Yet Another ‘Gay Marriage = the Holocaust’ Argument

Robert R. Reilly, former senior adviser to the Defense Department during the Bush administration who usually writes about foreign policy, has jumped into the debate on same-sex marriage to make yet another idiotic comparison between gay marriage and the Nazis.

“I point to 1935 Germany as an analogy because that’s when the Nuremberg Laws were emplaced by Hitler’s regime which revoked citizenship to Jews and forbade Jews to marry non-Jews,” Reilly continued. “Undoubtedly there were many fine people in Germany at that time who did not believe in the race theory of history and weren’t anti-Semites, but they probably said to themselves, ‘Well this is a losing cause, let’s just let this one go and move on to other things about which we can do something, move on to something else,’ and they probably didn’t admit to themselves the real fear they of what this would eventually lead to. Of course it led to the Holocaust, World War II and the death of 60 million people.”

“And so too people today, now that we are entering the enforcement phase of the rationalization for sodomy, say, ‘Well, you know look at the media, look at the American elite, the heads of corporations, we’ve lost this once, let’s move on and pay attention to the economy and the creation of new jobs,’ probably because they are afraid and don’t wish to admit to themselves what the long-term consequences of this are going to be for American society and what else is going to be coming down the line,” he added.

It’s hard to decide whether this argument is more stupid, more offensive, or just plain more shameless. It is beyond my ability to understand how any human being capable of tying their shoes could possibly find this analogy anything other than mind-numbingly idiotic.

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/206207621″ params=”color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

"As someone who thoroughly rejects moral relativism I'm calling foul on the evangelicals here."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."
"There's a right-wing comment. Blocked."

Trump Upset that He Can’t Control ..."
"So what? Welcome to the era of honesty. People are people and we don't all ..."

Lively: Gay Judges Can’t Be Impartial

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Deacon Duncan

    What’s that you say, Mr. Reilly? You say Nazis set the precedent for governments so totalitarian and fascist that they actually told certain couples they could not legally marry? Like, you know, you want the US govt. to do?

    Thanks for clarifying the example you’re seeking to emulate.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Ed:

    You often ridicule Christian concerns about the repressive implications of some of the gay anti-discrimination laws, yet you decline to endorse conscience-protections.

    It’s not unreasonable that Christians would be concerned when they see fellow believers lose their businesses for not baking cakes, and the advocates of such laws quite explicitly oppose conscience protection.

  • JoeBuddha

    Ed:

    You often ridicule Racist concerns about the repressive implications of some of the equal rights laws, yet you decline to endorse conscience-protections.

    It’s not unreasonable that racist assholes would be concerned when they see fellow assholes lose their businesses for not allowing n*****s in their establishments, and the advocates of such laws quite explicitly oppose conscience protection.

    FTFY

  • gronank

    It’s not unreasonable that Christians would be concerned when they see fellow believers lose their businesses for not baking cakes

    It is almost universally unreasonable for anyone to lose their business for not baking cakes. The one exception is the cake-baking business.

  • whheydt

    Re: theDukeDog7 @ #2…

    Yet again with the cake. Now let us suppose that a devout Christian baker decides to obey the law and *not* discriminate. Does he hold up his (professional) head and bake the very best cake he can, or does he seek revenge by baking a poor quality cake with indifferent icing and risk his overall reputation (thus damaging his business by his own action)?

    On the broader issue…what are you going to do if–as is expected–SCOTUS rules that states may not bar same-sex marriage? Are you going to stamp your little feet and shout “No!” at the top of your lungs? Or are you going to throw yourself on the floor, kick your feet and cry as loud as you can until some adults give in? You have stated that you have children attending college. You might think back to when they were toddlers and how you dealt with them at that stage.

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance

    It is now after 10:00AM. How come your are trolling here on the Internet instead of being in the operating room cutting? Your priorities seem rather twisted.

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    They are so frantic. It is amusing.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    During Kristallnacht they smashed the windows of all the Christian bakeries. Later, they loaded the Christian bakers in cattlecars and shipped them off to the reception. Cash bar, too. Jerks.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    It’s hard to decide whether this argument is more stupid, more offensive, or just plain more shameless.

    All of the above: it makes sense when you view it as an application for a policy advisor to the Jeb! (or any GOP) campaign.

  • mojave66

    DukeDog7:

    Sure. I’m all for letting businesses discriminate, as long as they, in all their advertising and business announcements, make it very plain that they will not serve LGBT folks. I don’t want to walk into a business full of asshole bigots any more than they want to deal with an icky queer person.

    Funny how that didn’t work out in Oklahoma after a legislator proposed that as an amendment to their right-to-discriminate law. The whole bill went down in flames. Bigots want to bigot, just don’t want non-bigots to know about it so publicly.

  • rietpluim

    @gronank #4 – That was classic. Thanks!

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    I point to 1935 Germany as an analogy because that’s when the Nuremberg Laws were emplaced by Hitler’s regime which revoked citizenship to Jews and forbade Jews to marry non-Jews

    Let me see if I have this straight… Hitler forbade certain people from marrying, and to avoid becoming like him it’s important to forbid certain people from marrying. Do I have that right?

  • Johnny Vector

    mojave66:

    I’m all for letting businesses discriminate, as long as they, in all their advertising and business announcements, make it very plain that they will not serve LGBT folks.

    No, no no NO. We’ve been through this, goddammit. You only find that okay because you know it will never apply to you. You know nobody is going to bravely post a “NO CRACKERS” or “NO BREEDERS” sign at their lunch counters. And yes, at this point in history, few people would dare post a “NO NIGGERS” sign. I’m old enough to remember (barely) when lots of businesses did. And even now I bet there are places that would. And don’t think for a second there aren’t hundreds of places in the US where every single [pick your business] in town would happily put up a “NO FAGS” sign.

    Not acceptable.

  • mojave66

    I’m a lesbian, 53 YO. I’ve been through the “no faggots” period. I’m being sarcastic on purpose here. If there’s anything I’ve observed, it’s that bigots do NOT like to show off their bigotry.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Johnny Vector “And don’t think for a second there aren’t hundreds of places in the US where every single [pick your business] in town would happily put up a ‘NO FAGS’ sign.”

    Sure, but they’d be temporarily punished with deeply ironic Yelp reviews, which is apparantly a thing that happens.

  • abb3w

    @2, theDukedog7

    You often ridicule Christian concerns about the repressive implications of some of the gay anti-discrimination laws, yet you decline to endorse conscience-protections.

    As JoeBuddha alluded @3ish, I suspect that most of Ed’s readers would agree that there should be religious conscience protections in the gay anti-discrimination laws in exactly the same places that there are religious conscience protections in racial anti-discrimination laws.

    A few of those might be radical enough to say that church ministers should be required to marry couples regardless of race, but I suspect they are few, and I am not so radical myself.

  • abb3w

    @14, mojave66

    I’m a lesbian, 53 YO. I’ve been through the “no faggots” period. I’m being sarcastic on purpose here. If there’s anything I’ve observed, it’s that bigots do NOT like to show off their bigotry.

    53 means you’re too young to remember the earlier era. So am I; however, my reading indicates there was a considerable span when bigots were indeed proud to show off their bigotry, because in many areas it was the accepted norm. By the 1960s, they were starting to find out it wasn’t as universally accepted as they had thought.

  • dingojack

    Oh those RWNJs are just throwing at tantrum “…probably because they are afraid and don’t wish to admit to themselves what the long-term consequences of this are going to be for American society and what else is going to be coming down the line…”

    That is — nothing!

    They’ll be no revolution (televised or otherwise), no economic crash, no panic in the streets because of the decision to increase choice, beak-up old monopolies and get the government out of the business of deciding which pairs of consenting adults can marry each other.

    What will happen is the hateful, rigid, lying, hypocritical and authoritarian attitude of some of the organised religions in this matter will further drive people (both old and young) out of their clutches at increasing rates.

    The future they fear, is the future where their formerly politically and socially powerful institutions will be relegated, by their own actions, into mute irrelevancy.

    Dingo

  • Johnny Vector

    mojave66:

    Oh, sarcasm. Well that’s just great. Personally, I don’t figure Egnor for the type to have any hope of actually getting something like that.

    But seriously, bigots really are perfectly happy to parade their bigotry, so long as they can do it in front of people who approve (or at least don’t disapprove). It happens all the time, even now. I’m glad to live in a (physical) place where that’s no longer a thing, but there are still loads of small towns where there’s only a small handful of each business type, and a small number of people total. If enough of them wear their bigotry out loud, it becomes harder for anyone there to not join the crowd. Then pretty soon there is no “take your business elsewhere”. The internet is making such places rarer, but they ain’t gone.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Johnny Vector “But seriously, bigots really are perfectly happy to parade their bigotry…”

    Ironically, the Bigotry Pride parade comes across as more than a little gay, which isn’t an insult so much as it is fabulous. Those Christian florists really go all out.

  • Johnny Vector

    Modus: Well I was going to say, by way of pointing out my privilege, that ’round where I live anyone putting up a “no gays allowed” sign on their shop window would go down in flames. But it seemed a little too on the nose.

  • dingojack

    Bigotry Parade? Wasn’t that a 1940’s ‘Flag-waver’ that flopped?

    (Must have been the whole Leni Riefenstahl homage/montage thing).

    Dingo

  • theguy

    “that’s when the Nuremberg Laws were emplaced by Hitler’s regime which revoked citizenship to Jews and forbade Jews to marry non-Jews

    Sound similar to anybody today (ahem the entire right-wing)?

    And to Derpdog – no, we shouldn’t allow business owners who sell to the public refuse services to one part of the public that they offer to the rest of the public. It’s not like I’d be allowed to open a wedding store, offer services to Jewish and Muslim customers, and then refuse to serve Christians. If I did that, many of the same people crying wolf about religious liberty would call for my execution.

  • Lady Mondegreen

    Bigotry Parade? Wasn’t that a 1940’s ‘Flag-waver’ that flopped?

    A 1942 Busby Berkeley knockoff starring Trudy Garland and Dicky Rooney.

  • Hoosier X

    dukedog,

    If there was an atheist baker who was an outspoken advocate of disbanding churches and preventing christians from getting married, I (and every other atheist I know) would support any christian who decided to do business elsewhere. As a matter of fact, I would go elsewhere. And I sure wouldn’t say the christians exercising their freedom to go elsewhere were intolerant.

    (You see how different these analogies look when you compare apples to apples?)

  • John Pieret

    Dukedog @2:

    you decline to endorse conscience-protections

    What are “conscience-protections”? Are they like condoms for your conscience for when you are acting just like racist assholes who don’t want to serve those icky blacks gays?

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    How about this, DukeDog — We’ll ask everyone we know — gay and straight — to avoid your bakery like the plague. Happy? Now stfu.

  • greg1466

    He seems to have missed the part in his analogy where it was the people trying to prevent other people from getting married that were ultimately the problem.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    It’s not unreasonable that Christians would be concerned when they see fellow believers lose their businesses for not baking cakes…

    Well, yeah, if you’re in the business of baking cakes, and you don’t want to do what you’re in the business of doing, then you lose your business. I, for one, think it’s VERY unreasonable for Christians to be “concerned” about this longstanding fact of life.

    Seriously, I’ve NEVER had a job where I was allowed to refuse to do what I was paid to do. Why should these self-important small-time Christian businessfolk have “protections” I never had, and never was told to expect? This sounds like someone wants to establish titles of nobility for Christian businessfolk, so they have rights the rest of us don’t have. What does the Constitution say about titles of nobility again?