Thursday, May 28, 2009
Politics A Farce Advocate
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:28 AM
I guess I was wrong: apparently the rights, families, and children of gay and lesbian Americans are a joke—at least it's clear we are to Barack Obama. The day after the Supreme Court of California upheld Prop 8—the day after hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in protest in more than 100 cities across the country (check out Rex Wockner's pictures of the huge protest in conservative San Diego)—President Obama attended a fundraiser in Beverly Hills, California. Gays and lesbians protested outside the hotel and President Obama deigned to acknowledge protesters during his remarks:
Obama even noted the gay right protesters outside the Beverly Hilton."One of them said, 'Obama, keep your promise,' and I thought that's fair," he said. "I don't know which promise he was talking about."
The crowd cracked up.
How about your promise to end DADT, Mr. President? Your promise to repeal DOMA? To use the bully pulpit of the White House to advance the cause of equality for gays and lesbian Americans? End the HIV travel ban? Ring any bells?
We've seen historic progress on marriage equality in Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire; gays and lesbians in California have just suffered a huge blow; and gay and lesbian protesters outside the hotel asked you to say something, anything, about marriage equality. And the best the president can offer us is a limp joke—another joke, a lamer joke, a cruelly-timed joke.
UPDATE: There's been a some noise about a major something-or-other on gay rights coming out of the White House close to the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, right in time for pride celebrations across the country. So maybe Obama has a plan: crank up gays and lesbians and then make us look foolish—particularly us bloggin' fools—for losing our patience with him. But typing that makes me feel like an even bigger fool, like I'm desperate to read good intentions into the actions of a White House that, on gay issues, has little to offer besides contempt (Gibbs) and snark (Obama). I'm not at all optimistic—but, hey, feel free to make me eat that "F", Mr. President.
Share via
1
It's hard to keep up with all the BS you make up to get what you want, eh? "Blahblahblahblahblah blahblah blahblahblah vote for me blahblahblah blahblah blah." You'd think he'd jump all over this, if only to go down in the history books as not only the first African American pres, but the one to give us the equality we deserve.
What really blows my mind is that the audience laughed. Yeah, real funny. Might as well have said "I'm not an actual leader, I'm just a good speaker."
What really blows my mind is that the audience laughed. Yeah, real funny. Might as well have said "I'm not an actual leader, I'm just a good speaker."
3
I don't get it...that was supposed to be a joke? I'll admit I'm no master of humor, but there is absolutely nothing about that statement that even remotely resembles my understanding of what a "joke" is. Why the fuck did they laugh?
4
GO DAN!!! keep up the good work reporting on this, I am sick of people telling you to stop crying over it, ITS OUR RIGHTS FOR GOD SAKE!
5
I really do wish I supported Hillary at this point.
Sorry, no more money to the national Dems and my next vote is going to be for the Green Party.
Obama's a homophobe (Bill Clinton didn't even treat us this disrespectfully!); why won't anyone nationally call him out on it?
Sorry, no more money to the national Dems and my next vote is going to be for the Green Party.
Obama's a homophobe (Bill Clinton didn't even treat us this disrespectfully!); why won't anyone nationally call him out on it?
6
"gays and lesbians in California have just suffered a huge blow"
Damn Dan-
don't you even read the shit you post?
We WON in California!
Damn Dan-
don't you even read the shit you post?
We WON in California!
9
@8, I could just vote for a Republican, at least they have the balls to tell me to fuck off to my face, the Democrats do it behind our backs after they take out money.
12
LOL! My conscience is clear- I didn’t vote for that jive talking, rooster strutting, Uncle Tom, MoFo...
13
I think the joke is that he's gone back on so many promises that you can take your pick which one he's broken.
Maybe he's trying to keep up with Biden's humor.
Maybe he's trying to keep up with Biden's humor.
15
Designated fenced zones please. Before loony groups like that get out of hand, because you know that's the road they're heading.
16
Obama really is pissing a lot of people off by not keeping his promises.
One luxury conservatives have is that they blindly support conservative politicians, even when they fail to keep their promises. Democrats do not have that luxury and Obama's failure to do anything he promised is going to end up seriously dividing the democratic party.
One luxury conservatives have is that they blindly support conservative politicians, even when they fail to keep their promises. Democrats do not have that luxury and Obama's failure to do anything he promised is going to end up seriously dividing the democratic party.
17
That looks out of context. He seems to be referring to the fact that he has a lot of promises to keep, and we all are demanding that he attack them at once. Yes, we should keep up the pressure and make certain we're heard, but I'm not going to jump on every comment coming from the President. I prefer having him than President McCain! However, he would help his standing by at least clearly indicating that our issues are on his agenda and giving a time frame for attacking them. He could start with moving to stop the separations resulting from DADT, while at the same time working with Congress for the legislative repeal!
18
LC, you're ignorance is showing.
Obama is just being a Democrat. Dems are always disappointing on the issues that matter the most.
Obama is just being a Democrat. Dems are always disappointing on the issues that matter the most.
20
It's hard for some people to take this seriously. You can't marry, you can't get the same benefits as married people. That isn't as compelling a story as having separate drinking fountains or getting firehosed by the police.
22
I really am scratching my head at Obama. I don't get what all the silence is about. What is the political strategy actually? The Obama team is very savvy, so there must be something well thought-out they are doing. What are they saying behind closed doors?
I noticed Jake Tapper (ABC News) raised the Prop 8 decision with Gibbs yesterday; maybe the "mainstream" media wills tart to escalate this whole weird silent-on-gay-issues thing into a meatier media thing than it is now. I wonder how the volume on that can be turned up.
I noticed Jake Tapper (ABC News) raised the Prop 8 decision with Gibbs yesterday; maybe the "mainstream" media wills tart to escalate this whole weird silent-on-gay-issues thing into a meatier media thing than it is now. I wonder how the volume on that can be turned up.
23
@21
In the short time I've been active on SLOG, I've sometimes seen attitudes reverse themselves half a dozen times within a single post.
In the short time I've been active on SLOG, I've sometimes seen attitudes reverse themselves half a dozen times within a single post.
24
Can someone explain the joke to me? I took as it as there are a LOT of promises made on the campaign trail and he's barely tapped into them--gay-related or otherwise. It's been what, 4 months? If anything it was a joke at his own expense.
25
I have come to the sad conclusion that LC needs to be banned from this site. All she is capable of posting is hateful propaganda. I feel like we've put up it with it for long enough. I'm happy to hear other people's points of view, but I think we've heard her, she refuses to hear us, and now we're being forced to listen to her constant insults and lies. Maybe we can take a poll - everyone who wants her out of here for good, raise your hand. Dan Savage clearly can't stand her, so if enough of us are on board, maybe we can ask that her IP address be banned. What say you all?
26
He says that because HE HASN'T BROKEN A PROMISE, not because he made a promise that he has forgotten, or abandoned. You're a stupid fuck Dan, and pissing me off.
I know you see which way the movement is going, and it's going well. I'm sure Obama sees the same thing and is aware that even without is help, if the gay community is able to organize and positively engage the rest of America, they will get the rights they deserve. I don't see why you expect or need him to sacrifice his credibility, and it would with a bunch of assholes who are voters, Obama supporters, and Americans, as lame as that truth is, in order to help a movement that doesn't immediately need his help.
Your constant fucking negativity is draining and detrimental to whatever it is you're trying to prove. I hate you now. Jerk.
I know you see which way the movement is going, and it's going well. I'm sure Obama sees the same thing and is aware that even without is help, if the gay community is able to organize and positively engage the rest of America, they will get the rights they deserve. I don't see why you expect or need him to sacrifice his credibility, and it would with a bunch of assholes who are voters, Obama supporters, and Americans, as lame as that truth is, in order to help a movement that doesn't immediately need his help.
Your constant fucking negativity is draining and detrimental to whatever it is you're trying to prove. I hate you now. Jerk.
27
@25
Shut the fuck up. Nobody is being banned. Loveschild isn't threatening your life, or anyone else's for that matter. If you weren't so retarded, you'd know that feeding a troll and/or banning a troll makes the troll successful. Either pick one for fun or ignore them, dumbass. If anyone is going to be banned, it should be you (for being completely hopeless).
Shut the fuck up. Nobody is being banned. Loveschild isn't threatening your life, or anyone else's for that matter. If you weren't so retarded, you'd know that feeding a troll and/or banning a troll makes the troll successful. Either pick one for fun or ignore them, dumbass. If anyone is going to be banned, it should be you (for being completely hopeless).
28
@ 25, let her keep posting. It's good to have her to remind us that homophobes are irrational and ill-informed about life.
29
It's certainly fair to go after Obama for inaction.
But turning his comment into "Obama thinks gay rights are a joke" is completely disingenuous. You don't need to stoop, Dan.
But turning his comment into "Obama thinks gay rights are a joke" is completely disingenuous. You don't need to stoop, Dan.
30
I'm extremely disappointed in Obama. I do not expect that GLBT issues come first and foremost, especially given the economy, war in Iraq, etc. However, given that marriage equality and DADT are in the news every day, and given the unprecedented events around marriage equality in the past few months (Iowa, NY, New Hampshire, California, Washington, DC, Vermont), it is bizarre that the Obama administration really has nothing to say about this. Nada. Zip. Even when questioned directly by the press. Actually, they have said a few things - a couple of oblique statements from Gibbs and a few jokes (jokes!) from Obama. All of this in spite of his campaign promises. Does he think it will all go away if he keeps ignoring it? Is there some secret strategy to keeping his head in the sand? The longer he keeps silent, the more awkward it becomes.
31
@25-- Of course she should NOT be banned. She has a different opinion than many here, but this is the COMMENTS sections. Sheesh.
And while I have marched in plenty of civil rights activities over the decades demanding justice in many ways, I am with @24. The guy's been in office for 16 weeks.
Saying he hasn't done what you wanted by now seems really unreasonable. That said, I won't be one bit surprised if very little , or even none, of it gets done. He's a politician after all.....
And while I have marched in plenty of civil rights activities over the decades demanding justice in many ways, I am with @24. The guy's been in office for 16 weeks.
Saying he hasn't done what you wanted by now seems really unreasonable. That said, I won't be one bit surprised if very little , or even none, of it gets done. He's a politician after all.....
32
Hmm...Obama is not dropping everything to help the gays. And you're surprised? Maybe if your community stopped labeling everyone who supports civil unions (instead of gay marriage) as "bigots," he might be slightly more insistent about your cause. Shooting yourselves in the foot, constantly. You guys just don't get it. You seriously have to change your strategy.
33
Considering that the protest was in regards to marriage equality, the joke was completely legitimate. What promise? Obama made no promises to enact marriage equality. Maybe the protester shouldn't be such a cryptic dumbass.
34
@ 32, I only see bigots being labeled as bigots here. I haven't seen civil union supporters other than the clearly bigoted Loveschild labeled as bigots.
35
HAW HAW HAW! Goddamn you "progressive liberals" are SO NAIVE!!!! (Especially the white ones).
I told you before the election that Obama would use you and throw you away like a used cum rag. I mean, Jesus Christ, he went to a black-nationalist homophobic church for OVER 20 YEARS!!!!! But you morons chose to just completely ignore that.
OH WELL.
I just don't understand why so many "Seattle-style" liberals are so fucking naive!
I am pretty liberal (atheist, pro-gay marriage, pro-legal marijuana, pro-legal prostitution, pro-choice, anti-war) but the astoundingly naive way many of yall view the world and the way it really works is laughable.
Is the Kool-Aid wearing off yet?
I told you before the election that Obama would use you and throw you away like a used cum rag. I mean, Jesus Christ, he went to a black-nationalist homophobic church for OVER 20 YEARS!!!!! But you morons chose to just completely ignore that.
OH WELL.
I just don't understand why so many "Seattle-style" liberals are so fucking naive!
I am pretty liberal (atheist, pro-gay marriage, pro-legal marijuana, pro-legal prostitution, pro-choice, anti-war) but the astoundingly naive way many of yall view the world and the way it really works is laughable.
Is the Kool-Aid wearing off yet?
37
Dear Mr. Poe - you are a snot-nosed little puke and can go fuck yourself. How's your little riot coming along?
@ 28 & 31 - fair enough; it just seems like it's the same shit over & over again with her, but whatever. I rescind my request.
@ 28 & 31 - fair enough; it just seems like it's the same shit over & over again with her, but whatever. I rescind my request.
39
@32 based on your logic you would have been happier if Rosa Parks only sat half way to the back of the bus and not the front.
41
There is no reason to think Clinton would have been any better on gay rights.
they are politicians. Gays are a minority. There are many homophobes. As with the drug war lies and myths, politicians are loathe to confront the unjustified fears and prejudices of the majorities that elect them.
The road to change is through human contact as noted in a NYT op ed piece today.
Keep on keepin' on.
they are politicians. Gays are a minority. There are many homophobes. As with the drug war lies and myths, politicians are loathe to confront the unjustified fears and prejudices of the majorities that elect them.
The road to change is through human contact as noted in a NYT op ed piece today.
Keep on keepin' on.
44
Jason Eckelman, I think Loveschild is beneficial to our cause. Her over the top hatred of gay people, coupled with her lack of knowledge and willingness to tell obvious lies helps people to see just how vile, untruthful, and ignorant the anti gay wingnuts are. It also helps to keep us fired up as well. Not to mention it's great fun to watch her melt down as gay rights progress.
45
@25/37, the joy of having registered comments is that when you see hers, you can skip them. She adds nothing to the dialogue, and I've stopped reading her comments a long time ago. It's just as easy for anyone else to do the same. Banning people because they don't agree with you is kind of silly, even if they are just trolling.
46
#35: Obama's church was NOT homophobic. The irony is that part of the reason Trinity was chosen was it was a rare African-American Church that was welcoming and embracing of homosexuals.
In fact that was a reason cited (in his book) as to why he joined that particular "black church" when he moved to Chicago.
In fact that was a reason cited (in his book) as to why he joined that particular "black church" when he moved to Chicago.
48
@39
That's right -- keep it up! Keep calling us all bigots. Keep comparing the acceptance of civil unions with equal protections under the law as an act of giving into bigotry on scale of the black civil rights movement. Let's see how far ya get with that. By the looks of it, not so far. Obama ain't gonna run to the plate for you (as you can see) and neither will suburban housewives in middle America.
Keep shooting yourselves in the foot, alienating yourselves, pointing fingers and calling names. Good luck with that! Guarantee you -people will write you off when they walk into the voting booths.
Think, people!
That's right -- keep it up! Keep calling us all bigots. Keep comparing the acceptance of civil unions with equal protections under the law as an act of giving into bigotry on scale of the black civil rights movement. Let's see how far ya get with that. By the looks of it, not so far. Obama ain't gonna run to the plate for you (as you can see) and neither will suburban housewives in middle America.
Keep shooting yourselves in the foot, alienating yourselves, pointing fingers and calling names. Good luck with that! Guarantee you -people will write you off when they walk into the voting booths.
Think, people!
49
Oh, right, the TUCC just lubs teh gays so much they gave a lifetime achievement award to that famous gay-rights crusader, Louis Farrakhan.
50
I expected marriage equality advocacy from Obama too. I just hope he is pacing himself and will still turn out to be a cool guy after all.
Remember, the rest of the country is not as cool as Seattle. Sean Hannity gets his ratings because millions of constituents buy into his bullshit.
Obama is stil on the level in my book. But by all means, keep putting the presure on Dan!
Remember, the rest of the country is not as cool as Seattle. Sean Hannity gets his ratings because millions of constituents buy into his bullshit.
Obama is stil on the level in my book. But by all means, keep putting the presure on Dan!
51
I seem to remember him presenting a lot of really affirming, wonderful, refreshing ideas about the American presidency in The Audacity of Hope that make his inaction on this front seem disappointing. I think it still remains to be seen where he's going to fall...but I'm disappointed so far.
52
yeah. it really is too bad that McCain wasn't elected.
There are many substantial complaints about Obama ("prolonged detention" is my current list), but I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. His first couple hundred days have been kind of busy with trying to keep the economy from falling further into a black hole, nominating a supreme court justice, filling his cabinet, getting a fairly progressive budget passed, and keeping an eye on North Korea setting off nukes.
There are many substantial complaints about Obama ("prolonged detention" is my current list), but I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. His first couple hundred days have been kind of busy with trying to keep the economy from falling further into a black hole, nominating a supreme court justice, filling his cabinet, getting a fairly progressive budget passed, and keeping an eye on North Korea setting off nukes.
53
Obama will make a full-faith effort to deliver on his promises to the queer community. He's honorable. But do keep the pressure on him.
54
@ 48, can you say anything besides "shooting yourselves in the foot," or was that the only talking point that took hold with you this morning?
55
Did I miss the memo from the Gay Agenda that Civil Unions are wrong? I thought Civil Unions, assuming they provide all the rights and responsibilities of the M word, were a good thing.
56
Perhaps the way to win Loveschild over is to be her friend? See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinio…
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinio…
57
48, What do you call someone who looks at a group of people, and says, "You are lesser humans, and should settle for less than what full fledged humans get. Marriage is too good for you, but we'll offer you a separate, but equal status. Just not equal enough to call your union a marriage. That term gets reserved for better people." As if separate but equal ever really worked out that way.
Maybe interracial couples should have settled for other than marriage to placate the people who are against that? Maybe black folks should have settled for their separate but equal schools because white folks weren't ready? That's what your advice would have gotten them. If you don't push it, it won't change.
We are not going away, and we are not going to quit. We will have full marriage rights.
Maybe interracial couples should have settled for other than marriage to placate the people who are against that? Maybe black folks should have settled for their separate but equal schools because white folks weren't ready? That's what your advice would have gotten them. If you don't push it, it won't change.
We are not going away, and we are not going to quit. We will have full marriage rights.
58
48, And to add, the desperation of folks like you trying to get us to stop pushing shows your fear because you know people like you are becoming fewer and fewer. If we don't quit, you know we'll win, and that scares the hell out of you.
59
Fuck you SLOG.
I supported Hillary from the beginning and had to deal with constantly being called a racist by you mother fuckers throughout the campaign when it ACTUALLY had to do with not trusting Obama on gay rights. I actually would have prefered to be able to support the black candidate but Obama is bad on my most important issue, gay rights.
Now he balks on gay rights and you guys act like "i told you so."
Fuck you again...You fucked it up for all of us and now are trying to pretend you knew it all along.
Prop 8 passed because those stupid mother fuckers at No On 8 drank the Obama Kool Aid and spent all their money GOTVing Obama voters thinking the more voters they got out the more likely Prop 8 would fail. It's not hard to understand. Same thing happened when Clinton ran for re-election all the liberal campaigns pooled their resources in 1996 to GOTV minority and other unlikely voters. But this time it backfired bigtime but no one is exposing this campaign miscalculation. Certainly wasn't money. No On 8 spent like over $50 million probably to get anti-gay Obama supporters out to the polls!
I supported Hillary from the beginning and had to deal with constantly being called a racist by you mother fuckers throughout the campaign when it ACTUALLY had to do with not trusting Obama on gay rights. I actually would have prefered to be able to support the black candidate but Obama is bad on my most important issue, gay rights.
Now he balks on gay rights and you guys act like "i told you so."
Fuck you again...You fucked it up for all of us and now are trying to pretend you knew it all along.
Prop 8 passed because those stupid mother fuckers at No On 8 drank the Obama Kool Aid and spent all their money GOTVing Obama voters thinking the more voters they got out the more likely Prop 8 would fail. It's not hard to understand. Same thing happened when Clinton ran for re-election all the liberal campaigns pooled their resources in 1996 to GOTV minority and other unlikely voters. But this time it backfired bigtime but no one is exposing this campaign miscalculation. Certainly wasn't money. No On 8 spent like over $50 million probably to get anti-gay Obama supporters out to the polls!
60
@34: Dan labels anyone who doesn't support full marriage rights for gays a bigot. Either you haven't been reading his posts or you're lying.
61
You were his ardent supporter before I was, Dan. But even I want to give the man time to work his "magic" for Jupiter's sake. I still believe he's going to do great things for LGBT. I understand the impatience. I don't understand the harsh criticism.
63
47, Jason Eckelman, I can understand. Sometimes it's hard to read the vile words that she types. I have to admit, the idea, not for the sake of censorship, but to give her a taste of her own reasoning that majority rule trumps a minority's rights actually being applied to her would be sweet. Honestly though, she wouldn't get the irony. It would go right over her hate filled head.
64
Dan and the other hyperventilating commenters,
If you actually were to watch/read Obama's comments in the video provided at the link, you'd notice that he prefaces it with "I don't know exactly what they were protesting." Thus, he did not single out gay-rights protesters as a target of his joke -- that's the Politico crew doing their magic.
Trusting the hack-site Politico's representations is your first mistake.
If you actually were to watch/read Obama's comments in the video provided at the link, you'd notice that he prefaces it with "I don't know exactly what they were protesting." Thus, he did not single out gay-rights protesters as a target of his joke -- that's the Politico crew doing their magic.
Trusting the hack-site Politico's representations is your first mistake.
65
@ 63 - thanks. That was what I was thinking - I don't want to censor anyone either, but we've heard her arguments. All of them. And she flat out refuses to hear ours. However, it's just as easy for me to skip her comments as to make a big deal out of them, I guess, so I'll just do that. Having said that, though, her comment above about Obama needing fences around his appearances lest the gays get too close and shoot him - I'm not sure what else the implication there is - is a little hard to let stand. But whatever.
66
Dan, you think Obama might want to "crank up gays and lesbians and then make us look foolish"???
You think that our President has machinations to embarrass us? That's hilariously paranoid and nasty of you. So is using the word "farce" in you headline.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
"Dan, you're a grown man in a position of power. When are you going to take off the blinders and get past the paranoid persecution complex that somehow my identity group is the only group that's getting the shaft? In other words, when are you going to grow the fuck up?"
Sums it up.
You think that our President has machinations to embarrass us? That's hilariously paranoid and nasty of you. So is using the word "farce" in you headline.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
"Dan, you're a grown man in a position of power. When are you going to take off the blinders and get past the paranoid persecution complex that somehow my identity group is the only group that's getting the shaft? In other words, when are you going to grow the fuck up?"
Sums it up.
67
bigyaz @60: Anyone who doesn't support full equality for gays (or any minority for that matter) is a bigot, last I checked the definition.
big·ot (bĭg'ət)
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Yep. It's still there.
big·ot (bĭg'ət)
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Yep. It's still there.
68
If I were a politician, I certainly wouldn't want to make any federal landmark decision this early in my first term. it has nothing to do with issues that matter to people who work for a living. it has only to do with money, and photographs, and campaign slogans.
while I disagree with your tone @35, I do agree that more whiteys, like me, need to pick up a dead prez album or something. stop expecting everything to fit so neatly in your comfy box. stop being so naive!
while I disagree with your tone @35, I do agree that more whiteys, like me, need to pick up a dead prez album or something. stop expecting everything to fit so neatly in your comfy box. stop being so naive!
69
@59 Clinton touted his signing of DOMA in radio ads on Christian radio in 1996 and he signed DADT. If you think Hillary would be tackling DOMA and DADT at this point in her presidency, you are sorely mistaken.
70
I heard an interesting snippet on NPR today, about how in America, there is more marriage, more weddings performed overall. How in Europe there were fewer. How there's a much higher turnover rate in relationships in America: lots more 2nd, third, etc, marriages. Yet, we as a nation have a very idealized vision of marriage, what it is, so once we're over the high of the wedding, what doubts there are come creeping in. That idealized vision is apparently hard to achieve: we divorce at a high rate as well, almost half.
So there's this weird dichotomy where Americans hold marriage/getting married high up on some romantic pedestal, like it is in the movies, but at the same time, we're impatient narcissists, quicker to walk out on each other than any other industrialized nation.
The conclusion reached was that since marriage has been redefined to be an institution that has shifted historically from the joining of estates, to a union based on romantic love, that it's therefore hard to argue against gay marriage. They also concluded it was going to be a long-haul sort of thing because of the huge age range gap: <40 years old = majority against gay marriage. >40 =majority in favor of gay marriage.
Just a matter of time. But there's no immediate plan evident from Obama. :/ Has there been enough time to enact anything significant, as other posters have said, given all the other stuff going down?
So there's this weird dichotomy where Americans hold marriage/getting married high up on some romantic pedestal, like it is in the movies, but at the same time, we're impatient narcissists, quicker to walk out on each other than any other industrialized nation.
The conclusion reached was that since marriage has been redefined to be an institution that has shifted historically from the joining of estates, to a union based on romantic love, that it's therefore hard to argue against gay marriage. They also concluded it was going to be a long-haul sort of thing because of the huge age range gap: <40 years old = majority against gay marriage. >40 =majority in favor of gay marriage.
Just a matter of time. But there's no immediate plan evident from Obama. :/ Has there been enough time to enact anything significant, as other posters have said, given all the other stuff going down?
71
Jason @ 65,
Keep your chin up. You know in your heart your a better person, than one who wants to restrict the rights of others. Sometimes, we can reach people and sometimes we can't. It isn't our jobs to open another's heart, it is our job to live from our heart with integrity. Feel, free to stop banging your head on that brick wall. You have more to offer this world, than a self-inflicted headache.
Fondly,
k
Keep your chin up. You know in your heart your a better person, than one who wants to restrict the rights of others. Sometimes, we can reach people and sometimes we can't. It isn't our jobs to open another's heart, it is our job to live from our heart with integrity. Feel, free to stop banging your head on that brick wall. You have more to offer this world, than a self-inflicted headache.
Fondly,
k
72
@ 48, 60, etc: Anyone who doesn't support full marriage rights for gays IS a bigot. Like Rob in Baltimore said, the only reason not to support full marriage rights is if you think that marriage is too good for gays. Even if you support "separate but equal" civil unions, you're still saying that gays shouldn't be able to call their union a marriage. This means that you think gays will somehow soil the institution of marriage. This means that you think the gays are inferior. This makes you a bigot. I shouldn't have to point out something this simple to you, but leave it to bigots to have absolutely no ability to grasp simple concepts.
You're basically arguing that, since you believe gays to be only a "little bit" inferior, you shouldn't be called a bigot. After all, you're not tying them to fence posts and killing them; you've simply taken the middle ground, and the middle ground is always right!
This isn't the case (again, this is a simple concept that I shouldn't have to spell out for you, but you're bigots, so here it goes): One side of the debate is arguing for "equality." The other side is arguing for discrimination. The middle ground, in that debate, is that gay people should be discriminated against a little bit. That's not a very smart position to take, nor is it any more fair than the position of giant bigots like Phelps. Sometimes you have to stop lazily assuming "middle ground = compromise = balanced = correct," and that taking a side in a debate is always extremism. It's not.
For instance, remember the 3/5 compromise? Where slaves counted as 3/5 of a person? Just because they were no longer livestock doesn't mean that the slaves should have been satisfied. Yet, according to your philosophy, recognizing a slave as a whole person was an extreme position to take. Also, should we just allow black people to share our drinking fountains half the time? After all, that would have been the "middle ground" back when Jim Crow was law. Wouldn't want to be too extreme by taking an actual side in that debate. Should we have paid the British just a few taxes without representation? Should we just have "slight flexibility" of speech written into the first amendment?
There is NO compromise when it comes to civil rights. It's equal treatment or nothing. Equal treatment means full marriage rights in this case, not some wimpy civil unions compromise. If you're too chicken shit to fight for anything beyond a sell-out compromise, then fine; stay the hell out entirely. But don't come in here saying that civil unions are all we should push for, and all gays should be entitled to. That is bigotry, plain and simple.
More...
You're basically arguing that, since you believe gays to be only a "little bit" inferior, you shouldn't be called a bigot. After all, you're not tying them to fence posts and killing them; you've simply taken the middle ground, and the middle ground is always right!
This isn't the case (again, this is a simple concept that I shouldn't have to spell out for you, but you're bigots, so here it goes): One side of the debate is arguing for "equality." The other side is arguing for discrimination. The middle ground, in that debate, is that gay people should be discriminated against a little bit. That's not a very smart position to take, nor is it any more fair than the position of giant bigots like Phelps. Sometimes you have to stop lazily assuming "middle ground = compromise = balanced = correct," and that taking a side in a debate is always extremism. It's not.
For instance, remember the 3/5 compromise? Where slaves counted as 3/5 of a person? Just because they were no longer livestock doesn't mean that the slaves should have been satisfied. Yet, according to your philosophy, recognizing a slave as a whole person was an extreme position to take. Also, should we just allow black people to share our drinking fountains half the time? After all, that would have been the "middle ground" back when Jim Crow was law. Wouldn't want to be too extreme by taking an actual side in that debate. Should we have paid the British just a few taxes without representation? Should we just have "slight flexibility" of speech written into the first amendment?
There is NO compromise when it comes to civil rights. It's equal treatment or nothing. Equal treatment means full marriage rights in this case, not some wimpy civil unions compromise. If you're too chicken shit to fight for anything beyond a sell-out compromise, then fine; stay the hell out entirely. But don't come in here saying that civil unions are all we should push for, and all gays should be entitled to. That is bigotry, plain and simple.
74
@64
So his prefacing with "I don't know exactly what they were protesting" makes him look better? Really? The man is a constitutional scholar, he doesn't lapse into moments of stupidity which you are implying. He knows exactly what he is doing and saying.
So his prefacing with "I don't know exactly what they were protesting" makes him look better? Really? The man is a constitutional scholar, he doesn't lapse into moments of stupidity which you are implying. He knows exactly what he is doing and saying.
75
@ 71 - Thanks - that's some quality advice. How the hell did you get so level-headed? I feel like I'm constantly fighting with myself to keep my head from exploding. Sigh...
76
I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, but the whole prediction/hope/expectation that "MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE WORKS TO COMMEMORATE THE STONEWALL RIOTS!!!" is a set-up for huge disappointment.
Aside from one speculative remark by a man involved in the administration, there's no new evidence to suggest any turn in the tide yet.
Aside from one speculative remark by a man involved in the administration, there's no new evidence to suggest any turn in the tide yet.
77
@72 and all the rest --
Well, looks like I'm a bigot then for supporting your equal protection under the law with civil unions. Hm. So I guess that means me, the pres, and the vast majority of people in this country are bigots too. Darn. Curious though: why'd you guys all vote for a bigot for president then? You knew he was a bigot during the campaign when you rallied for him -- he never hid his lack of support for gay marriage.
Oh, and P.S., by the definition of "bigot":
"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
Looks like all of YOU are bigots for not supporting my belief in civil unions!
Shame. And you all seemed so honorable when you told me how evil I was for disagreeing with you.
Oh yeah and hahahahaha -- good luck winning over America with your finger pointing and rage -- hahahaha. Yeah, yeah, you're "winning", I know.....
Get your torches and hit the streets!
Well, looks like I'm a bigot then for supporting your equal protection under the law with civil unions. Hm. So I guess that means me, the pres, and the vast majority of people in this country are bigots too. Darn. Curious though: why'd you guys all vote for a bigot for president then? You knew he was a bigot during the campaign when you rallied for him -- he never hid his lack of support for gay marriage.
Oh, and P.S., by the definition of "bigot":
"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
Looks like all of YOU are bigots for not supporting my belief in civil unions!
Shame. And you all seemed so honorable when you told me how evil I was for disagreeing with you.
Oh yeah and hahahahaha -- good luck winning over America with your finger pointing and rage -- hahahaha. Yeah, yeah, you're "winning", I know.....
Get your torches and hit the streets!
78
@ 75,
I don't know if I'm level-headed. I'm a type A personality. I have just learned over the course of my life, through the pain, that love (being it loving others or ourselves) is what really matters. Self-inflicted headaches, because we are banging on a brick wall, isn't loving ourselves. So, I am often taking a deep breath and using my frustration to better my guitar playing. That and a single Irish whiskey served neat, to be consumed on extremly frustrating days and after all responsibilities have been met (that's because I have two kids).
I don't know if I'm level-headed. I'm a type A personality. I have just learned over the course of my life, through the pain, that love (being it loving others or ourselves) is what really matters. Self-inflicted headaches, because we are banging on a brick wall, isn't loving ourselves. So, I am often taking a deep breath and using my frustration to better my guitar playing. That and a single Irish whiskey served neat, to be consumed on extremly frustrating days and after all responsibilities have been met (that's because I have two kids).
79
Here we go again @ 77,
You have every right to both your feelings and your opinion. So, I'm not going to deny either of them. Can I ask you a question or rather several questions?
Have you ever put yourself in their place? Have you tried to see things from their perspective? If the table was turned, would you be happy and believe that you were seen and being treated as completely equal, if you were told that you were only deserving of civil unions? If the tables were turned, and you were told that heterosexual relationships were only worth of civil unions, would you still be in agreement? Would you be okay with separate but equal?
I don't believe I'd be okay with it. When I ask myself all those questions, I know that I would want to be seen as completely equal.
Your heart is in the right place. So, try and remember they are the ones who are seen and viewed as second class citizens by many. And, no human is deserving of being seen as second class.
You have every right to both your feelings and your opinion. So, I'm not going to deny either of them. Can I ask you a question or rather several questions?
Have you ever put yourself in their place? Have you tried to see things from their perspective? If the table was turned, would you be happy and believe that you were seen and being treated as completely equal, if you were told that you were only deserving of civil unions? If the tables were turned, and you were told that heterosexual relationships were only worth of civil unions, would you still be in agreement? Would you be okay with separate but equal?
I don't believe I'd be okay with it. When I ask myself all those questions, I know that I would want to be seen as completely equal.
Your heart is in the right place. So, try and remember they are the ones who are seen and viewed as second class citizens by many. And, no human is deserving of being seen as second class.
80
@25 - you can remove her yourself. Just killfile her and all the unregistereds and anyone else who annoys you consistently. There's a neat little utility at Greasemonkey that does all this for you. If you go look in Questionland, you'll find the thread about it. It works beautifully. My Slog is no longer troll- and imbecile-heavy!
82
At http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ you can remind him which promise...
"It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike." – Barack Obama, February 2008
"It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike." – Barack Obama, February 2008
83
I just watched the WHOLE CLIP and it is clear he was not speaking to LGBT protestors alone or only. In fact, he mentions there were "several groups out there".
It was a light SELF-DEPRICATING aside about how even though he thinks he has tackled a lot, there are so many he hasn't even gotten to yet. Personally, I didn't think it was worth the laughs the audience gave him but maybe they were sucking up.
Dan & others: fulfilling the image of the shrill, knee-jerk, "what about MEEEEEE" homosexual is not going to help our cause at all. There are legitimate things to keep Obama accountable but lying that he "made a joke at gays' expense" is untrue and not helping GBLT progress.
Listen, like it or not do you know what a stereotype of gay men is? The one our otherwise gay-friendly coworkers and friends sometimes have to begrudgingly admit is prevalent? Thin-skinned drama queens.
We need to protest. We need to write letters. We need to get angry too! However, we don't need to nit-pick or invent controversy where none exists. Being the living embodiment of the 1990s, shrill, identity politics our straight liberal allies moved on from (and that's why candidate Obama resonated with them--they knew what wasn't working) is not going to get DOMA or DADT repealed.
It was a light SELF-DEPRICATING aside about how even though he thinks he has tackled a lot, there are so many he hasn't even gotten to yet. Personally, I didn't think it was worth the laughs the audience gave him but maybe they were sucking up.
Dan & others: fulfilling the image of the shrill, knee-jerk, "what about MEEEEEE" homosexual is not going to help our cause at all. There are legitimate things to keep Obama accountable but lying that he "made a joke at gays' expense" is untrue and not helping GBLT progress.
Listen, like it or not do you know what a stereotype of gay men is? The one our otherwise gay-friendly coworkers and friends sometimes have to begrudgingly admit is prevalent? Thin-skinned drama queens.
We need to protest. We need to write letters. We need to get angry too! However, we don't need to nit-pick or invent controversy where none exists. Being the living embodiment of the 1990s, shrill, identity politics our straight liberal allies moved on from (and that's why candidate Obama resonated with them--they knew what wasn't working) is not going to get DOMA or DADT repealed.
84
@79
Well, if you are going to address me like a human being (as opposed to an evil bigot), I will tell you what I think.
I have put myself in your shoes and it really must be incredibly difficult. I sincerely mean that. I honestly believe that you guys will eventually win and that gay marriage will be a reality in my lifetime. And that doesn’t upset me! I don’t want to greedily save marriage for myself and all the straights because I think we’re better. I don’t think you guys are lesser than us! (though, of course, you will all say that’s a lie because I’m a bigot).
But I think you need to change your strategy if you are going to win people over. To change peoples’ perspective will take time. It’s not going to happen overnight. After all, marriage has been defined as an institution between a man and woman for centuries. Have a little respect for that. We (straights who support civil unions) are respecting a feeling that we don’t understand personally (same-sex attraction). Change is not going to happen when you suddenly cram it down peoples’ throats. You must know this from your own lives with other issues. People will resent you if you do that. They’ll smile to you, feign support, and then secretly vote against you in the voting booths. I’m sure you’ve experienced this kind of thing already.
Remember: while same-sex attraction is a normal feeling for you, it’s alien concept for the majority of Americans. Think of the housewives in Middle America. They’re not bigots – they’re dealing with a new concept and are getting adjusted to it. They begin to start supporting you with civil unions as they start hearing your stories (as opposed to rejecting unions) and, in response, you turn around and call them bigots for it?? Why should they continue their support of you?
So if I were you, I’d EMBRACE those people who support civil unions rather than demonizing them. Change will happen faster that way. You need to change your strategy. That’s all I’m saying.
…But what do I know. I’m just a filthy bigot.
More...
Well, if you are going to address me like a human being (as opposed to an evil bigot), I will tell you what I think.
I have put myself in your shoes and it really must be incredibly difficult. I sincerely mean that. I honestly believe that you guys will eventually win and that gay marriage will be a reality in my lifetime. And that doesn’t upset me! I don’t want to greedily save marriage for myself and all the straights because I think we’re better. I don’t think you guys are lesser than us! (though, of course, you will all say that’s a lie because I’m a bigot).
But I think you need to change your strategy if you are going to win people over. To change peoples’ perspective will take time. It’s not going to happen overnight. After all, marriage has been defined as an institution between a man and woman for centuries. Have a little respect for that. We (straights who support civil unions) are respecting a feeling that we don’t understand personally (same-sex attraction). Change is not going to happen when you suddenly cram it down peoples’ throats. You must know this from your own lives with other issues. People will resent you if you do that. They’ll smile to you, feign support, and then secretly vote against you in the voting booths. I’m sure you’ve experienced this kind of thing already.
Remember: while same-sex attraction is a normal feeling for you, it’s alien concept for the majority of Americans. Think of the housewives in Middle America. They’re not bigots – they’re dealing with a new concept and are getting adjusted to it. They begin to start supporting you with civil unions as they start hearing your stories (as opposed to rejecting unions) and, in response, you turn around and call them bigots for it?? Why should they continue their support of you?
So if I were you, I’d EMBRACE those people who support civil unions rather than demonizing them. Change will happen faster that way. You need to change your strategy. That’s all I’m saying.
…But what do I know. I’m just a filthy bigot.
86
84,
Thanks for writing back, and I appreciate hearing your opinion. I do think there is truth in what you say. I know at one time it was difficult for me to comprehend same-sex attraction, and at one time I was completely cool with the idea of domestic partnerships (that is what we have here in Oregon), too. Then, by grace (because I'm a person of faith) the inequality of it struck me. So, I understand where your coming from.
I also try to see where they, because I'm a breeder, are coming from as well. (And, because I'm not gay I can't speak for them.) I imagine that it is very hard for them. I can't imagine what it is like to be demonized as they are. If you have been around here awhile, then you should know there are some commentors who do demonize them, belittle their relationships, minimize their ability to commit, and do not believe they should be parents and in the same comment state their support of domestic partnerships (with limited benefits). Combine that with news lately, and you can get the picture.
Thus, I don't think it is you personally that they are angry with. Nor do I think they believe your a bigot, I don't think you are. I think sometimes they don't know who their allies are, and they feel stabbed in the back a lot of the time. They're anxious for full equality, can you blame them, everyday that they remain second class citizens is a day too many.
I hope you won't consider withdrawing your support. Even when they are down, they are worth embracing.
And, please don't refer to yourself as a filthy bigot. You know in your heart that you aren't one. Keep trying to share what you wrote me, without being angry, they need to hear your voice, so they can understand that your hesitation isn't about their inequality it is about securing their full equality. Perhaps, you can point at WA everything but marriage domestic partnership, or Vermont as an example of allowing people to become comfortable with the idea.
Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Best wishes,
kim
More...
Thanks for writing back, and I appreciate hearing your opinion. I do think there is truth in what you say. I know at one time it was difficult for me to comprehend same-sex attraction, and at one time I was completely cool with the idea of domestic partnerships (that is what we have here in Oregon), too. Then, by grace (because I'm a person of faith) the inequality of it struck me. So, I understand where your coming from.
I also try to see where they, because I'm a breeder, are coming from as well. (And, because I'm not gay I can't speak for them.) I imagine that it is very hard for them. I can't imagine what it is like to be demonized as they are. If you have been around here awhile, then you should know there are some commentors who do demonize them, belittle their relationships, minimize their ability to commit, and do not believe they should be parents and in the same comment state their support of domestic partnerships (with limited benefits). Combine that with news lately, and you can get the picture.
Thus, I don't think it is you personally that they are angry with. Nor do I think they believe your a bigot, I don't think you are. I think sometimes they don't know who their allies are, and they feel stabbed in the back a lot of the time. They're anxious for full equality, can you blame them, everyday that they remain second class citizens is a day too many.
I hope you won't consider withdrawing your support. Even when they are down, they are worth embracing.
And, please don't refer to yourself as a filthy bigot. You know in your heart that you aren't one. Keep trying to share what you wrote me, without being angry, they need to hear your voice, so they can understand that your hesitation isn't about their inequality it is about securing their full equality. Perhaps, you can point at WA everything but marriage domestic partnership, or Vermont as an example of allowing people to become comfortable with the idea.
Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Best wishes,
kim
87
Hey Dan,
I think you owe your readers a clarification like Andrew Sullivan gave here: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th…
It seems abundantly clear that Obama wasn't referring specifically to gays, he was referring to the multitude of interest groups who haven't been satisfied with his presidency, and was taking more of a shot at himself than anyone else. It's true that Obama has been somewhat disappointing on gay issues, but this isn't an instance of Obama dismissing gay rights, and you should make a clarification for the sake of honesty.
I think you owe your readers a clarification like Andrew Sullivan gave here: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th…
It seems abundantly clear that Obama wasn't referring specifically to gays, he was referring to the multitude of interest groups who haven't been satisfied with his presidency, and was taking more of a shot at himself than anyone else. It's true that Obama has been somewhat disappointing on gay issues, but this isn't an instance of Obama dismissing gay rights, and you should make a clarification for the sake of honesty.
89
I am frustrated at the inattention to the issues of DADT and gay marriage, but I have watched the video, and the assessment that he's laughing at this is simply not accurate or fair in any way. There were protesters against the Armenian genocide there, as well as Code Pink, ANSWER, and several other groups; I'm clueless why the crowd laughed at that point, but he was saying: "Hold my feet to the fire. Keep protesting when you disagree." Dan, be fair: watch the link and update this.
90
"Here we go again": if you aren't a bigot, you will support more than just civil unions. If you refuse to support more than civil unions, you remain a bigot no matter how much your feelings are hurt. I've already explained why it's bigotry to believe that gays only deserve civil unions. Just because it isn't a call for violence doesn't mean that it isn't bigotry.
Civil unions would just be a table scrap tossed to the gay community; don't expect people to hump your leg for pushing that measure. Want everyone to think you're such a gay-friendly, understanding saint? Stop arguing for people to settle for civil unions. We don't need to embrace people who want to give gays civil unions and then stop there. We need to demand full marriage rights. Period. Civil unions are a wasted effort, a feel-good measure that wouldn't get to the root of the problem. The problem isn't just the rights that come with marriage; it's the homophobic cultural gesture of excluding gays from marriage. Full marriage. Civil unions, even if they have all the same rights, would allow that gesture to remain. That's not a very good compromise.
You can't come in here telling people to compromise on their civil rights (a bigoted viewpoint, even if it's bigotry-lite) and then act all hurt when you get called a bigot. Saying that civil unions should be good enough is more insulting than anything I've hurled at you.
Civil unions would just be a table scrap tossed to the gay community; don't expect people to hump your leg for pushing that measure. Want everyone to think you're such a gay-friendly, understanding saint? Stop arguing for people to settle for civil unions. We don't need to embrace people who want to give gays civil unions and then stop there. We need to demand full marriage rights. Period. Civil unions are a wasted effort, a feel-good measure that wouldn't get to the root of the problem. The problem isn't just the rights that come with marriage; it's the homophobic cultural gesture of excluding gays from marriage. Full marriage. Civil unions, even if they have all the same rights, would allow that gesture to remain. That's not a very good compromise.
You can't come in here telling people to compromise on their civil rights (a bigoted viewpoint, even if it's bigotry-lite) and then act all hurt when you get called a bigot. Saying that civil unions should be good enough is more insulting than anything I've hurled at you.
91
17 et all: Even if he's mentioning off-hand the slew of campaign promises he made, you gotta admit: that's cold.
92
Here's a video of some of the people with signs about the Armenian genocide issue specifically and genocide in general. They are even chanting "Obama, keep your promise."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvOTxWiFd…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvOTxWiFd…
93
@84, @Kim, @90,
The problem is that it is easy to throw around terms like bigot (I know I have), but the word has connotations of an Archie Bunker type who makes no effort to educate himself or understand the other side. I don't think 84 is like that. However, many people are under the mis-impression that domestic partnerships confer the same rights as marriage, and need to be educated about that.
The rights conferred by domestic partnerships vary from place to place and are nowhere near as complete as those conferred by marriage. So it is not just insistence on the word "marriage."
I also find it ironic that some people are willing to share the word "marriage" with polygamists, child brides, others who are forced to marry against their will, mail order marriages, those who are forced to marry their dead spouse's brother or sister, etc., people who marry for economic or immigration advantage... but share the word with gays? Horrors!
The problem is that it is easy to throw around terms like bigot (I know I have), but the word has connotations of an Archie Bunker type who makes no effort to educate himself or understand the other side. I don't think 84 is like that. However, many people are under the mis-impression that domestic partnerships confer the same rights as marriage, and need to be educated about that.
The rights conferred by domestic partnerships vary from place to place and are nowhere near as complete as those conferred by marriage. So it is not just insistence on the word "marriage."
I also find it ironic that some people are willing to share the word "marriage" with polygamists, child brides, others who are forced to marry against their will, mail order marriages, those who are forced to marry their dead spouse's brother or sister, etc., people who marry for economic or immigration advantage... but share the word with gays? Horrors!
94
@84 -
Carrot and stick. There are millions of "nice" gays out there gently persuading friends, relatives, and strangers of their inherent worth and the difference between marriage and sub-marriage (civil unions). They are playing their role - but there is also the needed role of the agitator. Can you really think of any civil rights struggle that didn't have them? Asking nicely didn't work for the suffragettes, and it won't work for us either.
For those supporting civil unions over marriage, I use the term "prejudiced" more so than bigotry. It's a bit old fashioned, but it can be used for people who simply have a deep-seated, unfair belief about a group of people without any true malice.
The best example I can think of: 100 years ago, the majority of men in this country did not think women should have the right to vote. Most of these men didn't hate women, and they'd be truly stunned if anyone said so. These men had wives, mothers, sisters, daughters who they truly loved and respected. Their rationale for not granting women full voting rights (but letting them hold elected positions) would simply be that it ran contrary to all of human history, religious and cultural tradition, and that no great harm was being done by keeping things the way they were. But despite the fact that these men were not filled with hatred or true bigotry towards women, there is no question that they were prejudiced: they simply could not accept that women should have full, equal rights in the democracy they lived in.
Prejudice can be so pure and so unthinking that it actually approaches a state of innocence. I sort of view the whole 'marriage-versus-something-I'm-more-comfortable-with' position the same way.
I sure could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
More...
Carrot and stick. There are millions of "nice" gays out there gently persuading friends, relatives, and strangers of their inherent worth and the difference between marriage and sub-marriage (civil unions). They are playing their role - but there is also the needed role of the agitator. Can you really think of any civil rights struggle that didn't have them? Asking nicely didn't work for the suffragettes, and it won't work for us either.
For those supporting civil unions over marriage, I use the term "prejudiced" more so than bigotry. It's a bit old fashioned, but it can be used for people who simply have a deep-seated, unfair belief about a group of people without any true malice.
The best example I can think of: 100 years ago, the majority of men in this country did not think women should have the right to vote. Most of these men didn't hate women, and they'd be truly stunned if anyone said so. These men had wives, mothers, sisters, daughters who they truly loved and respected. Their rationale for not granting women full voting rights (but letting them hold elected positions) would simply be that it ran contrary to all of human history, religious and cultural tradition, and that no great harm was being done by keeping things the way they were. But despite the fact that these men were not filled with hatred or true bigotry towards women, there is no question that they were prejudiced: they simply could not accept that women should have full, equal rights in the democracy they lived in.
Prejudice can be so pure and so unthinking that it actually approaches a state of innocence. I sort of view the whole 'marriage-versus-something-I'm-more-comfortable-with' position the same way.
I sure could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
95
I hope all those who think people who favor civil unions over marriage are boycotting France and UK and haranging them for being bigoted, backwards countries for going that route and passing civil marriage equality with little fanfare.
Gays are so fickle they will scream "seperate is NOT EQUAL--MARRIAGE OR NOTHING!" in one breath but then praise France and the UK in the next.
This should be about the legal rights not gaining personal validation or righting your slights you felt growing up.
Gays are so fickle they will scream "seperate is NOT EQUAL--MARRIAGE OR NOTHING!" in one breath but then praise France and the UK in the next.
This should be about the legal rights not gaining personal validation or righting your slights you felt growing up.
96
84, I know you and Loveschild keep avoiding answering me because I'm pointing out the fatal flaws in your arguments, and you don't really have an answer to my arguments. Singling out a group of people, and saying they're not good enough to be part of something for which you want reserved for your group and your group alone is bigoted. (In the 50's & 60's southern white folks wanted the front of the bus to be reserved for their group, and their group alone.) You're saying gay couples should have all the rights of marriage, except the right to use the word marriage to describe their unions. If you're putting "except the right to" in your argument, then you are describing something that is inherently lesser.
You are saying we should except fewer rights than you, and be happy with that. I can tell you right now that ain't gonna happen. I'm sorry you don't like hearing the truth that you are bigoted, but thinking that gays deserve less than you makes you a bigot.
In some recent polls, there have been majorities who favor gay marriage, so we must be doing something right. You and Loveschild are rooting against us, and the only reason your pleading for us to stop asking for equal rights is because you know we will one day get them. If we don't win in California the next time, we'll go back again, and we'll keep going back until we win. We will accept victory be it a public vote, a legislative vote, or via a court order in our favor, but we will accept nothing less than a victory, no matter how long it takes.
Gay people are not going to suddenly disappear, and we are not going to settle for lesser rights. You and Loveschild are going to have to accept that, even if you never believe that gay people deserve the right of marriage. You and Loveschild have never had your civil rights voted away by a public vote, so this is something you just cannot understand. Until we have equal rights, including the right to call our unions marriage, we will never stop.
More...
You are saying we should except fewer rights than you, and be happy with that. I can tell you right now that ain't gonna happen. I'm sorry you don't like hearing the truth that you are bigoted, but thinking that gays deserve less than you makes you a bigot.
In some recent polls, there have been majorities who favor gay marriage, so we must be doing something right. You and Loveschild are rooting against us, and the only reason your pleading for us to stop asking for equal rights is because you know we will one day get them. If we don't win in California the next time, we'll go back again, and we'll keep going back until we win. We will accept victory be it a public vote, a legislative vote, or via a court order in our favor, but we will accept nothing less than a victory, no matter how long it takes.
Gay people are not going to suddenly disappear, and we are not going to settle for lesser rights. You and Loveschild are going to have to accept that, even if you never believe that gay people deserve the right of marriage. You and Loveschild have never had your civil rights voted away by a public vote, so this is something you just cannot understand. Until we have equal rights, including the right to call our unions marriage, we will never stop.
98
Rob @ 96,
I think you have Loveschild's position on target, but I don't think you have here Here We Go Again's correct. The do have things in commnon, but their is a core difference. I think Here We Go Again is for your full equality, but is concerned with the strategy of obataining it. I am aware that I could be wrong, and perhaps I see to many parallels between my views of five/six years ago and the views I have now. Yes, I know I shouldn't speak for anyone else, but myself. Still, I see a fundamental difference between Loveschild and Here We Go Again, and it is important. One wants you to be happy and settle for Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships and hold your tongues, and the other wants you to be willing to use Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships as a tool to obtain full marriage equality (by showing that the world won't end if you are allowed the same legal benefits and protections, and the idea of having a separate system based purely off of sexual orientation is foolish). I'm personally of the opinion that this entire country needs civil unions, for gays and straights alike. We need to remove the government from being involved in marriage, and keep the separtion of church and state. Everybody goes to City Hall and legally registers as a couple, thus giving every union the same foundation. Then, those that want a religious ceremony to obtain the sacrament of marriage can so seek one. Individual churchs, synagoges and mosques will have the right to bless those they choose to, and noones beliefs or practices are compromised. This is the system used in the Netherlands.
Oh, and I'm for full equality and am honored and encourage to share the word/title of marriage with you all. You have my vote and support.
I think you have Loveschild's position on target, but I don't think you have here Here We Go Again's correct. The do have things in commnon, but their is a core difference. I think Here We Go Again is for your full equality, but is concerned with the strategy of obataining it. I am aware that I could be wrong, and perhaps I see to many parallels between my views of five/six years ago and the views I have now. Yes, I know I shouldn't speak for anyone else, but myself. Still, I see a fundamental difference between Loveschild and Here We Go Again, and it is important. One wants you to be happy and settle for Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships and hold your tongues, and the other wants you to be willing to use Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships as a tool to obtain full marriage equality (by showing that the world won't end if you are allowed the same legal benefits and protections, and the idea of having a separate system based purely off of sexual orientation is foolish). I'm personally of the opinion that this entire country needs civil unions, for gays and straights alike. We need to remove the government from being involved in marriage, and keep the separtion of church and state. Everybody goes to City Hall and legally registers as a couple, thus giving every union the same foundation. Then, those that want a religious ceremony to obtain the sacrament of marriage can so seek one. Individual churchs, synagoges and mosques will have the right to bless those they choose to, and noones beliefs or practices are compromised. This is the system used in the Netherlands.
Oh, and I'm for full equality and am honored and encourage to share the word/title of marriage with you all. You have my vote and support.
101
98, Well then Kim, let Here We Go Again say that, while he doesn't agree with the path we've chosen to get there, he does supports full marriage rights for gay couples, including the right to call their unions marriage.
102
Rob @ 101,
Isn't that what he/she is saying here: I have put myself in your shoes and it really must be incredibly difficult. I sincerely mean that. I honestly believe that you guys will eventually win and that gay marriage will be a reality in my lifetime. And that doesn’t upset me! I don’t want to greedily save marriage for myself and all the straights because I think we’re better. I don’t think you guys are lesser than us! (though, of course, you will all say that’s a lie because I’m a bigot).
Or am I missing something?
Rob, I'm not trying to rationalize or be obtuse. And, I'm definately not saying you're wrong to seek full equality. I'm saying this is an issue that should be discussed. I'm not trying to be hurtful, I'm just trying to understand. What happened in Oregon back in 2004, and California in 2008 was horrible. The majority was allowed to strip you of your rights. I lived here during the rabid attack of the "Yes on Prop 36 crowd", I watched fear win. I know a number of people who voted for Prop 36, because they were offended, and who now regret their vote. I also know people who voted Yes on 36, because they are uncomfortable, and also now regret their vote but are still uncomfortable. They all wish they were given the opportunity to get used to the idea, but we voted quickly and the people of Oregon wrote discrimination into our constitution. Now, the fight is harder, because we have to gain a majority vote to change the constitution.
Rob, I don't want a repeat of Prop 36 or Prop 8 again. I'm trying to reach the people in my sphere of influence who support the whole DP thing to understand that they are supporting inequality. That this is a human rights issue. In doing so, I have to acknowledge their fears and do my best to lay them to rest. I have to try and unlock some deep seated ideas. I can't reach them if I don't understand what they believe hurts them.
More...
Isn't that what he/she is saying here: I have put myself in your shoes and it really must be incredibly difficult. I sincerely mean that. I honestly believe that you guys will eventually win and that gay marriage will be a reality in my lifetime. And that doesn’t upset me! I don’t want to greedily save marriage for myself and all the straights because I think we’re better. I don’t think you guys are lesser than us! (though, of course, you will all say that’s a lie because I’m a bigot).
Or am I missing something?
Rob, I'm not trying to rationalize or be obtuse. And, I'm definately not saying you're wrong to seek full equality. I'm saying this is an issue that should be discussed. I'm not trying to be hurtful, I'm just trying to understand. What happened in Oregon back in 2004, and California in 2008 was horrible. The majority was allowed to strip you of your rights. I lived here during the rabid attack of the "Yes on Prop 36 crowd", I watched fear win. I know a number of people who voted for Prop 36, because they were offended, and who now regret their vote. I also know people who voted Yes on 36, because they are uncomfortable, and also now regret their vote but are still uncomfortable. They all wish they were given the opportunity to get used to the idea, but we voted quickly and the people of Oregon wrote discrimination into our constitution. Now, the fight is harder, because we have to gain a majority vote to change the constitution.
Rob, I don't want a repeat of Prop 36 or Prop 8 again. I'm trying to reach the people in my sphere of influence who support the whole DP thing to understand that they are supporting inequality. That this is a human rights issue. In doing so, I have to acknowledge their fears and do my best to lay them to rest. I have to try and unlock some deep seated ideas. I can't reach them if I don't understand what they believe hurts them.
103
That this post is still standing as originally written by Dan is a piss-poor reflection on him and the Slog.
Thanks to 83 & 87 for buttressing my point. Dan ignores context when it suits his purposes, although this kind of crap undercuts his "influence." Pity, Dan, because I was proud of you when you stood up strongly and forcefully for gays and lesbians on CNN not too long ago.
Ridiculous post here though.
Thanks to 83 & 87 for buttressing my point. Dan ignores context when it suits his purposes, although this kind of crap undercuts his "influence." Pity, Dan, because I was proud of you when you stood up strongly and forcefully for gays and lesbians on CNN not too long ago.
Ridiculous post here though.
104
95- when did I ever praise France or the UK? When did any commenter ever praise the state of gay rights in France or the UK?
You might hear some gays praising health care in those countries, or energy efficiency, sure. How is that hypocritical? It's fine to praise a good health care system while denouncing a poor state of gay rights. It's a lot like enjoying fresh apples while disliking rotten oranges. Besides, if I were a Frenchman, I'd be demanding gay marriage rights in France. Since I live in the U.S., I am demanding them in the U.S. How is that confusing?
And kudos for thinking that getting rid of homophobic laws is nothing more than personal validation. You do know that having homophobic laws will inevitably prevent gays from ever achieving legal equality, right? Even an "everything-but-marriage" civil unions law would still be a justification for homophobia. Do you really think that state-sponsored homophobia would just be a benign thing?
If gays are given some "everything-but-marriage" civil unions law, it still won't be enough. Everyone will understand that there's a reason they weren't given full marriage. People will see this as validation of the belief that gay relationships are "secondary" to straight ones. People will therefore treat civil unions as secondary, even if they do have all the same legal benefits as marriage. This is why separate-but-equal will not work for civil unions.
During Jim Crow, blacks had "all the same rights" to use THEIR drinking fountains, to go to THEIR schools, eat at THEIR lunch counters, etc. Yet somehow, in practice, their rights, drinking fountains, schools, etc. were regarded as secondary, and were not as well maintained as those for whites.
So everyone has tried arguing for why civil unions should be "enough" for gays. Does anyone have an actual argument for why this would be a BETTER solution than full marriage? For the sake of argument, let's pretend for five minutes that they are enough. Why not full marriage anyway? Why burden the state with two different sets of domestic partnership laws that are supposed to be identical? What are your arguments for why gays should not be given full marriage rights?
More...
You might hear some gays praising health care in those countries, or energy efficiency, sure. How is that hypocritical? It's fine to praise a good health care system while denouncing a poor state of gay rights. It's a lot like enjoying fresh apples while disliking rotten oranges. Besides, if I were a Frenchman, I'd be demanding gay marriage rights in France. Since I live in the U.S., I am demanding them in the U.S. How is that confusing?
And kudos for thinking that getting rid of homophobic laws is nothing more than personal validation. You do know that having homophobic laws will inevitably prevent gays from ever achieving legal equality, right? Even an "everything-but-marriage" civil unions law would still be a justification for homophobia. Do you really think that state-sponsored homophobia would just be a benign thing?
If gays are given some "everything-but-marriage" civil unions law, it still won't be enough. Everyone will understand that there's a reason they weren't given full marriage. People will see this as validation of the belief that gay relationships are "secondary" to straight ones. People will therefore treat civil unions as secondary, even if they do have all the same legal benefits as marriage. This is why separate-but-equal will not work for civil unions.
During Jim Crow, blacks had "all the same rights" to use THEIR drinking fountains, to go to THEIR schools, eat at THEIR lunch counters, etc. Yet somehow, in practice, their rights, drinking fountains, schools, etc. were regarded as secondary, and were not as well maintained as those for whites.
So everyone has tried arguing for why civil unions should be "enough" for gays. Does anyone have an actual argument for why this would be a BETTER solution than full marriage? For the sake of argument, let's pretend for five minutes that they are enough. Why not full marriage anyway? Why burden the state with two different sets of domestic partnership laws that are supposed to be identical? What are your arguments for why gays should not be given full marriage rights?
105
@103
+1 bigtime
worse than lazy on Dan's part
but there IS the White House feetdragging
i'll say it again: VOTE GREEN
the party has THE correct platform and needs to become a legitmate force,
claiming the Left
+1 bigtime
worse than lazy on Dan's part
but there IS the White House feetdragging
i'll say it again: VOTE GREEN
the party has THE correct platform and needs to become a legitmate force,
claiming the Left
107
@87
Thanks for the link. I'm not a fan of Sullivan so I might've missed it otherwise.
I do think Obama has been a little wishy-washy on the gay rights issues, however I do not think this was a case of him using gays as the punchline.
Although, I find it a bit sad that he may not have been fully briefed on the protests that were happening. Someone in his staff dropped the ball, maybe?
Thanks for the link. I'm not a fan of Sullivan so I might've missed it otherwise.
I do think Obama has been a little wishy-washy on the gay rights issues, however I do not think this was a case of him using gays as the punchline.
Although, I find it a bit sad that he may not have been fully briefed on the protests that were happening. Someone in his staff dropped the ball, maybe?
108
Dan,
A shout out here and there to gays does not a promise make. I will go to my grave never understanding why so many LGBT's, as well as women in general, supported Obama, a church-going Christian, with "traditional" views in regards to gays and same-sex families. He has never struck me as interested whatsoever in the civil rights of gays—or women, for that matter. If someone can post references to when/where he seriously addressed civil rights issues for homosexuals I'd love to read them, because all I ever remember from his campaign was a passing reference here and there that always came off as disingenuous.
A shout out here and there to gays does not a promise make. I will go to my grave never understanding why so many LGBT's, as well as women in general, supported Obama, a church-going Christian, with "traditional" views in regards to gays and same-sex families. He has never struck me as interested whatsoever in the civil rights of gays—or women, for that matter. If someone can post references to when/where he seriously addressed civil rights issues for homosexuals I'd love to read them, because all I ever remember from his campaign was a passing reference here and there that always came off as disingenuous.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (108) RSS