Corporations are the Enemy

A man I know was a top executive at a major American media company, one of the biggest and most influential in the world. A young man came into his office one day asking to display a rainbow sticker with the words “safe space.” This was a decade ago and this man, a faithful Catholic, felt confident he could demur without reprisal though he could see the veiled threat of being “outed” as less than gay friendly, as a homophobe.

But, in these post-Brendan Eich days, it is doubtful my friend would feel as safe to say no because things have gotten exponentially worse since then. Last week more than 300 corporations issued a friend-of-the-court brief in the upcoming Supreme Court case that would impose same-sex “marriage” on the whole country. These corporations would impose faux marriage on the 60 percent of the population in 34 states who have voted to enshrine true marriage in their constitutions.

For friends of true marriage, corporations are the enemy. They signed up with the sexual left long ago.

The corporations’ arguments in the amicus brief are mostly economic. Their interest is “to attract and retain a talented workforce.” The dual regime whereby some states recognize true marriage while others recognize faux marriage “creates legal uncertainty and imposes unnecessary costs” and requires them to treat employees differently by where they reside.

They say that talented people are hard to find and keep in states that recognize only true marriage. True marriage violates their “principles of diversity and inclusion.” Imposing faux marriage on the country would “reduce current costs, administrative burden, and diversion of resources from our core businesses.”

The corporations quote specious arguments from recent court decisions. The 9th Circuit, which overturned the Idaho marriage laws, wrote this, “When we integrated our schools, education improved. When we opened our juries to women, our democracy became more vital. When we allowed lesbian and gay soldiers to serve openly in uniform, it enhanced unit cohesion.”

Really? Not that there shouldn’t be non-segregated schools, but does anyone really believe education has improved from the 1950s to today? They argue that open LGBTs in the military have led to greater unit cohesion? The 9th Circuit didn’t offer any proof of that claim. But these are typical of the kinds of empty arguments made by the sexual left in marriage cases.

The corporations cite a handful of studies proving that diversity is important. Forbes Insights surveyed 320 diversity officers in major corporations that showed, no surprise, that diversity officers say diversity is important. Another one from Australia showed the same thing. But both studies are mostly about sex and racial diversity. The Australian study, for instance, mentions sexual orientation only once.

The corporations’ amicus brief insists, “A diverse, inclusive workplace environment increases the total human energy available to the organization. People can bring far more of themselves to their jobs because they are required to suppress far less.”

If corporations are concerned about employees “suppressing far less,” then they must have a concern for the faithful Christian who is afraid to let anyone know she is Christian? The reality is quite different. She must suppress her Christianity, otherwise she may hear, “So, you’re a Christian? But you must be gay-supportive, right? Huh? Huh? Huh?” Her choice at that moment is to lie or to tell the truth and lose her job.

These big corporations say, “Companies that are diverse and inclusive obtain better profits and other outputs….” They likely added “other outputs” because the sentence is otherwise false or not provable. How to explain Exxon Mobil, for instance, which scores the absolute lowest in the annual ranking of gay-friendly corporations listed by the anti-Christian Human Rights Campaign. Even so, Exxon Mobil is one of the most profitable corporations the world has ever known, making profits north of $45 billion a year, that’s profits not sales.

One study cited in the brief asserts companies that ignore the “pink dollar”—estimated at $845 billion—do so at their own peril. According to the study, corporations find “pink dollar consumers attractive because, on average, homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to be part of a no-dependent households.” Well, that’s a good Constitutional reason to support same-sex “marriage.”

Corporate profits are not the only economic arguments same-sex “marriage” advocates have made. They’ve claimed same-sex “marriage” will increase the economic growth of the states that allow it.

The US Department of State hosted an interview with the research director of UCLA’s Williams Institute, who said the economic benefit of gay weddings in Massachusetts was $111 million over five years, a whopping $22 million a year.

These arguments are not new. They’ve been made since the dawn of the marriage debates. Twenty-five business leaders wrote to the New York General Assembly saying, “In an age where talent determines the economic winners, great states and cities must demonstrate a commitment to creating an open, healthy and equitable environment in which to live and work. As other states, cities and counties across the world extend marriage rights regardless of sexual orientation, it will become increasingly difficult to recruit the best talent if New York cannot offer the same benefits and protections.” They really do expect us to believe that gays will all of a sudden leave Manhattan for St Louis if Missouri allows gay marriage and New York does not.

In a 2012 study the National Organization for Marriage identified 30 true marriage states and six faux marriage states and then judged them by ten factors including CEO rankings of the states, GDP, unemployment rates, domestic migration, public employment, tax burden, middle-class job growth, overall job growth, and per capita income.

What they found was that in six measurements—CEO grading, domestic migration, public employment, middle-class job growth, overall job growth, and income growth—“none of the six states with gay marriage appeared in the list of top states.” What’s more,

States with gay marriage make up twelve percent of the total states but make up thirty percent of the bottom states in four indicators (CEO grading, domestic migration, public employment and tax burden) of the five which included low rankings. One state with same-sex marriage (New Hampshire) is counted among the states with the lowest tax burden. On a more positive note, states with same-sex marriage are disproportionately represented in the top states in GDP growth and on the list of enterprising states (twenty percent). Same-sex marriage states make up thirty percent of the states with the best rates of unemployment.

The bottom line is that the assertion that faux marriage is needed for corporation profits and economic growth is as phony as any marriage license issued to Adam and Steve and major corporations and the Supreme Court are about to lie to the American people.

What we know is this: Corporations have been taken over by the sexual left and Christian employees among them are on notice. Do not let anyone know you are a Christian. Do not let it be known on Facebook, or Twitter, or over coffee in the lunchroom. Sexual leftists are after you and they will get you if it’s the last thing they do.

On the other hand, wouldn’t it be remarkable if a sizeable number of corporate employees let it be known in each company who they are and what they believe and let the consequences happen?

Do you remember Chick-Fil-A Day and all those long lines of Christians standing up for the principle of free speech and Biblical marriage? Remember how amazing that was and how the LGBT lobby was weeping copiously over their blog posts? They were in full panic mode. They had no idea we were so big. They had heard rumors of us but never seen us with their own eyes quite like that.

And here’s a warning for the big corporations, the political and media elites, and the LGBT lobby. Imposing faux marriage from on high is a profoundly bad idea. What you want is agreement, not coercion, and certainly not coercion of conscience, which is what’s happening now and will only get worse if the Supreme Court agrees with you. Such a thing can only work out badly for you and for us.

(Photo credit: AFP Photo / Yasuyoshi Chiba)

Austin Ruse


Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. He is the author of Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data published by Regnery and Little Suffering Souls: Children Whose Short Lives Point Us to Christ published by Tan Books. His forthcoming book from Tan Books, written with His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke, is expected this spring. The views expressed here are solely his own.

  • Simple & Plain

    It’s nothing short of corporate suicide to believe in the traditional hetero family. Look at the former CEO of Firefox who was literally thrown into the garburator. The day of free speech is long gone, where one can disagree on an opinion. It has become ‘I don’t like your opinion, so I’m going to silence and ruin you’. We can’t even talk about respect for life, without pro-abortion proponents trying to silence our discussions.

    The need for a signified safe space sign for your store? I wish we lived in a world where everybody was treated with respect and dignity, regardless of their gender, race, orientation, etc. Especially with Christian-owned businesses…’All are welcome’.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    “On a more positive note, states with same-sex marriage are disproportionately represented in the top states in GDP growth and on the list of enterprising states (twenty percent)”


    • Nel

      I don’t understand those statistics. It sounds like they are saying, ‘If you have same-sex marriage in your state, you have more economic growth.’ Isn’t that what the corporations are saying? So their argument is true? What am I missing?

  • Gail Finke

    The Wall Street Journal ran a piece last year examining whether companies were following public opinion or going their own way in embracing “gay marriage” (through advertisements, promotions, policies, etc.). The Journal, which is pretty liberal on this and related issues itself, concluded that they were not following public opinion, but identifying the way they thought things were going to go and striking out that way first, so as to be seen as progressive leaders.

  • joebissonnette

    Corporations, unlike privately run businesses, are merely opportunistic. Whenever they become proponents of a cause you can be sure it is not rooted in a concern for justice. They are just rebranding themselves for market position. It is worth making note of, and worth saying out loud in an attempt to embarrass them, but you can’t get a zebra to change its stripes.
    While it will always be worthwhile to make the principled arguments about SSM, the public fight has moved to the free speech rights of Christians. On this, we should be able mobilize a lot of Christians who either can’t articulate arguments in defense of traditional marriage or lack the courage to do so. Every Christian and many non Christians see the breathtaking chokehold being exerted on free speech rights.
    We must start declaring our churches, our homes, our businesses, our laptops, our cars, our persons as “Free Speech Zones”, “Freedom to Worship Zones”, “Freedom to Follow Jesus Zones”. There are a lot of great sound bite examples of the suppression of free speech which can equip us to make a short, pithy defense of Free Speech. All of us on the ground should be as comfortable making an argument in favor of Free Speech as we are making an argument in defense of our right to think what we want. Those persecuted for exercising Free Speech should be held up as the heroes they are. Churches should be taking up collections for Free Speech Defense Funds.
    SSM proponents will continue to win as long as we allow them to cast themselves as the persecuted ones. They are going to get SSM and now they are taking free speech. We must continue to make arguments against SSM, but we’ve got to mount an aggressive campaign to preserve free speech. This is ground we can win on, and if we don’t win on this ground, Christianity will essentially be forced underground. We need to see that. If we lose this hill, we will officially have entered a period of Christian persecution.

  • Scott W.

    Looks like corporations have moved into Stockholm syndrome now. I remember when the head of Barilla pasta said he believed in the traditional family and then not long after the threats of boycotts he capitulated in a manner so thorough and disgraceful it was gollumesque in its sniveling.

    Where you say: “Do not let anyone know you are a Christian. Do not let it be known on Facebook, or Twitter, or over coffee in the lunchroom.” it reminds me of the silence of Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons. It seems to me silence might work for awhile, but not indefinitely because we are dealing with an evil that seems supernatural in its plague-like spread. Corporations are becoming a proxy arm of the State, and I think in time we will see something similar to the old Test Acts of England. That is, requiring employees or hiring prospects to make some public affirmation of same-sex shenanigans as a condition of continued employment in anything other than the most menial of jobs. True marriage and Chastity are being ghettoized.

    • Simple & Plain

      Ah yes, the Barilla scandal. The good thing about these things is that the left can’t stop and focus on more than one issue, so they quickly ran to the next person who said they didn’t like SSM, and it has been long forgotten.

    • Looks like corporations have moved into Stockholm syndrome now.”

      Corporations are becoming a proxy arm of the State,

      These are key insights. The one thing that you learn after a couple decades as a bureaucrat in both government and corporate sectors is that the bigger the enterprise, the more “Swedish” they get.

      Most C-suite officers are looking for “growth”, but the truth is, unless you are a development stage enterprise, growth opportunities are limited. The bigger the business, the less likely it is to be a classic Econ 101 profit seeking enterprise.
      Ford is not going to double its sales, and there are going to be replacement cycles that affect its sales.

      Even when a big player develops a new product or new market, great innovations are copied. A few years ago, the Apple IPAD was sui generis, now the market is flooded with Galaxy Tablets and a myriad of sub $100 tablets that may not be the IPAD, but work and aren’t locked down.

      Therefore maintaining its “capitalized value” involves protecting downside risk.
      Positive relations with legislatures, regulators and the press and outside agitators can provide status, erect barriers to entry or innovation, or cripple competitors in insidious ways that appear benign or noble.

      Some years ago, I was involved in the audit of a now defunct bank and was reviewing their mortgage portfolio. I arrived at the bank one morning to find a gleeful management rejoicing over having received a “positive” CRA score. I was just learning the industry and had no idea what that was, but I knew that as a publicly traded company, they were deeply involved in the then new Sarbanes Oxley mess.

      Because we had developed close working relationships with the internal audit staff, I asked one of them about the “positive CRA” score, and what it meant. I received the history of the “Community Reinvestment Act” and was told that the reason that a positive score was a defense against charges of discrimination, in the form of “redlining”.
      After I complied with the request to close the door of the office we were in, I was told bluntly “it means Jesse Jackson won’t be camping on our front door, suing us or demanding money”.

      They also told me that they knew that to meet this requirement meant to accept loans that were likely to underperform, but that they controlled default risk by selectively selling loans to the giant money center banks-(meaning using their “asymmetric” knowledge to keep the good stuff) something I would later figure out was a pervasive practice that gave rise to the CDO “ toxic assets”.

      Corporations, especially the big ones are knuckling under to this sort of fascism every day. Nobody wants to incur the wrath of government, lest some politician give a speech against “Big this or big that”, holding hearings or issuing punitive regulations. PO some regulator and you’ll be in the same boat as the maker of “buckyballs”.
      Corporations are made of people who can justify anything in the name of living to fight another day or not dying on the wrong hill.
      “Diversity” is the preferred method of insulating yourself from charges of employment discrimination.

      It is as stupid as any corporate fad that has come down the pike (anybody else remember “reengineering” or “activity based management”?), and its inherently qualitative nature allows it to be argued rhetorically, and often by people who enhanced their hypergraphia by writing law review articles.
      So called “diversity professionals” are allowed to wander free through HR policy books like bookworms in a library. Nobody dares question their “initiatives”, let alone stops them. If they want to use their position to pen a vainglorious “amicus” brief, the CEO will shake his head like a braying donkey.
      So it is, we are all called to offer the most lavish praise for the Emperor’s fabulous new attire, it’s fine cloth, stitching and tailoring, while he stands in front of us, naked and shivering.

      • Captain America

        good stuff; I look forward to more from you.

      • redfish

        You make it sound as if the trend is driven by the government, and not by corporations. A large part of the modern business world is largely about fashion, seizing trends, and marketing. If you offer the same product year after year, and the product you’re selling lasts long, so people don’t have to replace it, you don’t have a strategy for profit. Modern business is about innovating, but if there’s really no new innovation to sell, you need to make it sound like something is innovative anyway.

        Its also not a recent development. A lot of people tie the growth of modern art and architecture to left-wing ideologies like Marxism, and while its true many artists were left-wing, the truth is one of the reasons it took off was because of the commercial art market. It was easier to produce, and it became easier to sell; art became about celebrity and fashion more than it was about quality in the traditional sense. You can buy and sell modern works based on the signatures on them.

        The same forces work on corporations via political ideology. Corporations today glom onto issues like climate change and same-sex marriage for marketing purposes, to sound like they’re progressive, caring, responsible, corporate citizens, making the world a better place.

        You’re not wrong that in many cases this is driven by political pressure, but that doesn’t necessarily mean governmental pressure — it just means activist groups — and there was really no governmental pressure on corporations around the same-sex marriage issue. But supporting same-sex marriage is a good way to get people to overlook anything else they might be doing that may be upsetting. If you support same-sex marriage, put a “fair trade” label on your products — even if you’re just as exploitative — and make it sound like what you’re doing is environmentally friendly — even if it really isn’t — you get a good marketing tool for your corporation.

        • slainte

          Does it matter that the disingenuous marketing efforts you describe intentionally mislead consumers and dishonor God?

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            St Thomas says that commerce has a certain baseness (turpitudo) about it, because it is not, of itself, directed to any honest or necessary end (although it can be).

            He notes that nothing prevents a merchant from ordering his profit to some other honest and necessary good, and so profit is licit. He qualifies this by says that when someone orders the moderate profit he seeks by business to the support of his household or to help the needy, or even when someone is in business for the benefit of the public, so that his country will not be lacking in the things necessary for life, he is not seeking profit for its own sake, but as the rightful fee for his labour..[ST II-II q 77]

            But it is not necessarily so directed. Exchanging weapons for conflict diamonds is as much a species of commerce as any other. The end of medicine is healing, the end of agriculture is food production and so on. But the end of commerce is gain, which may be used well or ill)

            The ancients were very much of the same mind. “Most of the trades,” says Xenophon, “weaken the body; those who practice them must sit in the shade or by the fire; they have time neither for their friends nor for the republic.” It was only with the corruption of certain democracies that artisans attained the status of citizens. This is what Aristotle teaches us, and he maintains that a good republic will never grant them civil rights.

            Curiously, the Jacobins, the spiritual ancestors of today’s liberals, were of the same mind. So, we have Saint-Just declaring that, “Trade ill becomes the true citizen. The hand of man was made only to till the soil and to bear arms”

            • Kilo4/11

              Thanks for an eye-opener; it amazes me how jealously the ancients guarded the franchise. By comparison we seem in a hurry to strip voting of any last shred of meaning, dignity and utility, at least as far as the interests of the majority of Americans are concerned.

        • You make it sound as if the trend is driven by the government, and not by corporations.

          No, I don’t make it “sound” that way, it is that way. Government is the actor that has the powers of taxation, conscription and incarceration.

          • redfish

            That may be, but in very few instances did corporations making these political decisions face any real threat from government. The real issue was public relations, plus what’s now called “aspirational marketing” — making people have warm feelings about your brand. Nobody was forcing them to support same-sex marriage. Corporations, then, in turn, influence the government.

            • “That may be, but in very few instances did corporations making these political decisions face any real threat from government.”

              And you base this on what? The restraint of the IRS or the EPA?

              • redfish

                Corporations aren’t supporting same-sex marriage because of the IRS or the EPA. When they talk about climate change, it doesn’t stop the EPA from enforcing rules on them. In fact, most corporations who talk about being environmentally friendly have nothing to lose. Starbucks for instance, may be very wasteful, but its not violating any laws. There are no government threats against them. They talk a lot about the environment to sound less like an “evil corporation.” They hold a fundraising day for the disaster at Haiti to make their customers feel good. They gave free coffees to people who vote to do the same. Same thing with Ben & Jerry’s, who is not in danger of the EPA or IRS going after them. Nor do they have to worry about government threats. There’s a reason why most corporations donate equally to both political parties, they buy influence. They don’t have to go beyond giving politicians money and make up phony political positions to avoid a threat.

                • “There’s a reason why most corporations donate equally to both political parties”

                  It’s called hedging your bet, which is something you do when you have lack knowledge or control over the outcome.

                  “Starbucks for instance, may be very wasteful, but its not violating any laws.”

                  Yet. If you want to talk to a company that wasn’t violating any laws, give Electromotive Diesel a call.

                  • redfish

                    Its hedging their bet, with the expectation that their money buys the ear of the politician that gets in office. That’s how they get politicians on their side, not by supporting same-sex marriage.

                    Another example is the tech industry. Microsoft, its true, was under attack for all sorts of anti-trust charges. But that was in the past, they weren’t under any more anti-trust threats, and what was left was just a tarnished public image. Corps like Apple and Google were gaining a lot of positive PR, because they were portraying themselves as progressive liberal companies. So getting behind liberal causes was a good way to boost their public image, and build positive relations with consumers, despite the threat of government interference having passed. Never mind that also in the first place a lot of the anti-trust charges were brought on Microsoft through lobbying by their competitors — which was corporations using government, rather than government using corporations.

                    • “Its hedging their bet, with the expectation that their money buys the ear of the politician that gets in office. ”

                      Wow, you really are invincibly ignorant. If they controlled the political process, they wouldn’t need to hedge their bet. Nobody likes paying the price of two to buy one.

                      People only get good PR for portraying themselves a certain way if the audience is receptive. Nobody claims that they sponsor a team that clubs baby seals. So by accident you bring another element into this-the media, which is receptive to this not because they are corporations, but because the theater and broadcast arts have an unusual number of homosexuals involved.

                    • redfish

                      And because younger people lean liberal, both due to influence from media you’re talking about, and from their education environment. And in general, because positive, gauzy messages market pretty well.

                      I never said they controlled the political process, just that they get their influence that way.

                    • “and from their education environment. ”

                      Last I checked most people go to GOVERNMENT schools, co-controlled by teachers unions, which are creatures of government. In my state the education association has an office DIRECTLY across the street from the capital.

                      And in general, because positive, gauzy messages market pretty well.

                      Well then that means the enemy is your fellow citizens, because if they didn’t drink it, nobody would be dispensing it.

                    • redfish

                      I don’t think schools are liberal because they’re government-run. Harvard and other private universities are liberal. Its modern academic culture, which has become averse to tradition, and a part of that is people getting attention by stirring the pot with contrarian ideas. And the entertainment industry is pretty liberal, because they like to transgress boundaries and sell sex.

                      Overall, we’re talking about cultural and social changes over the last century. I just think its right to say mass culture, mass media, and consumerism has played a role in these changes — that’s all. And so, business has been a part of that. Even as much as big government program became attractive, its because politicians could sell it as a solution to people’s problems. FDR’s radio presence allowed him to reach the public.

                      I’m not saying anyone is the enemy, DE. I don’t even agree with the headline here that ‘corporations are the enemy’. But they do play a role in our culture that needs to be scrutinized, and can’t be blamed on government.

                    • “I don’t think schools are liberal because they’re government-run. Harvard and other private universities are liberal. ”

                      Well that’s terrific, but I was talking about primary and secondary education. However, so called “private” colleges and universities aren’t run as private companies. They have to obtain and maintain accreditations, belong to various associations, solicit moneys from donors, and to meet the requirements to be “legitimate” institutions for the purposes of government loans. There is no more intense supporter of the sexual perversity than higher education.

                      It’s good you mentioned Harvard. It is the pedigree of choice for would be Presidents and especially the federal judiciary and its graduates disproportionately dominate the upper strata of government, academia and business. Look at how many SCOTUS judges bleed crimson. Add the rest of the Ivy echo chamber and you have an unhealthy hegemony.

                      “I’m not saying anyone is the enemy, DE. I don’t even agree with the headline here that ‘corporations are the enemy'”
                      On this we agree. Unfortunately, you didn’t write the article, Mr. Ruse did, and he made that assertion.

                    • redfish

                      I’d say academic culture starts in higher education and filters down. Teachers come out of higher education and bring that with them to the classroom. The leftward turn of academic culture came a long time ago, though, over a century ago, and I wouldn’t say it was connected to government involvement. I just don’t see the argument that government was the leader in all of these cultural changes.

                      It is important to point out that as much as money is an influence in politics, it doesn’t only come from business. It comes from business, but also unions, and also well funded advocacy groups, whether they be pro-life or pro-choice groups. And its a problem, but I agree that its incomplete to dump this all on the lap of corporations, ignore unions and other special interest groups, and dumping it all on he lap of corporations helps dishonest political agendas.

                    • I just don’t see the argument that government was the leader in all of these cultural changes.
                      I can’t help your vision, sorry.

                    • MarcoPolo

                      As much as I’m enjoying the intelligent and rigorous discussion here…I have to wonder (DE-173) what homosexuality has to do with the topic?

                    • Secundius

                      @ MarcoPolo.

                      I’m NOT Gay, and I actually agree with him. And if I remember, in his comments. He does talk about having a wife…

                    • MarcoPolo

                      No one was suggesting anything about YOUR exuality.
                      And to my own chagrin, I failed to read the complete article, so now, I see where sexuality fits into the discussion. Although, as a staunch supporter of LGBT rights, I don’t find the issue of marriage equality to be the doom that is being portrayed by the author.

                      I stand corrected. Thank you for your honesty.
                      BTW, there’s nothing wrong with being Gay!

                    • There is no such thing as “marriage equality”. there’s only state-sponsored deformation of marriage.

                    • Secundius

                      @ DE-173.

                      There’s another thing to watch out for in a marriage. If she ask’s you a question, It’s a TRAP. No matter the answer or responds, your ALL WAY’s going to be in the WRONG. So, just look at your wife, and just say the following phrase. “I’m sorry dear, but I didn’t study for the test”…

                    • Fortunately, my wife doesn’t play those types of games.

                    • Secundius

                      @ DE-173.

                      She “never” ask the Death Question, Doe this make look ___, or Does this Color ___. or Do you think my ____ are too ___. NEVER. Lucky Guy…

                    • As much as I would like to believe that I have amply demonstrated that such things would be futile (we once had a problem with our ISP, and after two weeks of listening to me relentlessly tell them that the answer to the problem was to fix the DSL, not try to upsell me to fiber optic-she said-she said “I’d never want to have deal with you on the phone as somebody trying to defend stupidity”, I know better. For some reason, God put this woman in my life, not once-but twice.

                      The funny thing is I don’t even know what the “death question” is.

                    • Secundius

                      @ DE-173.

                      Well your lucking in that regard. The Death Question, so to speak is the Set-Up that no SANE Husband wants to answer, How does this dress look on me? How do these shoes look on me? Do I look fat?

                      If you answer the way you want, The Death Nail. A Frying Pan to the Side of the Head. I think Harry S. Truman first coined the phrase in 1948, “Plausible Deniability” or “Lying One’s Ass Off”…

                    • When my wife and I met, I asked her out on a dare. Sometime after we began seeing each other, she asked me what prompted me to ask her out. I told her flat out that while I found her bright, attractive and engaging, but [name redacted] bet me a five spot. She was astonished, but realized that kind of unvarnished and unedited candor meant that I had some sort of disability with regard to the readily concocted lie that often falls off the male tongue.

                    • Secundius

                      @ DE-173.

                      I think those are the woman that scare men the most. The one’s with a Functional Brain and a Sophisticated Sense of Humor, and wrapped in an Attractive Feminine Form. Usually from a man point of view (an Oxymoron) the three don’t work in the one. When Most men meet them, there immediate reaction is Something’s Amiss. And most men (myself included) just don’t know how to react to the encounter, somehow the phrase “Fight or Flight” keeps getting in the way

                    • I never understood the attraction of vapidity.

                    • schmenz

                      Of course there is nothing wrong about being happy, carefree, gay. On the other hand sodomy is a mortal sin that will lead to self-degradation, possible disease, and hell.

                      Sorry to be so blunt, but sometimes its required.

                    • MarcoPolo

                      You’re not being blunt, you’re being evasive.
                      Your reference to being Happy or carefree is not the subject. I think
                      you should accept the term for what it means, and that is homosexual.

                      Being Gay or Lesbian is a perfectly fine way to be human.
                      It just doesn’t sit well with fundamentalist Christians (and some other patriarchical ancient religions).

                      Your mention of sodomy is indeed a sexual act, but why is it that homophobes can’t imagine two same-sex people just loving one another? Why do your kind always bring up the sodomy thing?

                      Without prying into your sexual activity with your mate, I think it prudent to leave the sexual activity of others to them!

                      It’s not a mortal sin to someone who isn’t of your faith. It’s just another expression of love!

      • Scott W.

        Thanks for that excellent testimony. I recall a diversity professional instructional video against sexist behavior in the workplace (apparently, a policy against rude behavior is not enough). It was pretty forgettable except for the belligerent tone of the host narrator (who was male, btw) that was to the effect of “You men are scum and if you want continued employment then you will gleefully let us train your scumminess out of you!” It was a rare glimpse of progressives dropping the pretense and using their Darth Vader voice.

        • I once sat through a “diversity” lecture given by a two women. Both were raised Catholic, and somewhat lapsed and affected by divorce.

          The older speaker was divorced and remarried, the younger had a father whose was divorced and remarried.

          Both spent training time indulging their disagreement with the prohibition against divorced/civilly remarried people receiving Communion and both, while solemnly intoning against th pervasive evil of unconscious prejudice, agreed that Christians especially had to be on guard against this ill, since they were more likely to be judgmental.

  • Keith Cameron

    Corporations are grovelling Dogs. Pay them no heed.

  • Rev Mr Flapatap

    I have a hard time believing the argument that 3.5% of the population would have such an incredible economic impact. If that were the case, will we see the liberals try to reconcile their arguments that the 3.5% is also the 1%?

    • It’s not the size of the majority that counts. There are fewer Jews than gays and they have had an enormous effect on foreign policy.

      Moreover, it’s not just gays. 40% (or more) of the population have a beloved gay family member. Straights have gay friends and co-workers. Their children play with each other. This is a collective impact.

      • Asmondius

        ‘There are fewer Jews than gays and they have had an enormous effect on foreign policy.’


        Homosexuality always seems to come along with this baggage.

      • Paul

        Being Jewish is genetic, homosexuals are not born with a gay gene ! Moreover, where on earth do you get “the 40% of the population have a gay family member” stat from ??? Is that just in the US or across the world ?
        Such nonsense …

        • fredx2

          No, no, no. 40% don’t just have a “gay family member”. They have a “beloved” gay family member.

          I suppose that means that the other 60% have a “disliked” gay family member.

      • JP

        According to the Census Bureau. gays make up at best 3% of the population, or about 9 million people. Yet, their influence far outweighs their small number. And you over-state the effect Jews have on our foreign policy. Other than not wishing to be obliterating by its Arab neighbors, the Jews influence here is actually small.

        Another facet of today’s Progressives (including gays) is their blatant antisemitism.

      • Austin Ruse

        So, 1.6% of the population is related as a beloved family member ( no less) to 40% (or more!!!) of the remaining 98.4%. That whatjacall gay math.

        • Every gay person is likely to have three siblings, three living grandparents, three aunts or uncles and six first cousins. That 5% of the population that is LGBT is now related to 65% of the population without considering in-laws. Remove 25% for redundancy.


          Actually it is not my number. It was included in a peer reviewed article that based the gay population (LG of the LGBT) at 3.4% and analyzed the political influence. The explanation was far more elegant and far more complex, mathematically, than mine. It might have been out of Marymount but I am uncertain.

          Sexuality is different than, say, religion because of the disparity within families. Every Jew is related to 15 Jews already included in the census so the percentage does not expand.

          • Austin Ruse

            Poor poor David This is so pathetic. First, if gay guys have 3 siblings , they are highly unusual given typical size of siblings is 2.1.

            But, let’s acceot your gay math. 17 x 1.6% if the total pop equals about 26% not 60% (or more!).

            Gay math. Gays are not everywhere. Huge myth. Easily disproven.

  • JP

    Most people don’t realize that the same culture that runs our universities, political organizations within the Beltway, as well as Hollywood and non-profits, run our Fortune 1000 Corporations. For they all come from the same “class” – the cognitive class (as defined by Charles Murray). It is not surprising this class is very homogenous in their politics, taste in art, religious beliefs and philosophy. Whether one runs a non-profit or is an executive at a bank, is a field grade officer, or law partner in Chicago, they all share the same beliefs. Almost all are Progressives; some are more radical than others. But, over-all they are the same.

    Yet, the Left and the Media paint our corporations as robber barons run by mustache twirling plutocrats who would like nothing more than to kick a widow out of her apartment. The truth is, most of our corporations are run by people who more and more take a very dim view of this nation and its people. Yes, they still work diligently at increasing profits; but, do not mistake that characteristic with some Conservative zeitgeist.

    For 2 decades corporations have quietly gone over to backing Progressive ideas on everything from gay marriage to Climate Change to immigration.

    • People can be right about one issue and wrong on others. David Koch is the perfect example. He is cynically wrong on climate change (he actually knows better) but he fervently supports same-sex marriage.

      • The standard response is “are you a climatologist”?

      • JP

        There is an amazing amount of consistency most Corporations have concerning gay marriage, Climate Change, and Immigration.

    • GG

      True. Moral idiots are moral idiots be they professors, judges, politicians, voters, or any other technocrat. The dictatorship of relativism is here and oppressing us.

    • Most people don’t realize that the same culture that runs our universities, political organizations within the Beltway, as well as Hollywood and non-profits, run our Fortune 1000 Corporations. For they all come from the same “class” – the cognitive class (as defined by Charles Murray).

      Also see Angelo Codevilla’s “ruling class”.

    • Michael Wallis

      The great James Burnham pioneered analysis of the “managerial class” in the early 1940s with his book “The Managerial Revolution”.

  • Thomas Sharpe

    Prostitutes to the twin gods of money and sex.

  • Michael Dowd

    Good report on bad behavior. Most large corporations go with the flow. And the flow happens to be whatever the general public thinks is OK. The public used to have the Church around to modify public behavior. But now it’s the Church’s behavior that needs modifying as they have gone with the flow since Vatican II.. Come to think of it, going with the flow was what Vatican II was all about.

    • Mongo

      “Good report on bad behavior. Most large corporations go with the flow.”

      Most corporations are utterly spineless.

      • Michael Dowd

        You got that right. Spineless=going with the flow.

  • Guest_august

    When will it finally sink in that homosexuality (which is Sodomy in all implications) is the Mark of the Beast prophesied in Revelation 13 and 14.
    The days are coming when it will become impossible to obtain a Credit Card without first demonstrating acceptance of the “homo agenda.”

  • Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz

    What gets me is the lack of foresight these companies are exhibiting. All businesses are dependent on people who buy their products or services. Without people, the businesses have no business. Supporting same-sex “marriage” means supporting an arrangement in which bringing more people into the world is literally impossible.

    Target is one of those corporations supporting this ridiculous arrangement big-time. They’re hurting right now because of a serious blunder in opening stores in Canada, which they’ve had to close and take a huge charge on. 1700 people are losing their jobs and another 1400 positions are going unfilled. In order to recover, the CEO recently announced that Target will be focusing on style, children and babies. Now, if they get what they want and same-sex “marriage” is defined as being as valid as real marriage, where are all those children and babies going to come from so that parents will buy the products they have for sale?

    This move is as unintelligent business-wise as supporting Planned Parenthood and promoting contraception. Right thinking businesses should want more people, not fewer, and they should want them to be in stable, procreative relationships.

    • mitch64

      Maybe your confused…the corporations support the right for same sex couples to marry…not some Lex Luthor evil scheme that will have a gamma ray that will turn everyone gay! So, straight people will still get married and have kids, as that is what straight people do, and gay people will get married, and some of them will adopt or already have kids, etc Also, gay people arent hatched from eggs so they have mommies and daddies that want to their children treated like their straight siblings so they would bring their business to those corporations. So, the world’s population will continue to grow and corporations will continue to have new generations of customers. Gays have always been around, and we still see children all over the place don’t we?

      What the corporations do want is exactly what they say in the brief…they want to attract the brightest young talent and most of those people would support gay marriage. Also, young people as opposed to us old people, are more open to changing brands, etc, so they are the market that most corporations want, and again the majority of them either support gay marriage or don’t give a care what anyone else is doing.

      • Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz

        No, I’m not confused. Companies support contraception, abortion and re-defining marriage to mean that anyone who “loves” anyone else can get “married” — contraception stops new life from happening, abortion kills new life and homosexual and other deviant sexual behaviors don’t allow new life to come about. As this kind of mindset wins out, the population will eventually decline and we see the results of that in places like Greece and Japan. Not the brightest prospect for the human race.

      • Captain America

        I have always found the “need gays to get the best workers” idea to be an unsupported assertion.

        Where’s the facts?

        • Never let facts get in the way of a good rant.

        • mitch64

          I didn’t write that they need gays to get the best workers.” I wrote that business wants young, flexible, bright, talent and most of those individuals are going to support gay marriage. Oh, let’s just say that business needs younger workers to replace the retiring workers, etc. Most of those young workers will be supportive of this issue.

          • Well then that’s a losing strategy, if you really are looking for talent.


            • mitch64

              I agree with you, but there are quite a few from that generation that ARE skilled that these corporations want…the tech companies, the financial companies, and well the rest of the herd will be working at Chick-Fil-A.

              But skilled or unskilled, as soon as they current generations start retiring they will still need bodies and they will get people they can train for a very cheap price.

              • The skills they lack make them untrainable, sorry. I’m involved with an ERP implementation right now. You want to take a guess at what percentage of the implementers staff are on H1B visas or now granted permanent residency?

                • mitch64

                  I am sure I would shudder to think…and I am not being sarcastic. However, the cream of the crop will always be the cream of the crop no matter what country they come from and they will be what companies want, and the “economic disparity,” will continue with all of the nashing of teeth and hand wringing to accompany that.

                  • 80%, mostly Indian, but a smattering from other countries as well.
                    Rare is the native born, in coding, precision matters and being imbued with politically contrived novelties doesn’t mean squat.
                    Our kids have been protected from dodgeball and “F”s, but not from itinerant parental romances or the tyranny of ignorance.
                    Part of me thinks it’s an insidious recycling of the antebellum South disallowing slaves to be literate.

                    • mitch64

                      When I didn’t want to study my Mom would sigh and say, “Well, the world needs ditch diggers too!” Its too bad, the world has become even more hyper competitive and we are doing so poorly at math and sciences.

          • Senhorbotero

            I think you are wrong on this. Corporations support gay marriage becauae they are afraid of getting hit. They simply are trying to avoid bad publicity…and the consequences of that. The change follows the polls…once those against gay marriage became the minority the corporations lined up in support. The gay lobby makes sure the threat of non support is real….anything the corporations say is only a red herring to throw the oppponents of gay marriage off the scent. As i say corporatioms do not give any care to the society in which they find themselves….the market for them now is the world and the leaders expect to insulate themselves from the ramifications of their decision by getting rich enough to isolate themselves with their peers.

    • I remember the good old days when companies made sure that the barbarians at the gate were given their booty through the United Way and the contributions were employee shakedowns.

      A certain “rocky” insurance company was notorious at one time for having supervisors remind their subordinates of the need to give their “fair share”, annd their response to that reminder would of course would either be a merit or demerit on their appraisal and promotability.

    • You’re in a forum where nobody will challenge that preposterous statement.

      For your statement to be true, same-sex marriage has to have the effect of turning people gay. Regardless of the status of same-sex marriage the same heterosexual couples are going to unite in the same marriages, crank out the same children and sue for the same divorces.

      Moreover, the same gays are going to form the same couples and raise the same children. The only difference will be whether or not some of those couples legally marry.

      • Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz

        1) Obviously, your first statement is false since you challenged my statement.

        2) For my statement to be true, only the law needs to be changed, which is slowly happening. The law, as is well-known, is a powerful teacher, for good or for ill. When the law says marriage can only occur between one man and one woman, that indicates to the society that monogamous, faithful, heterosexual unions are the basis for society and the society generally goes along with it. When the law says that any couple can get “married,” that indicates to society that marriage is whatever we want to call it and the society goes along. Just as when the law says that unborn babies are disposable, the society goes along.

        3) For my statement to be true, you also need to keep in mind my last paragraph. When you combine contraception, abortion and same-sex “marriage,” you put together a societal-killing combination.

        So no, redefining marriage does not need to make people homosexuals. It only needs to teach people that homosexuality is a good thing and people will think their changing and fleeting sexual feelings are some permanent reality and go along with them and define their entire lives by them.

  • Dr_Grabowski

    I think the group is a bit confused, unbalanced, doing more harm than good sometimes, but whatever its ultimate merits, the American Family Association has at least shown that some pushback is possible:

    If it is argued that corporate and “respectable” (elite) opinion has since solidified, such that corporations and other large institutions, governmental and otherwise can now totally get away with characterizing the Judeo-Christian heritage as “hate speech”, well, though current developments are indeed alarming, we know from history that this week’s consensus is unsustainable, as ultimately unsuited to human nature, thus carries the seeds of its own destruction.

    So if not now, then soon we may see the high-water mark of these extreme tendencies.

    • Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz

      Let’s hope it’s sooner rather than later.

  • Be contracepting. Have abortions. Be homosexual. That way, you won’t have dependents and will be better consumers.

    • Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz

      And eventually wipe out the world’s population. Brilliant strategy.

      • If it happens more than three months away, that’s for the future to worry about, under the business methods mandated by the SEC.

    • Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz

      And I guess all those families with children are letting them run around naked, unfed and deprived of all the latest and greatest gadgets.

    • People with dependents are better consumers.

  • Countryman

    The only thing corporations care about is money and power for a few at the top. They will do anything to anybody to achieve their goals for themselves. Corruption and greed is all they know. Publish the names of the companies that sent the letter of support. Quit doing business with them. Hit them in the wallet. It is the only thing they care about or understand. Not all corporations are that way but most of them are.

  • Timothy Black

    *Exxon Mobil

  • Voting has not mattered for decades, perhaps a century or longer. Silence implies consent. The track on this train was laid before anyone alive was born. All the nattering and arguments about which side of the train is best to make changes cannot make any difference. Lay new track in front of the train or ….

  • Oh my 😉

    This misses the point. Based upon the two most recent polls (AP and NBC/WSJ) same-sex marriage has the approval of the public by 60%. These corporations tend to have diverse, young and well educated employees who likely support marriage equality in even greater numbers. Corporate culture is is formed over time by the attitudes of both executives and the workforce. These briefs don’t affect the culture; they embrace it.

    It’s not just that gay marriage is good for business; Issuing these briefs is good for business. They influence profitability in two ways. The obvious is that most Americans support marriage equality. More importantly, though, is how corporate attitudes (including perceived corporate attitudes) affect employees and how those employees have a direct effect on the bottom line.

    These executives are doing their jobs by improving profits for shareholders. It’s really just that simple.

    • Asmondius

      When you’re promoting something which is biologically, logically, and morally wrong, relying upon opinion polls, intimidation, and boycotts as methods of argument just goes along with the territory.

    • slainte

      “..The obvious is that most Americans support marriage equality…”

      In the 1930s and 1940s most Germans supported the Nazi party. If they didn’t, they stood to lose everything.

      Majority support of any regime or policy initiative doesn’t necessarily affirm the goodness of that regime or its policies; more often than not, it merely reflects a fearful population averse to confrontation who will go along to get along to avoid confrontation with vocal protagonists. Capitulation, mistaken for assent, follows.

      Your position is misguided.

      • He’s malfeasant, not misfeasant.

    • Seamrog

      This poster lives in a self-fabricated world filled with metro-sexual elitist enlightened hipsters who have shed the baggage of religion and embraced progress…

      That world does not exist.

      The bread and butter of the American economy is the small, privately-owned business, that bye and large, just wants the government and self-promoting deviants to stay the hell out of their lives.

      It is as-if by repeating a lie enough amongst the ‘gay community’ and throwing the same lies at religious people, they have somehow gained validity.

      • And yet his life is so full, so gratifying that he needs to sit in front of a computer waiting until some key word or phrase pops up and he can pursue his futile efforts to antagonize us.

        • GG

          As proof see the “3 gays” thread now. The fascists are out in full force.

          • At some point, the management of Crisis is going to have to understand that it’s not a good idea to allow that sort of vandalism.

          • We have a fascist in this thread. You’ll note the “Jooos” comment from the hyperthermic amphibian. Kind of reminds me of an old “Mr. Magoo” cartoon, where the old curmudgeon sang “we hate ourselves”, while “thumbiong his nose in a mirror”

            The weird thing is that he might attain a pyrrhic victory, it which case he’ll go from being slowly boiled to rapidly incinerated, in a cage, on youtube.

      • The more vacant and disordered the position, the relentless, intolerant and ferocious the advocacy must be.

    • Bob

      “It’s not just that gay marriage is good for business; Issuing these briefs is good for business. ”

      Pornography is a $20 billion a year marketplace. Hugh Hefner’s a billionaire. Those that are immoral can always make a buck preying on the sinful temptations of others. I’ll put the gay community in the same boat. Companies are more than happy to raid the pocketbooks of sodomites. They know a gay couple has a load of disposable income. Do you think they really agree with your lifestyle, or are playing you and your gay pals for idiots?

      There’s a sucker born every minute…….

    • littleeif

      Spoken as if you didn’t read the article. Absent proof, these are nothing more than truisms, wishes and self-fulfilling prophecies. And where’s the proof? Exactly Mr. Ruse’s point – there is none.

    • Austin Ruse

      True marriage gas ALWAYS polled way behind faux marriage right before true marriage wins in the ballot box. The ballot box is private, no way for the fascists to punish anyone, get them fired, etc.

    • Here’s a fine example of improving shareholder value:

  • Senhorbotero

    Corporations have always been the enemy. Behind every destructive impulse of American society there have been corporations. Feminism, illegal immigration, destruction of local environments, ruined food supply, destruction of cultures, war, etc. Corporate leaders and their cohorts in the financial empire care not one whit for the people they serve. All they want is their money and then they want cheap labor. As is stated in here nothing is about any vision of the good. It is branding and the contribution it makes toward cash. If we could only find an alternative. Corporations in collusion with the federal gov are driving our options out of business.

    • Government has always been the enemy. Behind every destructive impulse of American society there has been government. Feminism, illegal immigration, destruction of local environments, ruined food supply, destruction of cultures, war, etc. Government “leaders” and their minions in the financial empire care not one whit for the people they claim to serve. All they want is their money and then they want easy power. As is stated in here nothing is about any vision of the good. It is dividing and controlling the contribution it makes toward cash. If we could only find an alternative. Corporations in fealty to the almighty metastatic superstate are tyrannizing us.

      • publiusnj

        I hadn’t seen this when I wrote essentially the same point. It is Government and not corporations that are the real problem.

        • I believe we are in agreement.

          I note this came from “big effing deal” Joe Biden.

          “Every ridiculous assertion from Dr. Carson on — I mean, ridiculous. I mean, J****, G**,” Biden exclaimed before the LGBT crowd. “Oh G**. I mean, it’s kind of hard to fathom, isn’t it?”

          If this were a mere symbiosis, this would not matter. It’s not, there’s a head and tail. Strike the head, the tail will not wag.

        • Thomas

          Government IS the corporations. This is the meaning of the word Fascism. The merger of State and Corporate powers. You have the energy zar being a electric company representative. who then gets a waver for his company, but is quite ready to fine everyone else out of business (the ones he does not close down for emissions violations). These people are his direct competition.

          THEY ARE THE SAME THING. There is no longer a difference between the two. Bush had stacked his cabinet with EX business CEOs and reps. In the Obama administration active industry Reps with obvious conflicts of interest ARE his cabinet members.

          • publiusnj

            This is just silly.

      • Senhorbotero

        The government and the international corporations are eseentially the same thing. They work hand in hand to spread influence, open markets, protect markets and undermine competitors….who do you think loves the government regulations of business and who do you think proposes most of them…..corporations. They do so because they have the staff and money to comply and their smaller competitiors go under….the USA is nothing but an international business model composed of both corps and gov….why did corps promote feminism…downward pressure on labor costs….why do they support illegal immmigrants….cheap labor…..why have they ruined our food supply…lower materials cost amd on and on…..why do our representatives go into gov on regular incomes and come out rich….I studied business…a direct effort was made to establish that corporations are apathetic towards anything but financials….

        • Senhorbotero

          Furthermore let me add that corporations are behind globalization and that is destroying cultures all over the world….our own included….

    • pbecke

      Yes, a young editor of the national, English Catholic newspaper, the Catholic Herald wrote an article very plausibly portraying the multinationals (and, presumably, its inevitable end-product, corporatism) as the beast of the Apocalypse. He didn’t last long there as the editor, after that article, although his words have proved all too prescient.

      • What is the U.N.?

        • pbecke

          In the absence of a context, I would take it to be the abbreviation for United Nations, although the letters may signify less well-known meanings. But I see no reference, however tangential to it, in my post.

          • Yes, the U.N.

            I see the U.N. as the most likely contemporary entity likely to become the beast of the Apocololypse. It works incessantly to pursue rule by a few global elite.

  • Even Sean Fieler (to some extent) is coming around. The hedge fund manager and undisputed Defender of the Faith gave about $15 million to Catholic non-profits in 2013.

    Austin’s C-Fam received $25,000
    National Org. for Marriage got zip.
    David Blankenhorn’s Institute for American Values received $100,000

    Fieler does not support same-sex marriage and Mark Regnerus’ group benefited from his largess by $250,000. However it is no longer a deal breaker and he is willing to fund people who do.

    • Asmondius

      When did he ascend to the Papal throne?

    • Austin Ruse

      Poor David. Like On must everything else, you’re wrong on Fieler Sean quit Blankenhorn’s board after Blankenhorn went bad on marriage. And with him went his cash.

      • Nope (absent the gratuitous ad hominem). The same IRS filing that demonstrates that you got $25,000 from Fieler in 2013 shows me that Blankenhorn’s Institute for American Values received $100,000. NOM – nada. BTW, David submitted an amicus brief in support of same-sex marriage.

        In any event, review the 990-PF yourself and you will see that I am correct.

        • Austin Ruse

          David, read closely. Sean funded David as long as he supported true marriage. At the point that he endorsed faux marriage, Sean stopped funding him and dropped off his board.. Understand?

          • David’s NY Times Op Ed ws in June, 2012 and, indeed, Filer pulled the plug (he might have done so after David’s testimony in Hollingsworth. Sean Fieler and others dropped off the board.

            According to the IRS filing, David’s Institute for American Values received on;y $25,000 from Fieler’s foundation in 2012.

            However according to the IRS filing the following year (2013) Fieler provided IAV with $100,000.

            Presumably Fieler’s observation is the same as mine. In spite of disagreeing on Marriage David has a terrific brain and has done some very good things which Fieler has chosen to fund. I have every reason to believe that carried over into 2014.

            Same-sex marriage has been given far too much importance by its opponents. Gays aren’t responsible for the high divorce rates nor the number of children born out of wedlock.

            • Austin Ruse

              Provide link. I just looked at IAV’s 2013 returns. No specific grants mentioned.


                Requires free registration. Otherwise, give me an email address and I will be happy to send you 2012 and 2013

                • Austin Ruse

                  Well, that truly surprises me, particularly since he quit the board in protest of David’s surrender on true marriage. And, if you think this means Sean is walking away from true marriage, nothing could be further from the truth. He is a stalwart…

                  • Blankenhorn’s change is more important than Fieler’s. David risked everything — his reputation, his livelihood and his entire enterprise. I suspect that he did so when this ceased to be an abstraction.

                    These are very real people. They have hopes and fears for their spouses, their families and their children. They work at jobs at every conceivable level, have mortgages to pay and, for some, homework to help with at night. They are not all Dan Savage. These are your neighbors, co-workers and fellow PTA members. A surprising number of these people (including my late partner) are quite religious (he was a neurotic, conflicted Catholic).

                    Your actions affect children. Not just the kids being raised by gay parents but gay kids themselves. There will not be one less gay kid in America because of anything that you do. Not one. Nor will there be one less gay person or gay couple. You need to think seriously about who you are helping and who you are hurting.

                    Now I am going to walk down to the beach, smoke a large cigar and think about what I just wrote.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Oh nonsense. Blankenhorn was already trolling that side of the street. There is exponentially more money in promoting faux marriage and faux family than true marriage and family. Hilarious you think otherwise.

                      About Fieler…hilarously and utterly false you think he has changed his mind. Typical of the lies of the sexual revolutionaries.

                      About the effect on kids and families. Your revolution is responsible for millions of deaths. The body count of the sexual revolution, of which the gay revolution is a part, gets higher and higher. Have you checked out the pandemic rate of gay disease lately? No doubt you think its our fault and not yours. Its so bad in the gay community they no longer call it an epidemic, or a pandemic but a new term id never heard, a syndemic.

                      So, if you were really concerns with “the children”, which you aren’t, you might steer them clear of your lifestyle.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Just checked with Sean..they are funding IAV’s anti-gambling initiative..


  • littleeif

    So Mr. Ruse, you seem to be calling for, or at least hopeful for a Christian backlash and I suppose it is still possible. But I find myself wondering what actually rolls all this back – from the corruption of the sciences for political ends to the denial of nature and reason much less the divine. I wonder if, leading up to the red persecution Christians will inevitably experience even in this country, the correct direction might be towards separation. Aside from the drive to evangelize and the thought democracy obligates us, what really is the incentive to participate? I do not wish to be a fatalist, but if they march two steps forward, one back, should we not maybe just get out of their way and take care of our own?

  • “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

    – Benito Mussolini

    • tom

      Corporations need to be made non-persons under the law.

    • TERRY

      Do you agree with this?

      • I didn’t post it due to any any agreement or disagreement. The statement is largely logomachy, but it is more useful than true or false.
        It demonstrates the depth and breadth of the ambition of one pedestrian dictator.

      • John O’Neill

        The tax free foundations are sitting on billions of tax free money and are intricately connected to the big corporations and the fascist/socialist hegemony. If you notice the first big foundations were set up by corporations or their family owners; namely the Ford Foundation, the Dodge Foundation, the Rockerfeller foundation. Harvard University is a multi billion dollar foundation which also receives millions from the corporate and government worlds. Other organizations such as NGOs etc. are used by the government CIA etc. to overthrow governments as was done in the Ukraine last year. Google Inc. is an operative for the government CIA/NSA security police; there is so much cohesion between big government and big business and their multiplicity of cohorts that it is obvious that we are no longer a free country.

    • John O’Neill

      This is ever so correct. Corporations control the American government in the executive and legislative branches outright. Since the American government is now a bona fide Leftist/Fascist body in spite of the fake dichotomy of liberal vs conservative the corporations are in charge of enforcing the brave new world of the American Corporate State which is a totally amoral organism.

      • So where do organizations like the Ford Foundation and Pew Charitable Trusts fit in your thesis?

        The problem with the thesis that there’s a political hegemony defined by a two-headed hydra of big government and big business, is that there are other actors involved.

      • Secundius

        @ John O’Neill

        I live just outside WDC. and I’m seeing what you seeing. It’s still the Non-Functional, Disfuntional GOP Government I’m seeing…

    • Billy Bean

      G.K. Chesterton long ago warned us that Big Business and Big Government are really natural allies against human freedom and dignity.

      • Paddy

        Stalin and Rockefeller proved it if Napoleon and Rothschild didn’t.

    • yolo

      “When we integrated our schools, education improved. When we opened our juries to women, our democracy became more vital. When we allowed lesbian and gay soldiers to serve openly in uniform, it enhanced unit cohesion.”

      – What’s amazing about these three sentences is how wrong they are point-for-point. I have experience with the education system in a rust-belt city. Education has never been worse for everyone, white or black or other. The state that the city is in is financially involvement precisely because of decades-long social pandering and emphasis of “feel good” issues. Unit cohesion has been impacted the way that Bowe Bergdahl impacted the cohesion of his platoon or the VA scam.

      • Or Private “Chelsea” Manning.

  • TMA


  • Seamrog

    The homosexualists don’t acknowledge the Chick-fil-a Day.

    I stood in line for almost an hour that day to get a chicken sandwich. It was a very powerful experience.

    I’d trot myself on over there now if it weren’t Friday.

    The deviants can only push so far….

    • You do know that Dan Cathy is pursuing a strategy of graduated capitulation, right?

      • Seamrog

        I don’t know what Dan Cathy is doing – that’s not the point.

        No one standing line that day was doing it for Dan Cathy, or for Chick-fil-a for that matter.

        It was a show of support for traditional marriage, and a repudiation of the deviants who want to destroy it.

        Dan Cathy can bow to them at his peril.

        • Oh but he is bowing. Once his father died, he sent an offer of surrender to campus “pride” organizations.

          If the domino hasn’t fallen, it is teetering. I’m not saying he’s a Honeymaid graham cracker, but….

    • Dominic Lombardo

      I will trot MY-self over to Chick-Fil-A next Thursday, when I go to see a couple of good European movies at the Gene Siskel Film Center (downtown Chicago). There’s one across the street from “the Gene” (south-east corner of State and Lake). Good food, too…..

      • AugustineThomas

        See above. Dan Cathy and company have also become cowards after being relentlessly hounded for opposing homosexual perversion.

    • AugustineThomas

      You should know that Dan Cathy is “evolving” on “homosexual marriage”.

  • Dominic Lombardo

    By the way: GREAT article, Mr. Ruse!!!!!

  • The US Department of State hosted an interview with the research director of UCLA’s Williams Institute, who said the economic benefit of gay weddings in Massachusetts was $111 million over five years, a whopping $22 million a year.

    First clue: Why is the STATE DEPARTMENT concerned with economic activity in Massachusetts?

    Have they established their own country?

    • fredx2

      Rule: Divide all liberal statistics by ten

      • I agree, but its worse than a bad statistic, it’s one that is outside the purview or legitimate tangential interest of that agency. I’m sure however that it was “personal” and conducted for “convenience”.

    • Kilo4/11

      “Why is the STATE DEPARTMENT concerned with economic activity in Massachusetts?”
      Good catch.

      “Have they established their own country?”
      Good question. At first blush one might answer yes; but then that would entail that they even believe in something as old fashioned as a country. More like they’ve created their own universe; after all, they make their own reality.

      • Secundius

        @ Kilo4/11.

        It may have something to do about Lobster Fishing War between Canada and the US…

        • Kilo4/11

          Thanks for timely info. Now if I can just figure out what lobsters have to do with gays…. something to do with pinching? Ooooh, I get it… bottom feeding!

          Had an Escort. Like you say, a tough machine. Do you believe the stories that today’s American cars are back to being reliable?

          • Secundius

            @ Kilo4/11.

            To your first question, I’m pretty sure Gay’s eat Red Lobster’s to. And to the second question. not if the Ford Fusion is an indicator of Economical…

  • Jacqueleen

    Good article. Corporations shoved globalization down our throats at the expense of the unemployed American Worker and now this cute (sarcastic) lie about faux marriage…..The only way to get even with the rich corporations and the filthy rich CEO’s is to boycott those companies. Hit them on their bottom line. Even gay CEO’s take a long look at the bottom line. BUY ONLY PRODUCTS & SERVICES MADE IN AMERICA OR WHO EMPLOY AMERICAN WORKERS… FROM SMALL, PATRIOTIC, AMERICAN COMPANIES….Let the BIGGIES make and sell in and to foreign countries…Made in China..then, sell to the Chinese, etc..It would behoove them to move to China, India, Turkey, Indonesia, Peru, etc. Americans are resilient and will bounce back leaving them in the cow dung.

    • I’m sorry but many “American workers” signed their own death warrants, especially the ones that used to put a bolt in some automotive body panel that would cause a frustrating rattle that would require an expensive search. Sometimes they’d wrap a little message on it: “hah hah you found me”.

      • Jacqueleen

        I can’t believe that because of one HUGE company with an employee with a weird sense of humor, you are saying that all unemployed Americans signed their own death warrants….one big generalization, don’t you think? You know the rule not to generalize. Besides, I personally am praying for 28 people that I know personally who are unemployed and many of them have stopped looking because they are out of work for years. My advice to you is don’t be so smug because your pink slip may be in the mail.

        • I said many did. That incident (which occurred more than once). was emblematic of a culture that didn’t care about the employer or the customer.
          GM was tied to enormously unproductive contracts that required payment to employees that were idle and created all kinds of financial and operational problems. The profitability of the automotive divisions were so impaired that they start to ask themselves do we provide financing (GMAC) so we can sell cars or do we make cars so we can sell financing. A company with that sort of existential question is in trouble. When they sold EMD, I advised friends to sell any GM stock, I knew they were into their seed corn. I never expected them to collapse that hard and fast though.
          The last GM product I bought was a 1998 Malibu. (Look it up, it was notoriously horrible) Transmission went @ 35K, and amo ng other problems-heater motor, alternator,wheel bearings, etc. Even the door handles and steering wheel became worn. It was so bad, I traded it because I decided it wasn’t moral to carry other people in it. I got $500 with 90,000 miles.
          Since then, I’ve had two Japanese cars. One I traded in at 106K miles and received $5200 on trade. My current vehicle has 109K, and I see no reason to ditch it yet.
          I didn’t go looking for foreign cars, I never bought one while my Great Uncle was alive, as he never quite got over the horrors of World War II. However, I can’t see me ever buying a GM ever again.
          That’s how globalization occurred, one car at a time.
          My advice to you is to be more objective and not have misplaced loyalties.

          • Secundius

            @ DE-173.

            If I were to ever buy another domestically American Brand named automobile, it would be the Ford Escort. Their virtually impossible to KILL, if they still make them…

            • I would be looking for an old Plymouth Valiant with a 225 cid “slant six”. If you’ve ever seen the movie “DueL” (1971ish) with Dennis Weaver, that’s the car. Mr. Weaver is Dead, but I’ll bet that Plymouth is still running..

  • Jenny Tomsic Bioche

    As usual Crisis Magazine and often this talented, brave writer Mr. Ruse will point to the elephant in the room, and we should all be grateful. Thank you, excellent piece.

    • Austin Ruse


  • There is a solution.

    If religious people are discriminated against, they need a cohesive economic body that will stand up for them, and create prohibitive costs for abusive employers. That body may start as a “Fraternal Organization” or some such, but what it amounts to is a union.

    This kind of union would be different, in that it wouldn’t depend on organizing entire workplaces. Instead, it would probably start in parishes, churches, mosques, etc. It would also have to be more creative than using strikes as a bargaining chip, but once you get 20% of an organization, or even 10%, there’s a lot you can do if people have training, organization, and solidarity (in the Polish sense of the term).

    Leveraging outside disapproval, boycotts, etc. would also be part of the bag of tricks, but the most important weapon is one that’s rarely discussed re: traditional worker unions. Executives who piss the union off tend to lose cooperation within the company, and their position becomes crippled or untenable.

    Give people an opposing set of threats, and watch their behavior change toward real fairness.

    • “That body may start as a “Fraternal Organization” or some such, but what it amounts to is a union.”

      That body is supposed to be the Church, but it is currently under very effete and pusillanimous leadership. Witness Cardinal Dolan’s interaction with Obama. Too many Bishops are “cheerleaders” for the metastatic superstate, because somewhere in their formation, they became deficient in understanding Libido Dominandi.

      • What I’m describing CAN’T be the Church. There’s a reason it wasn’t the Church in Poland, despite very strong leadership and a society that is very strongly Catholic. It was Solidarnosc, with the Church acting as a backer in numerous ways.

        That would have to be the model here. This is Ceasar stuff. Render it unto a non-religious organization.

        Especially since the organization I’m talking about would also have members who are Baptists, Muslims, Jews, etc. with the exact same problem and concerns.

  • pbecke

    Diversity? As in same-sex marriage?

    Moreover, according to Catholic doctrine, indeed, historic Christian doctrine, homosexual simulacra of marriage, i.e. without the gender diversity, is anything but progressive. It is the homosexuals and their corporate promoters who are on the wrong side of history…. and diversity.

  • publiusnj

    The title of this article is needlessly inflammatory and misses the truth that the real problem is not corporations (which are at most second fiddles in the “gay revolution”) but politicians. Governments have one overarching goal: the office holders’ continuation in power.

    They “divide and conquer” the voters by identifying some to whom a successful pitch for votes can be made. A key factor in deciding which groups to identify and woo is how cohesive a group is and how little it would cost to win the group over. Gays are ideal because they are not looking for money, they are simply looking for an abandonment of Christian Morality. No problem for politicians who almost universally have no principles other than re-election!

    Catholics, on the other hand, have no cohesion. Evangelicals and Jews, as well as blacks and “Latinos,” are relatively cohesive. Not so Catholics who split their votes close to 50-50. When a “group” splits its vote 50-50, it is irrelevant to the plurality building process because it does not contribute to either side’s potential plurality. Jews, even though they are infinitesimal compared to Catholics (4% or so as compared to Catholics’ 25%) are taken far more seriously since they can contribute a 2% plurality with their 75-25 split of 4% of the vote. Blacks even more so since they split their 14% of the vote 95-5 towards the Democrats. That means 13.3% Democrat versus 0.7% Republican for a 12.6% contribution to a Democrat plurality. And who splits the Cathlic vote? One contributor is the Bishops Conference which flirts with the Democrats even though that party has the blood of 50 Million fetuses on its hands. Yeah, I know, some illegals will be helped but 50 Million casualites in the Democrat Worship of “Freedom”?

    • Austin Ruse

      I honestly think that corporations on this topic arre far more powerful than politicians. It was the NFL, for instance, that forced Arizona’s otherwise conservative governor to veto protections for Christians against rapacious LGBTs.

      • publiusnj

        It was, though, the US Supreme Court that passed the much more significant Gay Marriage Decisions in 2013. The Supreme Court is not a corporation; it is an agglomeration of politicians. Those decisions have had far more impact on the development of the Gay Marriage issue than some thwarting of “Arizona’s otherwise conservative governor” on cake decoration or the like. Indeed, even Arizona’s governor has been buffeted by governmental power more often than that on social/uimmigration issues.

        Looking at this question more globally: corporations do what makes them money, period. Governments do what keeps them elected, and they are always interested in expanding their power because the more constituencies that can be played off against one another, the more power governments retain. IOW, public issues are a lot more leverageable in the political world than in the market.

        Also: what a wonderful thing to be doing. Getting people to give up on political change in favor of a boycott of the NFL. Or maybe of te Republican Party which everyone knows is the same thing as the corporations.

        • Austin Ruse

          Oh yes, the Supreme Court is the enemy too? There are may enemies to truth.

          • publiusnj

            If you don’t realize the US Supreme Court is the enemy, you are fooling yourself. Maybe you think they are our philosopher kings (queens)?

            • Unaccountability, insularity and finality make for a rather powerful narcotic. They’ve all OD’d.

            • Kilo4/11

              “philosopher queens” Heh heh. Souter? Breyer?

      • One problem with your thesis, Austin. The NFL is not a corporation. It is an unincorporated association. It is also exempt from taxes under Sec. 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code and a huge beneficiary of various municipal stadium financing arrangements.

        They have a very strong incentive to be client agitators for politician’s pet political causes, since their tax exemption is the very definition of a “loophole” .

        Apart from the tax and financing leashes, the NFL is under scrutiny due to the dementia pugilistica/ALS problems of former players; as well as long known problem of player abuse of women. (Ray Rice was long ago preceeded by people like OJ Simpson and Jim Brown). John McCain might just as easily hold Senate hearings on these problems as he did with regard to steroid use in baseball.

        Of course when the NFL was making sure a mediocre player like Michael Sam was being treated like the second coming of Kenny Washington (who broke the color barrier in the NFL). Cardinal Dolan said “Bravo”. (And one has to wonder about his choice of words, given the content of the Bravo cable network).

        • Austin Ruse

          Their spot in the tax code is rather irrelevant to the point. The NFL is a big business, one of the biggest, and they used their influence to bully the Arizona governor who was afraid of losing the hundred of millions from losing the Super Bowl.

          • It’s decidedly unhelpful if you cannot admit a factual error (that the NFL is a corporation) and then attempt to move the goal posts to “big business”.

            As for their position in the tax code being irrelevant, that simply shows a lack of awareness of how taxes affect behavior, especially in this case . Few enterprises are as dependent on their position in the code as the NFL, whose size, visibility and singularity as THE biggest entity enjoying the “professional football league” tax and antitrust exemptions, make it susceptible to political coercion at the federal level.

            It determining who leads in this dance, it’s useful to look at specific cases. Consider how Target fell-and note how they reacted after having made a contribution to a pro-marriage candidate. Does this sound like the fearless phalanx of an army, or a bunch of effete followers. They did was expedient to avoid a Mozilla style attack. Despite all the MBA courses with pretensions to the contrary, corporate “leaders” are usually in reactive mode, defensive and extraordinarily receptive to fads, and easily coerced.

            I have no doubt that there are individual companies that embrace the militant homosexual agenda, Seagram’s being one that was real early to this orgy.

            Yet, I have to say this revolution wasn’t launched in corporate boardrooms, but academia. I was an undergraduate a long, long time ago, and thanks to the presence of two homosexuals on my dormitory floor (at a large state school) who were neither shy or discrete about their activities (one was caught sniffing the other’s soiled underwear in the laundry room, among other things) they incited a certain amount of contempt in the days when AIDS was still newsworthy. The University brought in some “residential life” bureaucrat to lecture us on tolerance. In those days, that meant leaving the individuals in question alone, no matter what they did or what we heard through poorly insulated walls. Today it would probably result in “sensitivity” training.


            • Austin Ruse

              It’s not relevant. The point is that big business is the enemy. If you do not think the NFL is a big business, then i simply do not know what to say…

              my point with the NFL is they were able to leverage their business interests against the interests of the state of Arizona.

              • I didn’t say it wasn’t a big business. You said it’s a corporation. The two are not the same. There are big businesses (like Big Education) that are nominally corporate, but function differently, and there are plenty of corporations that aren’t big business-the vast majority are not.
                As to the NFL, I said its a big business whose bigness is built on special privileges. One of two things drives this-either they are threatened by government or threatened by advertisers.

                • Austin Ruse

                  it is a distinction without a difference for the purposes of this discussion.

                  • You can keep repeating this mantra, but it would be better if you acknowledged your error and moved on- words have meanings.

                    I know business bashing sells well here-but the metastasis of this started in government and its been judicial edict after judicial edict driving this.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Sorry. NFL is the same as any big corporation. Ain’t movin’ off it.

                    • That may be, but that’s not what you wrote. Good grief man, just admit you screwed up and move on-we screw up, the trick i

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Poor fellow…keep insisting…

                    • My sentiments exactly. Of course, if you are really more interested in provocation than accuracy, fratricide is acceptable. Maybe I should be taken out and shot, huh?

                      Pardon me, I forgot my own injunction not to let facts get in the way of your rant.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Oh my simple comment about the NFL is a rant? You really need to find another emotional outlet rather than trying desperately to get ego gratification over a silly dispute on a Disqus thread.

                    • Other than to point out that you’ve been a 50-50 partner here, I’m done here.

                    • Austin Ruse


                    • I’m sorry you can’t admit that you made a factual error. It’s a sign of reflection and humility to say “you know what, I screwed up” and move on. Of course you didn’t write “big corporation” either, you wrote “corporations”.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The actual structure of the “NFL” is that it is a string of CORPORATIONS, all but one team.

    • RufusChoate

      That is not my experience. Corporations have been pushing this agenda for decades.

      • publiusnj

        So, the problem is NOT Joe Biden or Barack Obama or CJ John Roberts or Mr. Justice Kennedy or Arnold Schwarzenegger, all of whom played major roles in the 2012-14 Gay Marriage events. RATHER, it was namelesss faceless corporations. I never thought that and it still doesn’t make sense, but Rufus Choate’s unspecified experience is different so that is the end of the discussion. A real high level of discourse….NOT.

        • RufusChoate

          Too funny, I have consulted in the Fortune 10 and 100 for most of my career. What experience do you have aside from reading articles and jumping to conclusions? It doesn’t make sense to you because you don’t have any experience at it.
          Look at the amicus briefs for Homosexual Marriage submitted by Corporations for nationalization of Homosexual Marriage flooding the Supreme Court.

          Your effort was nice try if you are ten years old but for an Adult not so much.

          • publiusnj

            Ridiculous. If you had anything specific to say to support your ipse dixit, you haven’t said it.

            When I was talking about your “unspecified experience,” I was not challenging your career but your lack of specificity about FACTS. It was you who used the term “experience.” Since you have made this silly ad hominem attack, though, I will simply note that I had a full career and live well on what I had built up as a Fortune 10 retiree. So, I understand corporations full well. I also understand governments full well too, having had several years experience as a federal prosecutor and as a local government’s planning board chairman/member.

            And as for the Amicus briefs: an Amicus brief is just a supportive brief by a non-party usually with a specific interest in policy issues underlying a case, but no standing as a party. The two laws challenged in those two cases were laws solemnly enacted by competent authorities (the US Congress and the People of CA in referendum assembled). The laws should have been defended by the respective governments.

            Who submitted the USA’s briefs in favor of DOMA (hint: no one) or the State of California’s briefs in favor of the Referendum (Hint: no one). Obama’s DOJ did NOT defend the law and actually took the other side in public statements. Even worse, the CA decision turned on the failure of the State to defend its people’s vote, and the lack of anyone else to have standing to defend. So, it was on the actions of the executive branches of the two governments, not of corporations, that the awful USSC decisions turned. Indeed, the USSC is just another governmental organization whose decisions have forwarded the Gay Agenda..

            But if you’d rather continue engaging in silly arm-flailing: keep blaming nameless “corporations.” Apropos this time of Year, It’s like blaming the “stars” and equally fruitless.

            • RufusChoate

              Inanity just more inanity. You don’t even have the facts to back up your contention. The Attorney Generals at the state or federal level are not obligated to submit Amicus briefs to defend a law.



              You’re a naif with false premise trying to bluff your way out of an objective false statement.

              • publiusnj

                Inanity? Thus spake Rufus, although he does not know what he is talking about.

                Here are the real jurisprudential facts: the CA AG and federal AG were not supposed to file amicus briefs, but the defendants’ briefs. The CA Referendum was challenged in the ND CA and Schwarzenegger/his AG decided not to defend the result of the people’s vote for political reasons. So, the people who’d originally rounded up the signatures to get the referendum on the ballot stepped in to defend the referendum’s results. The denizens of that shiny marble building just East of the Capitol then had to find some way out of the fact that the people of the State of California had flat out said no to GM, as is their right under the Federalism Schema of the Constitution..

                So, the “justices” came up with a basis that didn’t go near the Federalism question (which the “justices” unjustly used to undo the DOMA Law). According to them, no mere proponent of the Referendum would have “standing” to defend the results. Only the elected officials would, and since they wouldn’t defend the results, no one else could. In that way, the governmental bureaucrats known as “justices” allowed another group of government bureaucrats, the CA Governor, CA AG and Federal AG, just abdicate their duties in favor of caving to a small but persistent pressure group, the gay Marriage advocates.

                But Rufus would rather rail against nameless corporations and pretend he knows a lot about a subject about which he doesn’t even know the basc ground rules.

      • Some, such as Seagram’s and others-but they were oddities until the thing started to metastasize. First it’s opprobrium, then an oddity, then an option, then an obligation.

        • RufusChoate

          The corporate diversity training in the Fortune Ten starting pushing the Homosexual agenda in the late 1980’s. The service was provided by a cottage industry. We had a joke that the Diversity Team hired to present was always three people: an angry black homosexual woman, a conciliatory white homosexual woman and white homosexual male who was invariably comedic.

          After hearing this joke from several engineers over the years, a colleague who didn’t share our humor finally admitted that he had been to several such training sessions and could not believe how on target the observation was. The message never changed but the characters were different people.

  • Captain America

    This is a long overdue topic. Homosexual activists began pushing corporation support ten years ago. . . and places like Target put political pressure on behalf of this socially-hurtful agenda.

    • Target “flipped” last year in response to pressure. They haven’t gotten a dime from me since.

  • ColdStanding

    Skill testing question:

    If one encounters a person who gives all indications as to being tutored by the father of lies, what value would prudence suggest should be placed upon their promises?

    Exercise to build awareness:

    Make a catalog of people that you know or know of, private persons and public figures, then ask yourself: “When thinking of what they have said and done, does this person give strong indications of being tutored by the father of lies?”

    (Remember that there are several major groups of sinful activities in addition to below-the-belt misdeeds.)

    If the answer to the proposed question of the exercise is yes, what would prudence suggest is the way forward in all relations with said person?

    a) Trust them. It probably isn’t anything serious.
    b) Be suspicious & trust in your ability to discern what is true and not true.
    c) Doubt everything that escapes their lips and repeat the following, “These are lies I am hearing. This will end badly.”

    Take away points:

    Who has warned you of this? Who has been warning you of this since this problem started? Who warned you before this became a problem? Why is it that you still are not listening to Him?

  • Lou Iacobelli

    When the Bank of Montreal wrote to me that they were promoting “equity and diversity” in their banking services, I called they up and asked if they were rejecting and discriminating against Christians and their beliefs. They said no, but their policy hasn’t changed. So, I did the little that I could do and cancelled my BMO mastercard,

  • M.J.A.

    Christians might need to do more than just ‘advertise ‘ as being Christians and live the way they are called to , by being people who help to bring deliverance to the afflicted in their lives, including themselves ; the reason that many target Christians might even be for this reason –
    at one level, they might know that those who are blessed to have the faith, need to engage in warfare and help those who , for whatever reason , have been swept away !
    Starting at the beginnings when things went wrong and calling for The Lord, which is what Adam and Eve should have done ; well, God is beyond time and if every fallen trait in us started at that moment , could we sort of not be with our First Parents and do just that – Call on The Lord, who came to undo the workings of the enemy …kids having tantrums , from fear of undue desires not getting fulfilled – join them , in spirit and the family line, from Adam on down , by invoking the Name of The Lord, in the calmness of compassion and trust and joy from knowing where and how real help is …may be such is what happens with the Liturgy and prayers in The Church, such as the Rosary but good to know with expectant faith , how far reaching such an be !
    Control tendencies – there is the little head of the enemy poking out again – time to call on The Lord …a woman walking the street , in immodest attire , in desperate efforts to look attractive – there is that desire after the attractiveness of the fruit ..
    desire to play God and do away with all who do not agree – well, we Christians are obligated even , to be gods , by calling on God , on behalf of and with the spirit of all such ….let us ask The Lord , to help us live our Catholic faith, in the fullness of its vigor , with life in abundance , with not a boring moment and see the kingdoms come tumbling down ; reports of states that have gone for the false and empty promises not doing well as mentioned in the article , good to read ; if wisdom is a fruit of living in accordance with the Author of Wisdom , not much surprise there either !
    On this 13th of March , anniversary of the election of Pope Francis , joining in spirit with the Head , for preservation of human dignity that comes from human nature, as made by God , free of all enemy distortions – may the prayers of many help to undo what need to be !

  • jacobum

    The underlying problem is a “moral collapse”..which is accelerating. It is not a surprise that corporations reflect the values of the society that their employees live in. The only legitimate defender of Truth, Faith and Morals, the RCC and OTF, declared amnesty and retreat at Vat2. Objective Truth was replaced by Subjective Feelings with predictable disastrous results. PF encapsulates and reflects the results of “feelings’ over “truth”. The fact is that societies reflect beliefs and act accordingly. The Church has been in the grips of a “diabolical disorientation” for 50+ years. Why should anyone be surprised that the world, through it’s people and institutions reflect that. Want to fix the Church? Fix the liturgy! Why? We believe as we pray. Why do we pray? #1 Glorify God. Get that wrong and everything else behind it goes wrong as well. We don’t have to guess or surmise this. We don’t have to read about it. We are and have been living it. If the “Smoke of Satan” is in the Church, then fireballs are consuming society.

    • “The underlying problem is a “moral collapse”..which is accelerating. It is not a surprise that corporations reflect the values of the society that their employees live in.”
      Reflect, not drive. This whole movement of perversion has found it’s greatest

  • CarlsPatrick

    This is the exact equivalent to workplace bullying and bullying period. Yet the LGBT complain about being bullies. Gi figure.

  • abu assim golor

    Strange that these companies who fight tooth and nail when a one cent pay increase is proposed or who want to save money by using the lame excuse people are living longer and should retire later, much later, have no qualms about spending millions of dollars on promoting and financing homosexual programs. It seems they are more interested in promoting an “agenda,” rather than being the altruistic humanitarians they want to portray themselves as. And there is only one thing that trumps profits and that is promoting an ideology, no matter what it may be.

    • Senhorbotero

      The money they are spending is not about promoting an agenda. They are beyond caring for anything. The money they are spending is called advertising….


    The very title of ‘diversity officer’ in a corporation really says all that need be said.

    Nothing said about competence.

    As the left has said over and over and over – it’s all about the money.


    File under “not that anyone cares, but’

    About 6 months ago booger king did about a 2 week promotion during which they wrapped the whopper in glbtq colors, with the appropriate self congratulations, etc.

    I haven’t been there since, and I was a faithful customer for more than 30 years.

  • RufusChoate

    On so many levels, this has been the norm in the Fortune 100 for last 30 years and you would be surprised to find how a clear majority of the Human Resources departments are staffed exclusively by Homosexuals or rabid Homophiles who target and staff whole departments with odd folk. While consulting at one large company in New England we use to joke that the help desk group was a Funny folk rest home with twice the staff all odd as any other group and one fourth the productivity with a guaranteed off site weekly conference on “diversity” which excused them from work. The Head of HR was living with the Help Desk Manager..

    The odd point is it is even bad business practice to embrace such objectively evil moral guides.

    It is also tied very closely the to collapse of Business Ethics. The required company training on Business Ethics was almost exclusively dedicated to inclusivity. It is not a surprise that this same company was found guilty of corrupt and fraudulent marketing practices (guess what the orientation the head of marketing is?) and fined ~700 Million dollars.

  • AugustineThomas

    “Diversity officers” say diversity is important.. The next study result from our failing university system: “the fast food industry says food served fast is important”.
    It never ceases to amaze me how stupid propaganda makes people, those who consume it and those who create it.

  • magdaleni

    Be a populist, not a corporatist.

  • Steve

    Can we please cut the Chick-fil-A worship? After Christians went out and supported them, they flaked under pressure. Dan Cathy has publically said they no longer give to pro-marriage causes. The homosexuals are like white-ants, they are active day and night. Christians muster sporadic efforts here and there, but make no serious effort to match the homosexuals ceaseless attacks on society, which ultimately got the better of Chick-fil-A.

    • Seamrog

      People who stood in line that day for a hour to get a chicken sandwich were not there to support Chick-fil-a.

      They were there to publically support traditional marriage.

      • Secundius

        @ Seamrog.

        I’ll just get my Chicken from Popeye’s, there just plan Tastes Better…

      • And having done so, Cathy said “helically inclined plane you” to those people. Worse, he’s switched sides.


    “Corporations are the enemy” – correct. Corporations are in business for ONE reason, which is to make money – lots of it – and they will seek out and follow the path of least resistance to do so. Currently the path is the current fashion to embrace all things lgbtq, display all those silly colors and proclaim their ‘solidarity’, or whatever the current buzzword is, with those of that persuasion.

    The lgbtq crowd is currently on a roll, but they are NEVER satisfied – they must wipe us out to the last person, because they know that as long as there is at least one of us with the cojones to stand up and say “no” their ill-gotten gains are threatened.

    Pray for those who persecute you.

  • dove

    corporations are about profit, they don’t care about the personal morals or values of anyone, they will always support the most financially friendly opinions that will bring the most diverse people to their market. Its all about money.

    • But I thought capitalism was next to Godliness!

      • Seamrog

        Your thinking is wrong about a great many things, Chuck.

      • dove

        well I didn’t feel that way, I couldn’t stand advertisting classes, I was 19 and realized I did not want to learn how to get people to buy things they didn’t need and didn’t want.

      • Since “capitalism” was the invention of Karl Marx how could it be?

  • Ben

    Don’t tell that to anarcho-libertarians.

  • thebigdog

    By supporting same sex marriage, corporations may be positioning themselves legally. This move may require them to provide benefits only to homosexuals who are married (less than 5% of the gay population)… as opposed to ALL homosexuals — who demand special treatment by the mere virtue of their existence.

    • My previous employer recognized same sex cohabitation for the purpose of benefits, but not of heterosexual cohabitation, even though the state grants the latter the presumption of marriage. This is how far corporations are hellbent on catering to the LGBQWERTY lobby, by even granting them more rights than to heterosexuals, even when contradicting state laws.

  • My previous employer recognized same sex cohabitation for the purpose of benefits, but not of heterosexual cohabitation, even though the state grants the latter the presumption of marriage. This is how far corporations are hellbent on catering to the LGBQWERTY lobby, by even granting them more rights than to heterosexuals, even when contradicting state laws.

  • Lykex

    TL:DR Version – Corporations are bad because they support gay marriage hur-durr.

    I guess Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby aren’t corporations then. It’s rather funny how big business gets the scorn of any politico-religious entity for not buying into their cause but when they get their own fat cat to play in the game, they’re all suddenly pouring out their dollars.

    Not that I blame y’all. I just wish the so-called faithful would actually live up to their religion and stop lying. Don’t bitch about the ‘left’ supposedly ‘taking over.’ Instead, why don’t you all actually grow a pair and start your own? It only adds to the ever-growing shit pile of hypocrisy when you criticize corporations but start getting friendly when it turns out you could’ve just had your own corporate version of the goddamn Bible Belt.

    • Seamrog


      • Lykex

        Uh-huh. That’s your camp in a nutshell. It’s a small wonder the youth grow irreligious in droves.

        If corporations are so evil, you wouldn’t be joining hands with one regardless of whether or not you share the same cause. I thought the ends didn’t justify the means.

        Then again, it’s not like accepting the more honest, alternative viewpoint will kill you either. Just fess up people.

        • GG

          Corporations, like governments, can be run by people who act morally or who act immorally. Is this hard to grasp?

          • Lykex

            The question is sir, is that what YOU grasp? You can’t have a blog titled “Corporations are the Enemy” just for funding causes you disagree with and then default on that position when someone easily names a couple of pro-marriage brands.

            Being in business myself, I grow tired of the hypocritical hostility of so-called people of faith. Just fess up and admit it, you guys are digging yourself in a deeper whole by criticizing an area of society you could actually embrace as a means to your cause.

            Just be goddamn honest about it.

            • GG

              What a load. The point is most corporations are run like the government in that people who push immorality rule. That a small number of people are decent and properly formed does not change the fact the majority push deviancy for a variety of reasons.

              • Lykex

                The minority exception are still corporations. If you’re all intent on absolutes, stick to them. Otherwise, you religious tools are indeed a load, a load of hypocritical bullcrap.

                • GG

                  Do you know the difference between a general statement and and a universal statement?

                  • Lykex

                    Doesn’t matter. They’re both bad arguments.

                    Not to mention completely besides the point.

                    • GG

                      Huh? The essay makes a general claim that is quite accurate. Corporations are not morally correct places in most cases. No surprise.

                    • Lykex

                      Yes, most cases but then when a big business decides to be your champion, you still treat the whole model like dirt. Great. Not surprising either. So much for Christian gratitude.

                    • GG

                      What? You are making things up now.

                    • Lykex

                      Oh so Chick Fil-A and Hobby Lobby are both made up corporations. Gotcha.

                    • Secundius

                      @ Lykez.

                      If the Corporation only function other than making a Profit, is to Champion a Cause or Belief’s. Then, Yes they are made up Corporations…

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Yes, maybe the rallying around Chick-fil-A couldn’t be sustained. Folks
    went stood with the company because saw a corporation toe the line when
    their pastors and bishops refused to, or did so weakly. Here was a
    company founder doing the duty of a bishop: drawing a thick, deep,
    bloody line in the sand, shoring up the fortress, filling the camber
    pots with hot oil to pour down on the assaulting barbarians.

    will change until we see bishops handcuffed and carted off, as the
    Queer Theorists nail their 99 reasons for closing down houses of

    Yes, that’s it (and with no apologies to Ms. Eve. T.): we need to be really, wonderfully afraid of homosexuality. The outcome, the fallout, the consequences of homosexuality (with its claims on the foundational ontology of human nature) is something to greatly fear.

    [From the BANKRUPT Diocese of Stockton, the Mother Lode, and my stool at the Black Cat Bar]

  • Ruth Rocker

    What we need is a definitive list of the corporations/companies that are supporting this nonsense and then boycott them out of existence!! If they’re so worried about profits and think the “pink dollar” is so important, then let us withdraw our green dollars and see how they fare then.!!

  • Secundius

    For crying out load, even the NRA is a Union…

  • Barbeiro de Pentelho

    facism + racismo: nazism

  • Kilo4/11

    Will this be the article that finally gets me to tell my FedEx stories?

    • Austin Ruse

      hope so..

      • Kilo4/11

        Sorry, didn’t mean to be a tease. It’s just been too much fun reading the other commenters to break off and go back into that mess.

    • Seamrog

      If you don’t, who will?

  • clintoncps

    Thank you for this article, Austin, and for stating so clearly that homosexualism’s pretensions to marriage are indeed “faux marriage”.

    It becomes increasingly apparent, as the escalating fetishism of LGBTQ spirituality darkens the minds of the hearts of nations around the world, that the de-listing in 1973 of homosexuality from the catalog of psychological disorders was a death knell for human civilization.

    As with abortion and euthanasia, homosexualism with all its LGBTQ variants reduce the human person and human relationship to the point of blinking insanity and interminable self-speculation. Witness the imposition in Ontario, Canada of an LGBTQ “Health and Physical Education curriculum” that tells 6-year-olds that some children actually have “two daddies” or “two mommies”, and tells 8-year-olds that their physical bodies may not actually be telling them the truth about the gender they actually are. This is a curriculum that exalts terms like “self-concept” instead of truth and sanity, and does not omit to weasel in the term “same-sex” even when applied to something as innocent as non-coeducational classes i.e. boys only or girls only. Written under the direction of a now-convicted child pornographer and a lesbian practitioner who is now Ontario’s Premier, the LGBTQ “curriculum” is being rammed into the schools in September of this year, while significant parental opposition continues to build.

    God willing, with prayer, and some fasting and almsgiving, too, the Lord may hear us and give us the strength to courageously speak truth in the face of lies and love in the face of sexual addictions, molestations, and abuses. As a society, on a political level, one of the primary — and indispensable — goals in building a truly human civilization must be this: to re-list homosexualism in the manual of psychological disorders. It’s not the only social and psychological evil under which we labour, but it is one of the most grievous and anti-human — and not a single person in this world has to remain a slave to that wicked spirit.

    “Behold, I make all things new.” (Rev. 21:5) … ALL things …

  • Dillon Francis

    spot on!

  • Secundius

    Corporations use “Bean-Counters” to Access the Value of what a Persons Life is Worth, and then Paying-Off the Victim and/or Family. Instead of Addressing the Problem and Fixing-it…

  • Mr. Profound

    Corporations cannot truthfully make an economic case for same-sex “marriage.” Why? Because homosexuals exhibit much higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse than heterosexuals — along with the accompanying health risks and absenteeism in the work place. So corporations are hurting themselves by encouraging the government sanctioning of same-sex “marriage” and homosexuality in general. What the government sanctions will increase. Also, homosexuals have higher incidence of domestic violence, and children in their homes fare worse on many measures. Among them is education, which does not bode well for preparing the future work force. So, corporate heads: re-think what you are doing.

    • Secundius

      @ Mr. Frofound.

      And I suspect you KNOW these Facts, because you ARE ONE, Correct…

  • Howard

    The problem is cocktail parties. A great deal of evil is done to avoid feeling like an out-of-fashion rube at a cocktail party.

  • eddie too

    pick a few of the biggest corporate bigots, like walmart and apple, and do business with only their competitors. when their stockholders see profits declining, it will give them a basis for suing management because of its decision to alienate Christians.
    these businesses are engaging in religious bigotry at the highest levels and they deserve to lose our business.