think we're here because we wanted to read about the history of the men's 100 meter dash in the Olympics?
To those arguing over who gets the credit... here in Florida we also passed the traditional marriage law.
There was no Mormon money, yet, in my neighborhood all the black families that had an Obama sign in their yard also had a pro-traditional marriage sign.
I saw not a single ad on television for the pro side despite living along the I-4 corridor; in contrast, the gay side ran an ad non-stop.
According to the exit polls, blacks voted... 71% in favor of traditional marriage.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=FLI01p1
Hugh Oxford,
Stanley Kurtz, whom we have called a national treasure on this blog, has done the most work on the effect of gay unions on marriages and families. Here is one article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz120902.asp
Homosexuality is not simply an indulgence. It is a disease spreading necrosis in society. Homosexuals are to be pitied as individuals, perhaps, but their prevalence, attitudes, and agenda must be resisted by a healthy society.
-David
Homosexuality is a brain disorder. It isn't as severe as autism or schizophrenia, but it appears to have a similar origin. Both homosexuals and schizophrenics have a far higher incidence of left-handedness, and the twin concordance for schizophrenia is almost identical to that for homosexuality in both identical and fraternal twins.
Homosexuality is clearly a brain disorder -- albeit relatively mild. I personally think it's due to chimerism from twinning, and is a side-effect of increased fertility in the human womb, which is only designed for one birth at a time (hence the very high rate of "vanishing" twins).
Interestingly, autistic children have been shown to have a very high rate of blaschko's lines, which are a clear indication of chimerism, and usually are only noticeable under UV lamps. I suspect homosexuals would be more likely to have these as well. I guess we'll see when the research comes out, but I'd be willing to bet that homosexuality and other related mental disorders will only increase as people have children at later ages and use more fertility treatment.
Yeah, so what? Whether or not they were necessary, or sufficient, or outweighed by X or Y, doesn't change the fact that they voted for it in droves.
LOL.
I'm far less certain that homosexuality is a biological or genetic disorder, at least that it is always so.
It is apparent that children with weak or inadequate parents, particularly fathers, are more likely to turn to homosexuality in adolescence, for complex psycho-social reasons. I think this partly accounts for the pederastic quality of the homosexual subculture, as confused and inadequate boys seek proxy fathers, and predatory older men seek to possess something they also want to be.
Of course, because for the most part homosexuality is the disordered in pursuit of the unattainable, homosexual promiscuity, disease and mental illness are unlikely to decrease when the state suddenly decides to sanction it, which is, effectively, to lie to homosexuals about the nature of their condition.
Case in point - the UK. HIV rates among homosexuals have continued to increase since the passing of the Civil Partnership Act.
Here is an interesting article from a liberal magazine called Time Out. It's frank, though quite distressing.
The truth is that societal disapproval of homosexuality does as much to protect homosexuals as it does to protect the rest of us. A society that truly loves homosexuals is not one that sanctions homosexuality.
Marriage will reduce homosexual promiscuity? Maybe. But homosexuals enter into long-term commitments now, does that reduce their promiscuity? Or do they just have other partners while privileging the guy they're committed to? Gay marriage might be like that: open marriages.
In general, it's not marriage that tames men, but women.
Damn, repeating phrases again...
Why does writing and watching my kids at the same time always make me do that?
I told someone recently that taking care of small children decreases one's intellectual capacity significantly. Writing with little kids around is like trying to play a video game and hold a meaningful conversation at the same time. No wonder women are mentally better equipped to juggle multiple tasks at once...
Blacks were only 6.2% of California voters. Yes 70% voted no but Blacks are the sole reason the proposition didn't pass.
The Mormon-gay contretempts (no I am not gay, I just used that word) is interesting because Utah has the highest birthrate in the nation.
Maybe gays are worried that such a group of extreme breeders could eventually grow so large as to cause even jurisdictions that now recognise gay marriages to reverse themselves.
I'd like to confirm Hugh Oxford's point about gay civil unions being a short-lived fad. In Canada, where gay marriage was imposed in 2005, the number of marriages of lesbians and gays has fallen off drastically. Most Canadian gay marriages are now between visiting Americans.
Hard to believe for idealistic SWPL liberals furtively reading this site behind locked doors? Let's go straight to the links and the numbers. Toronto is a city of 2.48 million people and is the provincial capital of Ontario, population 14 million.
Only 1 Canadian same-sex couple "married" in Toronto this year
TORONTO, June 27, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Same-sex “marriage” among Canadian homosexual couples is getting less popular, and now the majority of homosexual couples that obtain a marriage license in Canada are foreigners, says a recent report by Reuters.
The city of Toronto, which hosted the claimed "million-strong" annual Gay Pride March on Sunday, has one of the largest homosexual populations in Canada. Despite this fact, however, the demand for same-sex marriage licenses has drastically declined. Last year, the city issued 107 licenses to Canadian homosexual couples, whereas this year it has so far only issued 1.
Even though the overall number of “marriages” has declined significantly, the proportion of foreign couples has increased to two-thirds of the licenses issued. According to Reuters, last year Toronto gave out 924 same-sex “marriage” licenses, and of these, 338 were for American couples and 479 for foreign couples. This year, of the 320 same-sex “marriage” licenses issued, 118 were for Americans and 201 for foreigners.
The Gay Toronto Tourism Guide claims homosexual persons make up 14% of the city’s population, thereby making Toronto the third largest gay community in the world. Nevertheless, this year’s 1 legal gay “marriage” comprised only 0.01% of the marriages taking place in Ontario’s capital.
It's rather startling how many SWPL commentators are posting on this very thread.
Which only serves to prove that the underlying problem here is nihilism - be it SWPL consumeristic/materialistic nihilism, GLBT hedonistic/sadomasochistic nihilism, Ayn Randian anarcho-nihilism - it's all the same damned thing.
And it all ends in Death.
"J. said...
The LDS bankrolled the anti-gay marriage campaigns. Mormons were also urged to provide foot soldiers and tithe for the cause."
Yeah, and as President-elect Romney can testify, nothing beats the power of "Big Mormon".
Mormons are among the most despised sub-group of white people. Conservative evangelicals mistrust them, even more than they mistrust Catholics. Liberals hate them, even more than they hate Catholics. Disliking mormons is, in large measure, socially sanctioned.
And it is accurate to describe the gay reaction as a hissy-fit. The whole last 25 years or so, could be called a big gay hissy fit. Starting when highly promiscuous gays served as the primary vector for the propagation of AIDS and, rather than being labeled as irresponsible sociopaths, were accorded an almost sainted victim status as a result. You remember, their affliction was all Ronald Reagan's fault (at that time, to hear gay activists talk about him, you'd have thought that the Gipper had personallly infected them).
Hey, if you want to hit yourself in the head with a hammer, fine - but don't claim to be one of society's best and brightest because you then become a "person living with contusions".
"Maybe gays are worried that such a group of extreme breeders could eventually grow so large as to cause even jurisdictions that now recognise gay marriages to reverse themselves."
I can think of another group that will basically run CA really soon. Much sooner than Mormons will have enough kids.
Such irony. I thought it was the gay community calling us Mormons (I am one) intolerant?
Hmmmmmm.... Actions speak louder than words. I do not see any gay people being fired for opposing prop 8. Nor do I see any Mormon members who voted against Prop 8 asked to leave our church.
BTW.. To answer the question asked : Mormons make up less than 2% of the population in CA.
My biggest problems with gay marriage are that the ceremony itself is often more a mockery of traditional marriage than it is a sincere ritual and that an agenda for indoctrinating toddlers to accept gay marriage whole heartedly is implicit in any law passed to make gay marriage legal.
How does a right for consenting homosexuals to say they are "married" or to adopt children give them the authority to determine curriculum content in public schools? It's this more than any religious belief in the sanctity of marriage that arouses strong opposition to gay marriage. Gay activists insist on making their weddings a weapon for ever more social engineering.
I don't get too upset about it because the coming demographic transformation will undermine any short-term gains made by these idealogues. Watching them throw tantrums while the very society that makes their lifestyle possible is on the verge of collapse would give me a gratifying sense of schadenfreude if I wasn't living in the same community.
Isn't it time to censor Hate sites displaying outrageous allegations of Money and Power links to a historically persecuted religious minority.
Post a Comment