Gay Rights Proponents Act Like the Third Reich

Yes, I know about Goodwin’s law, but comparing gay rights activists to the Nazis is fitting. They’ve gone from being persecuted to persecuting. Of course, they’ll say it is all in the fight for their civil rights — much like the Nazis needed to go after people to make things right.

See here.

Wireless providers and Capitol Hill Democrats are calling for CTIA President Steve Largent’s ouster over his alleged support of California’s recent gay marriage ballot initiative.

“I’m not sure that this kind of political activity is helpful in Washington, D.C., right now,” a telecommunications executive from a CTIA member company told Roll Call on Thursday. “I don’t think it represents the high-tech workers of the wireless industry.”

Mind you, Steve Largent did not contribute to the Prop. 8 measure. His wife did.

But Largent must be punished. You must not oppose gay marriage. They will come for you. They will come for your family. They will work to oust you from your job.

This reminds me of something from this month’s Wired. Someone wrote in asking a question: their office has a network where everyone shares iTunes. Some Christian has sermons that are “anti-gay” in her iTunes. The guy wanted to know if he should complain and have the co-worker fired for intolerance.

In this country, we’ve gone from a Red Scare to a red, white, and blue scare. People with traditional American values are to be hunted down, fired from their jobs, and destroyed.

About the author

Erick Erickson

View all posts


  • Erick,
    Let me get this straight: If a homosexual tries to stand up for his civil rights, he is acting like a Nazi? Is that what you’re saying? I’d like to understand better your thoughts. Perhaps you could clarify a bit more, or provide some more examples?

  • David, how exactly is trying to have people fired because their wives gave money to a ballot measure standing up for a civil right?

    Oh, and it is not a civil right.

  • Okay- if Steve Largent and his wife were discovered to have funded a PRO partial birth abortion law would you not ask for some repercussion?

    If you are truly intellectual then the “black” listing of Measure 8 supporters runs more along the lines of McCarthy. And since McCarthy was a right winger, this is using your own tactics so doesn’t it make them more like you. Are you a Nazi?

    Also this whole black listing phrase is wrong. The records are public. Anyone who donated knew that. If you donated knowing the records were public, than stand up for what you believe. Take the lumps that come with it. Those of you on the right can just as easily stop supporting Anti-8 groups. Here are a couple right off the bat- Google and Apple. Go ahead, turn in your Apples and don’t use Google from this point forward.

  • Why would I seek reprecussions? It’s amazing that you think that way so much that you must think I’d think that way.

    If Steve Largent were selling out his company for, say, the National Cable Group, then yeah, there should be reprecussions. But his politics on issues not related to his work are not relevant.

    Will you stop standing in line at the grocery store for a cashier that thinks gay marriage is wrong and gave to Prop 8? There really is no difference here.

    Those of you on the right can just as easily stop supporting Anti-8 groups.

    Why? Why do I want to boycott a company that supported Anti-8 groups? That does not make sense to me. It’s not like the company is about that issue. It just happens to believe in that issue. Big freakin’ deal.

  • So your beliefs are not so valued that you would in fact speak with your checkbook? That’s fine. If I “knew” the cashier had supported Prop 8- then yes I would go to another line. Would I ask they be fired- probably not. If asked why I moved, I would say. Did I spend a little more money at Apple, yes.

    I am trying to figure out just how much your beliefs mean to you and exactly what you would do to stand up for them. Is launching a letter writing campaign that much different?

    I am also trying understand how the groups your are against rose to “Nazi” status. I mean really, saying someone should be fired is the equal to a genocidal rampage over many years? I noticed you ducked the McCarthy comparison as well.

  • Oh yeah, you guys are acting like McCarthy on this. It’s not the pro-prop. 8 guys driving people to the unemployment line for their beliefs.

    So your beliefs are not so valued that you would in fact speak with your checkbook?

    My belief is that in a democracy, people can vote their conscience and should not be punished for doing so.

  • Rather extreme- I don’t think Largent would end up in the unemployment line, however that is beside the point.

    I also believe in democracy. I believe in the freedom of speech and protest as well. So you are saying from this point forward regardless of how a company or individual stands you will not in any way boycott them? Good to know. If Congress “votes their conscience” and you disagree with them, can I assume you will simply remain mute on the issue? You will not ask for resignations or for your people to swamp the phone banks? And if you will not remain mute, simply explain the difference if you do or would.

    The group Largent is President over has a choice to make- do they feel his politics will help or hurt them? It is a political group after all. Tell you what, since his wife donated let’s just simply ask Steve what he thinks. Does he agree or disagree with Prop 8? Then the group can make its decision based on that answer.

    I had a good laugh at the captcha “gayly Govern-“, seemed ironic.

  • Erick,
    My point is simply this: You’re a lawyer. You know full well that far-reaching over-generalizations are in no one’s interest, are generally incorrect, and are at best unfair. Now, amend your rhetoric to read “SOME gay rights activists have gone from being persecuted to persecuting.” MAYBE I’ll give you some latitude.
    But you also know, as a lawyer, that your words are inaccurate, incorrect, and, given your reach and position, dangerously incendiary.
    I hope you’ll be clearer, more accurate, and work toward making things on both sides of this argument better. If not, you’re just attempting to monetize people’s emotions, a rather dishonorable vocation, don’t you think?

  • So suddenly why so mute? It appears unlike most attorneys you don’t like to debate? Interesting- sort of speaks volumes by itself. I expected a little more from the founder of Or is it since you don’t have a camera on you and you are not parading yourself among “equals”, you feel a little out of sorts?

    It is sad, Erick.
    I am disappointed really.

    Do not think I failed to notice how you never really answered any questions posed to you. I’ll check back every now and then just to see. Perhaps make a comment or two on redstate to let the folks over there know how you can’t really take the heat if your words are challenged. I’m guessing they will be moderated out though.

  • Hey Matt, I have a life beyond this website — not to mention a very pregnant wife.

    What I’m still dwelling on is you equate hounding a man from his job with a boycott.

    Nice that you have such a superiority complex.

  • It’s amazing, no not really, that people who want free speech think that we (private citizens) have to actually listen to them. Yes, it is the Gay Reich, when you don’t get your way you take to the streets, bitch, moan, attack (physically and non-violently), petition, assail, accost, and lose all sense of civility in order to bring attention to your point. What we’re missing are the Rainbow Shirts who’s job it is to make you vote the way they want you to.

    You love the election process when it goes your way but you disdain the process and the people for voting against you. How interesting. Its a choice to oppose “gay rights” and its a choice to be an idiot as you people are doing so well.

    And yes, life goes out outside the Internets

  • When did I say I disdain the process? I love the process. I love the country. I just asked Erick to back up and defend the Nazi statement-which still hasn’t been done. I am glad to see he found a kindred soul in Joe Bob.

    In other news some of the same wireless carriers that Largent represents as President of CTIA came out against and financially supported “No on 8”. And I said let’s just ask the man- if he does not agree with those he represents how can he successfully represent them? How are those statements disdain.

    re: the boycott/hounding a man comment.
    It was you who said that boycotting a company wouldn’t be worth it- your wrods “big freakin’ deal”. So I asked from this point forward you would no longer use similar tactics to get done what you want. If I am understanding your statements, you think the Left are being Nazi’s if they do it, but the Right isn’t if they do it. Explain the difference if either one of you could?

    And the best response you can come up with is “life outside the Internets”? You found time to add this column to Redstate front page, just to scare more traffic this way. and sure there is life outside- I myself volunteered at a Bluestar Moms event yesterday and spent time with my lovely family (wife and kids).

  • You have every right to a secret vote. If you choose to personally go out and champion a controversial issue it’s pretty ridiculous to then complain when you are tied to that position by people who disagreed.

    Naturally I’m sure your wife goes to Planned Parenthood for all of her pregnancy check ups, since you’re so against voting with the checkbook…

  • What difference does it make what he thinks of propositon 8 when it comes to his employment? Millions of people both pro- and con- have opinions on Prop. 8, but the day Congress or any “telecom executive” has the right to have someone fired over that is the day we’re all doomed, folks.

    People voted on it, he had an opinion and so did his wife. You can’t (and shouldn’t wish) to fire people from their jobs because of that, even if it’s one you don’t agree with. It was a public ballot initiative. Everyone has a right to an opinion on it. And regardless of that opinion it has nothing to do with their job.

    What are some of you folks thinking? That Congress should start deciding who has the right to work in certain jobs in the private sector depending on what opinions they have on BALLOT INITIATIVES?

    If you folks can’t see why that’s about the most dangerous kind of thinking in the world, I don’t know what will save you. At that point, the only thing that matters about your life is what the opinion of politicians in Congress is. And they won’t always be what you would prefer.

  • Except it is a political assignment/job. He should be aware that any decision he makes of a political nature can come back to bite him. Kind of like if a Congress person from Texas was to support a secession prop that wanted to make Texas a part of Mexico. Wouldn’t they be asked to step down or removed from office if and when it failed? Or a RNC chair that funded Planned Parenthood with RNC money- again wouldn’t they be asked to step down from the politically assigned post.

    And once again I ask how are these tactics different from what the right has done in the past? Or will do in the future (unless I am correctly reading that they will not be used since you all seem so up in arms about them)? And more importantly when did the use of these tactics get elevated to Nazi style?

  • Matt,
    What do you call rioting in the streets and hounding employers as well as churches after you lose a ballot initiative? That’s nothing but contempt for the voting process and the people who voted against you. You didn’t see millions of conservatives rioting in the streets when Obama was elected did you? I’ll go with “no”. You didn’t see conservatives pillaging San Francisco and LA after the Californian Supreme Court ruled to allow gay marriage? No… you saw civil discourse, petitions to create a law (not fire someone or boycott a business).

    I’m glad you volunteer but would you allow me to keep my job if I voted against your cause? Should you petition to get us kicked out based on our beliefs? We don’t support gays openly serving in the military either. So would you like me to leave the military? If I don’t, would you petition the Department of the Army to cancel my contract and discharge me after you riot in front of Ft. Monroe?

    And your cause certainly seems to disparage the people’s voice on this subject. Obama was elected and yet your side lost a fight to have an imaginary right that slaps the heritage of this nation. So to correct the people’s “mistake” you want your opponents fired from jobs, harassed at homes, slandered and libeled, a religion made fun of (but you won’t poke fun at Islam I bet), in a nation-wide temper tantrum that hasn’t run its course yet.

  • And more importantly when did the use of these tactics get elevated to Nazi style?

    When the gay rights movement turned into a gay reich movement. All dissenters must be driven from their jobs, churches must be torn down, the IRS must be sicked on non-profit institutions, etc.

  • I know I frequently mistake the genocide of 10 million human beings with calls for a guy to be fired.

    All. The. Time.

    What could have possibly convinced you that this was a good metaphor to use?

  • When the CA Supreme court ruled you don’t seem to recall the calls that went out to impeach them. To somehow remove them from the bench? Somehow they were “activist” judges that needed to be stopped?

    In the private sector I would choose not to support your business if I found out you supported the Pro-8 cause. If because of me not supporting your biz, you lost your job then I guess I would support you losing your job. By donating and knowing the records are public you take that risk. Just like anybody can go back through and choose to support all those same Pro-8 businesses with more business.
    Boycotting and protests are a fabric of the country. However I do draw the line at any violence. Speaking out against someone (freedom of speech) and picketing a business (freedom of assembly) in a civil matter I whole heartedly support.

    Joe Bob- The examples you mention- the violent protests and hassling I do not agree with. Protesting the LDS becuse of their support peacfully- I support. Vandalism or some such- I do not. And I will stand with you against those small, minority groups. Just don’t insult people’s intelligence by painting everyone who was “No Prop-8” with that wide a swath. In a few years when the amendment gets repealed through a similar process- will you openly embrace the new law?

    Working for the military under contract is a little different than Largent. Largent is in all likelihood elected to his current position. And it is a political position- so there are political ramifications. So in his case, if he supports stuff like Prop-8 and the CTIA feels it does not represent them, fire him by election or whatever process they have. Period.

    The military has determined the SOP- in effect- to be no gays . The fact that you support that is fine. No I wouldn’t ask to have your contract nullified- but I wouldn’t work with your company if I could avoid it. However if the military changes it tune- either you become comfortable with it or no you shouldn’t be allowed to have the contract.

    It is also important to separate simply voting against (secret ballot- nobody knows) and choosing to publicly and/or vocally support/oppose. Vote how you want, no problem- no questions. Tell me how you vote and then ask me for money is some fashion, not happening. That is the vital difference here. Places/people are not being protested/pressured just because they voted. They have gone a step farther and publicly announced their views. Expect to be challenged.

    I both respect and mock all religions at times- trust me on this one, but that dilutes the current issue I am trying to address.

  • Regarding the whole “heritage of this country” that is always paraded out when convenient. There have been many quotes by our founding fathers that go to support the fact they understood their faith while important to them was not to be used in Common Law. Many, many quotes by our Founding Fathers basically say that the religion of a person is a personal truth and not for the government nor should it be used to enact or make law.

    “Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law”-Jefferson.

  • To Matt:

    It was a public ballot initiative and it passed. I don’t know about others, but when someone supports a public initiative that’s voted on by people in the state where they live, they have a right to hold any opinion on it that they wish, and more importantly so do their spouses, family members and so on.

    I would defend this guy even if he had been on the other side of the issue. It’s not a matter for me of my personal feelings about Proposition 8 — it’s a fundamental matter of protecting people’s right to have an opinion about public issues without living in fear of losing their livelihood because of it.

    I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I can give you a similar example:

    I live in Massachusetts and this year there were three ballot initiatives up for decision by the voters here. I was in the minority opinion on two if them in the way I voted personally. And gay marriage is already the law of the land in Massachusetts. There are people in my town who run businesses who I know for a fact voted the other way: I’m not trying to have them fired from their jobs, and they’re not trying to ruin my life, either (so far as I know).

  • This post totally misses the point. Largent is the public face of CTIA, an industry/lobbying group. If his constituents don’t think his opinions and actions—even private actions—are representative of the organization, they have a duty to oust him. This is no different than an elected official’s constituents voting her out of office for holding unpopular views.

  • Then were do you draw the line? Any of you? You seem to have a general problem with the “temper tantrum”. I agreed that any violence is wrong. I agreed if it was simply a vote, than there should be no repercussions. However,there are some things you glazed over.

    Largent’s post is “political”. That in and of itself is a different beast. A political post has political ramifications. He should have known that and now must deal with them.

    The other points I stated was if you feel the boycotting and such (short of actual violence or property damage) went too far, than each and every one of you cannot call to arms your compatriots if something doesn’t go your way now or later. Feel free to continue to patronage the stores and businesses- but don’t lump those of us that make the decision to not support them in with Nazis.

    Like yourselves, I have core beliefs that I am just not willing to push aside and if it means I need to find a new coffee house or restaurant, then I will. Much like if I knew a coffee house or restaurant did not serve Catholics or Baptists, I would not patronage them either. Apparently, some of you here would.

    Ultimately this did start when Erick took the actions of a minority and cast it upon all that think that way and decided they were Nazis. In fact, really took a lame example-Largent, President of a political group receiving political pressure- to try and illustrate his point. And now Erick and his ilk continue to use the phrase “Gay Reich’- which is used solely for the purpose of demonizing a group they disagree with, while at the same time trying to say that wouldn’t do that themselves. Cute contradiction don’t you think?

  • Erick, these traditional American values you speak of … haven’t they been used to legitimize everything from slavery to the Red Scare? Indeed so, for my history books tell me so. What are you holding onto, really? Dogma, me thinks.

    But in 40 years I’m sure all the “traditional” Christians will claim credit for gay rights just as they did with 60s era civil rights, women’s lib., and slavery before it. But us dirty secularists know better.