Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Shit's in the PI


"A bit" of a nut? You're being awfully kind.

Posted by Paultron | May 21, 2008 10:12 AM

Next the P.I. will be publishing editorial pieces by David Duke.

What asswipes.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | May 21, 2008 10:16 AM

Several gay newspapers around the country really carry his columns? Why?

Posted by elenchos | May 21, 2008 10:18 AM


Posted by Greg | May 21, 2008 10:24 AM

"Because there certainly are harms—to religious liberty, to give just one example."
Well his bigoted view has harmed my religious liberty for one. Wiccan groups throughout the world celebrate same-sex marriages but they are not recognized by the state. Isn't that religious discrimination? Just because his faith doesn't agree with my life, doesn't mean all faith systems do. I really wish I had a partner I wanted to marry cause I always wanted to sue for marriage rights on the basis of religious discrimination.

Posted by Enigma | May 21, 2008 10:30 AM

Right there with ya, 'till the bit at the end. The woman didn't die because of bigotry. Bad example.

Posted by A Non Imus | May 21, 2008 10:32 AM

You don't think that woman died a more painful death because of the situation with her partner? He didn't say "died" he said "died a painful death". I would argue her last hours were certainly more painful than they needed to be because of bigotry.

Posted by Julie | May 21, 2008 10:38 AM

Maybe conservative Christians and Jews believe that being gay is a kind of mental illness because most of the gays who hang out with them are deeply disturbed freakshows like Benkof? He sounds like a raving loon; what kind of jackass "announces he's going to stop having sex with men", as if anybody gives a flying fuck?

But seriously, why do people talk to this guy? Why do they print him in the paper? Even wingnuts -- do you really want anything to do with this basket case?

Another maybe: Maybe "All, including several prominent lesbian and gay legislators and other leaders, have refused to disclose their opinions, some repeatedly" to him because they quite reasonably hang up the phone when deranged, soulless perverts like Benkof call them? I know I would.

Posted by Fnarf | May 21, 2008 10:41 AM

This guy is like women who regret abortions who now want the state to make them illegal. Look, just because you're unhappy with a choice you made doesn't mean you should make that choice unavailable to anyone else. This guy doesn't want to be gay, fine. Why does the state have to help him not be gay?

Posted by exelizabeth | May 21, 2008 10:41 AM


Guess I won't be subscribing to the P-I when my WSJ subscription runs out ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 21, 2008 10:47 AM

gay newspapers suck elenchos. isn't it obvious?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | May 21, 2008 10:55 AM

Fnarf makes a good point. I know conservative Christians (family members) whose only exposure to gay people is through self-hating "ex-gays" who attend their church. Small fucking wonder they think all gay people are depressed weirdos like that.

Posted by Hernandez | May 21, 2008 11:01 AM

A: marriage doesn't belong to religion. It belongs to the state. No church issues marriage licenses--states do. Churches "sanctify" marriages, but no (straight) couple needs any church to get married and enjoy all the benefits and rights of that status.

B: I don't get why any gay or lesbian would spend one freaking red cent in the state of Florida. Take your disposable income and spend it where you're welcome. The sunshine state depends on tourism as one of it's main industries. Don't go there.

Posted by Westside forever | May 21, 2008 11:30 AM

Huh. God also made it clear to the Jews that they should listen to his son.

Posted by El Seven | May 21, 2008 11:54 AM

Instead of boycotting Florida, spend all your money, ALL, in gay establishments there. Give gay people strength and jobs.
(some people go there for family and business) The Bible is wrong, something these people just can't admit. If it's wrong about one thing, it could be wrong about everything and that would mean it was written by stupid people and not "God". When you have been brainwashed as much as they are it's just too damn hard to think for yourself. By the way, many other countries have legal gay marriage and I haven't heard one example of that harming anything except the credibility of the religious zealots.

Posted by Vince | May 21, 2008 1:30 PM

@13... you know... maybe you shouldn't say that too loudly... they might hear you. Should we really let hetero couples be married by mere judges and sea captains? Harr..

When goofballs like this announce their newfound sparing of the rod, I can only conclude it's some kind of advertisement for hot! naughty! rule-breaking sex! with other closet case right wing gay guys.

Not exactly on point, but always come to mind since that Larry Craig deal, when it comes to the right wing closet cases:

Posted by CP | May 21, 2008 5:03 PM

I must say I am a bit taken aback at the vitriol aimed at me from Stranger readers and especially Stranger editor Dan Savage. It's odd that someone with Dan's creativity and wit could do no better than "self-hating douchebag." Then on the same page we have "asswipe" and "deeply disturbed freakshow" and "raving loon" and "jackass." Then there are borderline homophobic slurs like "deranged, soulless pervert." And let's not forget "depressed weirdo" and "goofball."

No respectable opponent of same-sex marriage refers to gay people with such bile. I certainly never do. The worst terms I can think of are "selfish" and "cruel."

What's going on? My hunch, which I plan to blog about soon at, is that this schoolyard behavior is just another piece of evidence that the "marriage equality" movement is not about relieving LGBT distress. Rather, it is one big temper tantrum by the most selfish American movement since the Hippies at the fact that everyone doesn't stroke their egos and tell them they are "equal."

I'm disappointed that someone as smart as Dan Savage would resort to the idiotic argument that same-sex marriage won't force churches to violate their principles - as if anyone thought the First Amendment had been suspended. See my blog post on "Bad Faith Marriage Arguments."

Dan shows an inexplicable ignorance of the difference between sexual orientation and marriage structure. One can treat people of every sexual orientation the same while still giving preference to actual man-woman marriages instead of the fake kind imposed by gay activists allied with a handful of judges.

Dan made up out of the air this idea that I claim I am not gay. Where on earth did you get that from? I have said I don't think any of the labels fits me perfectly, so I use bisexual and gay pretty interchangeably. If I could get away with it I'd use queer, but people tend to hear that as a homophobic slur. Dan should either show where I have ever said I'm not gay, or apologize for inventing grounds on which to criticize me.

I am indeed "an openly gay opponent of same-sex marriage who, for uniquely gay reasons" among others "does not support marriage equality." I'm not surprised that drives you batty because you like to portray all opponents of redefining marriage as homophobes who don't care about LGBT people.

Dan seems to think it's illegitimate to oppose same-sex marriage because G-d does, as elucidated in Talmud Chullin. I never tried to make you agree with my religious beliefs. But since those beliefs call upon me to oppose both same-sex civil and religious marriage, what do you expect me to do? Vote using your values instead of mine? Keep quiet about my political preferences because they make you uncomfortable? Sorry, but in a democracy we can all express our preferences, and whoever gets the most votes wins.

As one of your readers points out, your example doesn't even come close to disproving my statement Besides, I don't advocate the laws in Florida. I much prefer the ones in California before last week, which provided complete equality in everything but semantics.


Your religious beliefs cause you to support same-sex marriage. Mine cause me to support only man-woman marriage. Why should your prefernces trump mine? Wouldn't it be more fair if everyone got to express his or her own preferences and the view that gets the most votes wins?

exelizabeth, I am amused at your claim, with no evidence, that I don't want to be gay. LGBT people are always insisting that being gay is not about sex. Well, I'm gay and I don't have gay sex and people keep suggesting that means I'm not gay. It doesn't.

Vince, please go ahead and share your opinions about the Bible with as many people as possible, particularly Califronia voters. The more fair-minded Californians realize how many marriage-equality people have attitudes like yours, the quicker man-woman marriage will be protected.

Finally, Seattle residents who want to hear me explain in my own words why the decision in California is not good for LGBT people should listen to KVI AM 570 on Friday morning at 7:05 a.m., where I will be a guest on the morning show.

Posted by David Benkof | May 21, 2008 11:04 PM

Well isn't this an amazing turn of events. Or more likely not. David Benkof here to respond to Dan's astute observations. I guess I would be more surprised if it weren't for the fact that it is all too predictable that someone who seriously thought it was newsworthy to mention he's "given up gay sex" (I have no idea what he look like, but more often than not a person who "gives up sex" is doing it because they are either too ugly to get it or think they are too ugly to get it) would be trolling the internet desperately looking for his name to be mentioned.

There is one simply thing, Mr. Benkof, that will trump your entire argument and render your hilarious attempt at disguising your self-hatred: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

You can oppose Gay Marriage in terms of christian, or jewish, beliefs all you want . . . in a church or synagogue. To try and impose your religious beliefs on the subject of marriage on a political level is something entirely different, at least in these United States. Thank the fucking lord. The wiccan you "responded" to so unintelligently wasn't saying that his or her religious views trump yours, he or she was simply giving an example of WHY we don't create political rules and regulations based on Christian, Jewish, Wiccan, Satanist, Muslim or any other faith. Because ultimately one religion's law is another's sin. Which, in a country filled with more religious views than almost any other country in the world- would lead to a LOT of problems.

And frankly, every single one of your horrible arguments against your own supposed orientation's pursuit of equality is based entirely on your religious views- they hold no water in a court of law. If your synagogue refuses to bless a gay marriage that is something everyone can respect. But that is where it ends, David. And thank GOD for that.

Posted by MarsAttack | May 22, 2008 8:13 AM


I think it's fascinating that you think it's newsworthy for a public figure to announce she's having lesbian sex (which is what the celebrated coming out of Ellen DeGeneres was about) but not newsworthy to announce I'm not having gay sex, despite my prominence in the LGBT community. Your silly attack on my looks shows you must not read Dan Savage's column. If you did, you'd know that it is extraordinarily easy to find gay sex, no matter what you look like. Say you're a fat, bald old double amputee. I think there's a chat room for guys who like such men at several gay Web sites. And some of the "amputee chasers" are pretty darn hot!

As for your comment "To try and impose your religious beliefs on the subject of marriage on a political level is something entirely different, at least in these United States" I'm glad to hear you'll be voting for John McCain, who has never weighed in on this subject. By contrast, Barack Obama knows that the greatest American leaders used religious language to support their political positions. He said in an important speech in 2006: "To say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

So I will glady accept your support for redefining marriage if it means the war hero from Arizona gets your vote.

Posted by David Benkof | May 22, 2008 3:31 PM

Obviously this waste of flesh named David Benkof has nothing better to do, if he's yapping away at comments from this blog. It goes to show nobody cares about him at his own website, no matter how much publicity the slut gets.

Posted by Scott | May 27, 2008 4:08 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).