Slog
News & ArtsMonday, April 6, 2009
Homo Distracted In Vermont
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:14 AM
Good thing the Republican governor of Vermont has pledged to veto the gay marriage bill approved by wide margins in both houses of the Vermont legislature—that sure put an end to the "distraction" caused by the movement for marriage equality in that state.
There are enough votes—way more than enough—in the Vermont state senate to override the threatened veto; word is that supporters of marriage equality have to find just one more vote in the house to override the veto. Anyone sincerely interested in putting an end to the "distraction" of the marriage equality movement—anyone who isn't, for instance, a GOP governor threatening a veto in a transparent effort to appease the religious right—should pull for the Vermont legislators to find that last vote. (You can help out here.) Because marriage equality for same-sex couples is, as the governor of Vermont surely knows, going to continue to "distract" elected officials until we achieve it in Vermont and every other state. If we fail to win marriage equality this session, we'll be back next session, and the session after that, until we we win.
And we will win. We are winning.
1
I know who else won't be getting my support in my next vacation: Vermont. I can't believe they are letting this issue of letting perverts marry get in the way of such serious issues as abstinence-only education and Church funding in their next budgets.
Really, we should be supporting these helpless perverts by locking them up in private not-state-funded mental institutions where the poor souls can get the help that they so dearly need. These are not good people. They molest children. If they marry, they will adopt future victims. And then fuck the shit out of their sweet little behinds.
Won't somebody think of the children, those tender, soft, sweet, supple children?
Really, we should be supporting these helpless perverts by locking them up in private not-state-funded mental institutions where the poor souls can get the help that they so dearly need. These are not good people. They molest children. If they marry, they will adopt future victims. And then fuck the shit out of their sweet little behinds.
Won't somebody think of the children, those tender, soft, sweet, supple children?
2
I was making calls last night thru VT freedom to marry and found around 10 people who were willing to call their legislator and ask her to vote yes again on same sex marriage after the veto. it was really awesome. more people said yes than no. but most people just weren't home.
5
I know #1 is just a silly parody of the lovechild troll, but it made me wonder...
Who, in general, wants to get married more, gay men or lesbian women? I would assume lesbians are more eager to marry, if only because of the male/female marriage stereotypes. Is this correct?
If it's correct that lesbians want marriage more than gay men, then shouldn't anti-gay marriage people be plastering images of lesbians kissing and using "scare brides" and stuff, instead of what they currently do: fixate on gay male anal sex?
Just wondering...
Who, in general, wants to get married more, gay men or lesbian women? I would assume lesbians are more eager to marry, if only because of the male/female marriage stereotypes. Is this correct?
If it's correct that lesbians want marriage more than gay men, then shouldn't anti-gay marriage people be plastering images of lesbians kissing and using "scare brides" and stuff, instead of what they currently do: fixate on gay male anal sex?
Just wondering...
7
Just because we don't all live in Vermont doesn't mean we don't have the power to help override this veto. You have The Power.
There are 10 democrats who voted against this bill; we only need to persuade 1 or 2 of them in order to make this bill veto proof. The names and office numbers of 2 democratic lawmakers will be listed on the website of 'The Power' later today (See http://thepoweronline.wordpress.com/). Distribute these names and numbers to everyone you know and don't stop calling them until they change their vote.
We may not all live in Vermont, but we have already demonstrated that when we are united in our actions we have The Power to influence and cause real significant change. (Remember Sen Ruben Diaz from the NY state Senate?)
http://thepoweronline.wordpress.com/
There are 10 democrats who voted against this bill; we only need to persuade 1 or 2 of them in order to make this bill veto proof. The names and office numbers of 2 democratic lawmakers will be listed on the website of 'The Power' later today (See http://thepoweronline.wordpress.com/). Distribute these names and numbers to everyone you know and don't stop calling them until they change their vote.
We may not all live in Vermont, but we have already demonstrated that when we are united in our actions we have The Power to influence and cause real significant change. (Remember Sen Ruben Diaz from the NY state Senate?)
http://thepoweronline.wordpress.com/
8
1 , Thank you for the laugh at your silly humor. 5 and thank you for the name calling, I will take it as a compliment coming from someone who uses a name handle shall we say as colorful as yours.
As for this matter all I can comment is that good on the governor for being a man of his word. the governor has chosen to side with the people and not with politicians nor with judges who have refused to represent the people of their state.
'Whether You Like it or Not' said the mayor of SF, Dan. The same arrogance and snobbery you're displaying. And it showed his contempt for the representative democracy we live in. Go on TV and do the same please.
As for this matter all I can comment is that good on the governor for being a man of his word. the governor has chosen to side with the people and not with politicians nor with judges who have refused to represent the people of their state.
'Whether You Like it or Not' said the mayor of SF, Dan. The same arrogance and snobbery you're displaying. And it showed his contempt for the representative democracy we live in. Go on TV and do the same please.
9
Since Mary was a surrogate mother for Jesus (knocked up by a dove) I wonder if Mary could have been a lesbian? Maybe Joseph was a beard.
10
@5, Greg @6 is correct:
Soft supple lesbians are HOT to most anybody.
Hairy asses with lube on them getting plowed by huge cocks are a specialized fetish.
Now, you could always have bull dykes getting married as scare brides, but men will probably still put them on a mental feminization in their head as they see the poster.
Soft supple lesbians are HOT to most anybody.
Hairy asses with lube on them getting plowed by huge cocks are a specialized fetish.
Now, you could always have bull dykes getting married as scare brides, but men will probably still put them on a mental feminization in their head as they see the poster.
11
Of course, the same people who are saying that there simply is too much going on with the economy to waste time dealing with gay marriage are in Iowa saying that there simply is nothing at all in the history of forever that is as important as getting the Iowa ruling overturned.
12
If the veto is overridden, I'll put money on the gay marriage opponents screeching about how the VT legislature isn't "truly representative of the people of VT". Of course, the only way their side is able to win anymore is with deceptive ballot measure campaigns funded by dumptrucks full of church money.
I'm curious what these delusional idiots will do or say when they start losing these battles right and left.
I'm curious what these delusional idiots will do or say when they start losing these battles right and left.
13
@8 Gosh. You put it so generously. By the way, I was being serious. I know that gay married couples, for a fact, molest their victims. Its been proven time and again. That's where all the damage in the world comes from: Married Faggots.
And, I have tremendous respect for you for respecting the governor of Vermont. It takes a lot of balls to go show approval for the representative democracy we live in by vetoing a bill approved by the representatives of the general public. Its just such a smart move because they don't represent the people they were elected by. Only the governor does. Unless he didn't veto the bill, in which case, he would be an asshole as well.
And, I have tremendous respect for you for respecting the governor of Vermont. It takes a lot of balls to go show approval for the representative democracy we live in by vetoing a bill approved by the representatives of the general public. Its just such a smart move because they don't represent the people they were elected by. Only the governor does. Unless he didn't veto the bill, in which case, he would be an asshole as well.
14
@ 8 - How do you know that the governor of VT is "siding with the people"? Have you seen VT polling data on this issue? How is it that you can applaud the governor of VT for standing on principle, but call it "arrogant" when the mayor of SF does the same thing?
To your credit, Loveschild, I feel you have risen above the epithet "troll" and may now be considered "the loyal opposition." Your arguments, while I disagree with most of them, are usually cogent and well-thought-out. Peace, as the kids say.
To your credit, Loveschild, I feel you have risen above the epithet "troll" and may now be considered "the loyal opposition." Your arguments, while I disagree with most of them, are usually cogent and well-thought-out. Peace, as the kids say.
15
"Your arguments, while I disagree with most of them, are usually cogent and well-thought-out"
Except of course when she is asked to provide any kind of evidence for the bigotry and hatred she spews out of her ass.
Except of course when she is asked to provide any kind of evidence for the bigotry and hatred she spews out of her ass.
16
14 That's precisely it, we don't know what the people of Vermont as a whole think about this. If the people of Vermont through the democratic process opted to recognize such unions at the level of marriage I would not like it but I would respect their decision. But that's not what's happening here.
Gavin Newsom's quote before any consensus through the democratic process had taken place on this issue:
"It is going to happen now, whether you like it or not.”
How is that not being arrogant? If this is instituted into law by way of passage through the people's approval of it, my side could not in good honesty declare this as an imposition or tyrannical. That has yet not happened, all of the places were this has been put into law judges and rogue politicians have been involved. In none has the peoples voice been taken into account, with the exception of Cali and the courts are seeking a way to overturn their vote there.
I can respect yours or any others honest disagreement with me on this but I cannot respect anyone who wants to silence those of us who will have to live with these rulings.
Gavin Newsom's quote before any consensus through the democratic process had taken place on this issue:
"It is going to happen now, whether you like it or not.”
How is that not being arrogant? If this is instituted into law by way of passage through the people's approval of it, my side could not in good honesty declare this as an imposition or tyrannical. That has yet not happened, all of the places were this has been put into law judges and rogue politicians have been involved. In none has the peoples voice been taken into account, with the exception of Cali and the courts are seeking a way to overturn their vote there.
I can respect yours or any others honest disagreement with me on this but I cannot respect anyone who wants to silence those of us who will have to live with these rulings.
17
@16: Here is a fact. You can tell it's a fact because I can back it up.
58%-- supported or leaned in favor of legal marriage for gay and lesbian couples, while only 39% opposed or leaned against.
-- Macro International, Inc. Poll, January 2009
58%-- supported or leaned in favor of legal marriage for gay and lesbian couples, while only 39% opposed or leaned against.
-- Macro International, Inc. Poll, January 2009
19
And what about this arrogant SOB?
Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
20
@ 16 - So you admit that you don't know whether or not the people of VT would favor SSM or not. Then why did you say in comment #8 that the gov. "sided with the people of VT"?
"Tyrranical"? How can it be tyrranical if it doesn't affect you in any way?
Sadly, it's been shown again and again that "the people" are not good guarantors of the civil rights of minorities. That was the point of the 14th Amendment, which wasn't "put to a vote of the people," either.
"Tyrranical"? How can it be tyrranical if it doesn't affect you in any way?
Sadly, it's been shown again and again that "the people" are not good guarantors of the civil rights of minorities. That was the point of the 14th Amendment, which wasn't "put to a vote of the people," either.
22
In the mean time the religious goons are still waiting for their imaginary Jesus to show up. What fools.
23
Just thought it was interesting that Jim Douglas was selected to sit next to Michele Obama during President Obama's first address to a joint session of the U.S. House and Senate. Discuss among yourselves.
24
20 None of us does until the people make their voices heard through the voting process. Even polls like the ones 17 cited can be misleading depending on how the questions were phrased or the bias of the questioner. It has happen on both sides of this issue before, so I don't rely on polls, I rely on facts and facts can only be seen in the aftermath of the counting of votes. That being the case of course the governor is correct and needs to side with the laws on the book at present of his state unless the people vote differently. That's his job, so in that sense he's siding with the people of Vermont.
Look, if you truly believe that the people are with you on this, if you honestly think in your heart of hearts that people want gay marriage to be the law of the land, then don't oppose the Democratic process. It will benefit you because if you are right my side will not be able to argue against it. But if you keep insisting as Dan has called for and seeking 'victories' through the courts or through pressure groups lobbying politicians then of course people are going to see through it and you may win temporarily a decision from a court but the people will find a way of reversing it because they will see it as an arbitrary imposition. And yes and arbitrary imposition on a representative Democracy as ours is a tyrannical rule. That line: ""the people" are not good", you can use it against people like me but who's to say that in the future those same tactics won't be used against you? Believe me it will backfire on you. And your wins will be short lived.
You and I will just have to disagree on the comparison you are trying to make with civil rights. I know that's a false comparison.
Look, if you truly believe that the people are with you on this, if you honestly think in your heart of hearts that people want gay marriage to be the law of the land, then don't oppose the Democratic process. It will benefit you because if you are right my side will not be able to argue against it. But if you keep insisting as Dan has called for and seeking 'victories' through the courts or through pressure groups lobbying politicians then of course people are going to see through it and you may win temporarily a decision from a court but the people will find a way of reversing it because they will see it as an arbitrary imposition. And yes and arbitrary imposition on a representative Democracy as ours is a tyrannical rule. That line: ""the people" are not good", you can use it against people like me but who's to say that in the future those same tactics won't be used against you? Believe me it will backfire on you. And your wins will be short lived.
You and I will just have to disagree on the comparison you are trying to make with civil rights. I know that's a false comparison.
25
@24: You say it is a false comparison because you are on the same side of the argument about gay marriage rights as those who supported Jim Crow and segregation were on rights for African Americans.
As to your refutation of the polling data I presented: If you read the data I linked to you can see the question asked. I know that polling and statistics can be misleading, but you have yet to offer ONE piece of fact to support YOUR claim that the people of Vermont's desires are not being represented by their duly elected officials. Until you do you have no standing with me.
You can hide your head in the sand and spout religious rhetoric all you like, but it won't convince people who make decisions using their minds first. You'll note that two of the groups with the largest "for gay marriage" percentages were those who completed four years of college or who had done post-graduate work. I think this speaks volumes about ignorance and bigotry.
Oh, and for what it's worth, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. If you don't know the difference, look it up. If you do, please stop bitching about the Vermont legislature doing their job.
As to your refutation of the polling data I presented: If you read the data I linked to you can see the question asked. I know that polling and statistics can be misleading, but you have yet to offer ONE piece of fact to support YOUR claim that the people of Vermont's desires are not being represented by their duly elected officials. Until you do you have no standing with me.
You can hide your head in the sand and spout religious rhetoric all you like, but it won't convince people who make decisions using their minds first. You'll note that two of the groups with the largest "for gay marriage" percentages were those who completed four years of college or who had done post-graduate work. I think this speaks volumes about ignorance and bigotry.
Oh, and for what it's worth, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. If you don't know the difference, look it up. If you do, please stop bitching about the Vermont legislature doing their job.
26
And "Loves"child still hasn't commented on the fact that womens' rights, and black rights were never popular with the citizens. "Activist" courts changed those laws.
27
Why should the governor of Vermont be any different than the Obama administration? So far, their stance has been, "we're too busy with the economy to worry about the gays; we'll get to you 'someday'"
28
25 Wash your mouth with ammonia and clean your fingers with Clorox before you decide to use African American history to bolster your argument on this issue cause you sound like you don't know anything about it.
As for Vermont I believe that all the people of Vermont not just those with college degrees or those whole live in Burlington or Montpelier have a right to be heard about this issue that some politicians urged by gay interest groups want to impose on their state. That my dear is not what they're paid for in Montpelier. They're not paid to do the biding of gay interest groups. The governor is more than right in saying this is a waste of time on the part of the legislature in such a crucial moment in the economy of our nation.
We live in a republic that's governed through a system of representative Democracy and in many states the people have a more direct saying in the laws that govern their daily lives. Don't like it? Then head to any South American regime or Russia, there are many nations with the type of government you want but this isn't one of them.
"WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES"
Not politicians lobbied by gay activist not activist judges legislating from the bench.
As for Vermont I believe that all the people of Vermont not just those with college degrees or those whole live in Burlington or Montpelier have a right to be heard about this issue that some politicians urged by gay interest groups want to impose on their state. That my dear is not what they're paid for in Montpelier. They're not paid to do the biding of gay interest groups. The governor is more than right in saying this is a waste of time on the part of the legislature in such a crucial moment in the economy of our nation.
We live in a republic that's governed through a system of representative Democracy and in many states the people have a more direct saying in the laws that govern their daily lives. Don't like it? Then head to any South American regime or Russia, there are many nations with the type of government you want but this isn't one of them.
"WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES"
Not politicians lobbied by gay activist not activist judges legislating from the bench.
29
@27: There are some important differences between President Obama and the Governor of Vermont. For example, if Congress repeals DOMA, Obama has pledged to sign that into law. If Congress repeals DADT, Obama has pledged to sign that into law. If Congress passes ENDA, Obama has pledged to sign that into law.
See the difference?
See the difference?
30
@28: Wow. This latest missive of yours has only succeeded in making you look even more ignorant.
I don't know anything about a group of people discriminated against because of an aspect of their being that they can't change? Hey, I'm not gay and I'm not black, but I am a human and I can use my intellect and empathy to see parallels. (Oh and "wash your mouth out with ammonia and clean your fingers with Clorox"? Is this some psycho punishment you were subjected to as a child? That's some sick shit!)
As for paragraph 2: If you actually read the source material, you would see that a variety of people were polled. 204 had less than a 4 year degree, only 193 had a 4 year degree or more. (See, this is where reading and being able to support your position comes in handy.) I'm not sure where being paid to do the "biding" of gay interest groups comes into it nor your railing about geographic location, as this information was not referred to in the polling data.
Paragraph 3: I think that our republic, while flawed, is a pretty good system. You copied-and-pasted the right answer in, but don't seem to understand what that means.
I don't know anything about a group of people discriminated against because of an aspect of their being that they can't change? Hey, I'm not gay and I'm not black, but I am a human and I can use my intellect and empathy to see parallels. (Oh and "wash your mouth out with ammonia and clean your fingers with Clorox"? Is this some psycho punishment you were subjected to as a child? That's some sick shit!)
As for paragraph 2: If you actually read the source material, you would see that a variety of people were polled. 204 had less than a 4 year degree, only 193 had a 4 year degree or more. (See, this is where reading and being able to support your position comes in handy.) I'm not sure where being paid to do the "biding" of gay interest groups comes into it nor your railing about geographic location, as this information was not referred to in the polling data.
Paragraph 3: I think that our republic, while flawed, is a pretty good system. You copied-and-pasted the right answer in, but don't seem to understand what that means.
31
Gods, I really can't take the "people of Vermont" argument. Vermont isn't (and, hell, the US isn't) a direct democracy. We vote for our state representatives to represent us in the legislative process. If we don't like how they legislate, we vote them out. That's the whole point--we delegate things to them so that they can study them, they can consider issues that we might not be able to consider, and it keeps us from tredging to the polls every day to vote on yet another issue.
If you want to replace them with just automata who have to follow whatever recent poll says, fine, but until that day, the "well these legislators don't speak for the people" is a tired old shill that has absolutely no basis in fact and is something you would know if you'd even take the most basic of civics classes.
If you want to replace them with just automata who have to follow whatever recent poll says, fine, but until that day, the "well these legislators don't speak for the people" is a tired old shill that has absolutely no basis in fact and is something you would know if you'd even take the most basic of civics classes.
32
uh, no...so far the Obama administration has initiated huge amounts of legislation for projects it believes in...if they were so inclined they WOULD and COULD be pushing through bills to kill DOMA and DADT...they've made it pretty clear that they're not currently inclined to do that at this time.
And yeah, I understand that they're busy, but guess what, the LGBT community keeps supporting the agenda of the mainstream Democratic Party and giving them money and they continue to backpedal when it comes to keeping their promises to us...eventually, we're going to have enough of the bullshit.
And the Obama adminstration is playing the same tired game that the Vermont governor is playing..."we're too busy with more important stuff to deal with the gays".
See the similiarities?
And yeah, I understand that they're busy, but guess what, the LGBT community keeps supporting the agenda of the mainstream Democratic Party and giving them money and they continue to backpedal when it comes to keeping their promises to us...eventually, we're going to have enough of the bullshit.
And the Obama adminstration is playing the same tired game that the Vermont governor is playing..."we're too busy with more important stuff to deal with the gays".
See the similiarities?
33
Oh come off it, it's only been two months. Congress has so far passed 26 bills this session, of which only 5 or 6 have any substance (most relate to the preparations for the President's speech to the joint session, and there are a couple of Post Office namings). The Administration played a key role in 2 of them - SCHIP and the Omnibus Appropriations Act - and advised on the timing of a third (they wanted Lilly Ledbetter to be the first thing Obama signed). Right now it's budget time, and nothing else happens in DC when it's budget time.
Meanwhile, on the administrative side, Obama has removed the Global Gag rule on sex ed and family planning, and joined the UN Declaration on Gay Rights. The repeal of DADT is pending in the House, with 137 cosponsors. After last year's hearings, and this year's study, it could actually pass this session.
I'm gay, and married my husband in California last year. I was also a US infantryman from 2000 to 2004. I am tired of being a political football, and sick at the incompetence of a lot of gay political leadership. But I'm not giving up on Obama after only 75 days in office. The man seems thoughtful enough to realize that one of his daughters might come home with a woman someday. He won't want her asking him why the hell she still can't get married.
This does not mean that we shouldn't hold his feet to the fire at every opportunity.
Meanwhile, on the administrative side, Obama has removed the Global Gag rule on sex ed and family planning, and joined the UN Declaration on Gay Rights. The repeal of DADT is pending in the House, with 137 cosponsors. After last year's hearings, and this year's study, it could actually pass this session.
I'm gay, and married my husband in California last year. I was also a US infantryman from 2000 to 2004. I am tired of being a political football, and sick at the incompetence of a lot of gay political leadership. But I'm not giving up on Obama after only 75 days in office. The man seems thoughtful enough to realize that one of his daughters might come home with a woman someday. He won't want her asking him why the hell she still can't get married.
This does not mean that we shouldn't hold his feet to the fire at every opportunity.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (33) RSS