http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/17/what-everyone-else-is-saying Comments On: What Everyone Else Is Saying by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:15:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Nick1]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:25:35 -0700 The Stranger
svinya @ 79 and @ 81.
Posted by kim in portland]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:22:41 -0700 The Stranger Posted by kim in portland]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:20:46 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Eleven Finger Freak]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:03:03 -0700 The Stranger Posted by kim in portland]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:35:14 -0700 The Stranger
It isn't that states believe that a 16 year old marrying someone older is vile and disgusting, it's the idea that there is a certain level of competence required to obtain such a contract. YOU might think a 16 year old getting married is disgusting, but that's largely how it happened up 'til the 70s. And those changes in laws are largely related to ensuring all girls get a full and proper chance at an education, so they limit their ability to get married so early. The comparison to "of age"/"underage" is merely in the realm of competence.

As to the comparison to marrying one's first cousin, again, that was a widely accepted norm. It was changed in light of a growing population. Governments both state and municipal felt it would do their population better to urge their residents to marry outside of their limited sphere. It was also rendered unnecessary, since choices were no longer limited to "comely first cousin, homely neighbor girl", so society felt it okay to say "no" outright in some places and cases.

DOMA is stupid. Stop being so DOMA.
Posted by Baconcat]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:31:06 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Theo Magyar]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:15:03 -0700 The Stranger http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2475/3635…
Posted by Rob in Baltimore]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:30:03 -0700 The Stranger
Sorry pal, Kevin's right and YOU'RE wrong. It's clear though that your words and your views result from a lifetime of being treated like a filthy, immoral animal so for that I'm truly sorry. But you have to do your best not to let these negative experiences cloud your view of the facts/reality because it's not helpful for advancing the cause.
Posted by Confluence]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:19:57 -0700 The Stranger http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd… Take some energy and channel it here to make sure this bill keeps going -anybody actually ever written any of those folks that supposedly rep you back east?

Posted by sasso]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:46:50 -0700 The Stranger
Brevity is the soul of wit. Please make a note.
Posted by blank12357]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:44:05 -0700 The Stranger
No, wrong.

If gay marriages are inherently okay, and vile and disgusting like incestuous ones, then the full faith and credit clause means that other states have to recognize them and DOMA is unconstitutional and illegal.

It's only if your position is that gay marriage IS vile and disgusting, aking to incest, that you can then say it's okay under the constitution for states to deny recognition thus it's okay for DOMA to tell states to deny recognition.

Let's stop pretending, okay? The notion that the federal government is just saying "well we're going to leave it up to the states on a state by state basis to decide that gay marriage is vile and disgusting we are agnostic on that so DOMA is okay" is the same, politically, as saying gay marriage is vile and disgusting.

And that's vile and disgusting no. 73.
Posted by PC]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:52:12 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Kevin Erickson]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:05:56 -0700 The Stranger
And maybe he calls people every day just to let them know that he never thinks about them and couldn't care less what's going on in their lives.

It would sure explain his bewilderment at finding so many gay topics at a gay blog, as well as why he'd have so many posts, in so many different threads, about how little he cares about the topic at hand.
Posted by Bonefish]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:33:10 -0700 The Stranger
And yes, as has been pointed out, the brief does "compare same-sex marriages" to the marriage of cousins, or of sixteen year olds, but only on the basis that some states approve those marriages and others do not and that difference from state to state is ok by the constitution. The DOJ doesn't make any argument about how same sex marriages are morally wrong like incestuous ones. I think Frank is right here; nothing to freak out about but it would have been nice if they'd presented that with a little more attention to underscoring the narrowness of that comparison.
Posted by Kevin Erickson]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:43:43 -0700 The Stranger
The brief makes the arguments that states can refuse to recognize marriages that take place in other states that are contrary to the public policy of the home state. To support this argument, it then cites multiple instances of states refusing to recognize marriages between family members performed in other states (aside: if you want to marry your hot opposite sex cousin, New Mexico is where to go...). In short, that is indeed drawing a legal analogy between marriage between cousins and marriage between two women (or two men).

In general, LGBT folks do need to continue to hold the current administration's feet to the fire. We've gotten a whole lot of promises that amounted to a whole lot of nothing before (i.e., the Clinton administration). I strongly supported Obama (primaries and general), but the campaign is over and we do not need to be reflexively deferential to everything he does. Interests groups have to flex their muscle in order to get results.
Posted by Anonnny]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:08:41 -0700 The Stranger
You might want to get out of your glass house. One can only recognize hypocrisy, because one realizes that they themselves are a hypocrite. And, before you climb up even higher on your high horse, and stare down your nose at the rest of us, remember it isn't I who calls you a hypocrite, it's Christ Himself through the Holy Spirit who said it in 1 John 1:1 8-10, Romans 2 and 3, Matthew 7: 1-5. Your hands are not clean, you are not pure, nor are you holy, you are but a lowly sinner with the rest of us. Your righteousness is not of your own doing, you received it by grace through salvation. Go and read the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18: 21-35), you who have received grace is commanded to give grace. Those who love much understand that they have been forgiven much. Blessed are the peacemakers, not those who come to stir up trouble.
Posted by kim in portland]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:56:58 -0700 The Stranger
From my background and current employment, I'm still connected with a number of super-conservatives of the type that think Obama is the anti-Christ and gays are destroying America. I can tell you that there is _nothing_ that will stop the amazing natural momentum of the gay rights movement right now state to state and drag it back into the endless infuriating stasis of accusation and culture wars than Obama getting out in front as the champion of gay rights. The Right will raise millions off that one act and it could catalyze strong opposition to all of the other amazing and *concrete* progressive policy currently being enacted. They fear and despise him, and they're looking for him to give them any excuse to be the Liberal Apocalypse Monster they think he is.

The Presidency is about the person holding the office - the decisions they've made and the way they make them influencing the course of our national future. That's why I was so afraid when Bush took office because of the havoc his destructive frat-boy history and immaturity could do at such a powerful, influential level. And he didn't disappoint.

I've been watching Obama for over two years now, looking closely at the way he operates and trying to decipher as best I can the motives for his political moves, and this DOMA/"gay betrayal" thing is so out of character as to raise serious doubts with me, especially given his campaign rhetoric which he's by and large been attempting to deliver on. He's just not the kind to bait and switch, or cut and run.

Given his political savvy, I can't shake the feeling that this isn't some kind of clumsy, naked act of cowardice or animus. I think he's OK with the outrage from the gay community if a) it will mean the further apathy and inaction of the Right, and b) it will stimulate the gay community to continue to build unstoppable demand from the bottom up (excuse the pun) for this change to happen, which, as far as I can gather, is his preferred scenario for real change.

I have friends and family members who are gay. The implications of what Dan has been covering on Slog are horribly disheartening and outrageous IF, big IF, Obama simply is being a coward. And I just can't read it that way yet.

Six months in, he's in the middle of an incredibly delicate healthcare negotiation that could embed more progressive health policy in our culture for generations, as well as attempting to steer the enormous bureaucracy and Bush-soaked conservative culture that is the military through shutting down two wars I just think it's way too early to call it like "coward" and "h8ter".
Posted by Paul Moment]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:49:38 -0700 The Stranger Posted by RDM]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:37:49 -0700 The Stranger I don't feel powerful though. I doubt Udall would agree with me anyway--but you never know, Colorado is more of a red hue of purple. As for Bennett, well he'll probably have a tough time holding onto the seat so I have no idea how he'll respond. Nobody in the state really knows who he is.

And honestly, I don't believe now is the right time for single-payer healthcare. So the inspiration I got from Will was genuine--he just helped me make up my mind. I wish I could say it was spite but alas no.
Posted by Mark in Colorado]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:34:25 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Mark in Colorado]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:28:35 -0700 The Stranger
If you're going to quote me at least get it right. I said that only an act of Congress could provide healthcare benefits to spouses of same sex couples--NOT the absurd memorandum that Fiercy signed today which was not part of his show anyway.

But thanks for the shout-out! Woohoo!
Posted by Mark in Colorado]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:23:37 -0700 The Stranger
but i must say mark, your delusions of power sure are entertaining!

(note to will, please come out AGAINST jetpacks for every american)


Posted by Cochise.]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:21:43 -0700 The Stranger I guess I just don't type fast enough at my 45yo age.

I agree with your comment completely. Well said.
Posted by Mark in Colorado]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:15:58 -0700 The Stranger Someone who works 10 to 12 or more hours a day digging ditches, welding steel, working with patients in a hospital, etc. isn't stupid and likely has fine critical thinking skills. Their priorities and experiences in life are quite different than yours or mine. As you grow older you'll see things are not so clean and tidy. Your expectations of others are idealistic and laudable. I'm starting to see more, through your writing and reading about your background and immersion in the non-profit world why there might likely be a communication disconnect between you and those whose lives revolve around just trying to get by day to day and who are susceptible to easy if not false sloganeering or arguments--not because they're lazy, but often times because they're not tuned into the issue, and it's not personal to them.

I'm not impressed by the actions of major gay legal groups. They are fallible like everything and everyone else.

Mostly, I believe you're missing the point. You're hung up with just the details of the legal brief and how you believe they're being misinterpreted. Many of us are concerned about the damage that could come from this as well as how we believe its being wrongly defended by those who would call themselves progressive or liberal. That's why I believe Pam Spaulding's posts are spot on and well reasoned.

Another problem is that you continue to support the new President while I do not and likely never will again. As a result this is a communication barrier that will make it difficult if not impossible for us to be in full agreement on this particular issue(s).

You're going to encounter many situations in life where intelligent people simply don't agree.
Posted by Mark in Colorado]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:10:33 -0700 The Stranger