Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Savage Does the Old Gray Lady

Posted by on Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:05 AM

Savage in the New York Times yesterday today:

Social conservatives are threatening to roll out Arkansas-style adoption bans in other states. And the timing couldn’t be worse: in tough economic times, the numbers of abused and neglected children in need of foster care rises. But good times or bad, no movement that would turn away qualified parents and condemn children to a broken foster care system should be considered “pro-family.”

(Geez, Savage, take a day off. You're making the rest of us look bad.)

 

Comments (18) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Actually, it was in *today's* paper.
Posted by Balt-O-Matt on November 12, 2008 at 10:17 AM
2
Work to pass a law to end their right to proselytize children in taxpayer-supported, church-run orphanage/residential treatment centers. Separation of Church and State, people! It saves the kids from thinking Original Sin is responsible for their dickhead, abusive parents, and de-incentivizes movements like this to control their bodies and minds! These places are evangelical veal-crates, and need their tax funds revoked so secular organizations--who wouldn't pull this shit--won't continue to be underbid for state contracts. Get a clue!
Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' on November 12, 2008 at 10:21 AM
3
It is hard to save stupid people from themselves. Poor Arkansas!
Posted by clearlyhere on November 12, 2008 at 10:30 AM
4
We need to go on the offensive. Playing defence against bigots is exhausting. I guess we'll have to wait until a more just Supreme Court.
Posted by Vince on November 12, 2008 at 10:35 AM
5
No--don't wait. Catholic Charities, who makes the "abortion industry" out to be some genocidal cult, uses their tithings to get first dibs on all of the 'at risk' children in nearly every state. Perhaps a good name for this monopoly might be "the bastard trust". They hand out candy for learning bible verses. These kids grow up to be some of the most rabid fundamentalists, if for no other reason than being called 'ungrateful' by the people who exploited their pain. It helps them and helps you.
Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' on November 12, 2008 at 10:42 AM
6
Just so everyone knows....

Arkansas Initiative 1 Exit Poll (Ban lesbian/gay adoption and foster parenting):
http://i36.tinypic.com/sopw7l.jpg

White Men: 63% Yes, 37% No
White Women: 55% Yes, 45% No
African-Americans (all): 54% Yes, 46% No

Why are 54% of Arkansas African-Americans so ironic??
Posted by jrrrl on November 12, 2008 at 11:10 AM
7
Maybe people will finally believe those on the left and in the gay community who have been saying for years that the Evangelicals won't be satisfied with just restricting the rights of gays. They want to restrict the rights of anybody who doesn't fit their definitions of "marriage" and "family". When a straight couple in Arkansas gets denied being a foster parent, or gets their adopted child taken away from them, maybe they will finally realize what it feels like to be marginalized and denied the right to have a family, simply because of the label placed on you by others.

This law is terriying. I can only hope the threat of having their rights taken away will help bring more straights into the fight for LGBT equality. Because it is a fight for everyone's equality.
Posted by jamieatwork on November 12, 2008 at 11:11 AM
8
How Does Frizelle get any work done while sucking up to Dan?
Posted by Just Asking on November 12, 2008 at 11:20 AM
9
I would say that anyone who votes to ban adoption by gay parents should be required to take in foster kids, but Christ knows I don't want those people having access to any more children than they already do.
Posted by Darcy on November 12, 2008 at 12:02 PM
10
Why don't you take the advice and take a day off.

Might I suggest spending it with your son. After all, you were able to adopt him because you were going to be a father.

Near as I can tell, you treat him like an badge of credibility to get spots in the NYT and Colbert and Maher.

While DJ has been a boon to your career, how about throwing the kid a bone and actually spending some quality time with him.
Posted by ecce homo on November 12, 2008 at 12:05 PM
11
Fuck you, ecce. While he is a terrible journalist, he at least took the time and sacrificed to make a kid's life happy and worthwhile. More than most, and definitely more than you.
Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' on November 12, 2008 at 12:21 PM
12
There was a lag on the comments page, so I was able to read comment ten before the name of who wrote it popped up...and I knew it would be ecce homo. And I was right. Ugh.

Dan, if you're still in NYC, we're doing our Mormon protest tonight at the big LDS Temple in Lincoln Square. Stop by!
Posted by Joey the Girl on November 12, 2008 at 12:26 PM
13
troll, why is Dan a "terrible journalist"? His op ed was terrific and very persuasive. It helps to be completely right, but still. It was very well put.
Posted by Phoebe on November 12, 2008 at 12:42 PM
14
i have seen no evidence that dan is a bad or neglectful father. i get the impression that he and terry are doing a good and conscientious job of raising him, actually. someone as full of incoherent rage as ecce, on the other hand....didn't he say he had kids? yeesh.
Posted by ellarosa on November 12, 2008 at 12:47 PM
15
And how does ecce homo know how much time Dan spends with his kid? Lots of blogging can be done at home, after all. And even straight "normal" parents are allowed to have jobs, even jobs that require them to travel. Should long-distance truckers or train personnel or pilots not be allowed to be parents because they're sometimes away from home?
Posted by pastrychef on November 12, 2008 at 12:48 PM
16
Well, his op-ed was good, but its timeline suggested Dan's active involvement with gay rights stopped at around the time Matthew Shepard died--ten years ago. Not that this inherently makes the article bad, but that is the kind of stale engagement that caused activism to go corporate--the primary reason we lost on 8.
Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' on November 12, 2008 at 1:04 PM
17
The timeline you're dinging me for merely cites the big blow ups in gay activism over the last, oh, forty years. We haven't had an event like this, one that sparked a reaction like this, since Shepard's murder. That's why the list ends with Shepard's murder, TAIT. It's not that I haven't been paying attention. Sheesh.

And ecce? I love you, man.
Posted by Dan Savage on November 12, 2008 at 1:35 PM
18
I'm not looking for you to mention the events that pique the collective interest of the gay community, Dan; even Prop 8 didn't do that. When rights are eroded in a creeping fashion, a movement that needs fireworks and a chorus line to get its ass in gear is in serious need of a bitch slap. Civil rights catastrophes have their roots in boring little setbacks. I see the gay press jerk awake when shit like this goes down; but unless the solution involves some sort of party, most everyone feels content to wait until then.

These frantic reactions are the cause of all of the gaffes--racial and otherwise--and the cleanup is very frustrating for those of us for whom the phrase 'civil rights' signifies a process that is a good deal less fun. Engagement may be boring, but I'd rather not get my excitement from "big blow ups".
Posted by That annoying 'interest troll' on November 12, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy