Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Too Good To Be True | Re: What the Fuck Are We Going... »

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Chickens, 1. Gays, 0.

posted by on November 6 at 10:40 AM

Hey, sorry about your equal rights, gay people. But at least chickens get to move their wings now! The concerned citizens of California passed Prop 2 by a landslide (63%), granting chickens and baby veal cows the rights to stand up and turn around and fully extend their limbs. Because the chickens were sad! Give the chickens bigger houses! Baby veal cows are people too!

chickens.jpg


OH, BUT SORRY, GAY PEOPLE. You are not people too.

nottheenemy.jpg


**For the record, I am totally in favor of animals being able to stand up, turn around, and fully extend their limbs during the brief span of time before we eat them.


Update: Perhaps I am not being clear. The idea that someone could go into a voting booth, consider a chicken, feel compassion and empathy for the chicken, and vote in favor of basic chicken rights; and THEN, immediately afterward, consider a person, feel no compassion or empathy, and vote to strip that person of a basic human right, is ABSURD AND CRIMINAL. That is what I am saying. Priorities, people.

RSS icon Comments

1

Raise your hands, raise your voice...

Posted by Give the chickens another choice... | November 6, 2008 10:44 AM
2

What about the gay chickens?

Posted by Darcy | November 6, 2008 10:50 AM
3

To be fair, gays have been legally allowed to stand up and turn around and fully extend their limbs for several years, at least. And chickens and baby cows are still not allowed to marry.

Posted by Levislade | November 6, 2008 10:50 AM
4

Veal is my favorite kind of meat. Mmm, tortured baby cow...are they still tortured though, if they can stand up and move around?

Posted by Leslie N. | November 6, 2008 11:00 AM
5

what levi said. false equivalence. i'm all for gay marriage n shit, but this a terrible argument and it's almost more offensive than prop 8 passing. but thank you for caring.

Posted by brandon | November 6, 2008 11:06 AM
6

I'd been meaning to respond to one of the Prop. 8 posts yesterday by pointing out that there were a number of huge progressive victories in California on Tuesday:

  1. Prop. 2's resounding victory.
  2. California voters approved Proposition 1A, which would sell bonds for building a high-speed rail line from Southern California to Northern California. I think they're still looking for the feds to pay for it.
  3. Los Angeles County passed its own half-cent sales tax increase for transportation. Measure R will extend LA's subway and light rail lines. I think there's also some highway-widening in there.

At risk of offending Slog readers, I must confess I'm elated about what happened in CA yesterday. Can we at least say the scorecard in CA was Progressives 3, Regressives 1?

Oh, if there's anyone whose perspective on Tuesday I'd love to hear, it's Ellen DeGeneres. Ellen was a spokeswoman for Prop. 2. When you've got the voice of Dory from Finding Nemo asking you to support an animal welfare bill, there's no way it's going down. That's some powerful subliminal mojo going on there.

Posted by cressona | November 6, 2008 11:07 AM
7

@2

Hopefully none of the animals get caught being gay, because then their rights to move lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely will likely be kaput. Someone should also consider a prop for gay animal research. We need to know if any of these animals are gay, because we bring this meat into our home and feed it to our families. No doubt you already know, this gayness will destroy your family. Why has nobody thought of this yet? I vaguely remember my first homosexual thought was right after eating some chicken.

Posted by Mr. Poe | November 6, 2008 11:07 AM
8

Actually, this is a lovely diary. It goes to show how people's priorities are completely fucked up. Chickens > people.

Posted by thoughtcriminal | November 6, 2008 11:13 AM
9

I won't rest until chickens are allowed to marry.

Posted by kebabs | November 6, 2008 11:14 AM
10

@7: Good point. And will churches be forced to serve this gay meat? Will they lose their rights if they don't? And what about schools? Do they have to include gay meat into their cafeterias and classroom discussion.

DEAR GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Posted by Original Monique | November 6, 2008 11:16 AM
11

I keep reading this one - those hateful californians put animals before gays! Can't we just accept them as different ballot measures and be happy 2 passed while continuing to work against 8 instead of expecting animal rights advocates to solve every human social problem before they attack the issues dear to their hearts?

Personally I saw MANY disappointments in the ballot measures. Even though there were also victories I'd be content to require more than a simple majority in a ballot measure among voters to change the constitution and state laws. I'm really not convinced that 51% of people thinking I should not have a right should lead to its denial. That's the real problem here.

Personally I'm happy about the trains, disappointed that treatment over incarceration for minor drug offenses was defeated, happy parental abortion notification soundly lost, a little sad about the renewal energy votes not passing however pie in the sky unlikely they were, and more or less neutral to the rest statewide. On a local level, call me the lush vote but I was very disappointed that people voted to ban alcohol on the beach, because I happen to find few things more delicious than a glass of good wine on a near-empty beach.

Prop 8 passed this time, but attitudes are rapidly changing. I don't know that you can say that about animal rights.

Posted by gember | November 6, 2008 11:20 AM
12

Let us not curse every step along the journey simply because it is not the last.

Posted by flamingbanjo | November 6, 2008 11:25 AM
13

Also: one more thing I can't figure out. I saw several REALLY good ads on prop8. I liked the mac ad spoofs, I like the one where the woman keeps running into obstacles to get to her wedding, I liked the one Dan Savage posted on election day. So why in the world was the commercial that actually made it onto TV that stupid, insipid "you know, you hate gay people, and that's OK. But we shouldn't make it the law!" crappy one with the two women sitting at the table together looking at pictures?

I know they're made by different groups with different funding or whatever, yeah. But those ads still sucked and they were the only ones I saw on the air. Also I saw the only saw the ad air during "preaching to the choir" television shows like the Daily Show. Disappointing.

Posted by gember | November 6, 2008 11:29 AM
14

i'm 100% with you on this one lindy. couldn't stop thinking the same thing yesterday.

Posted by thickturd | November 6, 2008 11:29 AM
15

Mmmmm. Gay meat. It's what's for dinner.

Posted by LeslieC | November 6, 2008 11:34 AM
16

Hey bitch, why aren't you considering that not all of your readers are people? Cluck-cluck.

Posted by A (happy) California Heterosexual Chicken. | November 6, 2008 11:41 AM
17

It was animals before children with the aspca - still is, actually. animal control is asked to check out the environment for children when they check on animals.

"In 1874 when the first case of child abuse was alleged a horribly graphic case of a young girl beaten it was the ASPCA that was called to advocate for the child. At the time, children were considered property and there were no laws against their abuse. However, there were animal-protection laws in place and the girl was successfully defended by using the animal protection law, since, her attorney argued, she was an animal. Subsequently, Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children rapidly came into existence. The link between violence to children and violence to animals has been studied ever since."

as long as women (or parts of women) and children are considered property (private or public) our sense of civil rights will be this screwed up.

Posted by Miss Poppy Hussein Dixon | November 6, 2008 11:44 AM
18

Ruby Montana is happy about the animal vote in Cali.

At least that's what she said on Facebook today.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 6, 2008 11:47 AM
19

Trying to score a couple cheap points by pitting black civil rights against gay civil rights is probably the stupidest strategy you could take, but picking a fight between animal rights and gay rights is for sure the second stupidest. No, I mean third stupidest. Creating a zero sum game of women vs gays is second. Animals vs gays is third. Blacks? Still dumbest of all. Sometimes it's hard to keep straight.

Posted by elenchos | November 6, 2008 11:47 AM
20

haters won. saddest thing was seeing the dance party that erupted for obama stop cold when the numbers on 8 started to sink in. and those numbers are telling. AA and Latinos voted overwhelming for 8 and for Obama. SF turnout was at a 50% clip from the 50% registered residents. there is enough numbers there to turn the results.

and you can't progress when you write hate into your constitution. that is what those ads were going for and they were working to turn back the mad morman money. field polls had the numbers flipped. people just didn't vote if you can believe that. so mock CA, let us know how ridiculous we look to everyone else.

Posted by high/low | November 6, 2008 12:03 PM
21

I am Pro gay marriage (and chicken) but I think the proponents of gay marriage have been going about this all wrong. I hear time and time again that the main sticking point is the idea that the traditional sense of marriage is defined within the context of a Christian/religious theology. The same people go on to say they support civil unions.

Instead of trying to fight for right of the term marriage (vs civil union) , fight for the removal of the church doctrine from the eyes of the federal and state law. I.E. remove the term marriage. If a couple wants to enjoy all the benefits/laws of a state sponsored partnership, gay or straight, either side must do so under a state sponsored civil union. If a couple then wants to be “married” in the eyes of their God, they may do so, but it would be completely be transparent in the eyes of the state.

Posted by The Corey | November 6, 2008 12:33 PM
22

I am Pro gay marriage (and chicken) but I think the proponents of gay marriage have been going about this all wrong. I hear time and time again that the main sticking point is the idea that the traditional sense of marriage is defined within the context of a Christian/religious theology. The same people go on to say they support civil unions.

Instead of trying to fight for right of the term marriage (vs civil union) , fight for the removal of the church doctrine from the eyes of the federal and state law. I.E. remove the term marriage. If a couple wants to enjoy all the benefits/laws of a state sponsored partnership, gay or straight, either side must do so under a state sponsored civil union. If a couple then wants to be “married” in the eyes of their God, they may do so, but it would be completely be transparent in the eyes of the state.

Posted by The Corey | November 6, 2008 12:34 PM
23

"Blacks? Still dumbest of all. Sometimes it's hard to keep straight."

Wow. Context really is everything.

Posted by P to the J | November 6, 2008 12:38 PM
24

Where the fuck is the protest? Since the days of Harvey Milk, gays have turned into a bunch of goddam apologetic faggots. Fuck, some protest might even get Saint Obama's attention. Take gays out of the election mix and I'd bet my house Obama would have lost. After Obama's legion of black Church-Goin' Folk put Prop 8 over the top, Obama owes us, Big Time. And pretty words about about 'inclusion' won't cut it. Bill Clinton gave us enough of that shit. Repeal DOMA, and while he's at it Obama can tell the black community to can it with their holier-than-thou bullshit.

Posted by Dan | November 6, 2008 12:41 PM
25

@24

Gays somehow turned action and protest into "pride" and look at how fucking unreal we behave.

Posted by yeah they can relate to that | November 6, 2008 12:46 PM
26

@7: What about the gay chickens who, previous to future pending legislation, already went ahead and enjoyed their right to move, lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely? Will restrictions on gay chickens be retroactive? This could be a serious legal clusterfuck.

Posted by Darcy | November 6, 2008 1:01 PM
27

Does this mean it's OK to cook and eat gays in California as long as they haven't been caged too tightly?

Posted by Fnarf | November 6, 2008 1:14 PM
28

I sure hope the cartoon gays stay the fuck out of the spotlight when it comes to protesting the gay marriage ban. The leather daddies, twink bois, and all those homos clad in nothing more than a pair of dainty briefs aren't doing anything to help.

No wonder straight people are fighting to keep marriage out of the hands of gay people. From their perspective, the gay community must look like an oversexed circus. The gay community needs to put away the costumes, sideline the god-damn-drag-queens- who-insist-upon-entertaining-at-every-turn, put on a serious face, and get to work.

Gay fucking pride day isn't cutting it.

Posted by aden | November 6, 2008 1:15 PM
29

Sorry, I just can't get behind this thing. Unlike chickens in California, many gays have apartments, are allowed to roam somewhat freely, and get to make a fair amount of choices. They're also infrequently slaughtered for food.

Yes, I'm still upset about 8 passing. But while I know you're looking for reasoning behind the voters' decisions, you're barking up the wrong tree. There is absolutely no equivalence between the two cases. And regardless of the high percentage of non-white voters supporting prop 8, it was still old white people who got it passed. Try to focus on the group you're actually upset with.

Posted by wench | November 6, 2008 1:30 PM
30

@26, I think you meant to say "fustercluck".

Posted by Irena | November 6, 2008 1:37 PM
31

just because one proposition passed or failed doesn't mean another didn't deserve to pass or fail.

think of 119 Death with Dignity - it failed, while 120 Pro-Choice won, way back in 1992.

And yet, this year, we passed 1000 which is pretty much 119.

let's not get into a blame fest.

you were outspent - specifically by the Mormans.

well? are you going to blame people who voted for animals having rights? or the people who launched the anti-gay-marriage thing and actually CREATED the problem?

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 6, 2008 1:41 PM
32

I think you could rationalize the voting choice for humane conditions for food stock but against marriage rights for 'mos if you believe that marriage rights aren't part of the minimum standards needed for a decent, just society. Marriage - it's sooo 19th century.....

Posted by jackseattle | November 6, 2008 2:34 PM
33

#4: Oooooh, so edgy it hurts.

Posted by Jay | November 6, 2008 2:56 PM
34

maybe we need to step away from the chickens and focus on the real issue. Homosexuality is not THE issue, it is not even an issue. Homophobia is the issue. Pure and simple. Being a person of color is not the issue. Racism is the issue. Keep the conversation where it belongs. Stop being so afraid of the religious right. They own the gay community and they know it. They can say and do anything they want and the LGBT community will cower every single time. The religious right know this, sadly the LGBT community does not.

Posted by Ron | November 6, 2008 3:10 PM
35

I'm a gay vegetarian and I keep two Rhode Island Red hens in my front yard. The victory of Prop 2 was a comfort against the cold, calm despair of Prop 8. Don't pit these two issues against each other.

p.s. Please provide attribution for the image you lifted from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Female_pair.jpg

Posted by Matt | November 6, 2008 4:02 PM
36

@20:

France has this system. For government recognition, there is a civil ceremony. For those who choose to do so, they can arrange a religious ceremony as well, but the religious ceremony doesn't "count" for the civil recognition. It'd be nice to have here, but I think a lot of people would scream bloody murder if their pastor/priest/rabbi/minister/imam's blessing didn't carry the weight of government recognition.

Posted by St. M | November 7, 2008 12:40 AM
37

I would like to say thank you to @35. The two issues have nothing to do with each other. As a vegan I have said for years how do we expect people to show animals the care they deserve when we cannot even show respect to the human population that they deserve. I believe that gays should be considered as much a part of our nation and just as deserving of the same rights as any other human beings regardless of color, religion, or sexuality. The cold hard truth though is that they do have a voice and the ability to rally for those equal rights and animals do not. If the people with voices do not step up to the plate and speak in their defense then they have no hope. A quote that I read long ago by Jeremy Benthan(1748-1832) seems so appropriate "The question is not can they reason? Nor can they talk? But can they suffer? Please reconsider your attitudes about Prop 2 passing because if it had failed it would probably be a long time before it would have been recognized as a Prop again. Prop 8 not getting the attention it deserved is truly unfortunate yet I believe that your voices will be heard and it will come to pass that people will realize that being gay is not about being evil. Just as MLK said about seeing the day when this nation would not judge a man by his color but by his character. We all know that this has come to pass and so will the rights of all people to be who they are born to be and differences will be seen as a positive for our society and not a negative. Thank you.

Posted by Charlene | November 8, 2008 9:44 AM
38

Way to alienate so many people. Your clarifying udpate is confirming exactly what galls the animal rights/liberation community about the initial post: that you think moral consideration is contingent upon "humanity," an ill-defined term that has excluded women, people of color and the GLBTQ community at various points in history. Seriously, just take this post down already.

Posted by Alex | November 8, 2008 10:40 AM
39

Wow #38 was that meant for me? If so could you please explain to me exactly what you mean. Maybe I am dumb but I don't understand your post at all. I am sorry if I said something that personally offended you because it was not my intention to anger people. I have been an animal right advocate for many years as a memeber of HSUS and PETA. I voluteer at farm sanctuaries every vacation and leaflet every chance I get. So once again if the post is for me please explain your anger to me.

Posted by Charlene | November 9, 2008 8:56 AM
40

Charlene, that comment was meant for the original poster. I found your comment to be very thoughtful.

Posted by Alex | November 9, 2008 10:20 PM
41

What if you have a homosexual egg and the egg is a double-yolk? Would you hatch them? If you could not find out what you would do with the rest of the flock, how would you build a closet inside the Chicken Coop for the buzzard bird that laid THAT moron; even if it's a double-yolk? . . . All of these are intelligent ballot measures for the upcoming General Election in Twenty-Twelve! As a chicken you would surely want to "vent it out!" . . . So, VOTE . . . In fact, "Double-Yolk-Vote!" . . .

Posted by Sam DePecan | November 10, 2008 10:51 AM

Add Your Comments





Please click Post only once.