Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, December 10, 2008
Homo / Politics God Bless Jon Stewart
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:40 AM
Stewart asks Mike Huckabee all the right questions about gay marriage...
...but when is someone going to ask Huckabee about his weight? The man rose to national prominence for losing weight. But it sure looks like Mike has returned to digging his grave with a knife and a fork. Huckabee is the white, male, socially conservative Oprah.
6
I don't hate fatties. I love fatties. I do think, though, that when someone uses weight loss to gain national attention, and then gains all the weight back... that you have a right to ask 'em about it. Obesity is a life-threatening, as Huckabee wrote in his book, and it's a "lifestyle choice," as Huckabee wrote in his book. So... fair game to ask him about it, I think.
7
When I watch this my blood pressure rises. And you're right, Dan, dude's put on some weight. I hope he finds the inner strength to change his lifestyle to a healthier one.
10
I have such a HUGE boner for Jon Stewart right now.
Religion IS more of a lifestyle choice than homosexuality will ever be.
Religion IS more of a lifestyle choice than homosexuality will ever be.
11
You mean like when a community pretends to be multicultural and inclusive, and then very publicly displays that they aren't? Some tough questions there too, right Dan?
In other news, Larry Kramer discounts the notion that the marriage battle is in any way like ACT-UP or Stonewall:
The sudden burst of energy has drawn some comparisons to demonstrations during the early days of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. But Larry Kramer, the playwright and founder of ACT UP, which used confrontational tactics to fight for money for AIDS treatment and research, said advances in treating the disease had, somewhat incongruously, robbed the gay rights movement of broader political momentum.
“For activism to work, you have to be scared and you have to be angry,” Mr. Kramer said. “Nobody’s frightened anymore. The drugs have taken care of that.”
Back when Andrew Sullivan published "The End of AIDS"--for Europeans and Americans, anyhow--I wondered to myself exactly what common ground this multifarious group of people known as 'gays' stood upon. That's when I realized it was marriage, and then they were done with liberalism.
The energy provided by that initial scare was the core of the gay movement. How deftly that communal feeling was diverted into the desire for normalcy, i.e. the associated upscale products that were now being marketed by gay mags. And now that all of the gay news is basically owned by the same people--think Seadicor, Dan--is it really a surprise that marriage is the number one thing on people's minds?
That rising HIV rate amongst gay youth--remember Sullivan's article, Dan? Remember how you regurgitated it for your readers, Dan? Just like you did with the Iraq War? Who is going to pay for all their meds, Dan? Will national health care create a moral hazard in this regard? I know you aren't much of an ethicist (with the exception of obesity), but don't you feel any sense of responsibility for this?
More...
In other news, Larry Kramer discounts the notion that the marriage battle is in any way like ACT-UP or Stonewall:
The sudden burst of energy has drawn some comparisons to demonstrations during the early days of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. But Larry Kramer, the playwright and founder of ACT UP, which used confrontational tactics to fight for money for AIDS treatment and research, said advances in treating the disease had, somewhat incongruously, robbed the gay rights movement of broader political momentum.
“For activism to work, you have to be scared and you have to be angry,” Mr. Kramer said. “Nobody’s frightened anymore. The drugs have taken care of that.”
Back when Andrew Sullivan published "The End of AIDS"--for Europeans and Americans, anyhow--I wondered to myself exactly what common ground this multifarious group of people known as 'gays' stood upon. That's when I realized it was marriage, and then they were done with liberalism.
The energy provided by that initial scare was the core of the gay movement. How deftly that communal feeling was diverted into the desire for normalcy, i.e. the associated upscale products that were now being marketed by gay mags. And now that all of the gay news is basically owned by the same people--think Seadicor, Dan--is it really a surprise that marriage is the number one thing on people's minds?
That rising HIV rate amongst gay youth--remember Sullivan's article, Dan? Remember how you regurgitated it for your readers, Dan? Just like you did with the Iraq War? Who is going to pay for all their meds, Dan? Will national health care create a moral hazard in this regard? I know you aren't much of an ethicist (with the exception of obesity), but don't you feel any sense of responsibility for this?
12
brilliant piece of work by Stewart - most cogent argument (dissertation even) to date on the same-sex marriage fiasco
13
I thought of you as I watched this last night - glad you picked it up and hope it made your day. Wouldn't be surprised if Stewart was a fan of yours as well.
But, c'mon - weight drama aside - Huckabee is in no way a parallel to Oprah.
Keep the faith - we will get there soon! Even Huck was laughing it off as if - hey, I have to say this stuff...
But, c'mon - weight drama aside - Huckabee is in no way a parallel to Oprah.
Keep the faith - we will get there soon! Even Huck was laughing it off as if - hey, I have to say this stuff...
14
@5: way to miss the entire point.
Jon Stewart completely owned that interview, and Huckabee knew it. Hence, the "I'm not a homophobe" red herring.
Jon Stewart completely owned that interview, and Huckabee knew it. Hence, the "I'm not a homophobe" red herring.
15
The Bible *doesn't* say that marriage is between a man and a woman. Read it in Newsweek yesterday.
16
@14
A homophobe, to men like Huckabee, is someone who would beat up a guy for being gay. Not that--according to men like Huckabee--things like that ever happen.
A homophobe, to men like Huckabee, is someone who would beat up a guy for being gay. Not that--according to men like Huckabee--things like that ever happen.
17
Do you think that christian conservatives are happy with how Huckabee did? I mean, we watch that and obviously think that Huckabee had his ass handed to him by a calm and logical Jon Stewart.
But, do they watch it and think, "Good for Huckabee for sticking up for what he believes in! He was being attacked by the liberal media and he didn't back down!" Even though, clearly, his argument holds absolutely no water.
I wonder....
But, do they watch it and think, "Good for Huckabee for sticking up for what he believes in! He was being attacked by the liberal media and he didn't back down!" Even though, clearly, his argument holds absolutely no water.
I wonder....
18
Stewart is brilliant as usual. The only thing missing was pointing out to Huckabee that marriage in no way requires children--infertile people can get married, and of course atheists can get married, satan worshippers can get married, and, my favorite--transsexuals can get married (right?). Their arguments about keeping marriage for "one man and one woman" because of biology kind of falls apart when you look at one man and one FTM. If they don't think people are born gay, they can't possibly think people are born the "wrong" sex.
How does one officially and legally change one's gender, anyway? Is there a physical exam? Maybe someone should look into that. Then one partner of a gay couple could just declare themselves to be the other sex, and they can go ahead and get married.
How does one officially and legally change one's gender, anyway? Is there a physical exam? Maybe someone should look into that. Then one partner of a gay couple could just declare themselves to be the other sex, and they can go ahead and get married.
19
A little humanity here regarding the weight. When you lose a shitload of weight, your body still retains the fat cells. Only now they're empty. This means that someone who goes about weight loss honestly - through diet and exercise, not surgery - has to fight to maintain the lower weight in a way that you folks can't possibly understand. Those fat cells want their fat back.
The least bit of stress - like, say, running for president - can trigger someone to fall off the wagon a bit and then POW! The weight is back.
I lost 90 pounds in my mid-twenties and kept it off for eight years. But lifestress caught up with me in my early thirties and all of sudden, where most girls would gain ten or fifteen pounds of stress weight, I gained 80. And yeah, I know some troll is gonna say, "Just eat less you fucking cow." YOU eat fewer than 1200 calories day in and day out for years on end, motherfucker, and then talk to me about your quality of life.
If you haven't lived through this, you have no fucking idea what a battle it is. Not even Mike Huckabee knew when he wrote his book that he'd very likely gain it back. Because he wrote about it so publicly and because he used it to political advantage, you're right, Dan, that it's fair game to ask about. But a little perspective on the issue would be nice.
The least bit of stress - like, say, running for president - can trigger someone to fall off the wagon a bit and then POW! The weight is back.
I lost 90 pounds in my mid-twenties and kept it off for eight years. But lifestress caught up with me in my early thirties and all of sudden, where most girls would gain ten or fifteen pounds of stress weight, I gained 80. And yeah, I know some troll is gonna say, "Just eat less you fucking cow." YOU eat fewer than 1200 calories day in and day out for years on end, motherfucker, and then talk to me about your quality of life.
If you haven't lived through this, you have no fucking idea what a battle it is. Not even Mike Huckabee knew when he wrote his book that he'd very likely gain it back. Because he wrote about it so publicly and because he used it to political advantage, you're right, Dan, that it's fair game to ask about. But a little perspective on the issue would be nice.
20
Love for John Stewart. Blow Huckabee off his talking points. He tries to end the discussion of gay marriage many times, but Stewart keeps on hammering home.
21
I am now totally in love with Jon Stewart. Can I straight-marry him? Or at least invite him over for a dinner party?
22
@16. That's a great point. People like him take homophobia to mean "people who hate gays". Whereas, we see a much less strict definition -- "people who think gays deserve to be treated differently from straights", maybe.
This difference in opinion is the source of all those people who say things like "I'm not a homophobe, I love gays! Some of my best friends are gays! But, I just don't think they should marry..."
This difference in opinion is the source of all those people who say things like "I'm not a homophobe, I love gays! Some of my best friends are gays! But, I just don't think they should marry..."
23
@18
That's where the Mormons were more 'biblical' in their view of marriage. Originally, a barren woman was considered to be defective; the man was obliged to seek fertility elsewhere, as Abram did with Hagar, his slave. I mean his *other* slave.
As regards gender-bending, the Old Testament is pretty explicit about its "honor code"--even transvestitism is punishable by death.
That's where the Mormons were more 'biblical' in their view of marriage. Originally, a barren woman was considered to be defective; the man was obliged to seek fertility elsewhere, as Abram did with Hagar, his slave. I mean his *other* slave.
As regards gender-bending, the Old Testament is pretty explicit about its "honor code"--even transvestitism is punishable by death.
26
Hmmm...believing that gay marriage is wrong does not make you a homophobe.
Excellent! By that logic, believing that religion is a dangerous and irresponsible lifestyle choice and that religions should have NO special privileges does not make me anti-religious.
Can we get "In God we trust" off our money now?
Excellent! By that logic, believing that religion is a dangerous and irresponsible lifestyle choice and that religions should have NO special privileges does not make me anti-religious.
Can we get "In God we trust" off our money now?
27
I think Stewart would have asked him about the weight if he needed to deflate Huck, but he held Huck in the palm of his hand, on a perfectly controlled platform with total control of time allowed, and Huck clearly respected that power enough to not be too evasive. If he was instead with some wannabe pundit king instead of the actual pundit king, the wannabe would have had to go with the weight question. Stewart's so on his game now there was no need at all.
28
if i believe that marriage is wrong, period, for everyone, anywhere, anytime, does that make me a homophobe?
30
@19. I WAS fat until I lost 80 pounds almost 15 years ago. And I've managed to keep it off through good food choices and exercise.
Blessings.
Blessings.
31
So, we need to save marriage because:
1. It will redefine a word
2. Gays can't fuck and make babies
So,
1. Who gives a fuck, "gay" and "queer" used to mean "happy" and "strange"
2. We're not exactly running short on children in this country
1. It will redefine a word
2. Gays can't fuck and make babies
So,
1. Who gives a fuck, "gay" and "queer" used to mean "happy" and "strange"
2. We're not exactly running short on children in this country
33
i think most conservatives wouldn't be able to follow stewarts logic, it's a bit complex for them, encompassing a broad historical context, scientific understanding, and real world experience. thus i fear that any 'social conservatives' watching this thought huckabee did great and stewart is a bully. particularly given that conservative types aren't bound by logic to begin with.
that being said, this was extremely satisfying to watch, it's everything i've always wanted to ask a figure like huckabee, but done in a coherent, non swearword laced way.
that being said, this was extremely satisfying to watch, it's everything i've always wanted to ask a figure like huckabee, but done in a coherent, non swearword laced way.
34
Of course! Since Christians can't burn people at the stake anymore, the gays don't get to marry. Makes perfect sense! I can't believe I was so misguided, thoughtlessly hoping to undo whole social structures!
35
I'm amazed at Stewart's self control.
I know it's not very progressive of me, but by about the third question I'm so enraged I want to choke Huckster with my bare hands.
How Stewart can maintain complete calm and a sense of humor throughout the whole interview boggles my mind.
I know it's not very progressive of me, but by about the third question I'm so enraged I want to choke Huckster with my bare hands.
How Stewart can maintain complete calm and a sense of humor throughout the whole interview boggles my mind.
36
I would really like to add Mike Huckabee that if we allow religious freaks to burn someone at the stake, can I get married?
37
I wonder if Jon Stewart still honestly believes that thing he's always telling people about how he's not a journalist. I can see a lot of reasons to keep saying it -- he couldn't do an interview like this if he was explicitly holding himself out as someone who defines "truth" for the American media consumer. But I think even he has to be admitting by now that he's one of the most important journalistic voices in the country.
40
GAH! I don't understand. This isn't really that complicated. Religious groups don't want to marry homosexuals - fine. They feel that government recognition of homosexual marriage will eventually lead to forcing them to marry homosexuals - dubious, but ok.
The solution is simple - government no longer recognizes marriage of anyone, and everyone currently on the books as "married" is reclassed into a civil union. You can go to your church and get married -- or not -- and the government doesn't care. You can apply for a civil union with the government regardless of your religion-sanctioned marriage. The government does a search-and-replace on all it's laws & documents for marriage to civil union. Civil Union certificate. Civilly Unionized Filing Separately. You have separation of Church and State, the Christians can continue to deny Marriage to homosexuals, the Good Earth Church can grant Marriage to homosexuals, and everyone gets equal protection and status under the law. finis.
The solution is simple - government no longer recognizes marriage of anyone, and everyone currently on the books as "married" is reclassed into a civil union. You can go to your church and get married -- or not -- and the government doesn't care. You can apply for a civil union with the government regardless of your religion-sanctioned marriage. The government does a search-and-replace on all it's laws & documents for marriage to civil union. Civil Union certificate. Civilly Unionized Filing Separately. You have separation of Church and State, the Christians can continue to deny Marriage to homosexuals, the Good Earth Church can grant Marriage to homosexuals, and everyone gets equal protection and status under the law. finis.
42
Watched this last night as well. Huckabee was tying himself up in knots, and Stewart just kept feeding him more string. Social conservatives are cognitively impaired, unable to grasp that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice.
@19 - lived it right along with ya'. Lost 75 lbs in my late 20s, kept if off for 5 years. In spite of diet, climbing mountains, skiing, bike commuting, etc, etc, I gained all the weight back. For several years now, my weight has remained stable.
@30 - Happy for you. You are among the 10 percent who keep it off. Then there's the remaining 90 percent of us...
@19 - lived it right along with ya'. Lost 75 lbs in my late 20s, kept if off for 5 years. In spite of diet, climbing mountains, skiing, bike commuting, etc, etc, I gained all the weight back. For several years now, my weight has remained stable.
@30 - Happy for you. You are among the 10 percent who keep it off. Then there's the remaining 90 percent of us...
43
@15 Precisely.
Stewart did a great job, but just once I wanna hear an interviewer challenge REVEREND Huckabee to cite and quote the exact Bible scriptures that sanctify marriage as "one man and one woman," to explain the verses that okay polygamy and why it shouldn't be okay--Hey, it's right there in the Bible! (and Stewart needed to cite chapter and verse on those) and then answer about the nearby quotes that okay slavery, etc.
Stewart for Grand Marshall of NYC Gay Pride 09.
Stewart did a great job, but just once I wanna hear an interviewer challenge REVEREND Huckabee to cite and quote the exact Bible scriptures that sanctify marriage as "one man and one woman," to explain the verses that okay polygamy and why it shouldn't be okay--Hey, it's right there in the Bible! (and Stewart needed to cite chapter and verse on those) and then answer about the nearby quotes that okay slavery, etc.
Stewart for Grand Marshall of NYC Gay Pride 09.
44
Um, why do you feel it necessary to use fatphobic ad hominem remarks to bring this guy down a peg? He's an ass and a bigot, and I don't see what his weight has to do with it. I think if you look around the blogosphere, you will find that the same people fighting against fatphobia are also majorly pro-gay rights and anti-homophobia. Perhaps you could return the favor a little. And please read up a bit on the Health At Every Size movement - weight gain does not automatically equal "digging his grave with a knife and fork."
Your intolerance really surprises me, since you are usually such a fantastic promoter of tolerance and understanding. Keep up the good work, but please give a little more thought to the way you speak about weight.
Your intolerance really surprises me, since you are usually such a fantastic promoter of tolerance and understanding. Keep up the good work, but please give a little more thought to the way you speak about weight.
45
@44. Huckabee's book was called "Quit Digging Your Grave with a Knife and Fork". That's what Dan is referring to.
Honestly, when I watched this last night, the first thing I thought when I saw him was, wow, Huckabee has gained a lot of weight. So, I don't think Dan is being particularly intolerant by pointing that out.
Honestly, when I watched this last night, the first thing I thought when I saw him was, wow, Huckabee has gained a lot of weight. So, I don't think Dan is being particularly intolerant by pointing that out.
46
According to Webster's:
marriage |ˈmarij|
noun
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
• a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.
• a relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts : a happy marriage | the children from his first marriage.
• figurative a combination or mixture of two or more elements : a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel.
2 (in pinochle and other card games) a combination of a king and queen of the same suit.
Like the Bible, Christians like to pick and choose the parts of a book they agree with and ignore the parts they don't.
marriage |ˈmarij|
noun
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
• a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.
• a relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts : a happy marriage | the children from his first marriage.
• figurative a combination or mixture of two or more elements : a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel.
2 (in pinochle and other card games) a combination of a king and queen of the same suit.
Like the Bible, Christians like to pick and choose the parts of a book they agree with and ignore the parts they don't.
48
Julie @22: Do you think that christian conservatives are happy with how Huckabee did? I mean, we watch that and obviously think that Huckabee had his ass handed to him by a calm and logical Jon Stewart.
But, do they watch it and think, "Good for Huckabee for sticking up for what he believes in! He was being attacked by the liberal media and he didn't back down!" Even though, clearly, his argument holds absolutely no water.
I think you're right Julie. Despite what we think of Huckabee, he scored major points in this appearance.
1. He got Jon to agree that you can be against gay marriage and not be a homophobe. That's great for his base and for those people on the fence.
2. He got to say that despite the evolution of marriage from polygamy to property to loving union between two people, marriage is for biological reproduction and civil reproduction, for reproducing ourselves in society. In doing so, he got to say that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't serve the main purpose of the act and—more subversively—that they shouldn't be allowed to marry so they can't reproduce themselves socially. That'll play well with his base. Jon didn't correct or address either interpretations.
3. He got to frame the debate in religious terms instead of secular terms of human rights and equality. On this, Jon was at his best, but he let Huckabee score points by discussing this in terms of religion. Religion was a major factor in determining whether someone favored Proposition 8. He got to say that those people were right to consult their bibles in determining how they should approach this issue.
4. Finally, he got to say that majority rules in this case, going on about how electoral results and the will of the people justified denying gay couples their rights. Jon did say jokingly that you can't trust the voters. What should have been asserted but wasn't is that in our society there are rights that no majority can vote away ("Majority rule/minority rights"). Huckabee got to say that there aren't.
That doesn't matter to those of us that support gay marriage, but I think all of those points matter to the anti-gay marriage people and some religious people on the fence.
They may be "cognitively impaired," but conservative operatives are politically astute. They know how to get their message out there, and to speak to their base.
I think they are very happy with Huckabee right now.
More...
But, do they watch it and think, "Good for Huckabee for sticking up for what he believes in! He was being attacked by the liberal media and he didn't back down!" Even though, clearly, his argument holds absolutely no water.
I think you're right Julie. Despite what we think of Huckabee, he scored major points in this appearance.
1. He got Jon to agree that you can be against gay marriage and not be a homophobe. That's great for his base and for those people on the fence.
2. He got to say that despite the evolution of marriage from polygamy to property to loving union between two people, marriage is for biological reproduction and civil reproduction, for reproducing ourselves in society. In doing so, he got to say that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't serve the main purpose of the act and—more subversively—that they shouldn't be allowed to marry so they can't reproduce themselves socially. That'll play well with his base. Jon didn't correct or address either interpretations.
3. He got to frame the debate in religious terms instead of secular terms of human rights and equality. On this, Jon was at his best, but he let Huckabee score points by discussing this in terms of religion. Religion was a major factor in determining whether someone favored Proposition 8. He got to say that those people were right to consult their bibles in determining how they should approach this issue.
4. Finally, he got to say that majority rules in this case, going on about how electoral results and the will of the people justified denying gay couples their rights. Jon did say jokingly that you can't trust the voters. What should have been asserted but wasn't is that in our society there are rights that no majority can vote away ("Majority rule/minority rights"). Huckabee got to say that there aren't.
That doesn't matter to those of us that support gay marriage, but I think all of those points matter to the anti-gay marriage people and some religious people on the fence.
They may be "cognitively impaired," but conservative operatives are politically astute. They know how to get their message out there, and to speak to their base.
I think they are very happy with Huckabee right now.
49
I'm totally gay for Jon now. Saying that the greatest travesty is that a segment of the population has to "make the case" for civil rights. WOW. Way to own the debate.
50
@44: Julie from Chicago's response to you is fantastic. I'd also add that gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins and so a fat preacher man, using the Bible to justify his bigotry, should expect those of us he's harming to hold a mirror up to his hypocrisy.
Dan makes an excellent case for this in his chapter on gluttony in Skipping Towards Gomorrah. It's not like he is always saying, "Look! Look at the fat people!" in his posts. But a fat guy ranting about the "sin" of homosexuality is fair game.
@49: I guess I can say I'm straight for Jon. hee!
Dan makes an excellent case for this in his chapter on gluttony in Skipping Towards Gomorrah. It's not like he is always saying, "Look! Look at the fat people!" in his posts. But a fat guy ranting about the "sin" of homosexuality is fair game.
@49: I guess I can say I'm straight for Jon. hee!
51
#6
Liar. Dan you have made more shitty comments about over weight people than the rest of America combined.
Own it, it is YOUR hang up. Why, who knows, but, I have long hoped your glands go astray and you go to 340 in a year and stay there into old age.
Karma.
Liar. Dan you have made more shitty comments about over weight people than the rest of America combined.
Own it, it is YOUR hang up. Why, who knows, but, I have long hoped your glands go astray and you go to 340 in a year and stay there into old age.
Karma.
52
I'm glad he didn't play the weight card (to turn a phrase) because it kept the argument civil. That's the only way to convince people. Taking O'Reily's shrill attacking methods puts us down with him and preaches to the choir. To get the people who need to listen to listen you really have to take the high road.
Also, Stewart needs to sell "Religion is more of a lifestyle choice than being gay" bumper stickers.
53
I dunno. As a straight, bleeding heart liberal, I don't think either side "won" this "debate".
Huckabee got in all his major talking points, and was calm and confident in doing so. Stewart did exactly the same thing. The fact that we all happen to agree with Stewart's opinion doesn't mean he won anything. If anything I could see people feeling sympathetic towards Huckabee because Stewart kept coming at him. Not saying I feel that way, but it's certainly possible.
One of the main things I take away from this discussion is that Huckabee hasn't given up on a political career. There are A LOT of people out there who think Huckabee is a good, old fashioned guy with reasonable values. I don't think he said or did anything to go against that image. I can see him being one of the top-tier candidates in 2012.
I for one am just happy that we had a chance to see an honest-to-goodness discussion of a major issue with no screaming, and for the most part no whooping it up from the audience. We need more of this, on a variety of topics, if we're going to get past the cesspool that passes for dialog today.
The fact that Stewart got in a fair number of cogent arguments without being shrill will (hopefully) open up some minds on this issue, and anything that makes future Prop 8s less possible is ok in my book.
Huckabee got in all his major talking points, and was calm and confident in doing so. Stewart did exactly the same thing. The fact that we all happen to agree with Stewart's opinion doesn't mean he won anything. If anything I could see people feeling sympathetic towards Huckabee because Stewart kept coming at him. Not saying I feel that way, but it's certainly possible.
One of the main things I take away from this discussion is that Huckabee hasn't given up on a political career. There are A LOT of people out there who think Huckabee is a good, old fashioned guy with reasonable values. I don't think he said or did anything to go against that image. I can see him being one of the top-tier candidates in 2012.
I for one am just happy that we had a chance to see an honest-to-goodness discussion of a major issue with no screaming, and for the most part no whooping it up from the audience. We need more of this, on a variety of topics, if we're going to get past the cesspool that passes for dialog today.
The fact that Stewart got in a fair number of cogent arguments without being shrill will (hopefully) open up some minds on this issue, and anything that makes future Prop 8s less possible is ok in my book.
54
Sigh!
IMO one just can't seem to argue with people like Huckabee. they are right and nothing/no one can change their minds.
IMO one just can't seem to argue with people like Huckabee. they are right and nothing/no one can change their minds.
55
@40 I couldn't agree with you more.
As a straight person I have no interest in ever getting married until the day the right is available to all. Should I ever chose to mate for life I plan to have a civil union myself. Many heterosexual couples chose civil ceremonies. Not EVERY straight couple opts for a religious ceremony (just like not every straight couple procreates).
Why don't peple talk about this more? Perhaps I am overly naive, but if more heterosexual couples begin to use civil unions as an alternative to marriage, perhaps the whole concept of two types of unions would become more readily accepted - one as secular and one as religious. And like any other right, it would be equally granted to all without bias.
Influencing religious institutions to extend their blessing to same sex partnerships is likely a longer, more difficult battle. I believe that these are two seperate (though equally important) issues. Perhaps addressing them seperately will prove to be a more effective tactic than attempting both simultaneously - let's face it, there are some people who will not budge on the morality of homosexuality.
So instead of going over that hurdle, go around it. American citizens regardless of ANY defining characteristic deserve fair and equal treatment under the law. PERIOD. The courts of this country have recognized that fact before...I put myself to bed at night with the hopes that they can do it once more.
As a straight person I have no interest in ever getting married until the day the right is available to all. Should I ever chose to mate for life I plan to have a civil union myself. Many heterosexual couples chose civil ceremonies. Not EVERY straight couple opts for a religious ceremony (just like not every straight couple procreates).
Why don't peple talk about this more? Perhaps I am overly naive, but if more heterosexual couples begin to use civil unions as an alternative to marriage, perhaps the whole concept of two types of unions would become more readily accepted - one as secular and one as religious. And like any other right, it would be equally granted to all without bias.
Influencing religious institutions to extend their blessing to same sex partnerships is likely a longer, more difficult battle. I believe that these are two seperate (though equally important) issues. Perhaps addressing them seperately will prove to be a more effective tactic than attempting both simultaneously - let's face it, there are some people who will not budge on the morality of homosexuality.
So instead of going over that hurdle, go around it. American citizens regardless of ANY defining characteristic deserve fair and equal treatment under the law. PERIOD. The courts of this country have recognized that fact before...I put myself to bed at night with the hopes that they can do it once more.
56
I enjoy how Huck wouldn't "defend" britney and kevin. Um, dude - they were two straight people that got married, had heterosexual sex and created two children. All of that was within the sanctity of marriage. So why won't you defend that? because they didn't have the kind of straight marriage you wanted them to? because they got divorced? because they probably did it once or twice where britney wasn't flat on her back missionary style and silent?
I think the issue here isn't just limited to gays getting married- I think these conservatives would love to limit marriage for straight people too. They only want marriage for people that are going to fit into their personal definition of marriage.
I think the issue here isn't just limited to gays getting married- I think these conservatives would love to limit marriage for straight people too. They only want marriage for people that are going to fit into their personal definition of marriage.
58
The civil unions of straight couples is called "marriage". If the religious folks want to keep being special, they should change what THEY call it!
59
@55 (straight, asks why more straight folks don't do civil unions)
You can't have a civil union. It's a "special right" available only for us gay people, and only in VT, NJ, CT, and NH.
You can have a civil marriage, which is the same thing as .... a marriage. Just have it officiated by a Justice of the Peace, county clerk, or other officiant who is not also performing a church marriage service, and after everyone signs the paperwork, you're married -- civilly.
The way it works most of the time is that most priests / rabbis / pastors are dual-authorized for weddings: once by their faith / church, and once by the state. When they "pronounce" you "married," they're killing two birds with one stone and performing both rites at the same time. If they were NOT state-authorized, you would not be LEGALLY married, and would have to find someone else to do that for you. They need to double-check before they officiate that their faith authorizes you to marry (eg, not divorced if Catholic), and that the state does too (eg, not too closely related). They can choose to do one or the other for people: lots of UU ministers will marry same-sex couples in their churches, but they can't perform the state function (except in Mass and CT).
It's confusing, and while people are getting better educated about the topic, there's still a lot of misinformation out there.
You can't have a civil union. It's a "special right" available only for us gay people, and only in VT, NJ, CT, and NH.
You can have a civil marriage, which is the same thing as .... a marriage. Just have it officiated by a Justice of the Peace, county clerk, or other officiant who is not also performing a church marriage service, and after everyone signs the paperwork, you're married -- civilly.
The way it works most of the time is that most priests / rabbis / pastors are dual-authorized for weddings: once by their faith / church, and once by the state. When they "pronounce" you "married," they're killing two birds with one stone and performing both rites at the same time. If they were NOT state-authorized, you would not be LEGALLY married, and would have to find someone else to do that for you. They need to double-check before they officiate that their faith authorizes you to marry (eg, not divorced if Catholic), and that the state does too (eg, not too closely related). They can choose to do one or the other for people: lots of UU ministers will marry same-sex couples in their churches, but they can't perform the state function (except in Mass and CT).
It's confusing, and while people are getting better educated about the topic, there's still a lot of misinformation out there.
60
He's still a hater and homophobe of the worst stripe, but Huckster let us in on the logic of the other side: No one's going to help us. But if we help ourselves to win, then we'll have won.
I (deeply, truly) hate to admit it, but Huckster has a very good point: late in the interview he says that when gay folks focus, get it together and get the country on our side, then we'll have a shot at wining our marriage rights. Implied was: waiting for permission or for help is not going to get us anywhere.
I (deeply, truly) hate to admit it, but Huckster has a very good point: late in the interview he says that when gay folks focus, get it together and get the country on our side, then we'll have a shot at wining our marriage rights. Implied was: waiting for permission or for help is not going to get us anywhere.
61
Kudos to Jon Stewart, though I wish he would've asked one additional question, following up on Huckabee's assertion in the first segment (and apparently in his book as well) that the world would be a better, less government-regulated place if we all followed the Golden Rule. I'd have loved for him to ask Huckabee how he would want to be treated if his rights to marry the person he loves were being denied.
62
Stewart was awesome, but he missed a potential follow-up. Huck is all hung up on the semantics of marriage, but admits that people should be able to live as they choose. So why not civil unions? Equal protection under the law, but keep the "m" word for the straights? I would have liked to have seen Huck's response to that.
I know that settling for civil unions is anathema to many gays -- second class citizenship and all -- but I really think it's the way forward. And it needs to happen on a national level. This "you're married in one state but not in another" approach is pretty lame. Gay people are not going to be legally married in Arkansas anytime soon.
I know that settling for civil unions is anathema to many gays -- second class citizenship and all -- but I really think it's the way forward. And it needs to happen on a national level. This "you're married in one state but not in another" approach is pretty lame. Gay people are not going to be legally married in Arkansas anytime soon.
63
Terrific job by Jon; it is always a delight to see him patiently dismember a ridiculous viewpoint with incredible intelligence and insight. The one thing I would have liked to see him cover that he didn't touch on would have been the very easy counter to the "marriage is for baaaybeees" argument: should "barren" marriages be annulled?
Did anyone else catch Huckabee's reference to "male" and "female" chromosomes? That made me want to throw something. I have a great line to toss at my associate who gripes about the "anti-science" label placed on religionists to show that it has been fully earned.
Great catch by Jon about the framing of the gay marriage issue too.
Little by little, they're losing any ground to stand on. Kudos to Jon for pulling out another rug from under them.
Did anyone else catch Huckabee's reference to "male" and "female" chromosomes? That made me want to throw something. I have a great line to toss at my associate who gripes about the "anti-science" label placed on religionists to show that it has been fully earned.
Great catch by Jon about the framing of the gay marriage issue too.
Little by little, they're losing any ground to stand on. Kudos to Jon for pulling out another rug from under them.
64
As a women who has been in a relationship with another women for two years, I have to say that at one point in this interview (when Jon Stewart said that humanity should trump semantics) I actually had tears in my eyes.
With that said, I have to say that a small part of me was impressed by Mike Huckabee. Not his politics, of course, but with how he actually engaged in a conversation with Jon. I find that so many of us, liberals and conservatives both, just stop listening. And I think Huckabee made two important points. 1. His mind is not going to be changed. So we should really stop wasting our message on him. 2. We have some work to do. We should be getting our message out as much as possible to those who just don't realize what's at stake. Who only hear one side of the argument and could potentially be surprised by how logical gay marriage is.
With that said, I have to say that a small part of me was impressed by Mike Huckabee. Not his politics, of course, but with how he actually engaged in a conversation with Jon. I find that so many of us, liberals and conservatives both, just stop listening. And I think Huckabee made two important points. 1. His mind is not going to be changed. So we should really stop wasting our message on him. 2. We have some work to do. We should be getting our message out as much as possible to those who just don't realize what's at stake. Who only hear one side of the argument and could potentially be surprised by how logical gay marriage is.
65
Drew @62 - the problem with seperate but equal is that "marriage" as understood by state and federal laws has a whole slew of rights associated with it.
if you want to set up civil unions you'd have to try to completely copy all the laws associated with "marriage" into civil unions.
that's a legislative nightmare of epic proportions.
even if you can set it up -- THEN you basically have two seperate sets of laws that you need to try to keep completely equivalent?
why bother.
What they SHOULD do is rename all the "marriage" laws on all the books to "civil union" laws and then relegate "marriage" to be only a religious concept.
religious nuts get to have "marriage" all to themselves and the rest of the world gets "civil unions" with all the associated rights -- which is really what rational people care about anyway.
if you want to set up civil unions you'd have to try to completely copy all the laws associated with "marriage" into civil unions.
that's a legislative nightmare of epic proportions.
even if you can set it up -- THEN you basically have two seperate sets of laws that you need to try to keep completely equivalent?
why bother.
What they SHOULD do is rename all the "marriage" laws on all the books to "civil union" laws and then relegate "marriage" to be only a religious concept.
religious nuts get to have "marriage" all to themselves and the rest of the world gets "civil unions" with all the associated rights -- which is really what rational people care about anyway.
66
ok - I need to ask the liberal panel. If I think homosexuality is a choice/preference, but I also think they should be allowed to part-take in the marriage (full on marriage, same as straights)- am I a bigot? I've been wrestling with this all day.
67
@66, I'd say you were uninformed, but not bigotted. It is your choice to believe what you will about gay people, whether it has any basis in biology, neuro-chemistry, genetics, evolution,society, or religious belief. All that aside, thanks for the support of us as a group, regardless of your personal beliefs!! Rock ON!!
68
jf@66: You can =think= homosexuality is a choice, but that doesn't make it so. As when Jon asked Huckabee, "When did you decide to not be gay?" Your sexual orientation is no more a choice than the color of your skin.
69
My new slogan is "RIGHTS not RITES."
The big question that I didn't see Stewart ask is, "if marriage sanctifies procreation between a man and a woman, how can it be offered to heterosexuals who are unwilling to procreate or simply don't procreate at the same rate as others?" Shouldn't there be a standard level of procreation necessary to get the marriage license if it's all that precious? And if you don't fulfill it, then the marriage gets annulled.
Those unwilling or unable to make babies could be trumped by gay couples willing to carry on the tradition, albeit with the necessary sperm or egg assistance, as happens now in unions both gay and straight.
#65 I tend to think that "marriage" might be relegated to a religious issue only and that, in a true separation of church and state, all non-religious marriages might be framed otherwise. Let change in religious marriage come from within the church but let the rest of us have the rights and privileges equally with straights. I've been with my mate for 25 years. Let no one put our relationship asunder.
I also wonder whether the simple word "marriage" is all that necessary. Similarly I wonder if the Equal Rights Amendment would have passed if the word "gender" had replaced the word "sex?"
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of gender" might have been an easier idea for some to sort out.
The big question that I didn't see Stewart ask is, "if marriage sanctifies procreation between a man and a woman, how can it be offered to heterosexuals who are unwilling to procreate or simply don't procreate at the same rate as others?" Shouldn't there be a standard level of procreation necessary to get the marriage license if it's all that precious? And if you don't fulfill it, then the marriage gets annulled.
Those unwilling or unable to make babies could be trumped by gay couples willing to carry on the tradition, albeit with the necessary sperm or egg assistance, as happens now in unions both gay and straight.
#65 I tend to think that "marriage" might be relegated to a religious issue only and that, in a true separation of church and state, all non-religious marriages might be framed otherwise. Let change in religious marriage come from within the church but let the rest of us have the rights and privileges equally with straights. I've been with my mate for 25 years. Let no one put our relationship asunder.
I also wonder whether the simple word "marriage" is all that necessary. Similarly I wonder if the Equal Rights Amendment would have passed if the word "gender" had replaced the word "sex?"
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of gender" might have been an easier idea for some to sort out.
70
Ok so what I liked about this interview, in addition to Jon's performance, is that in 2012, when Huckabee makes a second go at Prez, and he tries to pass himself off as more moderate than he really is (to get more votes, because the Evangelical base is NOT enough), we'll have yet another record to recall up out of the archives that reminds us, no, he's not ever gonna be moderate, he's a bigoted asshole, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
And yes, Jon rocks, and yes, I also agree that Huckabee probably looked pretty good to his base, and that in 2012, when he tries to run for Prez again, the Republican base will dig up this video to remind themselves that he is a perfectly qualified bigoted asshole.
And yes, Jon rocks, and yes, I also agree that Huckabee probably looked pretty good to his base, and that in 2012, when he tries to run for Prez again, the Republican base will dig up this video to remind themselves that he is a perfectly qualified bigoted asshole.
71
In addition to others' comments, one of the other things I liked about this interview was how it wasn't really a debate that anybody tried to "win", like by persuading each other or the viewers to change their minds. (We're already firmly on Jon's side, that's why we read Dan Savage and watch the Daily Show, just like there was no way to convince Huckabee that gay people should have human rights, right then and there.)
Instead, they actually seemed to be *listening* to each other. Nobody expected or saw the other backing down, but they both seemed to have decided that disagreeing with each other doesn't necessitate a shouting match, like it's good to actually find out what different people think... how refreshing.
And as a result, I felt more informed about Huckabee's ideas, which are so alien to me, and that is a much better prize than seeing Jon being awesome again (although yeah he sure was, and yeah that was really fun too).
Instead, they actually seemed to be *listening* to each other. Nobody expected or saw the other backing down, but they both seemed to have decided that disagreeing with each other doesn't necessitate a shouting match, like it's good to actually find out what different people think... how refreshing.
And as a result, I felt more informed about Huckabee's ideas, which are so alien to me, and that is a much better prize than seeing Jon being awesome again (although yeah he sure was, and yeah that was really fun too).
73
The best thing about seeing interviews on TDS is that they really do talk to each other, rather than talk at each other or mindlessly blather on as other shows do... I really enjoyed McCain's time presient enough to compromise his own standards. with Jon over the years and it because clear how he was going to run for president just form watching Jon's last two interviews with him... Jon pinged McCain over his flipflop on evangelical politics and I could see the writing on the wall...
He wanted to be president so much that he compromised his own standards... and is an example of why that eventually just doesnt work.
He wanted to be president so much that he compromised his own standards... and is an example of why that eventually just doesnt work.
74
While many of the ideas of Jesus' followers change through the millennium, atleast a few things remain consistent" they continue to re-interpret the Bible as their needs see fit, they still feel persecuted when other's don't want to take on their beliefs as lifestyle and they still want to burn all others at the stake. Did anyone notice what Mike Huckabee said?
'Religious people don't have the right to burn others at the stake, they don't have the right to do anything that they WISH to do" Mike Huckabee. (and thank goodness for that)
'Religious people don't have the right to burn others at the stake, they don't have the right to do anything that they WISH to do" Mike Huckabee. (and thank goodness for that)
75
Wait- he mentioned polygamy but forgot bestiality? How could Huckabee forget to equate gays with dog-fuckers as well as Mormons? He must have been too busy thinking about that cheeseburger being dangled just outside of camera range.
76
@75: Wait- he mentioned polygamy but forgot bestiality?
Governor, I've been insulted by Rick Santorum; I loathe Rick Santorum; Rick Santorum is a nemesis of mine. Governor, you're no Rick Santorum.
Governor, I've been insulted by Rick Santorum; I loathe Rick Santorum; Rick Santorum is a nemesis of mine. Governor, you're no Rick Santorum.
77
What impresses me most about Jon Stewart's persistence on this subject is that he's a straight guy, and this doesn't have to be his fight, but he's in there battling anyway. From my point of view, this is an immense show of heart. I admire him unreservedly.
78
@69, Greg K, yes, the word marriage is all that necessary. Listen, acquiring doesn't mean everybody has to DO it. But separate but equal, is still separate. Marriage: SAME rights, same tax breaks, Sam license that you pick up @ City Hall, same understood relationship..a second set of forms at the clerk's office, for partner 1 & partner 2, maybe. It has to be the same thing or it's not fair, IMO. Dancing around what to call it - civil union, domestic partnership - has wasted time. Not to preach to the choir, huh? ;)
But yeah. Full on marriage.
Oh gods..the dirty horrible things I want to do to John Stewart. Purrrrrrrrr. He's my ultimate nebbish crush.
But yeah. Full on marriage.
Oh gods..the dirty horrible things I want to do to John Stewart. Purrrrrrrrr. He's my ultimate nebbish crush.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (78) RSS