Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, May 27, 2009
Homo It's On
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Plans for a GLBT march on Washington were announced yesterday at the Prop 8 rally in NYC:
The weekend of October 10, 2009. Mark your calendars. Via Towleroad.
6
Um, since DC already accepts gay marriages - wouldn't the time be better spent in states that don't have it yet?
8
@6
Umm did you watch the video?
Being negative and smartier-than-thou is cool and all, but your question is answered in the first minute of the vid....
Umm did you watch the video?
Being negative and smartier-than-thou is cool and all, but your question is answered in the first minute of the vid....
9
6, It's not about the local municipality, it's the fact that the national government is based there.
10
Watching Poeschild and Will fight is like watching a flower bloom for the first time in a century. Truly a beautiful thing to see.
11
Doesn't DC only recognize same-sex marriages from other states? I don't think you can get a gay marriage there yet.
Anyway, the whole idea is that we need movement on a federal level, not state by state. We already know that most states are never going to recognize same-sex marriage unless they are forced to do so. So no, just like it would be retarded of us to spend time rallying for gay marriage in Ellensburg instead of Bothell, the time isn't better spent in states that don't have it yet.
Anyway, the whole idea is that we need movement on a federal level, not state by state. We already know that most states are never going to recognize same-sex marriage unless they are forced to do so. So no, just like it would be retarded of us to spend time rallying for gay marriage in Ellensburg instead of Bothell, the time isn't better spent in states that don't have it yet.
12
Oh great another march. Meanwhile 95% of the participants probably still won't hold hands in public at the local mall back home.
Will is right. Activism begins at home. You can't wait for some judges somewhere to make everything perfect for you before you come out.
Will is right. Activism begins at home. You can't wait for some judges somewhere to make everything perfect for you before you come out.
13
I'll be there.
@6, No it doesn't, Congress still has to approve. And are you an idiot or just being a troll?
@6, No it doesn't, Congress still has to approve. And are you an idiot or just being a troll?
15
@12, You know what, we've done a lot here in the other Washington to move toward equality. Yes, our courts struck down same-sex marriage, but since then we have rallied to do what we can with the results. Four states recognize same-sex marriage, and while we are not yet among them, we (thanks to legislators like Jamie Pederson) have made huge strides toward fairness, acceptance, and equality with the domestic partnership bills.
But civil rights are a national issue. We are not waiting for judges to make things perfect. But we need help on a FEDERAL level to ensure that everyone is treated fairly--not just in here in Washington or Iowa, Maine, Massachussetts, Vermont... but in Tennessee, in Florida, and everywhere.
But civil rights are a national issue. We are not waiting for judges to make things perfect. But we need help on a FEDERAL level to ensure that everyone is treated fairly--not just in here in Washington or Iowa, Maine, Massachussetts, Vermont... but in Tennessee, in Florida, and everywhere.
18
That's the kind of leadership I was hoping to see at the rally at Westlake yesterday.
At the Westlake Rally there was no sense of outrage or urgency in the rhetoric of the speakers, no sense of leadership or direction for a "next step" in the fight for equal rights... Just a lot of a-typical mental masturb*tion, blah, blah, blah, crap.
That young man- whoever he is, spoke to my anger, outrage and need for direction in this fight. It was a proud moment for me to watch and listen to that video.
Jesus is proud too...
At the Westlake Rally there was no sense of outrage or urgency in the rhetoric of the speakers, no sense of leadership or direction for a "next step" in the fight for equal rights... Just a lot of a-typical mental masturb*tion, blah, blah, blah, crap.
That young man- whoever he is, spoke to my anger, outrage and need for direction in this fight. It was a proud moment for me to watch and listen to that video.
Jesus is proud too...
20
Our Lady, Your Son was at the rally last night. I like what He's done with His hair, seriously!
Do You two surround yourselves with fabulously passed past gay hair stylists? It definitely shows, if that's the case.
Do You two surround yourselves with fabulously passed past gay hair stylists? It definitely shows, if that's the case.
21
Can I just ask politely that you all show the best side of the gay community by not being the typical annoying tourists/protesters? (By all means patronize the local haunts, but don't get trashed and removed. Learn to use the subway. Be NICE when you ask for directions. And don't think that blocking traffic is going to accomplish anything other than your own arrest.) Thanks bunches! :*
And, if you can handle that, I'll join you.
And, if you can handle that, I'll join you.
22
Just asking:
The film clip is suggesting we need a national law for gay civil rights. Very true, very just, etc. etc. But didn't such a proposal just miss narrowly, meaning that focusing on specific representatives and senators to move specific votes from nay to yea is needed?
Does seeing a big march in DC change your mind if you are a representative from Akron, or Binghampton or St. Louis or Tampa?
How?
The film clip is suggesting we need a national law for gay civil rights. Very true, very just, etc. etc. But didn't such a proposal just miss narrowly, meaning that focusing on specific representatives and senators to move specific votes from nay to yea is needed?
Does seeing a big march in DC change your mind if you are a representative from Akron, or Binghampton or St. Louis or Tampa?
How?
23
@18
Agreed. I seriously felt bored and uninspired at that rally yesterday and left after about 30 minutes.
Agreed. I seriously felt bored and uninspired at that rally yesterday and left after about 30 minutes.
24
About fucking time.
My questions are: who is that guy and who does he speak for? Is this just some random guy wanting to march on DC or does he represent a group?
And, of course, there's no way in hell (the USA) that such legislation will EVER happen. It will take a challenge to a state's law to be brought before the US Supreme Court. But, of course, the more marches and demonstrations the better.
My questions are: who is that guy and who does he speak for? Is this just some random guy wanting to march on DC or does he represent a group?
And, of course, there's no way in hell (the USA) that such legislation will EVER happen. It will take a challenge to a state's law to be brought before the US Supreme Court. But, of course, the more marches and demonstrations the better.
25
So, when I tell my in-laws that there's no way I can come to Virginia for their 50th Wedding Anniversary, but we're going to DC for a march on Washington, do you think we'll lose dibs on the good furniture?
Teh equal rights is hard!
Teh equal rights is hard!
26
Jeez, DC is like 5 minutes from Virginia. You can do both and get the furniture. Just sneak out for a few hours.
27
This seems a lot more sensible than holding protests in Seattle about changes to California's Constitution. The Stranger has been hammering the out-of-state folks that are trying to fight gay marriage in Washington, but don't seem to recognize the hypocrisy of trying to pressure another state's legal mechanisms from afar.
Remember, this country was founded on the principle of self-determination as much, if not more, than the principle of equality. We know that "equality" in the 18th century was limited to certain classes who wanted to make their own rules.
That said, there certainly is an intersection of state law and national policy, as the March on DC in 1963 cannot be considered without also noting the impact of Brown v. Board & Loving v. Virginia. A national display of the people demanding certain rights can force changes at the local level.
Remember, this country was founded on the principle of self-determination as much, if not more, than the principle of equality. We know that "equality" in the 18th century was limited to certain classes who wanted to make their own rules.
That said, there certainly is an intersection of state law and national policy, as the March on DC in 1963 cannot be considered without also noting the impact of Brown v. Board & Loving v. Virginia. A national display of the people demanding certain rights can force changes at the local level.
28
@27: Stonewall was a raid on a local bar in NYC, but pride always commemorates those nights-- why? Matthew Shepard's murder was in Laramie, not Seattle, not D.C., so why is it the foundation for a large hate crimes law?
I think it's sad that anyone would ever hold the opinion of "not my problem"; it's almost as despicable as "help me or I'll blame you". In this case, people were mad that this happened at all. Injustice anywhere and all that.
And last night, we heard plenty about making sure we stay on top of the Referendum 71 issue and the potential for a fight next year or 2011 for full state marriage equality.
I think it's sad that anyone would ever hold the opinion of "not my problem"; it's almost as despicable as "help me or I'll blame you". In this case, people were mad that this happened at all. Injustice anywhere and all that.
And last night, we heard plenty about making sure we stay on top of the Referendum 71 issue and the potential for a fight next year or 2011 for full state marriage equality.
29
I'm just saying, if you live in the Pacific NW, you can spend the time and the money to go to DC - or you could spend it here and get something done.
If you live near DC, I totally understand going there, though.
If you live near DC, I totally understand going there, though.
31
@28. I think you missed my point. I'm all for speaking out against injustice, and fighting for equality. I'm against people who don't live in my state telling me what my laws should be. Think about how you'd feel if Alabamans had a protest against Washington's assisted suicide law, for example.
Gay right to marriage shouldn't be a piecemeal process of cross-border badgering - that only leads to resentment. US history tells us how effective a state-by-state ban on slavery worked out. War broke out because people didn't like outsiders telling them how their local community should think. Justice was only served when the national law was changed.
The March on Washington in 1963 led to the Civil Rights Act. Hopefully, the Swish to DC will lead to a Marriage Rights Act, or something as significant.
Gay right to marriage shouldn't be a piecemeal process of cross-border badgering - that only leads to resentment. US history tells us how effective a state-by-state ban on slavery worked out. War broke out because people didn't like outsiders telling them how their local community should think. Justice was only served when the national law was changed.
The March on Washington in 1963 led to the Civil Rights Act. Hopefully, the Swish to DC will lead to a Marriage Rights Act, or something as significant.
32
I marched on Washington for the ERA and the right to choose several times in the 70s and once or twice in the 80s. I think those who decide to travel to go to this march in October will never forget it. It's one thing to march and show up locally--and I do--but there's nothing as powerful as marching through the capitol of the country with tens of thousands of like-minded supporters in a peaceful, quintessentially American demonstration. If you believe in this cause and you don't go you might regret it forever!
33
Did any of you bother reading the decision of the courts? This is not about civil rights. You have the exact same rights with your civil unions. All this really boils down to is your obsession with appropriating the word "marriage." It's just a word. And what's happening is that you are suddenly demanding that the government change its meaning after generations of having the same meaning in every society of the world.
Hey everybody-- I want to legally change the meaning of the word "uncle" to include non-blood-related male family friends. Who's with me for that march on Washington for it? You don't get it, you guys, even though we're not related, I love my non-blood-related "uncles" just as much those of you who were lucky enough to be born with blood-related uncles. Government, change the definition of the word to recognize my love! If not, it's discrimination! Bigots!
You guys are making yourselves look dumb to the rest of the nation. Do you realize that?
Seriously, don't you have better things to do with your time than march on Washington over semantics?
Sad.
Hey everybody-- I want to legally change the meaning of the word "uncle" to include non-blood-related male family friends. Who's with me for that march on Washington for it? You don't get it, you guys, even though we're not related, I love my non-blood-related "uncles" just as much those of you who were lucky enough to be born with blood-related uncles. Government, change the definition of the word to recognize my love! If not, it's discrimination! Bigots!
You guys are making yourselves look dumb to the rest of the nation. Do you realize that?
Seriously, don't you have better things to do with your time than march on Washington over semantics?
Sad.
34
Ummm...33...lots and lots pf people call someone they're not really related to "uncle," and there's no state or federal constitutional amendment telling them they can't. Now, imagine how much you love those non-blood uncles, and picture them being evicted from the home you shared after your death because your intolerant parents didn't like your "lifestyle" and decided to challenge the will, and won because you and your uncle weren't legal relatives. Fun stuff, eh? Maybe this isn't the case in CA, but it is in loooooooots of other places. Hell, the "gay marriage" banning amendment added to the Ohio constitution in 2004 means I'm no longer related to anyone in my family, because an Ohio resident can only legally be related to a spouse, and the familia refuses to check the fuck out of that hell hole. How 'bout them apples? Californians may be relatively lucky in the rights lot, but many other people aren't.
35
@34
Well, I agree with you that Ohio is totally wrong – not giving you the same rights is absolutely discrimination. But if Ohio gave you civil unions like California with the exact same rights as straight married people, then what’s the problem? Would you still hit the streets in protest? In this moment in time, it just so happens that the majority of people in society define the word “marriage” as a union between a woman and a man. This is due to the fact that for hundreds of years in every society in the world, it’s had this meaning. In 50 years time, maybe that will change. If everybody eventually gets the same rights with civil unions in all states (which I believe they should), why the need to demand the appropriation of the word marriage NOW? I’m not trying to pick a fight here, honestly – I seriously don’t get it.
Well, I agree with you that Ohio is totally wrong – not giving you the same rights is absolutely discrimination. But if Ohio gave you civil unions like California with the exact same rights as straight married people, then what’s the problem? Would you still hit the streets in protest? In this moment in time, it just so happens that the majority of people in society define the word “marriage” as a union between a woman and a man. This is due to the fact that for hundreds of years in every society in the world, it’s had this meaning. In 50 years time, maybe that will change. If everybody eventually gets the same rights with civil unions in all states (which I believe they should), why the need to demand the appropriation of the word marriage NOW? I’m not trying to pick a fight here, honestly – I seriously don’t get it.
36
If one state allows same-sex civil unions, and another allows same-sex domestic partnerships, and another allows same-sex marriage, and another state allows same-sex falafel-spelunking, well then if I got civil unioned (great now what am I supposed to say that doesn't sound ridiculous with that one?) to my boyfriend in one state but his job transfers him to another state that has domestic partnerships how does that work? I know what you're thinking its just a name right, same relationship status, but do you know how complicated marriage rights and privledges are? There are over 1000 items to consider with tax ramifications, and legal ramifications, etc. it is immensely complicated. So each state would have seperate titles and different specifics. It would be a legal nightmare, and complicating shit makes its far more expensive and time consuming for the gov't to figure out.
37
Why do straight people feel like they own the word marriage?! You want to talk about the history of marriage, k fine. From now on no more marriage like its done today, we're only allowing traditional marriages: arranged marriages. Women, and even men you have no say in who your spouses will be, your families will decide for you, based on financial, and social circumstances. If you don't like it, tough shit. Oh and women you're the property of your father until you become the property of your husband, hope he's not a beater, you have no rights! You will make as many or as few babies as he wants! I'll stop fighting for same-sex marriage as soon as straight people start practicing this "traditional marriage" I hear so much about...
38
@35
The appropriation of the word "marriage" has not been as consistent or a uniform as you believe. To this day, in many parts of the world, a marriage can consist of one man and several women (as it did in the Old Testament... see Solomon). Very recently in the western world it has been appropriated to include the subsequent "marriages" of previously divorced people (though not necessarily by all churches... see Holy Roman Catholic Church). In the nineteenth century the word "marriage" was appropriated to include arrangements in which two women lived together (platonicly), independent of any man's support, such being "boston marriages". Marriage originally referred to a property transaction and agreement in which women were chattel exchanged between their father and their husband. This is still true in much of the world. Relatively recently, in the western world, the word "marriage" has been appropriated for romantic (usually unintentionally temporary) arrangements between sweethearts, that generally, but not always, pivot on some form of exclusivity clause. None of these changes and appropriations seem to have damaged its meaning. Any one who claims that "for hundreds of years in every society in the world" marriage has had the same meaning is ignorant. Indeed, even today, even in a society as small as the USA, it has different meanings... See Massachusetts, Iowa & Etc. The definition of marriage has always been as subtly plastic as society its self.
The appropriation of the word "marriage" has not been as consistent or a uniform as you believe. To this day, in many parts of the world, a marriage can consist of one man and several women (as it did in the Old Testament... see Solomon). Very recently in the western world it has been appropriated to include the subsequent "marriages" of previously divorced people (though not necessarily by all churches... see Holy Roman Catholic Church). In the nineteenth century the word "marriage" was appropriated to include arrangements in which two women lived together (platonicly), independent of any man's support, such being "boston marriages". Marriage originally referred to a property transaction and agreement in which women were chattel exchanged between their father and their husband. This is still true in much of the world. Relatively recently, in the western world, the word "marriage" has been appropriated for romantic (usually unintentionally temporary) arrangements between sweethearts, that generally, but not always, pivot on some form of exclusivity clause. None of these changes and appropriations seem to have damaged its meaning. Any one who claims that "for hundreds of years in every society in the world" marriage has had the same meaning is ignorant. Indeed, even today, even in a society as small as the USA, it has different meanings... See Massachusetts, Iowa & Etc. The definition of marriage has always been as subtly plastic as society its self.
39
So...has no one at The Stranger heard the news about Olson and Boies filing suit?
=On Tuesday, lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who represented opposing sides in the 2000 Bush v. Gore election challenge, announced they had filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of two gay men and two gay women.
Their case argues that California's voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process.
Olson said he hopes the suit, which seeks a preliminary injunction against the California measure until the case is resolved, will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.=
SF Gate/AP
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg…
http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/abo…
=On Tuesday, lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who represented opposing sides in the 2000 Bush v. Gore election challenge, announced they had filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of two gay men and two gay women.
Their case argues that California's voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process.
Olson said he hopes the suit, which seeks a preliminary injunction against the California measure until the case is resolved, will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.=
SF Gate/AP
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg…
http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/abo…
40
"That's what we want" -> or else!
He just fell short of asking them to bring the torches and pitchforks.
Because nothing says tolerance like intimidation.
He just fell short of asking them to bring the torches and pitchforks.
Because nothing says tolerance like intimidation.
41
Here's Loveschild...I thought I heard the Wicked Witch of the West theme playing in the background...
Loveschild, sweetie...FUCK tolerance. We passed asking for tolerance a long time ago. We are the taxpaying citizens of this country and we fucking demand the same fucking rights and priviliges under the law as any other citizens...and if it takes intimidation to get it, SO FUCKING BE IT.
Loveschild, sweetie...FUCK tolerance. We passed asking for tolerance a long time ago. We are the taxpaying citizens of this country and we fucking demand the same fucking rights and priviliges under the law as any other citizens...and if it takes intimidation to get it, SO FUCKING BE IT.
42
Ok, the only valid point any of you seem to make is the guy who said, “What the hell, I’m supposed to say that I’m civil unioned to boyfriend?” I agree, that sounds totally stupid. Oh, and the other thing: it's not “straight people” who think they own the word marriage – it’s society as a whole that’s given the word this meaning. (Believe it or not, society includes you too, gays.)
Listen, you guys have gotta step outside of yourselves and your egos for one second (I know it's hard – take a deep breath and put down the torches) and think of this thing in terms of society as a whole. The idea of gay “marriage” is something very, very new for most societies on this planet, so a change in peoples’ perspective will take time. Most of us have never struggled with same sex feelings so it’s new to us. Cramming the change in perspective down peoples’ throats AIN’T gonna work to really change their minds. The best way to change their minds is by being open examples to people and then it's not so scary to them any more. Continue to be the excellent examples you are (those of you who are out) with your relationships to the world, and I promise, change will come.
BUT, I tell ya, the more violent and mob-like you all are, the more it’s going to backfire on you. People are going to revolt right back and the slower change will come for you. AND when you go around calling people who fully support your equal rights through civil unions “bigots” but just aren’t yet ready to call it marriage because it’s something their used to (there are A LOT of us – and I ain’t no crazy-ass Mormon), the more we will want to abandon helping your cause. Why the hell do you think Obama’s done nothing so far? It pisses us off! Don’t make us want to NOT vote for you guys in the voting booth. You need our support to win!
Before you call me a bigot (remember: shooting yourselves in the foot), realize that I’m taking the time to say this stuff to help you guys for chrissakes!
Sheesh.
More...
Listen, you guys have gotta step outside of yourselves and your egos for one second (I know it's hard – take a deep breath and put down the torches) and think of this thing in terms of society as a whole. The idea of gay “marriage” is something very, very new for most societies on this planet, so a change in peoples’ perspective will take time. Most of us have never struggled with same sex feelings so it’s new to us. Cramming the change in perspective down peoples’ throats AIN’T gonna work to really change their minds. The best way to change their minds is by being open examples to people and then it's not so scary to them any more. Continue to be the excellent examples you are (those of you who are out) with your relationships to the world, and I promise, change will come.
BUT, I tell ya, the more violent and mob-like you all are, the more it’s going to backfire on you. People are going to revolt right back and the slower change will come for you. AND when you go around calling people who fully support your equal rights through civil unions “bigots” but just aren’t yet ready to call it marriage because it’s something their used to (there are A LOT of us – and I ain’t no crazy-ass Mormon), the more we will want to abandon helping your cause. Why the hell do you think Obama’s done nothing so far? It pisses us off! Don’t make us want to NOT vote for you guys in the voting booth. You need our support to win!
Before you call me a bigot (remember: shooting yourselves in the foot), realize that I’m taking the time to say this stuff to help you guys for chrissakes!
Sheesh.
43
@35,
Please see the discussion on "Let's give them something to talk about."
The problem is that most civil union laws do not grant exactly the same rights as marriage. If civil unions and marriage truly granted exactly the same rights, then maybe the word marriage wouldn't be such a big issue.
Please see the discussion on "Let's give them something to talk about."
The problem is that most civil union laws do not grant exactly the same rights as marriage. If civil unions and marriage truly granted exactly the same rights, then maybe the word marriage wouldn't be such a big issue.
44
42, How do you get violent mob from a march in Washington? It's been done for centuries. So many movements have succeeded by doing what we are doing. Search for images of woman's suffrage, civil rights marches, etc. (For each cause, there have been people like you telling the folks wanting basic rights that they are pushing too hard.) Sometimes it takes putting an issue in peoples faces to get them to face reality. I appreciate your "helpful" advice, but we are gaining ground. That isn't happening because we are sitting sidelines, quietly asking for equality. Everyday more people are realizing that gay people are human beings deserving of equal rights We're not going to stop now. We're not going to disappear. We will have marriage.
45
42, To add, to take your "helpful" advice that we should accept our status as lesser citizens, unworthy of civil rights enjoyed by others would really be shooting ourselves in the foot. If women followed your advice, they would still be banned from voting and black folks would still be riding on the back of the bus.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Liveblogging the Washington State House Debate and Vote
onIN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE by Eli Sanders -
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
It's Not Over Until We Say It's Over by Dan Savage
-
Jeff Bezos' Racist, Pro-Life, Anti-Evolution, Rape-Apologist Search Engine by Goldy
-
Yesterday's Best Arguments Against Gay Marriage by Eli Sanders
-
SL Letter of the Day: Tower of Label by Dan Savage
-
Which Kind of Bus Person Are You? by Megan Seling
-
Santorum Wins Colorado 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
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (45) RSS