Posted on 06/14/2015 3:10:19 PM PDT by NYer
You may recall Brendan Eich. The cofounder and CEO of Mozilla was dismissed from his company in 2014 when it was discovered that, six years earlier, he had donated $1,000 to California’s Proposition 8 campaign. That ballot initiative, limiting marriage to one man and one woman, passed with a larger percentage of the vote in California than Barack Obama received nationally in 2012. No one who knew Eich accused him of treating his gay coworkers badly—by all accounts he was kind and generous to his colleagues. Nonetheless, having provided modest financial support to a lawful ballot initiative that passed with a majority vote was deemed horrible enough to deprive Eich of his livelihood. Which is one thing.
What is quite another is the manner in which Eich has been treated since. A year after Eich’s firing, for instance, Hampton Catlin, a Silicon Valley programmer who was one of the first to demand Eich’s resignation, took to Twitter to bait Eich:
Hampton @hcatlin Apr 2
It had been a couple weeks since I’d gotten some sort of @BrendanEich related hate mail. How things going over there on your side, Brendan?
BrendanEich @BrendanEich
@hcatlin You demanded I be “completely removed from any day to day activities at Mozilla” & got your wish. I’m still unemployed. How’re you?
Hampton @hcatlin Apr 2
@BrendanEich married and able to live in the USA! . . . and working together on open source stuff! In like, a loving, happy gay married way!
It’s a small thing, to be sure. But telling. Because it shows that the same-sex marriage movement is interested in a great deal more than just the freedom to form marital unions. It is also interested, quite keenly, in punishing dissenters. But the ambitions of the movement go further than that, even. It’s about revisiting legal notions of freedom of speech and association, constitutional protections for religious freedom, and cultural norms concerning the family. And most Americans are only just realizing that these are the societal compacts that have been pried open for negotiation.
Same-sex marriage supporters see this cascade of changes as necessary for safeguarding progress against retrograde elements in society. People less deeply invested in same-sex marriage might see it as a bait-and-switch. And they would be correct. But this is hardly new. Bait-and-switch has been the modus operandi of the gay rights movement not, perhaps, from the start, but for a good long while.
It began at the most elementary factual level: How many Americans are gay? For decades, gay-rights activists pushed the line that 1 out of every 10 people is homosexual. This statistic belied all evidence but was necessary in order to imbue the cause with a sense of ubiquity and urgency. The public fell so hard for this propaganda that in 2012 Gallup did a poll asking people what percentage of the country they thought was gay. The responses were amazing. Women and young adults were the most gullible, saying, on average, that they thought 30 percent of the population was gay. The average American thought that 24 percent of the population—one quarter—was gay. Only 4 percent of respondents said they thought homosexuals made up less than 5 percent of the population.
But even 5 percent turns out to be an exaggeration. The best research to date on American sexual preference is a 2014 study from the Centers for Disease Control with a monster sample of 34,557 adults. It found that 96.6 percent of Americans identified as heterosexual, 1.6 percent identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent as bisexual. The percentage of gays and lesbians isn’t much higher than the percentage of folks who refused to answer the question (1.1 percent).
Then there’s the matter of the roots of homosexuality. Important to the narrative behind the same-sex marriage movement has been the insistence that sexual orientation is genetically determined and not a choice. But now that same-sex marriage is a reality, some activists are admitting that this view might not, strictly speaking, be true. For instance, in the avant-garde webzine n+1, Alexander Borinsky argued that sexuality is a characteristic to be actively constructed by the self. He was making a philosophical argument from the safety of gay marriage’s now-dominant position. Others were less philosophical and more practical. Here, for instance, is how the dancer and writer Brandon Ambrosino tackled the subject in the New Republic in January 2014:
[I]t’s time for the LGBT community to start moving beyond genetic predisposition as a tool for gaining mainstream acceptance of gay rights. . . .
For decades now, it’s been the most powerful argument in the LGBT arsenal: that we were “born this way.” . . .Still, as compelling as these arguments are, they may have outgrown their usefulness. With most Americans now in favor of gay marriage, it’s time for the argument to shift to one where genetics don’t matter. The genetic argument has boxed us into a corner.
It’s always a little unsettling when a movement that claims the mantle of truth, liberty, and equality starts openly admitting its arguments are mere “tools” to be wielded for their “usefulness.” But that’s where the movement is these days. Remember when proponents of same-sex marriage mocked people who suggested that creating a right to same-sex “marriage” might weaken the institution of marriage itself: How could my gay marriage possibly affect your straight marriage? Those arguments have outlived their usefulness, too. Here’s gay activist Jay Michaelson last year in the Daily Beast:
Moderates and liberals have argued that same-sex marriage is No Big Deal—it’s the Same Love, after all, and gays just want the same lives as everyone else. But further right and further left, things get a lot more interesting. What if gay marriage really will change the institution of marriage, shifting conceptions around monogamy and intimacy? . . .
[T]here is some truth to the conservative claim that gay marriage is changing, not just expanding, marriage. According to a 2013 study, about half of gay marriages surveyed (admittedly, the study was conducted in San Francisco) were not strictly monogamous.
This fact is well-known in the gay community—indeed, we assume it’s more like three-quarters. But it’s been fascinating to see how my straight friends react to it. Some feel they’ve been duped: They were fighting for marriage equality, not marriage redefinition. Others feel downright envious, as if gays are getting a better deal, one that wouldn’t work for straight couples. . . .
What would happen if gay non-monogamy—and I’ll include writer Dan Savage’s “monogamish” model, which involves extramarital sex once a year or so—actually starts to spread to straight people? Would open marriages, ’70s swinger parties, and perhaps even another era’s “arrangements” and “understandings” become more prevalent? Is non-monogamy one of the things same-sex marriage can teach straight ones, along with egalitarian chores and matching towel sets?
And what about those post-racial and post-gender millennials? What happens when a queer-identified, mostly-heterosexual woman with plenty of LGBT friends gets married? Do we really think that because she is “from Venus,” she will be interested in a heteronormative, sex-negative, patriarchal system of partnership? . . .
Radicals point out that gay liberation in the 1970s was, as the name implies, a liberation movement. It was about being free, questioning authority, rebellion. “2-4-6-8, smash the church and smash the state,” people shouted.
Slate’s Hanna Rosin agrees, suggesting that gay marriage won’t just change “normal” marriage, but will do so for the good:
The dirty little secret about gay marriage: Most gay couples are not monogamous. We have come to accept lately, partly thanks to Liza Mundy’s excellent recent cover story in the Atlantic and partly because we desperately need something to make the drooping institution of heterosexual marriage seem vibrant again, that gay marriage has something to teach us, that gay couples provide a model for marriages that are more egalitarian and less burdened by the old gender roles that are weighing marriage down these days.
Of course, not everyone in the same-sex marriage movement wants to help traditional marriage evolve into something better. Some want to burn it to the ground. Again in the New Republic, for instance, one member of a married lesbian couple wrote about her quest to use her own brother’s sperm to impregnate her wife. Why would she seek to do such a thing? Because “The queer parts of me relished the way it unsettled people. Uprooting convention, collapsing categories, reframing and reassigning blood relations was a subversive wet dream.” This is quite intentionally not, as Andrew Sullivan once promised, a “virtually normal” view of marriage.
Other changes are coming. Remember when people who predicted that gay marriage would lead to polygamy were mocked as dolts and yokels? Well now it turns out that polygamy is just the next frontier. “Legalize Polygamy!” declared one headline in Slate. “And now on to polygamy” urged . . . the Economist? Oh yes, all the way back in 2013:
The excitement over the Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage has probably died down until the court comes back with a decision. And what with a majority of senators now in favour, it certainly looks like, whether by judicial or legislative action, gay marriage is on a fairly rapid road to acceptance across America. So this moment, when fewer people are paying attention and it can’t do too much harm, seems like a good time for people who support gay marriage to admit that there are a couple of arguments for it which they’ve always thought were wrong. . . .
One of the assumptions that gay marriage calls into question, for many conservatives, is: why pairs, then? If not man-woman, then why not man-woman-woman, and so forth? Again, the response of gay-marriage proponents is generally ridicule. I don’t think this is a ridiculous question. “Why can’t you marry your dog, then?” is a ridiculous question; marriage, in our society, is between consenting adult persons. . . . But “why only two?” isn’t a ridiculous question. It’s easy enough to show that gay marriage does not empirically lead to pressure to legalise polygamy; that hasn’t happened anywhere that gay marriage is legal. But this is different from explaining why opening up the boundaries of the 20th-century understanding of marriage shouldn’t raise the possibility of legalising polygamy. Why shouldn’t it be legal for more than two consenting adults to marry each other?
Why indeed? In February 2014, the Atlantic published a fawning profile of Diana Adams, a polyamorous lawyer in Brooklyn who specializes in legalizing “nontraditional” families, which means, in practice, a lot of polygamous arrangements. And she’s not just helping consenting adults who do it for sport: Adams told the Atlantic that she’s particularly excited about the possibilities for three-parent families when it comes to child-rearing. You may have missed that part in the fine print of the same-sex marriage literature.
But if you had bothered to read the fine print, you would have seen it. Changing marriage beyond recognition has long been a stated goal of the organization Beyond Marriage, which is a collection of several hundred gay-rights lawyers, law professors, and activists. They argue that same-sex marriage is merely the first step on the path to redefining the family itself. Ultimately, they want legal protection for a host of other relationships, including, as they delicately put it, “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households” and “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.” This group is not a collection of cranks: It includes professors from Georgetown, Harvard, Emory, Columbia, and Yale. The Beyond Marriage project has at least as much elite support today as the entire same-sex marriage movement had in 1990.
And before we move on, a quick word about the ridiculousness of the question “Why can’t you marry your dog?” The legal profession has yet to take up this matter (though the law now allows dogs to receive inheritances and trust funds). But the culture has a head start. In November 2014, New York magazine published straight-faced an uncritical, explicit interview with a gentleman titled “What It’s Like to Date a Horse.” In January, New York ran a similar interview with a young woman titled “What It’s Like to Date Your Dad.”
All of which is a very long way of saying that whatever the Supreme Court rules in the coming weeks in Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage campaign is far from over. It hasn’t even reached the point of consolidating its gains. Rather, it is still in its aggressive expansion phase. Next up on the docket are transgender rights—even before Caitlyn Jenner, it was hard to go a week without a transgender story on the front page of either the New York Times or the Washington Post—and polyamory. Then the push to bring religious organizations—schools, charities, and para-church groups—to heel will intensify. Already, Catholic Charities has been driven out of adoption and foster care in places like Illinois, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia because that organization doesn’t place children in same-sex households. (Tellingly, this rebuff has been deemed not a regrettable by-product of the gay-marriage movement, but a victory for it. The goal is not live-and-let-live.) Then will come the big fight over breaking the churches themselves. And if you think that the same-sex marriage movement will stop short of trying to force churches to perform gay weddings, then you haven’t been paying attention.
After Brendan Eich was fired, a collection of soi-disant “moderate” same-sex marriage advocates issued a joint statement decrying the Jacobin turn their movement was taking. It was entitled “Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both.” It was a nice sentiment.
One of the signatories was the journalist Jonathan Rauch, who took the extra step of penning his own piece defending conscientious objectors to the new regime. This time the title was “Opposing Gay Marriage Doesn’t Make You a Crypto Racist.” Yet Rauch’s defense was as worrisome as anything coming from the most radical wings of his movement.
Rauch began by acknowledging two other bait-and-switches by gay-marriage proponents. In truth, he said, likening resistance to same-sex marriage to support for antimiscegenation laws is mistaken, despite what gay-marriage advocates have been saying for nearly 20 years. (The first use of the parallel I could find was by Andrew Sullivan in the New Republic in May 1996.)
Then Rauch turned to the question of whether or not the creation of same-sex marriage was an obvious extension of liberty—as gay rights advocates have always insisted—or something much bigger:
Virtually all human societies, including our own until practically the day before yesterday, took as a given that combining the two sexes was part of the essence of marriage. Indeed, the very idea of a same-sex marriage seemed to most people a contradiction in terms. . . .
By contrast, marriage has not always been racist. Quite the contrary. People have married across racial (and ethnic, tribal, and religious) lines for eons, often quite deliberately to cement familial or political alliances. Assuredly, racist norms have been imposed upon marriage in many times and places, but as an extraneous limitation. Everyone understood that people of different races could intermarry, in principle. Indeed, that was exactly why racists wanted to stop it, much as they wanted to stop the mixing of races in schools. In both intent and application, the anti-miscegenation laws were about race, not marriage.
Why should this distinction matter today, if both kinds of discrimination are wrong? Because asking people to give up history’s traditional understanding of marriage is a big ask. You don’t expect thousands of years of unquestioned moral and social tradition to be relinquished overnight.
Oh dear. So we are asking society to make a wholesale redefinition of one of the pillars of human civilization on the basis of a movement that didn’t exist until the day before yesterday. Well, it’s good to have that out in the open, one supposes. Better late than never.
Yet even after making this admission, Rauch can’t bring himself to admit the obvious corollary: that this change—like all changes—may have far-reaching, unintended consequences, some of which might be wonderful and some of which might be less-than-wonderful. Because if he did reach that conclusion, it would suggest it was prudent to study the outcomes in this new world with open eyes. And the persecution of social scientist Mark Reg-nerus shows that such clear-eyed study is very much not on the agenda.
But never mind all that. With this final, civilizational bait-and-switch acknowledged, Rauch gets around to the question of religious freedom:
The religious basis of the fiercest opposition to same-sex marriage is a truism. . . . To their discredit, all three of the Abrahamic faith traditions condemn homosexual love, and all of them have theologies that see marriage as intrinsically heterosexual. Believe me, no one regrets this more than I do. Religious-based homophobia is every bit as harmful as the secular varieties, and often worse. . . . But gay-rights advocates cannot wish away the deep and abiding religious roots of anti-gay ideology. . . .
The First Amendment carves out special protections for religious belief and expression. That does not mean, of course, that Christian homophobes can discriminate as much as they want provided they quote the Bible. It does mean, at least for a while, courts and legislatures will strike compromises balancing gay rights and religious liberty, something they did not have to do with black civil rights. This makes gay marriage more complicated—legally, socially, and even ethically—than interracial marriage. And it means gay-marriage supporters will hit a constitutional brick wall if we try to condemn our opponents to immediate and total perdition. [emphasis added]
The small point here is that even in the course of trying to defend same-sex marriage dissenters, Rauch can’t stop himself from reflexively labeling the traditional view of marriage “homophobia”—an epithet that conveys only the speaker’s self-righteousness. The conviction that marriage is a heterosexual institution is not based on “phobia” any more than the principle of equal protection of the laws, though problematic for affirmative action, is based on racism. Support for traditional marriage stems from many sources, including respect for natural law and the prudential concern that holding any line will become impossible once the core definition of marriage is tampered with. If Jonathan Rauch can’t understand this without resort to sloganeering, then it’s folly to expect better from Twitter. Which explains why every gay marriage fight devolves into the hounding of Brendan Eich.
But the bigger point—the most important point—is contained in the words “at least for a while” and “immediate.” Rauch is not some radical trying to uproot convention and collapse categories by marrying a horse or creating a baby from his sister’s eggs. He makes the most limited case that exists for gay marriage, and he makes it via compelling, good-faith arguments according to equality. He is as serious and high-minded as any advocate of same-sex marriage in America. And by his own admission, serious, high-minded advocates of same-sex marriage will tolerate religious liberty only so long.
One suspects this isn’t exactly the same-sex marriage future that Americans bargained for.
After the Supreme Court hands down its decision in Obergefell, we’ll begin to see the contours of the new deal that has been struck by the courts, the activist groups, government, commercial elites, and everyday social justice warriors. (For a breathtaking glimpse of this interface, have a look at the case of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the Oregon bakery that was fined $135,000 for declining to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. You may remember that after the fine was levied, donations to help the bakers were collected on the crowdfunding site GoFundMe—until gay activists successfully pressured GoFundMe to cancel the drive. Well, documents released on June 1 show officials from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, which imposed the fine, communicating via email, text message, meetings, and the giving and receiving of donations with the gay group pushing the case.)
If a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is created, then the government will move forward to the next stage, as hinted by solicitor general Donald Verrilli during oral arguments. Asked by Justice Samuel Alito if a new gay marriage right would require religious schools either to embrace it or to lose their tax exempt status, Verrilli replied,
You know, I—I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I—I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is—it is going to be an issue.
And not just religious colleges, but secondary and elementary schools and para-church charities, too. That’s because the same-sex marriage movement is intent on avoiding what they see as the political legacy of Roe v. Wade.
As the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson makes clear in his forthcoming book, The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,
Ever since Roe v. Wade, our law has granted a right to abortion. And yet, for the most part, pro-life citizens are not treated as though they were “anti-woman” or “anti-health.” Those are just slurs from extremists. Even those who disagree with the pro-life cause respect it and recognize that it has a legitimate place in the debate over public policy. And—this is crucial—it’s because of that respect that pro-choice leaders generally respect the religious liberty and conscience rights of their pro-life fellow citizens. Until the insurance coverage mandates imposed under Obamacare, at least, there was wide agreement that pro-life citizens shouldn’t be forced by the government to be complicit in what they see as the evil of abortion. Pro-life taxpayers, for example, haven’t been forced to fund elective abortions, and pro-life doctors haven’t been forced to perform them.
The Supreme Court thought it was settling the question of abortion in Roe. Instead, a political and cultural movement grew up around the pro-life cause, and over the course of 40 years, the argument over abortion has continued in the courts and legislatures and at the ballot box.
Which is why the gay-marriage movement wants to make Obergefell less like Roe and more like Brown v. Board of Education. As Anderson explains, the movement intends to cast supporters of traditional marriage once and for all as bigots who won’t be allowed to make their case in the public square. They want to salt the earth post-Obergefell and make certain it’s impossible for any traditional marriage movement to flower. In the same spirit, gay activists pressure corporations to take public stands against legislation protecting religious freedom, as happened in Indiana this spring. And corporations, in turn, increasingly pressure the law firms they contract with to stop their lawyers from doing pro bono work on religious freedom cases.
This determination from the same-sex marriage activists is, in its own way, an admission of their bait-and-switch tactics: They realize that they have not persuaded society of the rightness of the revolution they actually seek.
IOW, to accommodate the minority, the majority must relinquish their values.
Catholic ping!
Someone explain to me how the current communist mayor of NYC can be married to an “ex-militant lesbian?”
The same percentage that watched the Tony’s!
There is no freedom of speech in this country. There was. There is not. The country is actually ruled by fascists who can get you fired.
Tee hee! I hope she sees that picture someday. ;0}
you know, after living through a pretty brutal head injury, surviving that, and realizing we’re not here forever, they can go to hell. I’m done being politically correct.
I had to listen to the sickest stories from a gay guy who sat next to me at my last job.
I worked with a lot of them in graphics, many have hangups, and some are sick, sadistic perverts.
Then there were the four or five who were nice guys, didn’t talk about their sexuality at all, and I hope somehow those guys ask forgiveness before they pass or God will maybe put them in purgatory instead of hell.
Nothing is more unnatural and disturbing than seeing two flames or butches with children. I have disdain for anyone who supports the homosexual movement in any shape, size, or form.
We are in the same position in which Europe found itself in the 1930s; people of faith and tradition pitted against those who would fundamentally transform/destroy their nations and cultures. After some initial success, the former were eventually subdued by the US, Britain, the USSR; the nations and cultures have disappeared.
You said, “fundamentally transform”.
I heard that somewhere else, not too long ago.
Those on the Right who support marriage equality must be naive or willfully ignorant about the intentions of the homonazis. They may know gays and think they are nice but in reality those gays want to use the govt to punish dissent. That’s not Libertarian or Conservative.
Historically, every society in which the family unit is destroyed as a bedrock social construct is taken over by the state and eventually dies. Badly.
Well, here we are...
My introduction came in the late 60's when I went to work for an international airline. They love the airline industry where they can travel the globe at a fraction of the actual ticket price. My first week there, I was hit on by a dyke. Many of them were very nice. When I was unable to find a hotel room in Paris while vacationing with my mom, he gave us his apartment and stayed with a friend. He also took us on a tour of that district and we took him out to dinner.
I have no problem with those who express a homosexual tendency until they demand that society conform to and recognize their lifestyle as normal. It is not.
Was vacationing in Antiqua in April and at the same resort was a couple of guys and their tiny baby - looked to be about 2 months old maybe. The guys were 30 something.....sharing a resort condo with each other, and a 2 month old girl.
Sick.
I know; I said it deliberately - they are the same forces arrayed against each other (and the same ones are winning again).
The “support” comes overwhelmingly from heterosexuals who don’t wish for any society acknowledgment of sexual morality. It’s a coalition of everyone who wants no standards other than “consent.”
Here's a list of companies that support LGBTXYZWHATEVER:
3M Co. St. Paul, MN
A.1. Steak Sauce
AAA Northern California, Nevada and Utah San Francisco, CA
ABC
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. New Albany, OH
Absolut
Accenture Ltd. New York, NY
Aetna Inc. Hartford, CT
Agilent Technologies Inc. Santa Clara, CA
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP Washington, DC
Alaska Airlines Seattle, WA
Alcatel-Lucent Murray Hill, NJ
Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America Minneapolis, MN
Allstate Corp., The Northbrook, IL
Alston & Bird LLP Atlanta, GA
Amazon.com
American Airlines
American Apparel
American Express Co. New York, NY
Ameriprise Financial Inc. Minneapolis, MN
AMR Corp. (American Airlines) Fort Worth, TX
Amtrak
Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc. St. Louis, MO
Aon Corp. Chicago, IL
Apple Inc. Cupertino, CA
Applebee’s
Aquapure
Aquarius
Arent Fox LLP Washington, DC
Arnold & Porter LLP Washington, DC
AT&T Inc. San Antonio, TX
Athenos
Bacardi Mixers
Bacardi Premium Mixers
Bain & Co. Inc. (& Bridgespan Group Inc.) Boston, MA
Baker & Daniels LLP Indianapolis, IN
Banana Republic
Bank of America
Bank of New York Mellon Corp., New York, NY
Barnes & Noble Inc. New York, NY
Barq's
Barrilitos
BASF Corp. Florham Park, NJ
Bausch & Lomb Inc. Rochester, NY
Bayer Corp.
Ben & Jerry’s
Best Buy
Beverly
Bingham McCutchen LLP Boston, MA
BMC Software Inc. Houston, TX
Boca Foods
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. Ridgefield, CT
Boeing Co. Chicago, IL
Booz Allen Hamilton
Borders Group Inc. Ann Arbor, MI
Boston Consulting Group Boston, MA
Boston Scientific - medical supplies
BP America Inc. Houston, TX
BP Oil
Breakstones
Bright And Early
Bright Horizons Family Solutions Inc. Watertown, MA
Brinker International Inc. Dallas, TX
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. New York, NY
Brown Rudnick LLP Boston, MA
Bryan Cave LLP St. Louis, MO
Bud Light
Burger King
Caffeine-free Barq's
Caffeine-free Coca-Cola
Caffeine-free Diet Coke
Campbell Soup Co. Camden, NJ
Capital One Financial Corp. McLean, VA
CapriSun
Cardinal Health Dublin, OH
Cargill Inc. Wayzata, MN
Carlson Companies Inc. Minnetonka, MN
Carmax Inc. Richmond, VA
Cascal
Celebrity Cruises
Charles Schwab Corp., The San Francisco, CA
Cheez whiz
Cherry Coke
Chevron
Chevron Corp. San Ramon, CA
Chipotle
Chippewa
Choice Hotels
ChoicePoint Inc. Alpharetta, GA
Chrysler LLC Auburn Hills, MI
Chubb Corp. Warren, NJ
Cisco Systems Inc. San Jose, CA
Citi
Citigroup Inc. New York, NY
Citra
Claussen Pickles
Clear Channel Communications Inc. San Antonio, TX
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP New York, NY
Clifford Chance US LLP New York, NY
Clorox
CNA Insurance Chicago, IL
Coca-Cola - Odwalla
Coca-Cola Black Cherry Vanilla
Coca-Cola Cherry Zero
Coca-Cola Co., The Atlanta, GA
Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. Atlanta, GA
Coca-Cola Zero
Coca-Cola Zero Caffeine-Free
Coldwell Banker
Constellation Energy Group Inc. Baltimore, MD
Continental Airlines Inc. Houston, TX
Cool Whip
Coors Brewing Co. Denver, CO
Corning Inc. Corning, NY
Costco
Country Time Lemonaid
Covington & Burling LLP Washington, DC
Cox Enterprises - Cox Media Group (msm), Cox Communications (Phoenix fiber internet), Cox Automotive Cox Enterprises Inc./Cox Communications Inc. Atlanta, GA
Cracker Barrel
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP New York, NY
Credit Suisse USA Inc. New York, NY
Crystal Light
Cumberland Gap
Cummins Inc. Columbus, IN
Dannon
Darcars
Dasani
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP New York, NY
Delaware Punch
Dell Inc. Round Rock, TX
Deloitte LLP New York, NY
Delta Airlines
Deutsche Bank New York, NY
Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP New York, NY
Diageo - brands include Johnnie Walker, Crown Royal, JεB, Buchanan’s and Windsor whiskies, Smirnoff, Cîroc and Ketel One vodkas, Captain Morgan, Baileys, Don Julio, Tanqueray and Guinness.
Diageo North America Norwalk, CT
Dickstein Shapiro LLP Washington, DC
Diet Barq's
Diet cherry Coke
Diet Coke
Diet Coke Black Cherry Vanilla
Diet Coke with Lime
Diet Coke with Splenda
Diet Fuze Tea
Diet Inca Kola
Diet Master Pour
Diet Northern Neck
Diet Sprite
Diet Sprite Zero
DLA Piper Baltimore, MD
Dorsey & Whitney LLP Minneapolis, MN
Dow Chemical Co. Midland, MI
Dr Pepper
DuPont (E.I. du Pont de Nemours) Wilmington, DE
Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY
eBay Inc. San Jose, CA
Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP Boston, MA
Electronic Arts Inc. Redwood City, CA
Eli Lilly & Co. Indianapolis, IN
Erie Insurance
Ernst & Young LLP New York, NY
Estee Lauder Companies New York, NY
Esurance Inc. San Francisco, CA
Evian
Expedia
Faegre & Benson LLP Minneapolis, MN
Fannie Mae Washington, DC
Fanta
Fanta Sugar Free
Fanta Zero
Five Alive
Flavor Rage
Foley & Lardner LLP Milwaukee, WI
Foley Hoag LLP Boston, MA
Ford Motor Co. Dearborn, MI
Freescale Semiconductor Inc. Austin, TX
Fresca
Fried, Frank, Haris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP New York, NY
Fruitopia
Full Throttle
Fuze
Fuze Tea
GameStop Corp. Grapevine, TX
Gap
Gay Destination Weddings
Genentech Inc. South San Francisco, CA
General Mills
General Motors Corp. Detroit, MI
Gerber Baby Products
Gevalis Kaffe
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Los Angeles, CA
Glacéau fruitwater
Glacéau smartwater
Glacéau vitaminenergy
Glacéau vitaminwater
Glacéau vitaminwater zero
GlaxoSmithKline plc Philadelphia, PA
Global Hyatt Corp. Chicago, IL
Gold Peak
Goldman Sachs Group Inc., New York, NY
Google Inc. Mountain View, CA
H2OK
Harrah’s Entertainment Inc. Las Vegas, NV
Hartford Financial Services Co. Hartford, CT
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Inc. Wellesley, MA
Haynes and Boone LLP Dallas, TX
HBO’s True Blood
Heineken
Heller Ehrman LLP San Francisco, CA
Herman Miller Inc. Zeeland, MI
Hershey's
Hewitt Associates Lincolnshire, IL
Hewlett-Packard Co. Palo Alto, CA
Hi-C
Hilton Hotels
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. Nutley, NJ
Holland & Knight LLP Miami, FL
Home Depot
Honest Ade
Honest Fizz
Honest Kids
Honest Tea
Honest Tea Zero
Honeywell International Inc. Morristown, NJ
Hospira Inc. Lake Forest, IL
Howrey LLP Washington, DC
HSBC - North America Mettawa, IL
Human Rights Campaign
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Kansas City, MO
Hyatt
Illy
Inca Kola
IndyMac Bancorp Inc. Pasadena, CA
ING North America Insurance Corp. Atlanta, GA
Intel Corp. Santa Clara, CA
International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) Armonk, NY
International Group Inc.
Intuit Inc. Mountain View, CA
J.C. Penney Co. Inc. Plano, TX
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. New York, NY
Java Monster
JC Penney
Jell-O
Jenner & Block LLP Chicago, IL
Jericho
Jet Blue
Jet-Puffed
Johnson & Johnson New Brunswick, NJ
JP Morgan Chase & Co
Kaiser Permanente Oakland, CA
Kenneth Cole - shoes
KeyCorp Cleveland, OH
Kimberly-Clark Corp. Irving, TX
Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group Inc. San Francisco, CA
Kinley
Kirkland & Ellis LLP Chicago, IL
Kool-Aid
KPMG LLP New York, NY
Kraft Foods
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP New York, NY
Krest
Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority
Latham & Watkins LLP New York, NY
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. New York, NY
Levi Strauss & Co. San Francisco, CA
Lexmark International Inc. Lexington, KY
Lexus
Lift
Limited, The
Lincoln Financial Group
Littler Mendelson PC San Francisco, CA
Liz Claiborne Inc. New York, NY
Loews Hotel
Lockheed Martin Corp. Bethesda, MD
Lunchables
Macy’s Inc. Cincinnati, OH
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP Los Angeles, CA
Marc Jacobs - apparel and accessories
Marriott International Inc.
Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc. New York, NY
Martha Stewart
Maryland Live Casino
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. Springfield, MA
Master Card
Master Chill
Master Pour
MasterCard Inc. Purchase, NY
Maxwell House
McDermott Will & Emery LLP Chicago, IL
McDonald’s
McKinsey & Co. Inc. New York, NY
Mello Yello
Mello Yello Zero
Merck & Co. Inc. Whitehouse Station, NJ
Merrill Lynch & Co. New York, NY
MetLife
Mezzo Mix
MGM Resorts International
Microsoft
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo PC Boston, MA
Minute Maid
Minute Maid Enhanced
Minute Maid Fruit Falls
Minute Maid Juices To Go
Minute Maid Light
Minute Maid Orchards
Mio
Miracle Whip
Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams - home décor
Mondelez International - Oreos
Monster
Moody’s Investors Service
Morgan Stanley
Morrison & Foerster LLP San Francisco, CA
Motorola Inc. Schaumburg, IL
Mozilla
National Grid USA Brooklyn, NY
Nationwide Insurance
NCR Corp. Dayton, OH
Nestle
New York Life Insurance Co. New York, NY
New York Times Co. New York, NY
Newell Rubbermaid Inc. Atlanta, GA
Nielsen Co., The Schaumburg, IL
Nike
Nixon Peabody LLP New York, NY
Nordstrom Inc.
Northern Neck
Northern Trust Corp. Chicago, IL
Northrop Grumman - global security company providing innovative systems, products and solutions in unmanned systems, cyber, C4ISR, and logistics and modernization to government and commercial customers.
NOS
Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp. East Hanover, NJ
O’Melveny & Myers LLP Washington, DC
Odwalla
Office Depot
Olive Garden
Omni Hotels
Oracle Corp. Redwood City, CA
Orbitz Worldwide Inc. Chicago, IL
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP San Francisco, CA
Oscar Mayer
Owens Corning Toledo, OH
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP New York, NY
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP Los Angeles, CA
Paula Deen
PBS
Peace Tea
Pepe Rico
Pepsi - Naked Juice
Pepsi Bottling Group Inc., The Somers, NY
PepsiCo – also funds abortions
PepsiCo Inc. Purchase, NY
Perkins Coie Seattle, WA
Pfizer
Pfizer Inc. New York, NY
PG&E Corp. San Francisco, CA
Philadelphia Cream Cheese
Pibb Xtra
Pibb Zero
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP San Francisco, CA
Planters Nuts
Polly-O Cheese
Powell Goldstein LLP Atlanta, GA
Powerade
Powerade Play
Powerade Zero
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP New York, NY
Proctor & Gamble
Progressive Corp., The Mayfield Village, OH
Proskauer Rose LLP New York, NY
Prudential Insurance
Purina PetCare Co. and Omnicom Group
Raymond James Financial Inc. St. Petersburg, FL
Raytheon Co. Waltham, MA
Recreational Equipment Inc. Kent, WA
Red Flash
Red Lobster
Replacements Ltd. McLeansville, NC - silverware and china
Reynolds American Inc. Winston-Salem, NC
Rite Aid
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP Minneapolis, MN
Ropes & Gray LLP Boston, MA
S. C. Johnson & Son Inc. Racine, WI
Sabre Holdings Inc. Southlake, TX
Sandos Hotels and Resorts
Schering-Plough Corp. Kenilworth, NJ
Schweppes
Sears
Sears Holdings Corp. Hoffman Estates, IL
Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP San Francisco, CA
Sempra Energy San Diego, CA
Seyfarth Shaw LLP Chicago, IL
Shell Oil
Showtime
Sidley Austin LLP Chicago, IL
Simply
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP New York, NY
Smirnoff’s
Sodexho Inc. Gaithersburg, MD
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal LLP Chicago, IL
Southern California Edison Co. Rosemead, CA
Southern Sun
Southwest Airlines
Spring!
Sprint Nextel Corp. Overland Park, KS
Sprite
Sprite Zero
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP Cleveland, OH
Staples
Star Financial
Starbucks
Starcom MediaVest Group Chicago, IL
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide White Plains, NY
State Farm Insurance
State Street Corp. Boston, MA
Stove Top
Subaru of America Inc. Cherry Hill, NJ
Sugar Free Full Throttle
Sugar Free NOS
Sugar Free Sprite
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP New York, NY
Sun Life Financial Inc. (U.S.) Wellesley Hills, MA
Sun Microsystems Inc. Santa Clara, CA
Sunfill
SunTrust Banks Inc. Atlanta, GA
Supervalu Inc. Eden Prairie, MN
Surge
Symantec
Symantec Corp. Cupertino, CA
TaB
Target
Target Corp. Minneapolis, MN
Tassimo coffee
TD Bank
Tech Data Corp. Clearwater, FL
TEK Systems
Texas Instruments Inc. Dallas, TX
Thompson Coburn LLP St. Louis, MO
Time Warner Inc. New York, NY
TJX Companies, Inc., The Framingham, MA
Toyota Financial Services Corp. Torrance, CA
Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. Torrance, CA
Travelport Inc. Parsippany, NJ
Troutman Sanders LLP Atlanta, GA
Tylenol
U.S. Bancorp Minneapolis, MN
Uber
UBS - banking
UBS AG Stamford, CT
Unilever Englewood Cliffs, NJ
United Airlines
United Business Media LLC Manhasset, NY
United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) Atlanta, GA
UPS
US Airways Group Inc. Tempe, AZ
US Dept of Energy
Vanilla Coke
Vanilla Coke Zero
Vault
Vault Zero
Vegibeta
Vegitabeta
Velveeta
Viacom Inc. New York, NY
Vinson & Elkins LLP Houston, TX
Visa Foster City, CA 3
Visteon Corp. Van Buren Township, MI
Volkswagen of America Inc. Herndon, VA
VPI Pet Insurance
W Hotels Worldwide
Wachovia Corp. Charlotte, NC
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz LLP New York, NY
Walgreen Co. Deerfield, IL
Walgreens
Walt Disney
Washington Mutual Inc. Seattle, WA
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP New York, NY
Wells Fargo & Co. San Francisco, CA
Whirlpool
White & Case LLP New York, NY 1
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP Washington, DC
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC Palo Alto, CA
Winston & Strawn LLP Chicago, IL
WJKA Channel 7
Worx Energy
Wyndham Worldwide Corp. Parsippany, NJ
Xerox Corp. Norwalk, CT
Yahoo! Inc. Sunnyvale, CA
Zipcar
Zico
How did Kinley get on that list? I’ve met Myron Kinley’s wife. She was strongly conservative and anti-communist. I can’t imagine they would embrace this crap.
There is another great and telling quote by Rauch: “I also think that there is a moral reason. What the gay rights movement is fighting for is not just equality for gays, but freedom of conscience to live openly according to their identity” Do you understand his meaning on this?? Now we have to make sure their consciences are clear, how do we do that? By affirming every single aberration and continuing that on down the line, sexually, about anything and anyone. It’s absurd. So depressing. It’s over. They won and are taking no prisoners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.