- BitsBlog - https://bitsblog.com -

EHarmony, Etc.

This Ain’t Hell… [1]

So, this morning, reading my usual news sources, I find on Michelle Malkin [2] and Moonbattery [3]that some whining cry baby sued eHarmony, the online dating service, because they didn’t have opportunities for same-sex singles to meet. CNN writes [4];

Under terms of the agreement with the New Jersey attorney general’s office, eHarmony Inc. will start the service, called Compatible Partners, by March 31.

“With the launch of the Compatible Partners site, our policy is to welcome all single individuals who are genuinely seeking long-term relationships,” said Antone Johnson, eHarmony vice president of legal affairs.

The company and its founder, Neil Clark Warren, admit no wrongdoing or liability.

“Even though we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business, we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case with the attorney general, since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable,”

OK, well, not only was eHarmony forced to set up an entirely different data base just for these people, they also had to offer a six months subscription free. I’m sure gays across the world will take advantage of this – even though they already control the date-matching market in airport bathrooms and in rest stop foliage.

It’s like suing a Chevy dealer because he doesn’t sell toasters, too. There’s no civil rights issue here – it’s just the camel finally getting his tail under the tent.

Quite so. Recall, please, what I said in last night’s Ramble [5], as regards lawsuits:

Now, when the ADA first came out, it was clearly going to build into something along these lines. Then again, so it has been for every leftist cause. Think about it; What did Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest make their money on? Molski, in short, was trying to become the white, paraplegic Jesse Jackson. Of course this stuff has it’s victims.

I’d like you to consider other parallels, here. Remember our position that the faux concern over ‘redlining’ was in the end, what caused our current financial issues? What was that but a number of people using the court system in systematic extortion? I suggest the enviro-whackjob types can be similarly labeled. Tort reform, anyone?

And so, we come to it; Is this just one more situation where extortion rules the day?

As the bard might say… and leaving aside the social issues surrounding homoseuxual “marriage” for the moment, I think it be.

Opening up the social issues, one comes to see clearly that the opponants of Prop 8 are attacking religious institutions as the source of their problem. we’ve seen attacks against Morman and Roman catholic churches, recently on that logic. Religion, however is not the source of their problems, of course and on several levels, but think about this…   Around 50% of Americans consider themselves ‘religious’, and yet last polling I saw on this issue showed around 75-80% against homoseuxual “marriage”. Consdier that even in socially liberal California, where church attendence is even lower, the vote on prop 8 was overwhelming.

Clearly, what we’re dealing with is not a religious issue per se, but a cultural one, of which the religion aspect of it is only a subset, albeit a quite symbolic one. Using extortion to over-rule society and social norms doesn’t seem a profitable way of dealing with such issues… even assuming your position from an ostensibly neutral and unbiased POV has merit.  (Reality; they are not unbiased, nor does their case have merit)

We have seen disaster happen when law and government try to come in and over-ride society, and for reasons I’ve spoken of previously.  [6] Culture is not the servant of government. rather it’s supposed to be going the other direction:

 Culture is by far a more powerful force than government, over time. Indeed; Where governments have gotten themselves into problems over the centuries, is invariably where governments have tried to alter the culture artificially, by means of law. Culture eventually triumphs

What we have here is the diminishing of law by virtue of using law for exactly the opposite of it’s intended purpose. And the votes we continously see on matters like this one, tell me that the voters see that on levels I doubt many could explain well.