Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, March 10, 2009
Politics / Homo Someone Got a Photo...
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 4:57 AM
...of that sign.
Equality California sent it out last night along with a fundraising pitch. "Imagine that kick-in-the-gut feeling I got when I saw a sign that said 'Dan White: Hero. Killing a Queer' in front of the Supreme Court building last Thursday," writes Equality California ED Geoff Kors. Then asks for a donation.
Because I'm a bad, bad man, I have some questions about this sign: Who took the picture? Where? When? Is the person holding the sign standing inside a building? Weren't the demonstrations outside? And who is holding the sign? Why is the picture cropped the way it is? Why was the person holding the sign cropped out of it? If someone was carrying that sign at the massive demonstrations outside the California Supreme Court's hearing last week about Prop 8, wouldn't dozens of people have taken pictures of it? Wouldn't it have been all over gay blogs and news website right away? Why did it take nearly a week for this picture—seemingly the only one taken of this sign—to surface? And it surfaces not on blogs or news websites, but in a fundraising email for the group that fatally mismanaged the "No on 8" campaign?
If we heard about a gay person carrying an outrageously incendiary sign at a large, public demonstration ("Kill All the Christians and Let God Sort 'Em Out!" or whatever) and a picture didn't surface until days later, and the person carrying the sign was carefully cropped out, and it wasn't entirely clear that the person carrying the sign was even at the demonstration, we would be skeptical, to say the least. We'd be screaming bloody murder, actually, and demanding proof. [The proof is in—see update, below.]
And speaking of fundraising and the "No on 8" campaign: Rex Wockner put a long and important blog post late last night about Equality California's current fundraising efforts.
This past Friday, Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, realizing that gays are likely going to lose the Supreme Court case aimed at overturning Prop 8, sent out a new fundraising appeal. EQCA, of course, was the public face of the No on 8 campaign and probably its biggest component.... this letter could be translated as, "Give us another $40 million, and trust us not to make a mess next time."Kors is unhappy with me at the moment anyway, so what the hell. He says I wrongly blame EQCA for the lame, gay-free TV ads the No on 8 campaign ran. He wants folks to know that (a) he and EQCA were just one of many entities that made up the No on 8 campaign, (b) EQCA's main role in the campaign was fundraising, and (c) the No on 8 executive committee (which Kors was a member of) wasn't responsible for the ads, because it wasn't really involved in that aspect of its own campaign, because that aspect of its own campaign was handed over carte blanche to outside consultants, who did whatever they wanted.
Points (a) and (b) are true. Consider them conceded. Point (c), however, is yet another story that's not been written. Nobody on the No on 8 executive committee is willing to take any real responsibility for those crummy ads. It was, instead, all the consultants' fault. I don't think so. 1. The executive committee hired the consultants, and the consultants served at the pleasure of the executive committee. And 2. What kind of executive committee doesn't supervise its employees?
Alas. It's not like there's a bunch of rival EQCAs out there to turn to. Or is there an option?
There may be. Instead of handing another forty million dollars over to the folks at Equality California—not just the same org that run the incompetent, clueless "No on 8" campaign, but the same folks (no firings? no accountability?)—Wockner suggests we take a look at a newly founded rival org, the Courage Campaign. Says Rex:
"[It] sounds like maybe the Courage Campaign gets it.... [so] you may have a choice of what to do with your money if you want same-sex marriage to return in California. You can give more bucks to the folks who admit they botched it (my story on that here and the Bay Area Reporter's story here) or you can take a leap to the only other group that's emerged on the scene, and give it a chance.
Read Rex's entire post here.
UPDATE: Slog readers deliver: the sign appears to be legit. Here's a picture of it—and the vile piece of shit waving it—at the actual demonstration...
Next question: who's the asshole with the sign?
UPDATE 2: Says Jay in comments...
The picture of the guy was taken by me. Here is a link to the Photostream that has more pictures of him in it. I grabbed a Police Officer, advised him of the guy and what was on the sign and then he escorted him out.
2
would a true homophobe use pink letters with blue outlines? And the shape and character of the letters clearly betray a flamboyant hand. Fake.
4
You're not a bad, bad man. That this doesn't look real was the first thought I had when I saw the photo. Any right-minded person would have the same doubts. But did they actually claim that that was the sign they saw? Or is it just a re-creation of it that they're using as visual aid? Either way, it's shady.
5
Hey Dan,
As somebody who lives in Washington DC I have a few thoughts on this. Instead of having an organization like HRC that is supposedly for lobbying on our issues, but instead is really all about their own self agrandizement. Why don't we do what EVERY single other large group does. The miners, the oil companies, the drug companies, etc.. and hire one of the top gun lobbying firms to lobby FOR us. HRC doesn't have relationships with every member of congress. One of the huge lobbying firms would. With the amount of money we have sent to HRC, we could have been as large a customer of one of those firms as any mining consortium or Oil company. And with that amount of money, they get results. THAT is how Washington works. Look, Vickie Iseman got John McCain to write a somewhat shady letter backing her Telecom customers with just a few meetings, what could one of these top firms guarentee us if we handed them the annual budget of HRC?
As somebody who lives in Washington DC I have a few thoughts on this. Instead of having an organization like HRC that is supposedly for lobbying on our issues, but instead is really all about their own self agrandizement. Why don't we do what EVERY single other large group does. The miners, the oil companies, the drug companies, etc.. and hire one of the top gun lobbying firms to lobby FOR us. HRC doesn't have relationships with every member of congress. One of the huge lobbying firms would. With the amount of money we have sent to HRC, we could have been as large a customer of one of those firms as any mining consortium or Oil company. And with that amount of money, they get results. THAT is how Washington works. Look, Vickie Iseman got John McCain to write a somewhat shady letter backing her Telecom customers with just a few meetings, what could one of these top firms guarentee us if we handed them the annual budget of HRC?
6
It's not just Kors, it's also John Duran. This kind of thing is exactly how the City of West Hollywood is run. A minority to be sure, but there is an element in both organizations that thing their "higher mission" justifies any kind of behavior...
7
Andrew Sullivan made note of that sign last week (no photo though), before EQCA sent out the fundraiser email.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th…
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th…
8
Ooops!
...an element in both organizations that THINK their "higher mission" justifies any kind of behavior...
...an element in both organizations that THINK their "higher mission" justifies any kind of behavior...
9
I got that same fund-raising letter from EQCA and thought - "Huh, so NOW you're resorting to the obvious, way over-sensationalized strong-arm message (bigots bad, this is what we're fighting), but you're right, Dan - I hadn't questioned the validity of the message. I literally had to fight every instinct to spam them back and ask how much of my donations went into making this particular ineffective ad (*but didn't b/c I didn't want to be an asshole), but still - this is the kind of hyperbole that Focus on Family uses.
10
Dan, the Courage Campaign is not newly founded. They've been up to great work for many years, though they have catapulted in prominence since Prop 8. Full disclosure: I have worked for Courage Campaign in the past and I currently work for their sister organization, ProgressNow Colorado.
12
Kors's text as you present it doesn't actually say that the sign pictured was the actual sign at the protest. That there was such a sign doesn't seem to be in doubt, so who cares if this is a reproduction done for dramatic license? Gee, a prop used to whip up fundraising... that's just unprecedented!
13
Another great idea would be for the gay press (like an editor in chief of a newspaper in a major north western city) to cover news items like a letter of support from a Democratic presidential candidate named Obama.
Instead of making an expose out of the No on 8 campaign's lack of brains for ignoring the letter, why not all of us promote widely reported stories that show support for our rights instead of cowering in the closet trying to protect the Democratic Party.
The repeal effort on 8 is likely to coincide with Obama's (presumed) re-election in 2012. You might want to work up the courage between now and then to get Obama's support again and actually use it this time, Dan. I know you can do it!!!!
Instead of making an expose out of the No on 8 campaign's lack of brains for ignoring the letter, why not all of us promote widely reported stories that show support for our rights instead of cowering in the closet trying to protect the Democratic Party.
The repeal effort on 8 is likely to coincide with Obama's (presumed) re-election in 2012. You might want to work up the courage between now and then to get Obama's support again and actually use it this time, Dan. I know you can do it!!!!
15
Don't have a real enemy? invent one. EQCA is a charlatan organization.
How fitting that this fraud would become the public face of the No on 8 people in the aftermath of their defeat.
How fitting that this fraud would become the public face of the No on 8 people in the aftermath of their defeat.
16
This letter was written in response to a request for a donation--the same request Dan is responding to-- as well as recent video ad by Equality California referring to Harvey Milk.
Dear Equality CA: No, I will not be contributing. As far as I am concerned, you ran a losing campaign based on shame and fear. It is the same campaign you have run for the past ten years, and it was exactly as successful. I could see our defeat coming with all the inevitability of a slow motion train wreck.
There were plenty of people, myself included, who did what little we could to convince you to change directions. You weren’t interested. The most recent video that I saw demonstrated to me that you didn’t learn a thing. For every Jerry Falwell there’s a Harvey Milk? No, there’s not. For every Jerry Falwell, there’s at least ten more little Jerry’s who are not so blatantly obvious in their bigotry, but who are otherwise the same. For every Harvey Milk, there’s an assassin with a gun desperately trying to work out his own issues.
I wish it were true, because we desperately need a Harvey Milk, someone who can actually speak articulately about homophobia and prejudice, someone who understands the the enemy is not the Religious Reich, it is THE CLOSET.
This ad, this whole campaign, were conducted from the dark recesses of a closet mentality. I know of not one thoughtful, out, conscious, and grounded gay person who thought that this way of thinking and waging politics was anything but a loser. You couldn’t even say the words Gay and Lesbian. YOU COULDN’T EVEN SAY THE WORDS GAY AND LESBIAN!!! What the hell is THAT about? The one gay male couple you showed for 3 seconds were silhouetted, and cropped above the waist so that they could not be seen holding hands.
This is PATHETIC. This is why we lost.
I watched the hearings yesterday, and was appalled. More of the same. No talking about prejudice, religious or otherwise; the whole Yes on 8 campaign was nothing else, and is a clear attempt to force religious dogma on civil law. My freedom of religion is every bit as important as theirs. No concern for the children and families of gay people; those children are being denied equal protection of the law as well, because their parents cannot be married. No pointing out the obvious difference between DP and marriage– if they can vote to “disappear” my marriage, they can vote to “disappear” my domestic partnership as well. And they would have done so if they thought they could have gotten away with it. Let us not forget that there was another petition being circulated by Randy Thomason which would have done exactly that. The judges were no more convinced by the revision-vs.-amendment argument than I am. One more opportunity to make our case was squandered in a miasma of political correctness and everybody-make-nice liberal squishiness. And I say that as a thorough-going liberal.
So, NO DONATION. However, if you would like, I will be happy to provide you with my written critique. It’s nothing I haven’t said a lot before, but your organization needs to read it and understand it.
Because more of the same will not work for me. I would rather lose this battle because we have told the truth, than lose it because we have lied and hidden ourselves in shame.
More...
Dear Equality CA: No, I will not be contributing. As far as I am concerned, you ran a losing campaign based on shame and fear. It is the same campaign you have run for the past ten years, and it was exactly as successful. I could see our defeat coming with all the inevitability of a slow motion train wreck.
There were plenty of people, myself included, who did what little we could to convince you to change directions. You weren’t interested. The most recent video that I saw demonstrated to me that you didn’t learn a thing. For every Jerry Falwell there’s a Harvey Milk? No, there’s not. For every Jerry Falwell, there’s at least ten more little Jerry’s who are not so blatantly obvious in their bigotry, but who are otherwise the same. For every Harvey Milk, there’s an assassin with a gun desperately trying to work out his own issues.
I wish it were true, because we desperately need a Harvey Milk, someone who can actually speak articulately about homophobia and prejudice, someone who understands the the enemy is not the Religious Reich, it is THE CLOSET.
This ad, this whole campaign, were conducted from the dark recesses of a closet mentality. I know of not one thoughtful, out, conscious, and grounded gay person who thought that this way of thinking and waging politics was anything but a loser. You couldn’t even say the words Gay and Lesbian. YOU COULDN’T EVEN SAY THE WORDS GAY AND LESBIAN!!! What the hell is THAT about? The one gay male couple you showed for 3 seconds were silhouetted, and cropped above the waist so that they could not be seen holding hands.
This is PATHETIC. This is why we lost.
I watched the hearings yesterday, and was appalled. More of the same. No talking about prejudice, religious or otherwise; the whole Yes on 8 campaign was nothing else, and is a clear attempt to force religious dogma on civil law. My freedom of religion is every bit as important as theirs. No concern for the children and families of gay people; those children are being denied equal protection of the law as well, because their parents cannot be married. No pointing out the obvious difference between DP and marriage– if they can vote to “disappear” my marriage, they can vote to “disappear” my domestic partnership as well. And they would have done so if they thought they could have gotten away with it. Let us not forget that there was another petition being circulated by Randy Thomason which would have done exactly that. The judges were no more convinced by the revision-vs.-amendment argument than I am. One more opportunity to make our case was squandered in a miasma of political correctness and everybody-make-nice liberal squishiness. And I say that as a thorough-going liberal.
So, NO DONATION. However, if you would like, I will be happy to provide you with my written critique. It’s nothing I haven’t said a lot before, but your organization needs to read it and understand it.
Because more of the same will not work for me. I would rather lose this battle because we have told the truth, than lose it because we have lied and hidden ourselves in shame.
17
Initially thought it was a fake but NYCLaura has the proof it was a real sign used in public ... I bet someone found the discarded sign later and held it up for a photo, but didn't want to be associated with it, hence the cropped photo.
18
In other news, an initiative is running its course that would change all marriages in CA to domestic partnerships. It's being run by two straight guys.
19
I say give money to whoever does Vermont's Freedom to Marry campaign. I live in Quebec in Canada but get Vermont TV and their ads are excellent. The first one showed how ALL VT papers have editorialized in favor of marriage equality. The new one shows a Lesbian couple -- a REAL LIVE QUEER COUPLE of 39 YEARS! -- explaining how they have raised children and are no longer "me" but 2 halves of a new whole: "us". It's lovely.
http://www.vtfreetomarry.org/video-1.htm…
Sorry California, you may have Hollywood but VT is waaaaaay outdoing you in media! Outsource to VT.
http://www.vtfreetomarry.org/video-1.htm…
Sorry California, you may have Hollywood but VT is waaaaaay outdoing you in media! Outsource to VT.
20
Or they grabbed it from the man and ran (as I would be very tempted to do) but didn't want to be nailed for theft or whatever.
I think Dan's inquiry was valid and well-aimed, but it looks like this sign was legit.
I think Dan's inquiry was valid and well-aimed, but it looks like this sign was legit.
22
Dan, I hope you're paying Elizabeth and NYCLaura a fee since they just did your job for you. You have so much talent; it's too bad you squander it on nonsense like this post.
23
Um, does no one see the link to Flickr that NYCLaura posted above? Kinda shows that this was NOT A FAKE.
27
The photo is legit...I was there and saw it. The "building" in the background is a glass enclosure tot he parking garage across from the Supreme Court building in SF.....the site of the rally. Everyone is a critic it seems but those same folk never have a solution or an organized approach.
29
The picture of the guy was taken by me. Here is a link to the Photostream that has more pictures of him in it: http://flickr.com/photos/jaysterdotcom/s…
I grabbed a Police Officer, advised him of the guy and what was on the sign and then he escorted him out.
I grabbed a Police Officer, advised him of the guy and what was on the sign and then he escorted him out.
31
Opportunistic fundraising does suck. The worst was the deluge of non-legit appeals following the tsunamis. But that exceptional case doesn't really get to how normal and everyday it is for non-profits to scare-monger people into giving them money so they can sit at computers all day long.
32
it doesn't matter who the asshole with the sign is, dan. you obviously have bigger fish to fry than that, like working to achieve marriage equality, perhaps through the initiative baconcat mentions at 18. how bout doing a post on that?
33
The "Courage Campaign" is not a recently formed rival organization. It's an ego trip for a businessman named Rick Jacobs, who attempted to take over the California Democratic Party several years ago, failed badly, and founded an online group instead. The "Courage Campaign" does very little except raise money by sending out the-sky-is-falling e-mails that beg for donations.
38
@29
"I grabbed a Police Officer, advised him of the guy and what was on the sign and then he escorted him out."
Why? What was he doing illegal? Please explain your thought process.
"I grabbed a Police Officer, advised him of the guy and what was on the sign and then he escorted him out."
Why? What was he doing illegal? Please explain your thought process.
39
Several of Jay's photos show a video camera pointed at Angry Man with Sign. Can anyone track that video down?
40
The man was "led off" for his OWN protection. Had I been there I would have simply clocked him and then would have torn up his sign and forced him to eat it. Thankfully, much cooler heads prevailed...which is why we have cops.
41
He was not doing anything illegal. It looked like the situation was going to get out of hand real quick.
42
I made a new set that just has pictures of that guy in it: http://flickr.com/photos/jaysterdotcom/s…
44
@39,40
Make sure you execute him once you find out who the man is, since free speech is dead to you people. Let queer mob rule prevail!
Make sure you execute him once you find out who the man is, since free speech is dead to you people. Let queer mob rule prevail!
46
@38, etc sometimes, the police like to do whacky things like attempt to prevent violence.
they will sometimes do this by separating people, who are inciting and/or praising violence, from those against whom they are inciting violence. it's so crazy!!
they will sometimes do this by separating people, who are inciting and/or praising violence, from those against whom they are inciting violence. it's so crazy!!
47
The photos Jay linked to show the sign wrapped in plastic. In the photo on SLOG the sign isn't wrapped. Weird. I wonder if the sign was confiscated or taken by someone, unwrapped and photographed?
48
Alright, which of you chicken littles who cried "fraud" are willing to man up and admit your mistake?
Oh, wait, that takes guts. Never mind.
Oh, wait, that takes guts. Never mind.
49
I saw the sign on the ground later on and the plastic was off. It was on the other side of the street where the podium was set up for speeches.
Here is the guy looking at the sign after it was knocked down:
http://flickr.com/photos/jaysterdotcom/3…
Here is the guy looking at the sign after it was knocked down:
http://flickr.com/photos/jaysterdotcom/3…
51
@46 to prevent violence you DON'T remove the aggressor? The cop is responsible for keeping protestors safe, NOT removing peaceful protestors, regardless of message. This is the US right?
52
JustWally and the other Queer Brownshirts make sure no message offensive to gay sensibilities gets a public airing.
53
@49 what are you seeking by publishing this? Do you want the man to be physically assaulted by a bunch of drama queens stirred up by your photos?
54
@32: More info here: http://ucsdguardian.org/news/ucsd_senior…
And here: http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2009/090031…
And here: http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2009/090031…
55
Wow, a lot of crazy people here today, on both sides!
Thanks, Jay, these are good photos of a significant event, whatever the kooks think.
Thanks, Jay, these are good photos of a significant event, whatever the kooks think.
56
Next thing you know, gay activsts are going to start questioning the whole Anita Bryant/Jerry Falwell thing from the 1970's.
"No, fellow homosexuals - it was all a dream. Now go on about your business".
"No, fellow homosexuals - it was all a dream. Now go on about your business".
59
Just wanted to add that I was at the Court House and saw the sign as well. Its real (when I saw him holding it he was on the foots of the Courthouse right before the lawyers for the No On 8 Side came out to speak).
60
@57: I wouldn't want a retraction of reasonable doubts without good evidence. We're not all conservatives!--some of us like to believe things for good reasons.
61
I'll probably get set upon like Sebastian at the end of Suddenly Last Summer--but this ACLU-card-carrying Queer has to ask:
Exactly why was the man escorted away by the police?
His sign is, yes, horrible, and yes, he's a piece of shit. But last I checked, the First Ammendment protects folks (even pieces of shit, even Fred Phelps) from carrying around horrible signs. By all means condemn the sign and its waver, but don't hand the Right a PC-persecution-complex by giving them a rightful complaint that gays are opposed to Free Speech.
Exactly why was the man escorted away by the police?
His sign is, yes, horrible, and yes, he's a piece of shit. But last I checked, the First Ammendment protects folks (even pieces of shit, even Fred Phelps) from carrying around horrible signs. By all means condemn the sign and its waver, but don't hand the Right a PC-persecution-complex by giving them a rightful complaint that gays are opposed to Free Speech.
62
@52: "JustWally and the other Queer Brownshirts make sure no message offensive to gay sensibilities gets a public airing."
Pshaw! Not in the least. I'm saying that his freedom of speech could have gotten him hurt, and it was wise to re-locate him for his own safety. I swore an oath to uphold and defend the US constitution, and I think idiots like this NEED to be seen and heard. That does not mean, however, that I won't get pissed off and clock the twit if he got owly with me while he was toting that sign.
Oh, dear, I've been called a "Brownshirt" by a Seig Heil anonytwit...maybe I should become a queer militant instead of worrying about people's right to protest safely...
Pshaw! Not in the least. I'm saying that his freedom of speech could have gotten him hurt, and it was wise to re-locate him for his own safety. I swore an oath to uphold and defend the US constitution, and I think idiots like this NEED to be seen and heard. That does not mean, however, that I won't get pissed off and clock the twit if he got owly with me while he was toting that sign.
Oh, dear, I've been called a "Brownshirt" by a Seig Heil anonytwit...maybe I should become a queer militant instead of worrying about people's right to protest safely...
63
Instead of having him escorted out, next time have him escorted to the front of the network TV cameras.
Think people!
Think people!
64
I have been to several events/protests and it is very common for Police Officers to try and separate opposing sides of an issue especially when it gets confrontational as this was. I am not here to agree or disagree with that policy of the Officers. It is what it is.
@53 I am not trying to seek anything by posting his pictures. He was just one of many pictures that I took. I woke up this morning and saw that there was quite a lot of new views on that one picture and did some research as to why. I came on here to say that they are real and were posted by me. Nothing more.
@53 I am not trying to seek anything by posting his pictures. He was just one of many pictures that I took. I woke up this morning and saw that there was quite a lot of new views on that one picture and did some research as to why. I came on here to say that they are real and were posted by me. Nothing more.
65
@64 that's mighty cowardly....you told on the guy and you don't want to take a position on his removal? It doesn't sound like the cop "seperated" the guy, he was "removed" [your own words]. And then you took his sign! Sounds like you accomplished what you wanted.
@62 there is no "right to protest safely"
@62 there is no "right to protest safely"
66
@51, 61:
This was a protest by and for the gays, right? That means they are the ones peacefully demonstrating, and they are the ones with a permit to demonstrate.
I'm not sure about that. But I do know that when I was counter-protesting Phelps one time in St Paul (they were protesting the ordaining of a gay church person), the cops kept us separated. And in that case, since we didn't have a permit, they could have asked us to leave, but permitted our gathering since a) Phelps is repellent and b) we were peaceful.
Keeping the peace is I think the motto of police officers. And just escorting one guy away, whose sign speech bordered on hate speech seemed the simplest way.
This was a protest by and for the gays, right? That means they are the ones peacefully demonstrating, and they are the ones with a permit to demonstrate.
I'm not sure about that. But I do know that when I was counter-protesting Phelps one time in St Paul (they were protesting the ordaining of a gay church person), the cops kept us separated. And in that case, since we didn't have a permit, they could have asked us to leave, but permitted our gathering since a) Phelps is repellent and b) we were peaceful.
Keeping the peace is I think the motto of police officers. And just escorting one guy away, whose sign speech bordered on hate speech seemed the simplest way.
67
The intolerance of those that want to be tolerated:
I don't like your sign therefor I'm calling the police to remove you and call it "re-location" so that it doesn't seem that it doesn't sound so bad.
The intolerance of of those that want to be tolerated.
I don't like your sign therefor I'm calling the police to remove you and call it "re-location" so that it doesn't seem that it doesn't sound so bad.
The intolerance of of those that want to be tolerated.
68
@65 You were not there and did not see what I saw. Never been a coward. I have not even stated my side on the Prop 8 issue. This was a situation that was getting out of hand. I advised the Officer to keep an eye on the situation. It was his decision to remove him. I had no part in that.
69
@65: "@62 there is no "right to protest safely"
In these United States...with our constitution and all that silly stuff...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
But, hey, if you want to be injured for exercising your right to free speech, more power to you...
In these United States...with our constitution and all that silly stuff...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
But, hey, if you want to be injured for exercising your right to free speech, more power to you...
70
@66 Exactly. That's how it works. If you got your permit, you are the peaceful ones. That man with the sign didn't get his right to protest permit. The police in St Paul did the right thing by letting you (an un-permitted protestor) protest. It was the Phelps's repellent message that changed the cops mind. They are trained by constitutional law to decipher the opposing messages, and make a decision who's is more repellent. The more you know.......
71
#67 Yeah, it's just like people who work to deny certain people rights or worse yet work to take away existing rights of other peoples but then cry foul when their "right" to take away other people's rights is questioned.
Yeah intolerance is EXACTLY like intolerance of intolerance. There's NO difference whatsoever.
Moron!
Yeah intolerance is EXACTLY like intolerance of intolerance. There's NO difference whatsoever.
Moron!
72
@69 What? Which CERTAIN rights in the constitution are you refering to that might "deny or disparage others" in regards to protesting safely? The right to fight? You're an idiot.
"But, hey, if you want to be injured for exercising your right to free speech, more power to you..."
You don't believe this. You seem to be very concerned about the bigot's saftey.
"But, hey, if you want to be injured for exercising your right to free speech, more power to you..."
You don't believe this. You seem to be very concerned about the bigot's saftey.
73
@72: "You seem to be very concerned about the bigot's saftey [sic]."
Yes, I ABSOLUTELY am concerned about everyone's safety...even bigots...because if they get snarly and up in my face with their hate it is guaranteed that I will punch that face (hence, I do not go to protests at all...not after our little WTO fun here). Yeah, I'm a fag with a bad temper about those kinds of things.
Yes, I ABSOLUTELY am concerned about everyone's safety...even bigots...because if they get snarly and up in my face with their hate it is guaranteed that I will punch that face (hence, I do not go to protests at all...not after our little WTO fun here). Yeah, I'm a fag with a bad temper about those kinds of things.
74
@65 I did not take his sign as you stated. Where did you get this? I did "take" pictures of him and his sign. The Officer escorted/removed/separated him away from the group that was forming. What is your point on the semantics? The decision was the Officers. I wish that I had that power over the Police.
I is amazing how some people come to their conclusions. There should be a study on this.
I is amazing how some people come to their conclusions. There should be a study on this.
76
No, Jay.
And you better watch out! Dan might force the gay community as a whole to dig up Falwell's body, and apologize to him for the "execute homosexuals" crusade he and the Moral Majority tried to start in the early 1980's, too.
And you better watch out! Dan might force the gay community as a whole to dig up Falwell's body, and apologize to him for the "execute homosexuals" crusade he and the Moral Majority tried to start in the early 1980's, too.
78
"I literally had to fight every instinct to spam them back and ask how much of my donations went into making this particular ineffective ad (*but didn't b/c I didn't want to be an asshole)"
Dan, do you think we could talk about this? The natural politeness of people towards everyone, even big, faceless organizations, is exactly why EQCA and every other Captain of Botching Industry are largely unaware of why their methods are ineffective. EQCA stands a better chance of getting results if they accrue ideas and feedback from everyone they represent, and that starts with us, not them.
Dan, do you think we could talk about this? The natural politeness of people towards everyone, even big, faceless organizations, is exactly why EQCA and every other Captain of Botching Industry are largely unaware of why their methods are ineffective. EQCA stands a better chance of getting results if they accrue ideas and feedback from everyone they represent, and that starts with us, not them.
79
I'm no big fan of Dan Savage, but he has absolutely nothing for which to apologize...not even when he annoys me (which is often, but I get over it).
He was rightly skeptical.
He asked honest questions (in this blog).
When more information was found, he posted it.
That's the way it works. Nothing to "retract" because nothing other than questions and the answer (once it was found -- also part of the reason blogs work) was posted. All done! Get over it.
He was rightly skeptical.
He asked honest questions (in this blog).
When more information was found, he posted it.
That's the way it works. Nothing to "retract" because nothing other than questions and the answer (once it was found -- also part of the reason blogs work) was posted. All done! Get over it.
80
I believe that Falwell's gravesite would be considered a toxicological/hazardous waste site...no self-respecting fag is going to want to re-infect the world by digging that crap up, In My Exalted Opinion (IMEO).
81
I posted a photo of a similar sign the same day the EQCA e-mail came out.
I heard about it from a post on Andrew Sullivan's blog -- not from EQCA.
http://salinasvalleyequality.com/weblog/…
The sign in the photo I found on Flickr is written in the same hand and the one shown in the EQCA photo. The only thing missing is the "killing a queer" text.
I heard about it from a post on Andrew Sullivan's blog -- not from EQCA.
http://salinasvalleyequality.com/weblog/…
The sign in the photo I found on Flickr is written in the same hand and the one shown in the EQCA photo. The only thing missing is the "killing a queer" text.
82
Here's another photo of the man who was holding the sign:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cwinsor/333…
(BWT, this found doing a simple Flickr search, Mr. Savage.)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cwinsor/333…
(BWT, this found doing a simple Flickr search, Mr. Savage.)
83
There's nothing wrong with questioning the picture. I'm glad people asked for some verification, because now we have it.
But for the people who insisted that it had to be a fake - time to eat some crow.
And frankly, I'm sick of gays who give themselves credit for disagreeing with gay rights. I don't agree with the HRC on every single issue (I'm against hate crimes laws, for example) but I don't go around bragging about how incredibly open-minded I am because of it. You're not obligated to share Barney Frank's views, but you don't get a cookie just because you disagree with them, either. It doesn't make you special.
But for the people who insisted that it had to be a fake - time to eat some crow.
And frankly, I'm sick of gays who give themselves credit for disagreeing with gay rights. I don't agree with the HRC on every single issue (I'm against hate crimes laws, for example) but I don't go around bragging about how incredibly open-minded I am because of it. You're not obligated to share Barney Frank's views, but you don't get a cookie just because you disagree with them, either. It doesn't make you special.
84
Whatever the story is with the sign, what is clear now is that the No on 8 campaign was almost completely steered by urban gays. Did they ask for ANY input from suburban & rural gay folks? It sure doesn't seem so. That's the real tragedy in this whole thing, because we make up, I'll bet, around half of the GLBT population. And we're the ones who are more likely to be in LTRs and actually WANT to get married.
I'm not slamming gay folks who choose to live in the city and be a part of an "urban gay scene". That's cool, if that makes you happy, go for it. But the next time we all have to circle the wagons against some electoral assault by the religious right, it would be wise for you folks to get a little input as to the best way to get straight folks in the suburbs and in rural areas to vote our way.
I'm not slamming gay folks who choose to live in the city and be a part of an "urban gay scene". That's cool, if that makes you happy, go for it. But the next time we all have to circle the wagons against some electoral assault by the religious right, it would be wise for you folks to get a little input as to the best way to get straight folks in the suburbs and in rural areas to vote our way.
85
"There's nothing wrong with questioning the picture."
I would do some research first. I'm not a reporter. Some people (ah,hem) are and they should at least do a Google search before spouting off.
I'm no fan of Geoff Kors but I don't think I would have questioned the photo without doing some poking around first.
Flickr and other photosharing sites are a wonderful research tool. People take hundreds of photos at public events and post them online.
If Dan Savage had simply gone to Flickr and searched "Dan White Hero" he would have found the same photos I did. He could have contacted the person who posted the photos and verified that the sign is legit.
I would do some research first. I'm not a reporter. Some people (ah,hem) are and they should at least do a Google search before spouting off.
I'm no fan of Geoff Kors but I don't think I would have questioned the photo without doing some poking around first.
Flickr and other photosharing sites are a wonderful research tool. People take hundreds of photos at public events and post them online.
If Dan Savage had simply gone to Flickr and searched "Dan White Hero" he would have found the same photos I did. He could have contacted the person who posted the photos and verified that the sign is legit.
87
Find something in the room, like a sheet, rope, necktie, pants, etc. Use this to make a sling around the doorknob that you can stand in. Make it short enough that if it stretches, you won't hit the floor.
Now, tie it to the knob, get on the chair, and with one heel (not the front of your foot, you'll sprain your ankle) jump off the chair and with all your weight, kick straight down.
Now, tie it to the knob, get on the chair, and with one heel (not the front of your foot, you'll sprain your ankle) jump off the chair and with all your weight, kick straight down.
88
I am skeptical that the man holding the sign was not a plant. Who is this man? Also, if the sign is legit, then why was it presented in a way that seemed fake? (My guess, if the man is not a plant, is that the low-rent, shaggy appearance of the man simply did not fit the picture of a well-off Christian bugaboo. For much the same reason that pictures of Mormons are used as the poster boy for Prop 8 rather than the far more numerous African-American supporters.). Pure Psy-Ops.
Robert
Robert
89
WHY DOES SAVAGE ALWAYS DOUBT THE FQTLBG COMMUNITY HE WANTS TO THROW ALL NON WHITE NON MALE NON RPLACE CLONES UNDER THE SAME BUS OBAMA THROWS US UNDER EACH AND EVERY DAY WITH HIS BIG DICK VIOLENCE
92
I wanna have loveschild's love child, right after the author of #34 acquires some basic reading comprehension skills.
@84. Half? No way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_village… and http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCT… 21% of the population is rural. And you think half the homos in the country might be there, even in light of the sheer numbers we know are in cities? And, really, if you have some ideas, why don't you step up and start an organization instead of writing a comment? In one sentence, you're putting urban gay scene in scare quotes, and in the next you are invoking some "we"? Go fuck yourself.
@84. Half? No way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_village… and http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCT… 21% of the population is rural. And you think half the homos in the country might be there, even in light of the sheer numbers we know are in cities? And, really, if you have some ideas, why don't you step up and start an organization instead of writing a comment? In one sentence, you're putting urban gay scene in scare quotes, and in the next you are invoking some "we"? Go fuck yourself.
93
@ 92 - OK then, maybe a third or a quarter? Whatever it is, it's not an insignificant percentage of the GLBT population.
I used quotes there to indicate that I was aware that "urban gay scene" (there I go again!) meant many different things to many different people, and I wanted to define it broadly. And the "we" I was referring to meant "suburban and rural gay people". Sorry if that wasn't clear.
As for organizations, I don't need to start a gays-living-in-suburbia organization. There are already plenty of gay organizations out there whose membership is more skewed toward gay people living in suburban and rural areas, like the various gay rodeo organizations across the west. For the folks running the No on 8 campaign, organizations like this in CA were just a phone call or an email away. Were any of them consulted? I don't know for sure, but I suspect they weren't. That was the gist of my comment.
Look, all I'm saying to gay people living in the city is, don't pretend that you folks make up 99.9999999% of all out gay people. There really ARE a fuck of a lot of out gays living outside the boundaries of major cities. And we have opinions, and we're fuckin' tired of our opinions being ignored by the gay mainstream, OK?
If my dick was long enough I WOULD fuck myself. But I wouldn't go to city hall and try to get married to myself. That would be weird.
I used quotes there to indicate that I was aware that "urban gay scene" (there I go again!) meant many different things to many different people, and I wanted to define it broadly. And the "we" I was referring to meant "suburban and rural gay people". Sorry if that wasn't clear.
As for organizations, I don't need to start a gays-living-in-suburbia organization. There are already plenty of gay organizations out there whose membership is more skewed toward gay people living in suburban and rural areas, like the various gay rodeo organizations across the west. For the folks running the No on 8 campaign, organizations like this in CA were just a phone call or an email away. Were any of them consulted? I don't know for sure, but I suspect they weren't. That was the gist of my comment.
Look, all I'm saying to gay people living in the city is, don't pretend that you folks make up 99.9999999% of all out gay people. There really ARE a fuck of a lot of out gays living outside the boundaries of major cities. And we have opinions, and we're fuckin' tired of our opinions being ignored by the gay mainstream, OK?
If my dick was long enough I WOULD fuck myself. But I wouldn't go to city hall and try to get married to myself. That would be weird.
94
@91 (homophobe). As long as you're throwing around judgments, I notice that you haven't retracted your earlier assertion (@15) about "charlatan organizations" and "frauds". Care to wash your hands before slinging mud?
95
Did you see this article?
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/op…
I thought it was an interesting spin on one of the "messages" spouted by the yes on 8 campaigners.
As for the sign, I remember when Mosconi/Milk were killed, and the cops who had T-shirts made with a similar slogan in support of that sick f**k.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/op…
I thought it was an interesting spin on one of the "messages" spouted by the yes on 8 campaigners.
As for the sign, I remember when Mosconi/Milk were killed, and the cops who had T-shirts made with a similar slogan in support of that sick f**k.
97
Dan (aka "loveschild"). How about a photo at the 'night? You're such a dodger on friday's, but still such a fuckin' ham on tuesdays with 't.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (97) RSS