The Social Justice Warriors of the Flathead Valley just won’t give up.
Montana human rights groups and some residents from across the state are calling on the Whitefish City Council to pass a law shielding residents and visitors from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Montana Human Rights Network and the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana have asked the Council to adopt a non-discrimination ordinance that protects lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people from discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations.
For some reason, I was the catalyst for this proposed law:
The issue comes in the wake of renewed publicity for the National Policy Institute, whose president, Richard B. Spencer, set up headquarters in Whitefish several years ago after moving from Washington, D.C.
In early December, the Whitefish City Council unanimously passed a resolution supporting diversity and tolerance in the community, taking a stance on the contentious issue but stopping short of enacting anti-discrimination legislation.
The council passed the good faith resolution after local residents turned out in droves urging adoption of an anti-hate or non-discrimination ordinance protecting the community from groups like Spencer’s National Policy Institute.
"[P]rotecting the community from groups like Spencer’s National Policy Institute." From what? Books? I've been spending time in Whiteifish for 10 years now. I've maintained a low-key, anonymous presence. It was only after an article on me appeared in the Whitefish Pilot last November that local Social Justice Warriors became aware of my presence.
The author also fails to mention that I endorsed last month’s resolution, which was a benign and vague call for diversity and inclusiveness.
The article gets worse when we hear from a certain Grand Poobah of Righteousness:
Rachel Carroll Rivas, co-director at the Montana Human Rights Network, said a non-discrimination ordinance is timely given Spencer’s presence in Whitefish.
“This non-discrimination ordinance is particularly important at this time because of the presence of an international hate group headquartered in Whitefish,” she said. “Richard Spencer’s National Policy Institute advocates discrimination and hate not only toward people of color and Jewish people, but LGBT people – whom he calls ‘gross’ and ‘unnatural.’ In response to Spencer’s activism the community called on the Council to take a stance in favor of diversity and the Council took the first step of passing a resolution. The Whitefish City staff recommended the Council consider such an ordinance as a way to respond to community outcry over Spencer.”
Gross? Unnatural? Not exactly “hate speech.” But nevertheless, I didn’t remember writing or saying anything like that. So, I did a simple Google search of “gay + gross + unnatural + Richard Spencer.” Up came a piece I definitely remember writing last summer, “The End of the Culture.”
Let’s take a look at those mean old words in context.
The Culture War ended not through the acceptance of "free love" but through a kind of Hegelian synthesis; gay marriage was legitimized by becoming, strangely, a "conservative" cause. It became about equality—and who could be against that?! And as Republican Senator Rob Portman opined, gay marriage will bring "stability" to gays' lives—so no more GROSS, half-naked parades; gay couples will instead get a mortgage and start voting Republican.
I'm arguing that gay marriage, in the minds of its mainstream supporters, is an attempt to make gays less gay.
Here's the next relevant paragraph:
To ensure I'm not misunderstood, let me say that I don't support gay marriage; indeed, I find it to be UNNATRUAL in the deepest sense of that word. (And, no doubt, very few gay men will find the idea of monogamy to their liking.) I don't, however, cling to the illusion that if the Court had deemed the practice illegal, this would, in any significant way, alter the trajectory of Occidental civilization.
Monogamy is a poor fit for gay men; thus, gay marriage is unnatural. My guess is that most gay men would agree with such an assessment.
For the record, I think homosexuality is "natural”: it occurs in nature among many species of mammals, and it has been present throughout human history.
But what’s important here is the level of shamelessness exhibited by Rachel Carroll Rivas.
Perhaps the poor woman is simply incapable of reading above a first- grade level; all she could make of my essay is “gross” and “unnatural.”
More likely, she found the most seemingly offensive words written and then twisted them into headline- worthy invectives.
Let’s play this game! Here’s another winning paragraph from my essay:
For a retro-leftist, the idea of "gay marriage" is as subversive and ridiculous as it is for a traditionalist: "gay marriage" would mean bringing homosexuals into the oppressive, bourgeois tyranny of monogamy!
Let’s imagine what this could become in the mind of Ms. Rivas…
Richard Spencer has called for an “oppressive, bourgeois tyranny” as the only way to stop gay marriage!