Tuesday, November 18, 2008
2008 / Media Dan Savage on Larry King Live
Posted by David Schmader on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:20 AM
Here at last is the video—thank you, Towleroad. Joy Behar plays Larry King, the religious folks play bigoted boneheads, Gavin Newsom plays America's Handsomest Mayor, and Savage plays himself (brilliantly).
Part one:
Part two:
As Savage wrote in his Saturday slog post What I Wish I'd Said on Larry King Last Night: "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."
Enjoy.
Share via
3
Just thinking about those two idiotic pastors again is making me upset. It's just so irritating to listen to someone spout completely illogical bullshit with an air of utter certainty.
5
I'm baffled: where in history, ANYWHERE in history, has affording equal rights to gay and lesbians to marry caused a loss of religious rights and straight-family rights?
Where? Giving someone else rights does not suddenly invalidate or diminish those of people who already had them. This isn't a limited resource here people. It's not like giving those rights to gay people means you need to shave a little bit off the straight-marriage rights to balance things out. It just means giving them the equality they deserve as human beings and citizens protected by the constitution of this country.
The only argument that I could EVER see a horribly ignorant and insanely bigoted pastor using against this movement would be the Roman Empire- whose debauchery and gluttonous lifestyle many equate to the downfall of their society. Those same morons, though, forget about all the other, far more applicable issues going on within that empire: the over-reaching of forces, the slavery, the abuse of power and inequality of it citizens. The oppression of those outside their limited view of who was a citizen. So even the Roman Empire, the only real example, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It wasn't men having sex with men that destroyed that society. It was their overwhelming greed, government corruption, and ironically, the founding of the christian faith and the failing of its military powers against the oppressed people of their over-extended lands that caused them to implode.
Giving rights to gays and lesbians will in no way affect straight couples. They are being held to the same scrutiny as any straight couple and would be subject to all the same rules. To say that a marriage is only there so that children can have proper environments to develop in would not only invalidate nearly half of straight marriages out there, but it fails to take in account the ability for single mothers, fathers, and gay couples to raise children successfully. Which is actually just as common, if not moreso, than straight married couples.
More...
Where? Giving someone else rights does not suddenly invalidate or diminish those of people who already had them. This isn't a limited resource here people. It's not like giving those rights to gay people means you need to shave a little bit off the straight-marriage rights to balance things out. It just means giving them the equality they deserve as human beings and citizens protected by the constitution of this country.
The only argument that I could EVER see a horribly ignorant and insanely bigoted pastor using against this movement would be the Roman Empire- whose debauchery and gluttonous lifestyle many equate to the downfall of their society. Those same morons, though, forget about all the other, far more applicable issues going on within that empire: the over-reaching of forces, the slavery, the abuse of power and inequality of it citizens. The oppression of those outside their limited view of who was a citizen. So even the Roman Empire, the only real example, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It wasn't men having sex with men that destroyed that society. It was their overwhelming greed, government corruption, and ironically, the founding of the christian faith and the failing of its military powers against the oppressed people of their over-extended lands that caused them to implode.
Giving rights to gays and lesbians will in no way affect straight couples. They are being held to the same scrutiny as any straight couple and would be subject to all the same rules. To say that a marriage is only there so that children can have proper environments to develop in would not only invalidate nearly half of straight marriages out there, but it fails to take in account the ability for single mothers, fathers, and gay couples to raise children successfully. Which is actually just as common, if not moreso, than straight married couples.
7
The beginning segment is there in the same channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZws5zqn6… it's mistakenly labeled part 3.
8
The black cleric seemed to have nothing to say; the white one was spewing hate and lies. It was disgusting. Props to Dan for not ripping the asshole's head off.
10
Nice work, Dan, you're kicking ass.
Slight correction, though, Dave: Gavin Newsom is not ever handsome. Unless you like smug and slicked-back Pat Riley types, in which case I'd like to introduce you to the dashing Dino Rossi.
Slight correction, though, Dave: Gavin Newsom is not ever handsome. Unless you like smug and slicked-back Pat Riley types, in which case I'd like to introduce you to the dashing Dino Rossi.
12
Was that 3 breaks in less than 10 minutes? Then they would interrupt the person speaking with loud videos. What a stupid show that is.
13
Looks like Dan is well on his way to becoming the gay Ann Coulter - a squawking, screeching bigot.
14
@5 - Didn't the decline of the Roman Empire start just around the time Christianity started to take hold?
15
@14 I mentioned that as one of the real reasons for it's decline.
There were many, many factors inherent to every single empire collapsing in human history. And the main reason? The NUMBER ONE REASON? . . . .
Over-extending their reach! That's right. It was NEVER, even with the Roman Empire, the acceptance of gay lifestyles. It was always an empire getting too big for its britches. Along with countless other factors that don't include butt sex or sex with the same sex.
There were many, many factors inherent to every single empire collapsing in human history. And the main reason? The NUMBER ONE REASON? . . . .
Over-extending their reach! That's right. It was NEVER, even with the Roman Empire, the acceptance of gay lifestyles. It was always an empire getting too big for its britches. Along with countless other factors that don't include butt sex or sex with the same sex.
17
Nice work Dan. Clear, concise,cogent arguments.
The fact that the only people defending Prop 8 are "clergy" clearly demonstrates the weakness and anachronistic nature of their argument.
The fact that the only people defending Prop 8 are "clergy" clearly demonstrates the weakness and anachronistic nature of their argument.
18
Death camps are the ultimate in intolerance, not the n-word. On a scale from one to ten, ten being worst, I'd put the n-word at 4. That black preacher's addiction to victimhood is stronger than an addiction to heroine.
19
This morning Dan is featured on the front page of cnn.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/h…
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/h…
20
So gay marriage is the reason that 7 out of 8 black children are born out of wedlock? That is a baffling display of blame transfer.
21
I'm trying to make sense of how the motivation behind Loving V. Virginia was to reaffirm marriage between a man and a woman. The intellectual gymnastics of these people defies the imagination. It's the cirque du soliel of desperate rationalization.
22
Two awesome quotes from the Hughley interview...
Savage: You get fired because you're gay, you get fired because you're black, you're still out of a job. If your house gets burned down because you're gay, burned down because you're black, you're still out of a house and maybe dead. Hate is hate. I'm not equating the experience with the history at all. But we are making a civil rights demand.
Hughley: One thing I don't understand is the government involvement in our bedroom. They can't even deliver my mail.
Savage: You get fired because you're gay, you get fired because you're black, you're still out of a job. If your house gets burned down because you're gay, burned down because you're black, you're still out of a house and maybe dead. Hate is hate. I'm not equating the experience with the history at all. But we are making a civil rights demand.
Hughley: One thing I don't understand is the government involvement in our bedroom. They can't even deliver my mail.
23
Good job Dan.
Also, I think it's a big misconception that California is a liberal haven. Our urban vs. suburban vs. rural vs. beach town politics divide just as they do in Oregon and Washington.
Also, I think it's a big misconception that California is a liberal haven. Our urban vs. suburban vs. rural vs. beach town politics divide just as they do in Oregon and Washington.
24
I don't know how Dan does it. I try to engage in reasonable calm conversations like this but the things the other side spouts are such hateful lies, how can you have a conversation with that. Even in this interview, this isn't a debate, the pastor just gets to spout some lie about how parental rights are eroded anywhere there's gay marriage. Does he have to explain it? No, no time, just pretend that his statement was a valid point.
25
#21: The argument is that Loving is limited to the nature of the right as it then existed.
Because no states recognized same-sex marriage in 1967, any legal discussion of state-sanctioned marriage necessarily only concerned opposite-sex marriage. So, when the Court addressed the question "whether a statutory scheme . . . [that] prevent[s] marriages between persons solely on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the Court did not contemplate a form of marriage not recognized under state law. "[P]ersons" could only mean one man and one woman.
That is the way that proponents of bans on same-sex marriage have to interpret Loving. For those of us who voted "no" on Prop 8, Loving speaks a more aspirational language--"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'."
Because no states recognized same-sex marriage in 1967, any legal discussion of state-sanctioned marriage necessarily only concerned opposite-sex marriage. So, when the Court addressed the question "whether a statutory scheme . . . [that] prevent[s] marriages between persons solely on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the Court did not contemplate a form of marriage not recognized under state law. "[P]ersons" could only mean one man and one woman.
That is the way that proponents of bans on same-sex marriage have to interpret Loving. For those of us who voted "no" on Prop 8, Loving speaks a more aspirational language--"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'."
27
Black people calling black people the N-word? What?
Throwing rocks at churches, violence towards straight people? I'm surprised this guy seems to never have been aware of gay-bashing... gay kids and adults have been beaten... and killed... for being gay.
Throwing rocks at churches, violence towards straight people? I'm surprised this guy seems to never have been aware of gay-bashing... gay kids and adults have been beaten... and killed... for being gay.
29
@ 24 - You took the words right outta my fingers. I found myself shouting back at my monitor just now at the lies, assumptions and idiocies those two vomited out -- Thank Jeebus that calm, rational Dan is the spokesgay and not some hothead like me!!!
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (29) RSS