http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2008/11/24/they_didn_t_see_it_coming Comments On: They Didn't See It Coming 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) Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:00:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
"hey dan

tolerant?

pot... kettle... black..."

----
The above words are emblematic of the CONFUSION many here seem to have on this issue.

It's simple, people.

WAKE THE HELL UP:

ONE SHOULD NOT BE TOLERANT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE INTOLERANT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S CIVIL RIGHTS. END OF STORY.

Posted by David in Chelsea, MA]]> Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:57:22 -0800 The Stranger
Seems to be a lot of anger directed towards the Mormons, but would gay marriage supporters feel the same about polygamous marriages? Probably not. But why not? Seems to many of the same issues....
Posted by blaine]]> Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:56:41 -0800 The Stranger - Dan Savage

Great quote - love it.
Posted by entheogen blaine]]> Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:40:13 -0800 The Stranger
You wrote, "no successful civil rights leader or movement won by bowing and scraping before bigots, imploring them to change their minds."

You need to learn something about LBJ. Imploring bigots to change their minds is exactly what he did. JFK couldn't pass the civil rights act but LBJ could. How? By begging and pleading and cajoling and making all sorts of promises and paybacks to every bigoted Senator in the south. That's how it got done.

But I suppose back in the 60's you'd be the guy telling all the black people that they should wait another 15 years and "value their hate" in the meantime.

Also regarding MA and CT the gay community was all about dialog dialog dialog all the way through with all the groups they were trying to win over. The theme was definitely not, "our opponents need hard punishment and let's sing songs about making them suffer."

Posted by whatever]]> Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:50:38 -0800 The Stranger And did those Mormon's campaign against prop 8? Or did they vote for prop 8 because they are supposed to do what their 'prophet' tells them to do?

------------------------------------------------------------

There is a reason why gay people need to be aggressive towards Mormons.

For most Mormon's it doesn't matter how reasonable or compelling your arguments are. They will mostly agree with your arguments, feel genuinely sad about it, but in the end vote against gay rights and say "I'm sorry but we must do what the prophet tells us."

And they're not faking it. They're genuinely sad they had to do this, but they've been in this cult their entire life; taking orders from the leader is hard-wired into their brains now, and it cannot be changed except for those of the younger generations.

Which means there is only one way to get the Mormons to vote for gay rights.

It has to come from the leader.

The leader will only encourage the followers to vote for gay rights if not voting for it becomes a threat to his church.

That's why we need to be aggressive towards Magic Underpants Inc.

Posted by tvs]]> Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:51:00 -0800 The Stranger
Big badass talk is all fine on blogs but it isn't the real world.

get a clue.
Posted by ROFLMAO]]> Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:46:24 -0800 The Stranger
I actually am totally cool with millions not finding resolution. Of course, enlightenment is preferable, but it actually tends to follow a forced change - hence, in MA attitudes towards same-sex marriage got better AFTER the change was imposed by the courts, not before. Mostly because people could see that the world didn't end. Kind of like the North changing their attitudes toward blacks AFTER a huge, bloody, horrendous war imposed on them by their government and an executive order (not a referendum) liberating slaves. After, after, after. Never before. It's sort of like taking a kid to kindergarten - he's scared shitless but you drag him in there kicking and screaming and give him some crayons, and then in a few days he's totally fine with it.

And you know what? I'm sure there are plenty of people (millions) who still oppose interracial marriage, giving women the vote, etc. etc. In fact, I'm pretty sure a majority of US citizens felt that interracial marriage was wrong until 1991, when the scales tipped. (Trying to find the source.....). Should we have waited that long to finally change the law?

I say fuck 'em. I'll take an illusory victory that gives me rights any day over some mamby-pamby "let's all move forward together" crap that means I get second-class rights while I wait for hostile dumbfucks to die off or catch up. I'm sorry, but I'm just gonna have to hurt their feelings to get this done.
Posted by Yeek]]> Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:17:28 -0800 The Stranger Arafat was not.

Lincoln skillfully led the Nation to come to see the Civil War as a crusade to end Slavery but was careful not to get too far in front of what the (Northern) public would accept. Northern attitudes towards blacks advanced greatly from 1860 to 1865, due to Lincoln's wise leadership.
Lincoln was actually very generous with the South considering the circumstances. It was a terrible loss to the Nation but esp to the defeated South that he was not able to lead us thru Reconstruction.

The danger is not that the rulings will be overturned but that they will stand, ala RoevWade, terminating the process midway without resolution in the minds of millions.

Any 'victory' won without bringing the hearts and minds of the nation along will be illusory.
Posted by My Name Here]]> Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:43:06 -0800 The Stranger
Yes, yes, I agree that there is no MLK in our camp. Maybe a few Malcolm X types at best, but the point is the same: no successful civil rights leader or movement won by bowing and scraping before bigots, imploring them to change their minds. They won by a show of potential force and very harsh criticism, and by playing hardball.

Um...Lincoln brought the nation along with him, after he kicked the living shit out of the dissenters and literally forced them to submit. He's a terrible example if you're advocating "peaceful and respectful dialogue." I mean, he did, but only after physically obliterating the other side.

As far as the courts go, we'll see. I don't think those decisions will be overturned in MA and CT. Many civil rights decisions made by courts that still stand today were contrary to the majority of public opinion at the time.


Posted by Yeek]]> Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:16:56 -0800 The Stranger
There is no MLK in the anti-Prop 8 camp.

Only Bull Conner.

And gains won from judges in the face of public opinion are bitter and short term.
Lincoln knew you had to bring the nation along with you.
Harry Blackmun didn't care.
We now have a black President.
But abortion remains an oozing open wound because RoevWade shortcircuited the process of forming a national consensus.

MA and CT and CA gains given by Leftist judges against the expressed desire of the citizenry infuriate the public and set back the advance of Gay Civil Rights.

Cheaters never prosper.
Posted by ColdHardTruth]]> Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:57:43 -0800 The Stranger
Actually, the battle in CT and MA was won via the courts, not by appealing to people who voted in a referendum to remove rights that were already in existence. The Mormons (who went out of their way to pick this fight) are a coherent entity in the CA case that was essentially absent in those other two states. The same strategy that worked in MA and CT won't work here (in fact, it already failed).

I think you're going for the darkest hyperbole possible as far as my comments go. I said I would rather wait 15 years than kiss the ass of pious bigots to win tomorrow. I didn't say anything against dialogue in legislatures, and I didn't say I regretted CT and MA couples getting married. I'd be thrilled if the battle ended tomorrow. So please, stick to the topic at hand.

Intimidation and humiliation work - take a look at ACT UP. Even MLK's rallies intimidated by the sheer enormity of their size and humiliated by underscoring the disgraceful beliefs of the opposition. Sure, he was a dignified guy, and broadcast a message of reconciliation. But you didn't see him reaching out to entrenched bigots to change their mind. He didn't ingratiate himself before the people who loathed him. He stated his case, and stayed proud, and the sympathetic came to him - not the reverse. That's how he won.

As far as hatred goes, I think it might as well be in the open. And yes, it does serve us well when our foes are honest and intense about it. Look how it's galvanized our community - that never happened with mealy-mouthed appeals to "loving everyone even when you don't agree with them" that most churches mumble out. The LDS church has empowered the gay community tremendously by putting their hate on display. And you know what? Fred Phelps and Anita Bryant actually helped gay rights in the end because they were so brazenly caustic. And, on flip side, the Mormon community will benefit from naked expression of our anger too. Semi-isolated communities thrive when there's a little bit of a siege going on. When there's no sense of outside menace, religious movements become moribund quickly.

When we've achieved our goal, then hatreds can fade back into the easy disdains that make life so much more pleasant but so much less productive.

Lastly, I very much believe in punishing the system if it cannot be changed directly. That includes the LDS church, the No on 8 leaders who did an ineffective job, and those people in California who turned against us. It is far better to be feared and hated than only hated. And with a little pressure, you may get a diamond in the end.
Posted by Yeek]]> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:54:28 -0800 The Stranger
sometimes i come away from reading slog comments all tensed up.

Posted by onion]]> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:45:29 -0800 The Stranger "what ever happened to democracy?..."

Answer- In California (and about 35 other states) it amended the Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.

Satisfied?

No?

So sorry-

Maybe your foul mouthed bigoted tantrum will make you feel better.

Only thing sadder than a sore loser is a bitter eaten-up-with-hate sore loser.
But a loser, never the less.
Posted by MommaTaughtYouBetter]]> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:11:11 -0800 The Stranger
"...and make it obvious you own their territory...."

Hey, SunTzu, did you notice they just nuked the homosexual Motherland (aka California) with a Constitutional Amendment?

You've got'um on the run now!

moron
Posted by CanYouSeeMyEyesRolling?]]> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:26:35 -0800 The Stranger
People like Yeek not only blame Mormons, they call for 'hard punishment' and suffering. In comment 38 he says he values hating them.

Maybe he fantasizes about bringing all the Mormons together, maybe in some kind of camp out in the countryside?
Posted by whatever]]> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:12:59 -0800 The Stranger Blaming Mormons for Prop 8 sounds a lot like Hitler blaming the Jews for everything he saw wrong in the world.

Where is the boycott of Catholics, Evangelicals, Orth.Jews, Black Churches, Latinos, Blacks, etc etc; the folks who actually voted to pass Prop 8??

just blame the dirty Jews-- oops-- I mean Mormons.
Posted by Your Name Here]]> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:02:45 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ya'Know]]> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:57:54 -0800 The Stranger Posted by JustSayin']]> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:50:54 -0800 The Stranger
At a minimum, you need to try and imagine that people who disagree with you on gay marriage don't despise you. A lot of folks out there have complex feelings about us gays - maybe they're ok with us serving in the military or being able to file a joint tax return, while not being so ok with us adopting kids, for instance.

I'm not sure where you see humiliation and intimidation. Perhaps you need to seek counseling for paranoia. And perhaps for anger management. And leave the business of advancing gay rights to adults.
Posted by jordan]]> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:30:07 -0800 The Stranger
But I'm sure you regret all those MA and CT couples enjoying their rights. Like you wrote, you would prefer to wait 15 years and keep bashing rather than see the constructive dialogue we saw in legislatures of the northeast.

Nah, make them SUFFER, right? Just like Margaret Cho sang in her song.
Posted by whatever]]> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:21:27 -0800 The Stranger
Two things - First, I'm not a gay rights activist.

Second - I didn't say I was "happy" to put of gay marriage for 15 years. I said I would rather wait 15 years than debase myself by extending an olive branch towards dishonorable people who despise me. Winning at the expense of grovelling for acceptance is not worth it. Let others cravenly plead with Mormons to "please, please reconsider." I will not do it.

I would much rather humiliate and intimidate. It's worked so well for them. And mark my words - that is how this fight will be won.
Posted by Yeek]]> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:49:12 -0800 The Stranger
When I was 15, around 1958, I was hiking in the Henry Mountains in Utah, we came across two old guys who scratched out just enough gold to go into Hanksville for flour and bacon every week. One of them said he was 60 and too old to get married and the other said he was 40 and too young to get married. I was too naive to wonder how they passed those cold Utah winter nights…
Posted by Big Billy Goat Gruff]]> Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:08:59 -0800 The Stranger
I didn't draw a parallel with the Holocaust.
Posted by mike]]> Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:57:20 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Guy]]> Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:16:17 -0800 The Stranger
Talk about boneheaded. You're the one relying on false equivalence to make your point. Children often do.
Posted by whatever]]> Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:30:07 -0800 The Stranger