http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2008/11/12/and_here_s_what_s_wrong_with_g Comments On: And Here's What's Wrong With Gay People... 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) Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:15:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by fuck you gay ppl]]> Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:34:42 -0800 The Stranger Posted by thedeem0n]]> Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:32:11 -0700 The Stranger Posted by thedeem0n]]> Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:12:44 -0700 The Stranger
Mike: If you need evidence of how the larger gay community marginalizes black gay people, how about how even after offering their help to fight prop 8, the black glbt leadership was ignored.

I have no doubt about the homophobia in the black community. You really can't imagine any other ways in which black gays are marginalized within the larger gay society?
Posted by hds]]> Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:46:07 -0800 The Stranger Posted by aelind]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:59:22 -0800 The Stranger
It's time for us to roll up our sleeves and join in the fight while we still have some left in us.
Posted by Seumas Gagne]]> Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:36:24 -0800 The Stranger
Gay marriage was legal in California and it's legal in Conn and Mass. No church in any of those states is/was compelled to marry gay people.

In any case, I'm not sure we disagree. We both want gay and straight people to have the options of (1) legal marriage and/or (2) holy matrimony.

And you're right about one thing: it needs to be conveyed to religious people who don't believe in gay marriage that this argument is one about option number 1, not option number 2.

Posted by Mike]]> Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:25:01 -0800 The Stranger
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/ has a clip of Anderson Cooper and Dan; scroll way down.

And while I take your point about some gays wanting holy matrimony, don't forget they can ALREADY have it if their churches believe in it - even if they cannot get legally married! (Likewise, most straight married couples I know - I'm a Brit - are not in holy matrimony. The two are already fully separate). Making sure voters understand we only want legislation on civil marriage - and that we in no way wish to compel churches to wed gays - could qualm evangelical fears.
Posted by tychus]]> Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:57:21 -0800 The Stranger
You aren't at a newspaper or a magazine. Indeed, this is a blog -- a blog called Slog.

In any case, does anyone know where I can see a clip of Dan's appearance on CNN? I'll look again on YouTube. But I don't have cable, so I missed it there.
Posted by Mike]]> Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:37:48 -0800 The Stranger Posted by not a lawyer]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:53:28 -0800 The Stranger
Holy COW, you rocked with Anderson Cooper. I'm a straight, middle-aged, boring, middle-class white woman who does not particularly care about gay marriage one way or the other (although I did vote against the initiative in Florida, but that's really just because anything my neighbors are in favor of I oppose by reflex)...but you made me care. I get it. Well done! You were brilliant. Terrific. Really, you just did an incredibly good job there of both defending your point and making Tony What's-his-name look like an idiot, and I wanted to congratulate you. I do feel as if I ought to know who you are, but I promise you that next time I will, and I'll look for your commentary eagerly. (And should there be anything I can do to promote gay marriage, I'll do my best.)
Posted by Sydnew]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:35:01 -0800 The Stranger
If my brothers and sisters in California feel insulted now, just wait until you get your marriage license refund in the mail along with an "apology for the inconvenience".

Basic human rights are should never be open to a vote of the public. Isn't that why we have a constitution?
Posted by Splinter]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:41:46 -0800 The Stranger Posted by cineman]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:21:35 -0800 The Stranger
Well put.
Posted by Mike]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:09:55 -0800 The Stranger Posted by BobN]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:03:11 -0800 The Stranger
Personally I think we need to turn the debate around and challenge the governments recognition of marriage period. By recognizing marriage and giving special consideration to those who are married, government discriminates against single and polygamous people. Single people have to pay more taxes to subsidize married people's tax breaks and benefits. For example: a single (or anyone not recognized as being married) person isn't allowed to name a beneficiary for their SS benefits, yet married peoples spouses automatically get to be beneficiaries. There are a lot of single people out there who are domestic partners with other single people (siblings, parents, friends) who get none of the domestic benefits that married people get.

It's time we live up to the promise of the second amendment, of the freedom of association and to be free from laws based on religious doctrine. And no one can rationally deny that the argument against same-sex marriage is anything but a religious argument.

Ok, so have it your way, marriage is a religious institution, therefore recognizing any marriage is in violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Remove it from all the law books.

Instead put into law the ability of individuals to name beneficiaries for their governmental and private benefits, and make such documents legally binding towards professions that provide a public service to recognize any relationship which is legally defined. Right now, same-sex couples and single people have to create legal documents to grant their partners or friends visitation rights or to make decisions in regards to medical issues in case they become incapacitated.

Force everyone to take an active role in deciding these relationships and planning for their retirement environment.
Posted by DodecaDragon]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:48:22 -0800 The Stranger
freedom of speech,
the right to vote,
due process of law,
equal protection of the laws, and
protection from unlawful discrimination.

The debate with prop 8 is whether or not it is discriminatory to not allow gay people to marry. I for one firmly think that it is discriminatory to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. Marriage is deeply tied to civil rights. The issue is one of discrimination and no American citizen should be discriminated against by the law, whether that person be of ANY class or group whatsoever. The legal issues gay people face every day are definitely issues about civil rights


Posted by scooter]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:27:20 -0800 The Stranger
I don't think it's us pointing at black people anymore. This current discussion is about gay people being able to compare the gay rights struggle to the "civil rights" struggle -- not about who was responsible for Prop 8. And it's about the accusation that gay people are intolerant as a group against black people and/or black gay people.

I've never taken the position that it was black people who were responsible for Prop 8 (it was ignorant people of many types).
Posted by Mike]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:16:52 -0800 The Stranger
About your comment: "Until other communities to which we also belong embrace us as their own too, black support for groups with a white majority will be hard won."

Honey, just because you're black doesn't mean you get to certify who's been oppressed.

This is a classic case of the oppressed become the oppressors.

So, you're voting to deny gay people the right to marry each other because -- because why?

That's the real question: what on earth do you suggest that gay people do to make the gay community "embrace" black people more as gay?

Please -- something specific. Not just abstract bitching. Give us something concrete, please.

Posted by Mike]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:13:45 -0800 The Stranger Posted by CAH]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:08:37 -0800 The Stranger
To the extent that black gay people have trouble exhibiting solidarity within the gay community, it's at least in part because of the extreme intolerance displayed against gays in the black community. And this comes from the same two things that cause intolerance in any group of people: religion and lack of education (and I don't necessarily mean "schooling" when I say education).

But -- I should clarify one thing. Not all black people are intolerant of gays because this isn't about race; it's about religion and education. I've rarely met a non-religious, educated person of any race who is intolerant of gays.

And I'm not saying that there aren't racist or racially intolerant gay people. Trust me -- I know there are. And unfortunately, some of the proof has been displayed on this message board.

But instead of just saying that gay people marginalize people of color, could you please tell us how? Because I don't see it as a widespread problem throughout the gay community.

I know I'm going to make enemies with this post. Because the tendency among progressive people is to never let someone deny that racism exists (which is not what I'm saying) or that racism is a systemic problem; it's totally not PC. But I also have to call a spade a spade.
Posted by Mike]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:58:48 -0800 The Stranger
White people fight for certain rights (voting for women) little is done to make sure those rights also include black people. That is why it is not only the gay community's struggle, but also feminism that black people have a hard time signing on to - we are not represented in the struggle. Our unique issues are rarely on the table when collective rights are sought.

Until other communities to which we also belong embrace us as their own too, black support for groups with a white majority will be hard won.
Posted by Stella]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:52:40 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Rob]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:34:08 -0800 The Stranger
You're simply wrong.

By way of example, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_…

"The leading scholar Ruediger Lautman however believes that the death rate in concentration camps of imprisoned homosexuals may have been as high as 60%. Homosexuals in camps were treated in an unusually cruel manner by their captors, and were also persecuted by their fellow inmates. This was a factor in the relatively high death rate for homosexuals, compared to other "anti-social groups". More recently however German state television channel Deutsche Welle updated this figure to "almost 55,000" deaths following the study of documents from archives in East Germany that had been inaccessible to researchers for decades after the war. After the war, the treatment of homosexuals in concentration camps went unacknowledged by most countries. Some that did escape were even re-arrested and imprisoned based on evidence found during the Nazi years."
Posted by Mike]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:26:37 -0800 The Stranger
You're right to see the distinction between "marriage" and "holy matrimony." In other words marriage for its personal/social meaning vs. marriage under a certain church or religion.

But remember that some gay people do have a church/synagogue/place of worship that accepts them. And they do want BOTH marriage and holy matrimony.

And keep in mind that a lot of straight people could care less about any religious meaning of marriage and really just get married for its important social meaning.

Since straight people are free to get married in a church or at the justice of the peach, so too should gay people be able.

That's not to say that gay people have ever argued that we should be able to get hitched in any particular church.


Posted by Mike]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:19:33 -0800 The Stranger