Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Saturday, November 15, 2008

What I Wish I'd Said on Larry King Last Night

Posted by on Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:30 PM

Well, amongst other things: When political attacks are launched from churches, political responses will be delivered to churches. If goddamned McDonald's had organized and paid for Prop 8, we'd be marching on goddamned McDonald's.


Comments (63) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Makes sense to me.
Posted by Utah Democrat on November 15, 2008 at 5:44 PM · Report this
The fact it even has to be explained explains how dumb some bits of America are.
Posted by Joe on November 15, 2008 at 5:45 PM · Report this
Holy shit.
Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber on November 15, 2008 at 5:46 PM · Report this
Missed you today - how did the airline sit-in work out?
Posted by Jaxxi Hax on November 15, 2008 at 5:51 PM · Report this
Well, at least now you know how the media will spin this protest movement in order to marginalize it: "Gays attack decent, god-fearing Americans in their places of worship. Film at eleven."

I am so freaking fed up with people hiding behind their damn churches, acting like it's secular society who declared war on them and not the other way around.
Posted by flamingbanjo on November 15, 2008 at 5:51 PM · Report this
I love McDonalds.
Posted by Mr. Poe on November 15, 2008 at 5:52 PM · Report this
Joy Behar was so friendly it may have been tough to get a head of steam going. If it had been crusty puzzled Larry himself you might have had something to kick against and come up with that on the spot. Still, it was nice. You'll have a chance to say it on teevee soon.
Posted by tomasyalba on November 15, 2008 at 5:53 PM · Report this
I wish Slog would go back to gay news plus other news. This is getting old.
Posted by The CHZA on November 15, 2008 at 5:59 PM · Report this
& when wars are declared from the white house, from congress, or from the un, should all enemy bombing responses be delivered back to the sender?
Posted by mb on November 15, 2008 at 6:01 PM · Report this
mb, not that you don't know, but just to confirm - Prop 8 is domestic political activity, not international military activity.

in news of bright people, Wanda Sykes finally came out, in a speech at a rally today.
Posted by tomasyalba on November 15, 2008 at 6:08 PM · Report this
westlake mall upset me: they were asking people with signs to leave. the guy next to me on the balcony had a huge american flag that he let over the edge, and i was helping hold the other side. a security guard came up and asked up to leave or remove the flag. he said westlake does not allow protests for or protests against anything on their property.

it upset me even more to think of how many people were going to eat at westlake today, and to think so much money is going to them, but they cannot take a obvious stand on such a clear issue.

i know it's private property -- but in this town? does westlake support equal rights or not?
Posted by infrequent on November 15, 2008 at 6:12 PM · Report this
You know I'd been calling the Constitution of California a rather trivial document, as constitutions go. And then the Wikipedia says that it was amended over 500 times in the 20's and 30's!

I mean, Prop 8 is a problem, but come on. Amend the fucker some more. It's clearly not that hard to do. Not like it would be with a steady, faithful Constitution. This is more of a love you long time, be your wife tonight, by bye tomorrow kind of Constitution.
Posted by elenchos on November 15, 2008 at 6:15 PM · Report this
Is this on the youtubes yet?
Posted by Tapedshoes on November 15, 2008 at 6:17 PM · Report this
Is the Mormon Church's involvement a violation of Separation of Church and State? If so, why haven't we heard about any organization happening that's aimed at taking away or at least threatening their tax-exempt status?
Posted by gar on November 15, 2008 at 6:19 PM · Report this
You'll get it next time. And now it'll be in your head, so you'll remember it.

Also, I finally got around to reading your election reaction mini-article, and you won't miss anything by going to Colorado instead of Utah for snowboarding. Summit County has several great places to go (I used to like going to Keystone, although I'm a skier and far from an expert at this sort of thing) and voted heavily blue...
Posted by Abby on November 15, 2008 at 6:26 PM · Report this
I second the youtube request. I'd really like a link.
Posted by thebeckaboo on November 15, 2008 at 6:30 PM · Report this
gar: violation? "Separation of Church and State" is a slogan and -- to some -- an organizing principle. It is not, itself, in any way a law.

The actual laws around churches and political organizing are pretty complex, and it's far from clear that the LDS has broken any. The constitution prohibits the state from recognizing any particular religion, but that does not conversely forbid churches from political activity. In theory the various federal and state tax codes require that churches refrain from explicitly endorsing political parties or slates or lose their exempt status, but it's a maze of twisty legislation and historically the courts have given churches incredibly wide latitude, for a bunch of obvious reasons not least being that the first amendment applies to pastors as well as protesters.
Posted by Doctor Memory on November 15, 2008 at 6:34 PM · Report this
why did you spread the "black folks voted for prop 8" lie? you are a BIGOT.
Posted by california voter on November 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM · Report this
How is it a lie? 70% of the black vote was "yes"
Posted by The CHZA on November 15, 2008 at 6:39 PM · Report this
Sitting together by the fire. Wrapped up in each other's arms. Never straying from home. Not having 115 encounters per person.

This is the beauty of Gay Marriage.

Imagine all Gay People in Seattle being married. No more hustling around 3rd avenue or stopping their cars near the bus stop catty corner from Ross to pick up street kids.

50 year old gay art directors would be married to each other -- they wouldn't be using their status and position to grab young gay men and exploit them by inviting them in to "see their Apple G5".

Posted by John Bailo on November 15, 2008 at 6:39 PM · Report this
Actually, it was the black preacher on LKL that went on and on about how black folks voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8.
Posted by Dan Savage on November 15, 2008 at 6:41 PM · Report this
does he look just as dead in person?
Posted by Alan D on November 15, 2008 at 6:43 PM · Report this
infrequent @11, westlake plaza - the park south of Pine Street - is a public square. The shopping mall/office tower north of Pine is all privately owned, and the owners have always been asswipes about political expression. Security escorted out "No On Iraq" button wearers and sign holders who took the monorail to the protests a couple years ago.

For what it's worth, the owners also have a couple hundred other malls around the country and are desperate to sell as many off as they can, including Westlake, to avoid insolvency. They do not give a rat's ass.
Posted by tomasyalba on November 15, 2008 at 6:43 PM · Report this

There's Dan on Anderson Cooper last night.

Thanks for being a fierce advocate for us, Dan!
Posted by adric10 on November 15, 2008 at 6:44 PM · Report this
i know it is private property. it still upsets me. they had extra security out there to make sure no protesting took place on their side of the street. yet, i'm sure they were very glad to welcome those same protesters inside for some lunch. we were going to eat there, but went down to the market instead. (better food anyway.)
Posted by infrequent on November 15, 2008 at 6:49 PM · Report this
Infrequent, this might make you feel a bit better: The current owner of Westlake Center (General Growth Properties) is in serious financial trouble and is likely headed toward bankruptcy. Westlake Center is for sale and should have a new owner, with new management policies, within 90 days.

Once I stopped for coffee while walking my dog in front of that Starbucks and those security fuckers told me dogs aren't allowed in the park in front of the mall.

Good on you for voting with your lunch money today.
Posted by lemon pie on November 15, 2008 at 7:00 PM · Report this
Not only did that black preacher press how awesome it was that blacks voted for the measure en masse, he also denied that younger black people voted against it by the same margins. Luckily for him, Gay Marriage will never be legal in his fantasy land.
Posted by Chris in Tampa on November 15, 2008 at 7:12 PM · Report this
Sitting together by the fire. Wrapped up in each other's arms. Never straying from home. Not having 115 encounters per person.

This is the beauty of Troll Marriage.

Imagine all Trolls in Seattle being married. No more hustling around 3rd avenue or stopping their cars near the bus stop catty corner from Ross to pick up street kids.

50 year old troll art directors would be married to each other -- they wouldn't be using their status and position to grab young trolls and exploit them by inviting them in to "see their Apple G5".
Posted by Bohn Jailo on November 15, 2008 at 7:19 PM · Report this
So, I was sitting at home in my underwear watching my favorite show, "American Gladiators", and I got this itch up in my ass, you know, way up in there. And I was thinking that, hey, I just went to the store, and I got lots of bananas and cucumbers, and maybe I should stick one of them up my ass and really get that itch. You know, scratch it real good. But then I got to thinkin', I wonder if I should use a banana, 'cause it's got a tapered end and might go in real easy, or should I use a cucumber? It's one of those English cucumbers, you know, real long, and I could really get up there and scratch that itch. So what do you think? Should I use a banana, or a cucumber?
Posted by Olaib Nohj on November 15, 2008 at 7:22 PM · Report this
tee hee
Posted by onion on November 15, 2008 at 7:44 PM · Report this
Ok ya'll - ew gross, the LDS First Presidency issued another proclamation yesterday, acting all pissy about "attacks on churches."
Yes Dan your statement would do real nicely against this gross bullshit...

"...Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues. People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal. .."…
Posted by onion on November 15, 2008 at 8:16 PM · Report this

You have the right to speak; and we have the right to reply. If you are getting all sorts of scared about that reply, sign-up for one of your own butch-up, ex-gay programs.

And, yes, people of bigot faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public sphere; and gay people, often of faith, do as well. But you don't have the right to use our government as the moral police for your very particular version of morality. Get your church to do that.

And fuckin kudos to the people of the Castro for throwing the thumpers out of their hood last night!!
Posted by jimmy on November 15, 2008 at 8:37 PM · Report this
@31: He's right that church members have the right to express their opinions without fear of reprisals inasmuch as they have a right to not be physically assaulted or intimidated. He's wrong that his Church has any kind of special right to not have people stand outside in a pubic thoroughfare holding signs and exercising their First Amendment rights, or to vocally criticize his church in whatever way they see fit through whatever media they choose. If anyone truly is committing vandalism or assault then they are breaking the law and should answer for it, but I notice a conspicuous lack of specifics on that front coming from the LDS people.

I'm sure they can point to a spray-painted wall somewhere. Oh, the horror. Now they must spend a few dollars from their untold tax-free billions to pay someone to repaint the wall. Will their cruel persecution and martyrdom never cease?
Posted by flamingbanjo on November 15, 2008 at 8:38 PM · Report this
@31 here -
just to make myself clear - i think that everything in the quote I posted from the LDS website is bullshit. there may be parts of it that "make sense" but it is all spoken from the wrong place. everything that comes out of the mouth of the LDS leadership on gay issues is bullshit. everything. their "LDS Newsroom" is absolutely frightening.

What the quote basically says is that their people should have the right to vote their religion into any constitution. holy fuck.

More bullshit: the backlash against prop 8 is 99.9% peaceful. it is a legal, APPROPRIATE and even beautiful response (I was there today in the march). However, LDS trumps up "attacks" in their recent statement. i call bullshit.
Posted by onion on November 15, 2008 at 9:25 PM · Report this
LKL was extremely difficult for me to watch last night. I was just so angry at the two pastors for spouting such nonsensical bullshit. Practically every word out of their mouths was completely illogical or an outright lie. I felt like if I had been in the same room with them, I wouldn't have been able to restrain myself from physically assaulting them.

I thought Dan did a good job and all (you showed phenomenal restraint), but I was just disgusted by the "have to present both sides of the argument" spectacle. The only thing that consoles me is it's only a matter of time before gay marriage becomes a reality, since these fucking idiots will all be dead in 30 years.
Posted by Julie in Chicago on November 15, 2008 at 10:05 PM · Report this
For all the shit that Dan gets here for spouting whatever bullshit crosses his mind, he does a great job on virtually every Television appearance. Whether people correcting him on Slog actually causes him to rethink his opinions, or he already knows what's actually in bounds, he never once crossed a line, and presented his argument the best out of everyone else in the debate.
Posted by Chris in Tampa on November 15, 2008 at 10:16 PM · Report this
@36. Agreed. Oddly enough, it's actually similar to the thing that I first admired about Obama, which is that when he was debating Alan Keyes for the senate seat in 2004 he was actually able to deal with the crazy in a constructive and reasonable way. Poise in the face of complete idiocy is not a skill I possess.

(Note: Possibly asking Tony Perkins if he prays to Jesus with that mouth was the exception in that it was neither constructive nor reasonable, but it sure was funny)
Posted by Julie in Chicago on November 15, 2008 at 10:31 PM · Report this
It was pretty chaotic, but its difficult to score many points with 5 talking heads yakking away (counting Joy Behar).
Posted by MarkyMark on November 16, 2008 at 12:10 AM · Report this
does anyone have a link to the video of this? i missed the replay.
Posted by jayme on November 16, 2008 at 5:40 AM · Report this
I also fifth, sixth whatever the request for a video link. Checked youtube and the link at with no luck. Hopefully someone out there has a way to get it on the web.

Good for you Dan for working so hard on making your valid views known. You never know who you may have caused to think or reconsider after those debates.
Posted by Paul on November 16, 2008 at 8:22 AM · Report this
"I'm in my Martyred Glory, aaaaaaamen"

I guess that's what happens when all you have left to do is cry fucking victim. Stop hiding behind cancerous hate and judgement. Stop using the church. Get some fucking balls and start paying attention to the goddamn world and the people that live in it.
@32, yes.
Posted by 4f...sake on November 16, 2008 at 9:10 AM · Report this
@8 I tend to think of this not as "gay news" but as "freedom of religion" and "equal rights" news. Those two things are hugely important to me, a straight white man, and that's why I marched in San Francisco yesterday. The fact that citizens of the US voted in a secular election to give non-equal rights to other citizens based on a religious text is huge news in my opinion, and the fact that this is being framed as a "gay issue" does a huge disservice to the magnitude of the issue.
Posted by scott on November 16, 2008 at 9:23 AM · Report this
The link request is seventhed. You'd think parliamentary procedure would pull some weight here.
Posted by idaho on November 16, 2008 at 10:45 AM · Report this
I can't find a video, but here's a transcript:…

Posted by Don on November 16, 2008 at 4:19 PM · Report this
Dan, I'm impressed by all that you DID say this last week. Thanks.
Posted by alion on November 16, 2008 at 5:46 PM · Report this
There are people who are with you. And they know your point is right.

There are people who are against you. And they will never be persuaded, no matter how logical your arguments nor eloquent your presentation.

And there are those in the middle, who are open to learning the facts. To these folks, Dan came across as level-headed, with some very valid points to make. To these folks, the ministers, and Tony Perkins, came across like the morons they really are. They didn't have any logic behind any of their arguments. It sounded to me like when my mom would say, "Because I'm the mommy, and I said so, and that's the end of it."

So even though I screamed at the TV when Tony was speaking, I'm glad Dan was in the chair and not me. Good on you, Dan! Let's keep giving Tony and the other preachers the opportunity to show how bigoted and moronic (or Mormonic???) they really are.

Posted by VenturaBob on November 16, 2008 at 9:00 PM · Report this
And I wish you had said that atheists are granted marriage licenses by the state...and their marriages weren't revoked. I wish you'd asked who was going to pay to have all marriages in California reviewed to find the less obvious "afronts" to their religious deifinition of marriage, for example people who think God is make believe and yet are "married".

You can look for two girls or two guys on a license, that's easy. How do you look for people who laugh at religion as mumbo jumbo, revoke their "marriages" and force them into civil unions? A little silly to call everyone listed as married in California.
Posted by Kane on November 17, 2008 at 6:51 AM · Report this
One last note....In a nut shell America has moved from freedom of religion to religion by democracy.

I feel horrible for people seeking a same sex marriage that have faith.
Posted by Kane on November 17, 2008 at 7:29 AM · Report this
In case anyone is interested, Westlake isn't "anti" anything, per se... They need to be assholes about all protesters for legal reasons. Recent legal decisions were very clear that in order for Westlake to maintain that the inside of the mall is exclusively private property, and not a quasi-public right-of-way (such as for folks going from the street to the monorail), they need to establish their zero tolerance for public demonstrations -- whether they like them or not.

I assume that if they actually hated the protesters from Saturday, they would have kicked out all the folks "loitering" on the balcony and tables who weren't actually shopping or eating food court items. They're picky about signs for a reason.
Posted by Mickymse on November 17, 2008 at 10:03 AM · Report this
I finally managed to find your LKL appearance online Dan. Thanks you for all of your television appearances this past week. The gay and lesbian community needs someone of your eloquence to remain as visible as possible. The fact that the two "Yes on 8" guests that Joy had on the show could not formulate their thoughts as well as you proves to me that there is a hidden agenda of discrimination beyond their politically correct reasoning (defending marriage, protecting family). We are on the right side of this issue. Keep letting people know.
Posted by Zach on November 17, 2008 at 10:26 AM · Report this
zach, can you add the link to the show for the rest of us?
Posted by jayme on November 17, 2008 at 10:58 AM · Report this
To Onion #34:

Your summation of the LDS newsroom statement is one of those statements that helps to propagate ignorance and instills hate and fear toward the LDS church . . . and, as I keep saying, when you're fighting the fight of intolerance, the last thing people want to see is hypocrisy.

You said that, "what the [LDS Newsroom] quote basically says is that their [the LDS] people should have the right to vote their religion into any constitution." That's quite a summation.

Here's the best way I can lay it out for you and everyone else . . . People voluntarily attend the LDS Church and become members. The Church has specific doctrines that disagree with same-sex marriage. The Church asks its members to support the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. Some members will have already felt strongly about this issue and would have already supported the campaign regardless of the direction of the church. Some may not have felt strongly about this issue and will have either taken the church's counsel or used their agency to decide what they want to do. Others still will have decided that they do NOT support the Yes on 8 campaign and choose not to donate or vote the way the Church asked. The church can definitely advocate a certain stance on an issue. The church itself did not spend money toward the campaign. The LDS church did not create the proposition in the first place.

I do not see anything undemocratic about this process. Not to get too long-winded, but if there was a religion out there who's main basis of faith was that a homosexual lifestyle was the most supreme form of existence . . . and then this religion advocated supporting the No on 8 campaign, and encouraged their members to vote accordingly, would there have been an issue with the separation of church and state for this religion? I doubt it because the members there would have already understood this position, they would have voluntarily joined this religion because of this and other doctrines that they already agreed with.

The LDS church has always had this stance on same-sex marriage. Most members should have been aware of this. When asked to support this ballot, some members did, others didn't. The church did not regulate voting ballots of members and members themselves did not vote for this Prop out of fear of church reprisal. The Church did not cross the line between church and state.

Now, as a quick side note, I do understand that there is a possible excommunication of a man in Nebraska for his involvement in supporting the No on 8 campaign. First of all, I would like to point out that a disciplinary council is usually not a first step in dealing with such issues. I don't want to speculate on this man or his life, but just remember that the LDS church always keeps clergy confidence and most times when someone's membership has been called into question, they will tell everyone that it was for unjustified, minimal reasons and the church, in keeping the confidence, will not outline the full reasoning of the excommunication. Also, the purpose of excommunication is not meant to forever tarnish an individual. The reason this happens every once in a while is to give someone a chance to realize that they can't continue as a member of the church while living contrary to the LDS belief system. Once someone is excommunicated, they are highly encouraged to return, repent and be re-baptized if it is their desire to come back.

I would definitely appreciate it if we could discuss the acceptance of all people without targeting groups, slandering their way of life, and spreading ignorance.
Posted by Esther Perry on November 17, 2008 at 11:22 AM · Report this
Can someone explain to me why we are not going after the church's tax-exempt status? Are there law suits in process? If not, why?
Posted by Marisa, Straight Vanilla Soccer Mom on November 17, 2008 at 12:03 PM · Report this
I must confess. I have used an article of yours a few times here at a university in Germany. It was a "Dear Abby" article about the sister who wants to bring the S&M slave to the Xmas dinner table and the other one was about the woman suddenly giving his coworker a blowjob after him saying that his grandmother had just died and should she tell her husband. It's fun as students try to discern how this article is "classworthy" of the course "American Newspapers" but it is. I can't believe I get paid sometimes to teach students other words for sperm. Thanks, dude and keep on keepin on!
Posted by Englischlehrer on November 17, 2008 at 12:26 PM · Report this
Did you read Protesters Target Supporters of Gay Marriage Ban By Ashley Surdin @…

There are two statements, one of them was paraphrased but the other's word for word, by a Mormon spokesman which really get me where he say's that they are not in favor of civil unions in all cases -he's talking about efforts to improve the quality of life of LGBT citizens in Utah.
Posted by Austin_gay on November 17, 2008 at 12:29 PM · Report this
If this is war, and you are not a pacifist, then why not dish out something of theirs for a majority vote? If protests at the church gates aren't meant to make them mad and think twice, then why not do something even tougher, but just as legal as what they are doing to us? Fight fire with fire.

If you want to make them think twice before going any farther, than wage real war. Quit going half-way.

My suggestion: Put an initiative on the ballot to prohibit any organization from "baptism by proxy" or its legal equivalent. In the seagull shrine this refers to a practice of having one of their members baptize, for example, another living person, perhaps a family member who is not a member, thereby putting their name on their mecca genealogical list as well as making them "eligible" for mormon heavan. They do the same thing with dead people. All of this is done without the permission of the living person or family of the deceased. They have no right to subject anyone to their practices without that person's permission. or that of the family of a deceased.

The jewish community has protested this practice for years. The mormons have been baptizing and "registering" the jewish deceased of the holocaust without permission and never carried out any agreement to either stop or "undo" it. Years from now there will be records showing that everyone [except gays?] killed in the holocaust was a mormon. It wouldn't be hard to get a majority to vote that this cannot be done without permission.
Posted by Thominaz on November 17, 2008 at 2:50 PM · Report this
Posted by setya on November 17, 2008 at 3:20 PM · Report this
@56: Good luck getting that one to stick. Separation of church and state is a GOOD thing, remember?
Posted by Greg on November 17, 2008 at 3:57 PM · Report this
To Thominaz #56:

The church firmly believes in the practice of Baptism for the Dead, but this practice is not carried out exactly as you have described. We firmly believe that, "The law of agency is inviolate in this world and the world to come. Thus, those served by proxy have the right to accept or reject the ordinances" (…). Just because someone is baptized by proxy does not mean that they are automatically branded with a "Mormon" stamp on their forehead . . . we believe that the baptism is performed so that that individual has the opportunity in the afterlife to accept the baptism if they so choose.

And, in reference to your comment about the Holocaust victims, it may interest you to see what the church is really doing in regards to the victims of the Holocaust. You can read it here:…

Or, if you're not interesting in taking a few moments and clicking over, I'll just quote the article for you.

"The Church stands by its word. It has no intention of performing baptisms or other rites in its temples for Holocaust victims, except in the very rare instances where such people may have living descendants who are members of the Church. Such exceptions were noted and agreed to in 1995. The understanding reached in 1995 determined that the Church would remove Holocaust names from its public database immediately, which the Church has done. It further said that Jewish groups would provide to the Church any names that reappeared on the database so the Church could remove them. The Church cannot understand why Mr. Michel has refused now to provide those names to the Church so the Church can maintain the spirit of that 1995 understanding.

The media advisory also claimed that Church leaders had refused to meet and “broke off negotiations in July. “ This is absolutely false. Church leaders met with Mr. Michel in New York on 3 November, along with representatives of other respected Jewish community organizations. The Church’s written response to Mr. Michel and to that meeting is found here […]. It did not receive a reply.

Church leaders and members empathize with the depth of feeling of all Jews regarding the Holocaust. Such regard and empathy have motivated the Church to remain in talks about this subject for so many years. However, with his press conference, Mr. Michel seems to have unilaterally terminated those discussions and has presumably rejected the proposals set forth in the Church’s 6 November 2008 letter. Those steps by Mr. Michel on behalf of the American Gathering were both unnecessary and unfortunate, and belie the long and valued mutual regard that has existed in the past years."
Posted by Esther Perry on November 17, 2008 at 4:11 PM · Report this
@ 53, here send this to the IRS. ;-)

(For a more thorough explanation of what it is...…)
Posted by hum_dinger10 on November 18, 2008 at 1:34 AM · Report this
When the preacher sitting next to you complained about the N-word being used by some gay people, you should have said, "Of course that's inappropriate and nobody should use language like that, just like nobody should use hateful language to describe gay people... black people don't have a monopoly on discrimination. Even black people have discriminated against gay black people. Organized religion is advocating that civil rights should be taken away from a minority group." Then mention again how the two civil rights movements aren't the same, but contain some parallels, and finish up by challenging either reverend to really prove how gay marriage hurts them personally.
Posted by RobotRevolution on November 18, 2008 at 7:21 AM · Report this
Stop H8! - End Religious Bigotry!
Posted by jerry on November 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM · Report this
Dan, I liked what you said in response to Rev. Garlow's "this is a democracy, the people have spoken" BS...with the exception of one thing. I think you should have started your response with, "Actually, we do not live in a democracy; we live in a representative republic. The framers of the constitution believed that direct democracy was one of the greatest threats to a free nation, and that it should be avoided at all costs. If you were a true 'conservative', Rev. Garlow, you would know that and respect it." The rest of your response was excellent, but I cringed a little bit when you agreed with him that we live in a democracy.
Posted by Aaron on November 19, 2008 at 12:51 PM · Report this

Add a comment


Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!

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