Thursday, June 18, 2009
Politics / Homo Stampp Corbin Comes To His Senses
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM
No one has to tell me that I sucked during this appearance on CNN. Way too aggro, way too much shouting. Something about this format brings out the drunk-Irish-Catholic-uncle-losing-it-at-Thanksgiving in me. I apologize in advance if you opt to watch it. I'm only posting it because it illustrates just how much damage the Obama administration has done to itself—where gay issues and advocates are concerned—with that "incest and child rape and gay marriage, oh my!" DOMA brief last week.
I went on CNN last Friday night with Stampp Corbin, the former co-chair of the Obama LGBT Leadership Council during the presidential campaign and a San Diego City Commissioner, to argue about whether or not the Obama is "selling out the gay community." Campbell Brown wanted us to talk about the gays-in-the-military sellout, which was old news by last Friday night. I had just finished reading the DOMA brief that dropped Friday morning—which partly explains why my head was exploding—and I wanted to talk about that sellout. Corbin was there to defend Barack Obama. And he tried...
Oh, give the president time, there's so much on his plate, we'll see a little fierce advocacy sooner or later: Corbin ran us through all the usual excuses for the Obama's reluctance/refusal to act on any of the promises Obama made to the gay community. Which is what makes this development so significant: Stampp Corbin is the latest gay bigwig to pull out of next week's big gay DNC fundraiser. At some point between last Friday night and this morning Corbin sat down and read the DOMA brief and guess what? His head is exploding now too. This is from Corbin's post at San Diego News Network website, a post titled "The DOMA Brief Ruined Everything":
The president says he is a “fierce advocate” for LGBT rights. Really? I don’t think comparing a marriage to my partner, to marrying my niece or sister, is being my fierce advocate. I expect the president will try to distance himself from the brief and even the press statement, but it is too late. If how I feel, as one of the president’s most ardent supporters, is any indication, Obama is in for a world of trouble over the next year with the LGBT community.... Unfortunately, I will see everything that the Obama administration does for LGBT Americans through the lens of the DOMA brief. Meaning, I will be waiting for the other proverbial shoe to drop, while praying President Obama delivers on his promises.Next week, I am boycotting the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council Democratic National Committee event honoring Vice President Biden to drive home my discontent. Many other prominent LGBT donors have also joined in the boycott. Is the announcement of benefits for LGBT federal employees to squash the boycott and the general uproar? Hmm…In politics, money talks. It is unlikely that Obama just put together this announcement in the last week to throw a bone to my community; it has been in the works for many weeks. I would have celebrated loudly had this been announced before the DOMA debacle, but now I will only give polite, muted applause. That pesky DOMA brief has ruined everything.
Mr. President, your DOMA mistake awakened a sleeping giant. He is mad as hell and is not going to take it anymore. You better get LGBT affirming legislation moving quickly or the coffers of the LGBT community will be slammed shut on the fingers of your administration and the DNC.
Share via
2
I watched your appearance last friday and I thought you did fine, Dan. What's wrong with anger and aggressiveness? Maybe anger is what Obama needs to see in order to finally do something non-insulting for LGBT rights?
5
I think Gay Americans have legitimate reason to be angry. Showing anger or "righteous indignation" is acceptable when the wrong is clear for the casual observer to see.
6
dan, you totally need to not let them film that hideous adams apple and giraffe neck again. You look like mechaneck from He-Man, and that's not good
7
Wow, the heat was on for that one. He got stuck when he brought up Clinton and you called him out on it- that was great! That was a heated segment. That was a nice afterthought by Corbin as well, too bad he didn't make that point clear on national tv. Obviously the big gay fundraiser is likely going to turn out to be a flop.
8
What's the difference between this and every other angry, wrong, disingenuous post you've made in the last 2 weeks, Dan? Other than the showcase of your wonky-ear.
Something about this format brings out the drunk-Irish-Catholic-uncle-losing-it-at-Thanksgiving in me.
11
Yes, Drwas, I comment on every single one to counter them. WTF do you see as an insult in your statement???
13
Dan, you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself like that if you hadn't been looking to Aravosis for analysis. The stuff about pedophilia and incest is false, as is the claim that DoJ didn't have to write it.
http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/…
Yes, we need to hold his feet to the fire, but do it with facts.
http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/…
Yes, we need to hold his feet to the fire, but do it with facts.
14
I would've freaked out too if I had to speak with someone who openly lacks an understanding of the President's powers, yet argues (quite obnoxiously) to Dan that the President is powerless in this situation.
I'm on edge from hearing "Dan! Dan! Dan!.." and it's not even my name. What an annoying little bitch.
I'm on edge from hearing "Dan! Dan! Dan!.." and it's not even my name. What an annoying little bitch.
16
Thank you, Dan, and thank you Stampp Corbin for expressing yourselves and explaining the situation in ways that I, while suffering from a rage blackout, could not.
17
Thank you to the Dan Savages of the homophobic states of umerica!! - You did just fine and do not think you lost it at all - Stampp Corbin on the other hand looked like a cross talking pandering fool - Glad he pulled out of the fund raiser
20
Dan,
He totally burned your ass on Clinton and it went right over your head.
In 1993 at this point you would have been cheering Clinton for moving on gay issues, early and hard. Six months later Clinton was in retreat and DADT was the result.
Obama is smart enough to wait for the right moment to actually accomplish something but you are too much of a terrible-twos-tantrum throwing whiny bitch to let the man do his work.
He totally burned your ass on Clinton and it went right over your head.
In 1993 at this point you would have been cheering Clinton for moving on gay issues, early and hard. Six months later Clinton was in retreat and DADT was the result.
Obama is smart enough to wait for the right moment to actually accomplish something but you are too much of a terrible-twos-tantrum throwing whiny bitch to let the man do his work.
21
Well, how about we all show up to the local Courthouses on the 20th of July and every 20th thereafter? If it falls on a weekday, ask for a marriage license if you're in a couple-that-can-get-married (co-habitating, genuinely wants to get married) or otherwise act as a witness for couples that need a witness that is not afraid of getting hauled off for civil disobedience. On a weekend, a little bit of sign holding and open discussion to those who ask, "hey, why are you holding a sign?"
Tie the Knot on the Twentieth. Alliterative awesomeness with a top-of-mind twang.
In some places it would be revolutionary (think small town Texas) and in others it would just be a show of solidarity (SF, Seattle, etc.).
Tie the Knot on the Twentieth. Alliterative awesomeness with a top-of-mind twang.
In some places it would be revolutionary (think small town Texas) and in others it would just be a show of solidarity (SF, Seattle, etc.).
22
I know we've all said it already, but thank you, thank you, thank you, SLOG, for the unregistered comments filter.
23
This is the perfect fight for Dan.
White versus Black. I believe that Dan still harbors latent animosity towards African/Non African Americans who passed Prop 8, as he wrote tirelessly about in November.
Now he can direct that misplaced rage at his black President
White versus Black. I believe that Dan still harbors latent animosity towards African/Non African Americans who passed Prop 8, as he wrote tirelessly about in November.
Now he can direct that misplaced rage at his black President
24
CNN knows how to get Dan's blood boiling-
throw a black man in front of him and Dan starts Prop 8 flashback.
throw a black man in front of him and Dan starts Prop 8 flashback.
25
Dan, you have every right to be angry. No other group in this country has to fight tooth-and-nail to convince lawmakers that they are due the civil rights that are so easily taken for granted by everyone else. That this sort of discussion is even necessary in the 21st century is absurd.
26
Yes, whenever Dan disagrees with a black man, it's only because he's black. In this situation, it's clear Dan has never expressed any of these feelings otherwise and he's just being a dick for this purpose. Also, I suspect Dan is actually a straight woman.
But on a serious note, can the next calm black man you turn into an angry activist be Obama? We could really use it, because this Presidency is turning into a turd faster than my lunch.
But on a serious note, can the next calm black man you turn into an angry activist be Obama? We could really use it, because this Presidency is turning into a turd faster than my lunch.
28
@ Kevin Erickson,
Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you get out of being an apologist for Preznit Farce Advocate?
Is it like Stockholm syndrome? Do you receive some kind of self-validation from denying reality and keeping us uppity faggots in our place?
I'm not being flippant here, I really wanna know for serious.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you get out of being an apologist for Preznit Farce Advocate?
Is it like Stockholm syndrome? Do you receive some kind of self-validation from denying reality and keeping us uppity faggots in our place?
I'm not being flippant here, I really wanna know for serious.
29
Dan - actually kudo's to you.You held your horses in check on this one and your argument was well made.
30
@25 Anger is totally justifed, yes. Lying is not justified.
It is absurd that we have to argue this, but since we do have to argue this, we need to let our arguments be informed by facts.
It is absurd that we have to argue this, but since we do have to argue this, we need to let our arguments be informed by facts.
32
Andrew -- if Kevin Erickson is right, which he is, how is he an apologist?
I know that logic in the face of your hurt is threatening, but come ON.
I know that logic in the face of your hurt is threatening, but come ON.
34
I thought the last bit about the DOMA memo was a bit overly aggressive in terms of how you came across, but the DADT stuff was excellent.
And, I would like to say that it's not just going to be the coffers of the LGBT community that will be slammed shut, but the coffers of some straight supporters as well. I gave a large sum to Obama last election, and unless action has been taken on DOMA and DADT before the next election, I won't be doing so again. He may get my vote, but not my money. Yes, I know politicians break promises all the time, but this just seems so particularly blatant and egregious...
But, for what it's worth, 2 1/2 years is a long time, so I still have hope that action will be taken before the start of the next campaign. It may be later than we'd like, but I still think it will happen.
And, I would like to say that it's not just going to be the coffers of the LGBT community that will be slammed shut, but the coffers of some straight supporters as well. I gave a large sum to Obama last election, and unless action has been taken on DOMA and DADT before the next election, I won't be doing so again. He may get my vote, but not my money. Yes, I know politicians break promises all the time, but this just seems so particularly blatant and egregious...
But, for what it's worth, 2 1/2 years is a long time, so I still have hope that action will be taken before the start of the next campaign. It may be later than we'd like, but I still think it will happen.
35
@21 Let's organize it then. The brainstorming's great, but useless unless people actually organize.
Let's get a commitment from people who are going to show up and ask for a license. We have to get groups from across the country to work together for this to happen, so we need to start writing them now to get support. We need to let the media know so there will be coverage.
It's a great idea, Baconcat, and I'll be there with my signs and friends to support it. Let's see who responds. Because I can tell you from yesterday to today, with so much support around the Civil Disobedience at the White House, only 3 people have come forward to actually work for it.
Dan- are you going to organize it? Because it seems like people only want to be involved if you're behind it.
protestforhumanrights.com
Let's get a commitment from people who are going to show up and ask for a license. We have to get groups from across the country to work together for this to happen, so we need to start writing them now to get support. We need to let the media know so there will be coverage.
It's a great idea, Baconcat, and I'll be there with my signs and friends to support it. Let's see who responds. Because I can tell you from yesterday to today, with so much support around the Civil Disobedience at the White House, only 3 people have come forward to actually work for it.
Dan- are you going to organize it? Because it seems like people only want to be involved if you're behind it.
protestforhumanrights.com
37
@ 30,
The DOMA brief seems quite clear in equating marriage equality to incestous marriages that states have a right to ignore, and it's now the government's official position that marriage equality is unspeakably nasty.
If you're gay, how can you respect yourself by apologizing for people who'd write such things about you and your loved ones?
The DOMA brief seems quite clear in equating marriage equality to incestous marriages that states have a right to ignore, and it's now the government's official position that marriage equality is unspeakably nasty.
If you're gay, how can you respect yourself by apologizing for people who'd write such things about you and your loved ones?
38
I told the White House they need to apologize to the LGBT community about the DOJ brief. You can too WhiteHouse.gov
41
Addendum: And if/when it happens, it will be partially due to the pressure that people like you, John Aravosis, and others keep putting on the administration. There needs to be people who are loud, angry, and obnoxious on these issues, and who keep harping on them. Otherwise, what motivation does the administration have to act, since it's clear that "doing the right thing" isn't going to compel them?
40
The DOMA brief seems quite clear ???
So, what is it? Is it clear or is it an allusion/illusion?
Dan himself wrote that the brief was written by a Bush holdover, so which is it?
So, what is it? Is it clear or is it an allusion/illusion?
Dan himself wrote that the brief was written by a Bush holdover, so which is it?
42
Julie: here's what you are actually saying:
"There needs to be people who are loud, angry, and obnoxious on these issues" to ruin his Presidency and any chance we have
"There needs to be people who are loud, angry, and obnoxious on these issues" to ruin his Presidency and any chance we have
43
Funny tidbit: I didn't know Stampp Corbin was black—or that he spelled Stampp with two Ps—until after the broadcast. I knew he was the head of the Obama LGBT Leadership Council before we went on, but that's all I knew. You don't actually see the folks you're debating in that format -- you're staring at a camera in a dark room.
Strange but true!
And Kevin? Everyone from ABC to the NYT to all the crazy-ass bloggers are talking about the incest dig. But, yeah, we're all just nuts. Me, the editorial board at the Times, John at Americablog, Andy at Towleroad, David Mixner, Stampp Corbin, HRC, NGLTF -- all nuts, all of us. It must be something in the semen we're all drinking.
Strange but true!
And Kevin? Everyone from ABC to the NYT to all the crazy-ass bloggers are talking about the incest dig. But, yeah, we're all just nuts. Me, the editorial board at the Times, John at Americablog, Andy at Towleroad, David Mixner, Stampp Corbin, HRC, NGLTF -- all nuts, all of us. It must be something in the semen we're all drinking.
44
@35: I'm game. We have a month to plan the first one.
I meet all the criteria for being a witness, so let's do it.
I meet all the criteria for being a witness, so let's do it.
46
@44 That was actually a call on you to organize it. I'm working on the Protest for Human Rights. I'll support you, but I'm not sure how many others will.
48
@37: I suggest you learn to read. The brief cites prior precedent that an out-of-state marriage is not necessarily valid in any given forum.
The only way that turns into "equating marriage equality to incestuous marriage" or that "marriage equality is unspeakably nasty" is if you pipe the brief through Google Translate back and forth a few times before playing Telephone with a bunch of second-graders.
The only way that turns into "equating marriage equality to incestuous marriage" or that "marriage equality is unspeakably nasty" is if you pipe the brief through Google Translate back and forth a few times before playing Telephone with a bunch of second-graders.
49
Hey, Kevin? More crazy-ass gay craziness!
That's from the Stonewall Democrats—they just pulled out of the DNC's LGBT fundraiser.
Gee, Kev, maybe there's something wrong with the semen you're drinking.
To have our committed and loving relationships referred to as the moral equivalent of incest and pedophilia is not something that any of us ever expected from this Administration considering how hard we worked to be seen and respected. For that reason alone, advocating for attendance at a fundraiser to support the Administration and the DNC, while they have not condemned this hurtful language, is not something our membership will receive positively.
That's from the Stonewall Democrats—they just pulled out of the DNC's LGBT fundraiser.
Gee, Kev, maybe there's something wrong with the semen you're drinking.
50
I think that even if Kevin is right and the uproar about the DOMA brief is overblown on the merits, the uproar may still be a good thing because it puts pressure on the administration to act on LGBT rights issues now that the election is over. We were ignored plenty by Clinton, and public opinion really is changing to support many LGBT rights issues (e.g., DADT repeal, passing ENDA), so it's important that there is pressure on the Dems to act now to pass the laws that are politically feasible.
In any case, if you're rich enough to be donating tons of money to the DNC and if your main political issue is gay rights, I'd suggest that donating to Lambda Legal or the NGLTF might be a better way to spend your funds. Both groups have accomplished more to advance LGBT rights than elected Democrats ever have (aside from 8 years of federal courts appointments by Clinton). Obviously it's important to elect Democrats to advance gay rights (since the R's actively hate us and all), but we also have to make ourselves heard by Democrats, which is what we're doing now.
In any case, if you're rich enough to be donating tons of money to the DNC and if your main political issue is gay rights, I'd suggest that donating to Lambda Legal or the NGLTF might be a better way to spend your funds. Both groups have accomplished more to advance LGBT rights than elected Democrats ever have (aside from 8 years of federal courts appointments by Clinton). Obviously it's important to elect Democrats to advance gay rights (since the R's actively hate us and all), but we also have to make ourselves heard by Democrats, which is what we're doing now.
51
It wasn't about Stampp, it is about your target screen Obama, reinforcing the black culture of homophobia that you despise.
53
@43: Argumentum ad populum - in other words, just because other people are idiots too doesn't mean you're not idiots together.
It is incontrovertible fact that the brief simply cited existing precedent on recognizing out-of-state marriages when the forum state didn't want to. To say that it did anything more than that is to reveal one's tenuous grasp of either the English language or reality as a whole.
It is incontrovertible fact that the brief simply cited existing precedent on recognizing out-of-state marriages when the forum state didn't want to. To say that it did anything more than that is to reveal one's tenuous grasp of either the English language or reality as a whole.
54
@46: Well, "we" more meaning everyone. I'm still working the cogs out in my head, but yeah, I'm going to go ahead and chug along on this.
Change starts at home, yanno.
Change starts at home, yanno.
55
Dan not only gave to the campaign, he gave his paper's ENDORSEMENT to Obama.
Talk about bitch-burger.
No wonder Dan is going batshit crazy.
Obama embarassed Dan's endorsement=credibility.
Dan, you were wrong about Obama. You are trying to make up for it by being a fierce advocate of fierceness, but still you were wrong. I hate to throw it in your face, but you were also wrong about the Iraq War.
What else are you wrong about? I suspect this is deeply troubling for you and the source of a lot of your feelings of betrayal.
You were wrong. *shrug*
Talk about bitch-burger.
No wonder Dan is going batshit crazy.
Obama embarassed Dan's endorsement=credibility.
Dan, you were wrong about Obama. You are trying to make up for it by being a fierce advocate of fierceness, but still you were wrong. I hate to throw it in your face, but you were also wrong about the Iraq War.
What else are you wrong about? I suspect this is deeply troubling for you and the source of a lot of your feelings of betrayal.
You were wrong. *shrug*
57
The Stonewall Democrats pulled out of the fundraiser.
I shit you not!
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/gay-d…
I shit you not!
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/gay-d…
58
The Stonewall Democrats pulled out of the fundraiser.
I shit you not!
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/gay-d…
I shit you not!
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/gay-d…
59
Hey Dan-
Are you talking to anyone about organizing the Civil Disobedience? It would be nice to know if you're behind the effort you put out there.
Are you talking to anyone about organizing the Civil Disobedience? It would be nice to know if you're behind the effort you put out there.
60
Posted twice my bad let me try this again
Jared Polis boyctted the signing ceremony at the White House yesterday.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/cong-…
Jared Polis boyctted the signing ceremony at the White House yesterday.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/cong-…
61
You didn't come off badly, Dan. Hardly aggro. He was rude. I hope he wrote you an apology once he read the DOMA brief.
62
@28 Yeah, I'm not sure what you mean by apologist. I just want to win equality, and I don't think misrepresenting Obama's position is the way to do that. As Alex says at Bilerico:
"Does it show our strategic brilliance when the last straw is the fact that the DOJ responded to a lawsuit our activist community didn't like anyway? Does it show our commitment to liberal/progressive/leftist politics when the only issues we care about are those that specifically mention LGBT people? Does it demonstrate an ability to unite people outside of our 5% of the population for our cause when we'll eat anyone alive, even other establishment queers, for not following lockstep in our anger and beliefs? Does trumping up charges and flinging insults demonstrate the maturity, emotional or political, to sustain a social justice movement?"
@43 The meme came from Aravosis and got picked up by everyone else, uncritically. Like Frank says there's room for criticism, and like him i wish DOJ had anticipated the possibility of misinterpretation. HRC seems be acting somewhat opportunistically, as they try to repair their standing with the blogosphere, raise $, and also leverage the flurry of attention into more pressure and more action (which is just fine).
"Does it show our strategic brilliance when the last straw is the fact that the DOJ responded to a lawsuit our activist community didn't like anyway? Does it show our commitment to liberal/progressive/leftist politics when the only issues we care about are those that specifically mention LGBT people? Does it demonstrate an ability to unite people outside of our 5% of the population for our cause when we'll eat anyone alive, even other establishment queers, for not following lockstep in our anger and beliefs? Does trumping up charges and flinging insults demonstrate the maturity, emotional or political, to sustain a social justice movement?"
@43 The meme came from Aravosis and got picked up by everyone else, uncritically. Like Frank says there's room for criticism, and like him i wish DOJ had anticipated the possibility of misinterpretation. HRC seems be acting somewhat opportunistically, as they try to repair their standing with the blogosphere, raise $, and also leverage the flurry of attention into more pressure and more action (which is just fine).
63
@55: Let's not make a leap into other aspects of his character and credibility, even if you disagree with his approach or the collective view of this brief. We've identified an issue and if we single it out we can make progress. It's not what was said that's now being attacked, that's just a match. The real fire is what was promised and hasn't seen movement one way or another.
The silver lining, regardless of your anger or my anger or anyone else's anger, is that finally we're doing something as a group. I'm annoyed that it has taken so long to get big cogs like Dan turning, but they're turning and we shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face.
Save your ammo for the more fair-weather activists, because even though I think Dan has been a bit tepid in terms of outright advocacy in some regards (x20), he hasn't had the strange and completely self-serving "Amazing Grace" moment that Aravosis has had. He's been more or less consistent.
The silver lining, regardless of your anger or my anger or anyone else's anger, is that finally we're doing something as a group. I'm annoyed that it has taken so long to get big cogs like Dan turning, but they're turning and we shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face.
Save your ammo for the more fair-weather activists, because even though I think Dan has been a bit tepid in terms of outright advocacy in some regards (x20), he hasn't had the strange and completely self-serving "Amazing Grace" moment that Aravosis has had. He's been more or less consistent.
64
@49 Dan, that doesn't demonstrate anything except that they've been under a huge amount of pressure to back out of the fundraiser. Do you really believe that a 16 year old getting married is pedophilia?
66
Kevin, @64, it's interesting you mention that because most times that under-ageness comes up on Slog there is a fight over what is and isn't pedophilia, with most agreeing that 16 is old enough (think the Portland Mayor fiasco and the 17 year old)
67
@63: If the issue was just "It's really annoying that Obama hasn't done most of what he promised for the LGBT community, and this motion gives us a good reason to talk about that" it'd be one thing. But that's not what's going on.
Instead, people are going completely off the rails and attacking people for daring to disagree with one flame-throwing blogger (Aravosis, incidentally, not Dan) whose legal reasoning skills are roughly equivalent to what you'd see on Judge Judy.
Instead, people are going completely off the rails and attacking people for daring to disagree with one flame-throwing blogger (Aravosis, incidentally, not Dan) whose legal reasoning skills are roughly equivalent to what you'd see on Judge Judy.
69
@65: I consider them "fair-weather activists". They've been basically and fairly correctly portrayed as "Haughty Rich Caucasians", and while they've added a bit of color and estrogen lately, it's still hard to find where they've really excelled except in fundraising.
Lambda Legal, NGLTF and to a moderate extent GLAAD have done far better than HRC.
Lambda Legal, NGLTF and to a moderate extent GLAAD have done far better than HRC.
72
@67: Well, that's what happens when people are angry and can't quite articulate it. They see whatever correct-ish sounding expression of outrage and make that person their standard bearer until the argument is honed and better-crafted.
Aravosis has always been keen on trolling the media, and this is no exception. He is, in short, a huckster. But whatever, the GLBT community will eventually leave him behind as priorities are better focused-on and we get a clearer sense of where we need to be headed.
Aravosis has always been keen on trolling the media, and this is no exception. He is, in short, a huckster. But whatever, the GLBT community will eventually leave him behind as priorities are better focused-on and we get a clearer sense of where we need to be headed.
73
"To say that it did anything more than that is to reveal one's tenuous grasp of either the English language or reality as a whole."
It didn't really cite examples of underage and incestuous marriages? Wow. Well pardon me...
It didn't really cite examples of underage and incestuous marriages? Wow. Well pardon me...
74
@66 that's what i'm saying--in the brief it makes the point that some states let 16 year olds marry and other states don't, and that *difference from state to state* has been established as constitutional. This is a narrow legal argument. It's be a big leap to call it anything like a "comparison to pedophilia."
75
@63 is right, even if some may hate to hear it - the main thing is that you're actually doing something instead of just talking about it. When the ground shifts like that, things happen.
Now, just because there's one idea out there doesn't mean each and every person is not empowered to come up with creative active methods to make sure change happens - maybe they're vets who were forced out, who publicly file forms at a specific VA Hospital every day - or maybe they're some roommates at college who actually aren't gay but file for gay marriage anyway at a specified courthouse to force the issue.
Once you make it obvious you aren't going away - in public - and will insist on your rights, politely but firmly - things happen.
This is what scares the anti-American right.
Now, just because there's one idea out there doesn't mean each and every person is not empowered to come up with creative active methods to make sure change happens - maybe they're vets who were forced out, who publicly file forms at a specific VA Hospital every day - or maybe they're some roommates at college who actually aren't gay but file for gay marriage anyway at a specified courthouse to force the issue.
Once you make it obvious you aren't going away - in public - and will insist on your rights, politely but firmly - things happen.
This is what scares the anti-American right.
76
"The meme came from Aravosis and got picked up by everyone else, uncritically..."
Because, like, Nobody else has actually read the brief for themselves and come to the same fucking conclusion after all...
Because, like, Nobody else has actually read the brief for themselves and come to the same fucking conclusion after all...
77
Newbies...I hate them.
Hey, douchebag Obama/Democratic apologists: LISTEN TO WHAT WE ARE SAYING!
We are mad because the President/Congress we helped elect with out time, money and votes is doing very little to fulfill ANY of the promises they made to the queer community. The repeal of DADT overwhelmingly has the public's support, yet nothing is apparently being done by the Administration or the Congress to end it. We elected these people because they said they supported our struggle for civil rights. We intend to hold them to those promises. If they don't, they're no longer going to get our time, money and votes...it's that simple.
Hey, douchebag Obama/Democratic apologists: LISTEN TO WHAT WE ARE SAYING!
We are mad because the President/Congress we helped elect with out time, money and votes is doing very little to fulfill ANY of the promises they made to the queer community. The repeal of DADT overwhelmingly has the public's support, yet nothing is apparently being done by the Administration or the Congress to end it. We elected these people because they said they supported our struggle for civil rights. We intend to hold them to those promises. If they don't, they're no longer going to get our time, money and votes...it's that simple.
78
Kevin Erickson - I do agree with you that the brief cannot rightly be thought to invoke pedophilia (unless you're counting marriage to a 16-year-old as potential pedophilia, which I guess you could make an argument for). And that portraying it as such is a bit disingenuous.
But, the brief does compare gay married to incest (of the uncle/niece variety, anyways). It says that current law says that a state does not have to recognize "certain marriages performed elsewhere." And it gives examples of "certain marriages", including incest (uncle/niece), thus putting gay marriage in the same category ("certain marriages") as incestuous marriages.
In my mind, that's like saying, because states can refuse to recognize uncle/niece marriages or first cousin marriages, they can also refuse to recognize inter-racial marriage. The right to refuse to recognize certain unions does not mean that states should be allowed to refuse to recognize any category of union that they choose (e.g., we don't allow states to not recognize inter-racial marriage).
But, the brief does compare gay married to incest (of the uncle/niece variety, anyways). It says that current law says that a state does not have to recognize "certain marriages performed elsewhere." And it gives examples of "certain marriages", including incest (uncle/niece), thus putting gay marriage in the same category ("certain marriages") as incestuous marriages.
In my mind, that's like saying, because states can refuse to recognize uncle/niece marriages or first cousin marriages, they can also refuse to recognize inter-racial marriage. The right to refuse to recognize certain unions does not mean that states should be allowed to refuse to recognize any category of union that they choose (e.g., we don't allow states to not recognize inter-racial marriage).
79
I wish I had enough money and prestige to back out of the fundraiser myself. I am furious at my President and have every right and reason to be. So I am totally behind Dan Savage on all of this. Also, attacking someone on how they look is awfully lame and everyone who does it is ugly. I don't mean ugly inside or spiritually ugly, I mean that they are physically unattractive. I thought Dan looked wicked cute.
80
@72 I want to hope you're right. But I'm not sure. The african american community hasn't been able to leave al sharpton behind, despite him being pretty goofy for years, and despite the huge number of amazing black intellectuals, male and female whose voices never make it through the media.
82
On a whim, I decided to actually pull up the case that forms the alleged comparison between marriage equality and "child rape," "pedophilia," or whatever else people have been calling it.
In Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, *two sixteen year-olds got married*, which is legitimate in New Jersey if they have parental consent. After the husband got sent to a Reformatory (juvenile detention), the wife sought an annulment of the marriage. Had then been married in New Jersey, the annulment would have been granted since the wife had not affirmed the marriage after reaching the age of 18. The court granted the annulment, noting that since New Jersey's public policy allowed for such annulments where the marriage was celebrated within the state, public policy allowed them to be granted for marriages celebrated outside the state, even if the annulment wouldn't be granted under the foreign state's law.
In short, the case stands for the proposition that states do not have to recognize out-of-state marriages, where the marriage would be voidable within the state. How, exactly, is bringing up this case as precedent that states don't have to recognize foreign marriages comparing marriage equality to "child rape" or "pedophilia?"
In Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, *two sixteen year-olds got married*, which is legitimate in New Jersey if they have parental consent. After the husband got sent to a Reformatory (juvenile detention), the wife sought an annulment of the marriage. Had then been married in New Jersey, the annulment would have been granted since the wife had not affirmed the marriage after reaching the age of 18. The court granted the annulment, noting that since New Jersey's public policy allowed for such annulments where the marriage was celebrated within the state, public policy allowed them to be granted for marriages celebrated outside the state, even if the annulment wouldn't be granted under the foreign state's law.
In short, the case stands for the proposition that states do not have to recognize out-of-state marriages, where the marriage would be voidable within the state. How, exactly, is bringing up this case as precedent that states don't have to recognize foreign marriages comparing marriage equality to "child rape" or "pedophilia?"
83
In other words, I guess, the brief views gay marriage as more like uncle/niece marriage than like inter-racial marriage. Which is, understandably, a bit insulting.
84
Dan you far from sucked, if you want to see sucking, watch FOX. As for Corbin backing out, better late then never.
PS
Dan ignore the trolls, they want to make you rage like my drunk Uncles. They are the same that troll Towleroad.
xoPatrickNYC
PS
Dan ignore the trolls, they want to make you rage like my drunk Uncles. They are the same that troll Towleroad.
xoPatrickNYC
85
Man, Karl Rove is laughing his ass off right now. All this with one little Justice Department appointment. Wonder what the next strategically timed embarrassment is going to be... and who's going to take the bait and blame the Obama administration for it, instead of the Bush administration.
86
@76: If you read the brief and came to the same conclusion as Aravosis, I suggest you either read it again until you find your mistake, or give up on being able to comprehend legal writing. Seriously, Aravosis's "analysis" is an embarrassment to the profession.
@77: If all the anger isn't about the brief, but is about the larger issue of Obama not doing much of anything on LGBT issues, why are so many angry posts specifically about the motion?
@78: The difference is that no state can have a public policy against interracial marriage, thanks to Loving v. Virginia. While it's my personal position that the Equal Protection Clause requires marriage equality (bans on same-sex marriage are discrimination on the basis of sex that can't possibly survive intermediate scrutiny, thanks to the complete lack of anything approaching a compelling governmental interest in maintaining the bans), it nonetheless remains within state power at this point in time to have public policy against marriage equality.
The cases cited in the brief were not cited in order to create a category of "marriages that don't have to be recognized." That category already exists - marriages which are void under state policy do not have to be recognized when they are celebrated out of state. Since same-sex marriages are void under many states' policies, that places them in the category of marriages which may not be recognized without offending the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
@77: If all the anger isn't about the brief, but is about the larger issue of Obama not doing much of anything on LGBT issues, why are so many angry posts specifically about the motion?
@78: The difference is that no state can have a public policy against interracial marriage, thanks to Loving v. Virginia. While it's my personal position that the Equal Protection Clause requires marriage equality (bans on same-sex marriage are discrimination on the basis of sex that can't possibly survive intermediate scrutiny, thanks to the complete lack of anything approaching a compelling governmental interest in maintaining the bans), it nonetheless remains within state power at this point in time to have public policy against marriage equality.
The cases cited in the brief were not cited in order to create a category of "marriages that don't have to be recognized." That category already exists - marriages which are void under state policy do not have to be recognized when they are celebrated out of state. Since same-sex marriages are void under many states' policies, that places them in the category of marriages which may not be recognized without offending the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
87
@77 Michael, I don't disagree with anything you say there, really. Obviously want to see more action on DADT and DOMA too.
I think we can make that argument and hold them to the fire without misrepresenting their opinions, and without attacking people who have different ideas about tactics and strategies, right?
I think we can make that argument and hold them to the fire without misrepresenting their opinions, and without attacking people who have different ideas about tactics and strategies, right?
88
I agree we need to apply pressure to Obama.....and this boycott is an excellent way to get that started!
However, I am confused by the people who are arguing that Obama himself must feel that gay marriage is akin to incest because of that legal brief. I read the brief and actually found it fascinating. It argues that DOMA is legal (and that there is legal precedent for federal law not honoring every state marriage law), not that it is right.
For instance, I can argue--and do believe--the death penalty is wrong. However, I don't think it is unconstitutional.
However, I am confused by the people who are arguing that Obama himself must feel that gay marriage is akin to incest because of that legal brief. I read the brief and actually found it fascinating. It argues that DOMA is legal (and that there is legal precedent for federal law not honoring every state marriage law), not that it is right.
For instance, I can argue--and do believe--the death penalty is wrong. However, I don't think it is unconstitutional.
89
Regarding DADT, Dan Savage made two points that utterly cut through the BS that the Obama administration continues to peddle. First, Dan noted that DADT itself explicitly gives the prez the power to issue a stop-loss during wartime (something I did not know). Second, Dan rightly stated that polling now shows overwhelming public agreement that DADT should be repealed.
So I think Dan's question as to WHY Obama continues to kick the can down the road, while harsh, is unavoidable. Is Obama merely afraid (of nothing)? Or were Obama's campaign promises simply an updated version of those "I'm-really-tolerant" self-proclamations that I've had to put up with from conservatives over the past umpteen years?
I don't know the answer (yet), but in any event, as far as my wallet is concerned, Obama and the current DNC can look elsewhere for cash. Since 1978, I have voted exclusively for, and contributed to, Democrats. My feeling was that, all things being equal, the Democratic label should win out--because at least the Democratic Party SAID it supported my rights. That won't cut anymore. Now, so long as the Republican candidate supports my rights (not unheard of in my state), I will vote GOP. Time for a little payback.
So I think Dan's question as to WHY Obama continues to kick the can down the road, while harsh, is unavoidable. Is Obama merely afraid (of nothing)? Or were Obama's campaign promises simply an updated version of those "I'm-really-tolerant" self-proclamations that I've had to put up with from conservatives over the past umpteen years?
I don't know the answer (yet), but in any event, as far as my wallet is concerned, Obama and the current DNC can look elsewhere for cash. Since 1978, I have voted exclusively for, and contributed to, Democrats. My feeling was that, all things being equal, the Democratic label should win out--because at least the Democratic Party SAID it supported my rights. That won't cut anymore. Now, so long as the Republican candidate supports my rights (not unheard of in my state), I will vote GOP. Time for a little payback.
90
Julie in Eugene: I agree, great explanation to those denying that the brief includes the comparison. I just read the document and it's clear to me, also.
91
You do spend that clip alternating between looking like you want to stab someone and looking like what you're hearing is so ridiculous you can't quite manage a response.
But that's probably a reasonably justified reaction.
But that's probably a reasonably justified reaction.
92
I thought you did fine. You didn't shout a lot, and you remained articulate and composed throughtout. And you spoke in complete sentences, and you made him shout over you which, you know, sounded a little shrill. Good job and good for him for dropping out of the DNC fundraiser.
93
As a lawyer who has worked on issues of marriage equality for years, I should say that AnonymousCoward and Kevin Erickson are correct about the DOMA brief. Indeed, it would be malpractice to discuss the issue without citing those cases. @86 is a good explanation of the public policy problem that will exist until the denial of marriage is finally determined to be unconstitutional.
That said, I am not troubled in the least by the misreading of that portion of the brief. "He's comparing us to incest and pedophilia!" is a good rhetorical tool, which is only understood to be incorrect by a few. I'm reminded of the first lesson a professor of mine taught in Political Communication 101: "it's not the truth; it's what's perceived to be true." The brief was hurtful, but the perception that it's worse than it actually is has been galvanizing.
So I say let's stop talking about the legal finepoints now.
That said, I am not troubled in the least by the misreading of that portion of the brief. "He's comparing us to incest and pedophilia!" is a good rhetorical tool, which is only understood to be incorrect by a few. I'm reminded of the first lesson a professor of mine taught in Political Communication 101: "it's not the truth; it's what's perceived to be true." The brief was hurtful, but the perception that it's worse than it actually is has been galvanizing.
So I say let's stop talking about the legal finepoints now.
94
Finally! I've been waiting to watch this clip since I heard you were about to go on CNN. Thanks for posting!
95
"Seriously, Aravosis's "analysis" is an embarrassment to the profession."
Seriously...the only moron you're fooling in here is yourself.
Seriously...the only moron you're fooling in here is yourself.
96
"How, exactly, is bringing up this case as precedent that states don't have to recognize foreign marriages comparing marriage equality to "child rape" or "pedophilia?""
This particular case does not involve marriage to a minor then does it? I take it you're unfamiliar with how bigots keep insisting that gays just want to have sex with minors. I take it you're unfamiliar with how they keep insisting that homosexuality is caused by child abuse. Of course we have to keep DOMA in place...otherwise the gays will be marrying your children...
This particular case does not involve marriage to a minor then does it? I take it you're unfamiliar with how bigots keep insisting that gays just want to have sex with minors. I take it you're unfamiliar with how they keep insisting that homosexuality is caused by child abuse. Of course we have to keep DOMA in place...otherwise the gays will be marrying your children...
97
I always arrive at these discussions so late that I doubt anyone sees my posts, but you did great Dan. You didn't yell or rant. And, sure you interrupted him, but damn, he wouldn't shut up. You were on topic, articulate, and justifiably angry. Very good job.
His, "We're not talking about DOMA" was pathetic and desperate and SELL OUT.
His, "We're not talking about DOMA" was pathetic and desperate and SELL OUT.
98
@93 Well, that's at least honest of you. Admitting that people are lying in a way that they think is useful to their cause.
That depresses the hell out of me though.
That depresses the hell out of me though.
99
@93: Yes, some virtue may have come out of the continued inability to read on the part of some people. That doesn't make it any less frustrating to see continued assertions that are at best misguided.
Speaking of which:
@95-6: Yes, the case references minors, in the context of a marriage between two sixteen-year-olds. There is simply no honest and knowledgeable reading of the text of the motion that can result in the belief that it drew any sort of substantive equivalence between marriage equality and incest, underage marriage, pedophilia, or child rape.
The case is cited under the heading, "Section 2 is Consistent With Common Law Conflict[ of Laws] Principles." It follows a number of Supreme Court decisions establishing the scope of the Full Faith and Credit Clause on conflicts principles, noting "[u]nder this long-standing public policy doctrine, out-of-state statutes or acts that are contrary to the forum State's policy need not be followed under the Full Faith and Credit Clause."
Immediately before the block of citations that has caused such an uproar, the motion states, "The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy." The motion then notes a number of state supreme court cases that have refused to give effect to marriages they didn't like, *as support for the prior statement*. That's the way legal writing works - you state a proposition, and then cite precedent to support your position. Here, the position was "States don't have to recognize marriages they really don't like." The citations to cases that follow are in the brief solely to back up that point.
My post @82 was simply pointing out that, even if you were to *wrongfully* believe that somehow this citation was drawing an equivalence between marriage equality and the facts of the cited cases, you would nonetheless be incorrect to say that there was a comparison to "child rape" or "pedophilia," because the facts of that case were two minors who had married each other.
More...
Speaking of which:
@95-6: Yes, the case references minors, in the context of a marriage between two sixteen-year-olds. There is simply no honest and knowledgeable reading of the text of the motion that can result in the belief that it drew any sort of substantive equivalence between marriage equality and incest, underage marriage, pedophilia, or child rape.
The case is cited under the heading, "Section 2 is Consistent With Common Law Conflict[ of Laws] Principles." It follows a number of Supreme Court decisions establishing the scope of the Full Faith and Credit Clause on conflicts principles, noting "[u]nder this long-standing public policy doctrine, out-of-state statutes or acts that are contrary to the forum State's policy need not be followed under the Full Faith and Credit Clause."
Immediately before the block of citations that has caused such an uproar, the motion states, "The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy." The motion then notes a number of state supreme court cases that have refused to give effect to marriages they didn't like, *as support for the prior statement*. That's the way legal writing works - you state a proposition, and then cite precedent to support your position. Here, the position was "States don't have to recognize marriages they really don't like." The citations to cases that follow are in the brief solely to back up that point.
My post @82 was simply pointing out that, even if you were to *wrongfully* believe that somehow this citation was drawing an equivalence between marriage equality and the facts of the cited cases, you would nonetheless be incorrect to say that there was a comparison to "child rape" or "pedophilia," because the facts of that case were two minors who had married each other.
100
Kevin,
I'm sorry, the use of lie or a misinterpretation to futher a cause saddens me as well. I wasn't sure how to intepret the brief, but I understood how it was being interpreted was viewed as incredibly hurtful. I hope that it is the hurt that is driving this, not a lie that is knowingly being perpetuated. It isn't honorable, but it seems a sad human trait that both sides are willing to use.
I'm sorry, the use of lie or a misinterpretation to futher a cause saddens me as well. I wasn't sure how to intepret the brief, but I understood how it was being interpreted was viewed as incredibly hurtful. I hope that it is the hurt that is driving this, not a lie that is knowingly being perpetuated. It isn't honorable, but it seems a sad human trait that both sides are willing to use.
101
It's time people finally hear "No More Mr Nice Gay". It's time folks stopped viewing LGBT as push-overs and weak nellies. It's past time folks got loud and in-your-face about injustice and inequality. It's past time for liberty and justice for all.
p.s. I love my Drunk Irish Catholic (and Welsh, Scotch, German, Italian) Uncles and all their belligerence and outspoken-ness.
p.s. I love my Drunk Irish Catholic (and Welsh, Scotch, German, Italian) Uncles and all their belligerence and outspoken-ness.
102
Also, instead of donating money to DNC and HRC, I think we should give the money to Lambda Legal and Southern Poverty Law. They actually do shit for people...unlike those other groups.
103
23 Who told you he considers him his President now, he's willing to slander him as Kevin Erickson has pointed out in 13 instead of celebrating yesterday's show of respect for federal gay employees.
104
100 Am I reading you wrong, are you acknowledging that some gay blogger like Mr Aravosis and Mr Savage have engaged in lies? Do you think that Mr Savage should publicly apologize for perpetuating those lies against the President?
105
@98 and 100 - I was not saying that people are lying about the brief, just that few people understand the legal nuances and therefore most have misinterpreted it. If some in the know are playing off that misperception, I have no problem with that, which may be where we diverge.
The brief did use some superfluous and hurtful arguments otherwise, but I think the ongoing debate about what the brief said or didn't say is unproductive. The mere fact of this brief is a slap in the face which highlights his inaction on gay rights (which is the real issue, isn't it?)
The brief did use some superfluous and hurtful arguments otherwise, but I think the ongoing debate about what the brief said or didn't say is unproductive. The mere fact of this brief is a slap in the face which highlights his inaction on gay rights (which is the real issue, isn't it?)
106
@100 I think once someone labels something as horrible and offensive and hurtful and uses the most inflammatory language to describe it, people who are used to being treated in horrible and offensive and hurtful ways assume that it must be true; and this prejudices their reading of the facts.
It worked well in this case because most people don't know how to interpret legal briefs, so they assume John's dishonest description of it was accurate rather than go through the process of investigating the basic facts of the case, eg, who were the plaintiffs, where was it being tried, what was the DoJ's obligation. And now, as you see, everyone's entrenched in that position and attacking anyone like Barney Frank who dares to question this posture of outrage. Well, I believe in questioning everything.
It worked well in this case because most people don't know how to interpret legal briefs, so they assume John's dishonest description of it was accurate rather than go through the process of investigating the basic facts of the case, eg, who were the plaintiffs, where was it being tried, what was the DoJ's obligation. And now, as you see, everyone's entrenched in that position and attacking anyone like Barney Frank who dares to question this posture of outrage. Well, I believe in questioning everything.
107
Kevin and Anon Coward -- I don't think anybody here is saying that the legal arguments laid out in the brief are invalid (well, I'm not anyways). The brief accurately describes the legal situation of gay marriage today. Inter-racial marriage has "protection" due to Loving v. Virginia, gay marriage has no such federal protection. So, it is legally true that gay marriage is currently in the same category as uncle/niece marriage, adult/16 year old marriage, and cousin/cousin marriage (recognized in some countries/states, but each state can decide to recognize or not).
The legal fact is not what is getting people upset (i.e., people are not saying "they made this legal argument and it's invalid!"). This is an emotional reaction to the fact that the Obama administration (who is supposed to be on our side, right?) has essentially said "we view gay marriage as being in the same category as incestuous marriages". This particular argument was just salt in the wounds for people who think that A.) the DOJ didn't have to defend DOMA at all or B) they could have just defended it on the jurisdiction-type arguments.
Maybe it's just that the brief lays out so starkly, in black and white, what types of relationships our current laws see gay marriage as comparable to...
The legal fact is not what is getting people upset (i.e., people are not saying "they made this legal argument and it's invalid!"). This is an emotional reaction to the fact that the Obama administration (who is supposed to be on our side, right?) has essentially said "we view gay marriage as being in the same category as incestuous marriages". This particular argument was just salt in the wounds for people who think that A.) the DOJ didn't have to defend DOMA at all or B) they could have just defended it on the jurisdiction-type arguments.
Maybe it's just that the brief lays out so starkly, in black and white, what types of relationships our current laws see gay marriage as comparable to...
108
@107 I recognize it's salt in the wounds, especially for people who think that the DOJ didn't have to defend DOMA.
But...why would anyone think that the DOJ didn't have to defend DOMA? Mostly because John Aravosis told them so and other people parroted it.
But...why would anyone think that the DOJ didn't have to defend DOMA? Mostly because John Aravosis told them so and other people parroted it.
109
One other thought... it seems particularly weird to me that the brief even includes the uncle/niece case, since that case was about a marriage that was valid in Italy, but did not have to be recognized by Connecticut. Isn’t the relevant issue here about whether US states have to recognize marriages that are valid in other states? Why would a precedent involving an Italian marriage even be included in that section? It seems like the cousin/cousin and the 16-year old cases would have been sufficient, right? If they had just used those two cases, and not the uncle/niece case, I think there would have been a little less emotional reaction.
BTW, I don’t have anything to add about whether the DOJ had to defend DOMA, though it does seem like more people/lawyers other than John Aravosis are arguing that it did not.
BTW, I don’t have anything to add about whether the DOJ had to defend DOMA, though it does seem like more people/lawyers other than John Aravosis are arguing that it did not.
110
lol...Dan, you're sexy when you are pissed.
Activism is sexy . This may not have been your best performance, but points needed to be made.
I am still surprised by how many people are unaware of the statements made in the DOMA brief.
Awesome that Corbin has pulled out.
Activism is sexy . This may not have been your best performance, but points needed to be made.
I am still surprised by how many people are unaware of the statements made in the DOMA brief.
Awesome that Corbin has pulled out.
111
@109 this whole thing was Aravosis' meme, but the only other lawyer i've seen argue it was Socarides, the Clinton gay liason. I don't like/trust that guy at all because DOMA and DADT were both Clinton's doing.
Whereas, Chris Geidner, Laurence Tribe, Nan Hunter, Robert Raben, and others have all argued that it was, in fact necessary for DOJ to argue it. And that's setting aside the tactical questions about what a crappy lawsuit this was. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/200…
Whereas, Chris Geidner, Laurence Tribe, Nan Hunter, Robert Raben, and others have all argued that it was, in fact necessary for DOJ to argue it. And that's setting aside the tactical questions about what a crappy lawsuit this was. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/200…
112
@110 Yelling at people on the teevee is punditry, not activism.
not saying punditry is without value, it's just not the same thing.
not saying punditry is without value, it's just not the same thing.
115
I thought registered commenting was supposed to reduce the trollery here.
I don't know what Dan's talking about, Corbin was clearly the shouty one of the pair, and I was relieved when Dan finally cut off his first harangue -- bullshitting endlessly to run down the clock is teevee punditry 101 and if anything Dan should have shut him down sooner.
The excuses for Obama's inaction that invoke Clinton's experience that gave us DADT, from both Corbin and commenters here, are dumb as hell. Obama isn't Clinton, and it's not 1993. For pity's sake, even the generals are saying the policy needs reform. Public opinion is strongly supportive, the Democrats have a much stronger mandate, the Brits and Israelis have had homos in the army for a decade, and Jesus Christ, we *just kicked out another Arab linguist*. Come on.
I don't know what Dan's talking about, Corbin was clearly the shouty one of the pair, and I was relieved when Dan finally cut off his first harangue -- bullshitting endlessly to run down the clock is teevee punditry 101 and if anything Dan should have shut him down sooner.
The excuses for Obama's inaction that invoke Clinton's experience that gave us DADT, from both Corbin and commenters here, are dumb as hell. Obama isn't Clinton, and it's not 1993. For pity's sake, even the generals are saying the policy needs reform. Public opinion is strongly supportive, the Democrats have a much stronger mandate, the Brits and Israelis have had homos in the army for a decade, and Jesus Christ, we *just kicked out another Arab linguist*. Come on.
116
Loveschild @ 104,
I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the nuances of this case, nor do I know if any person is willfully misinterpreting the brief inorder to use it. We have commenters with different opinons, one who said they were an attorney. With the internet there is no way to confirm or disprove what people say. Also, I haven't seen the brief in total either, to form my own individual opinion about it.
I was addressing Kevin and him alone. I was addressing his personal feelings. I've appreciated his comments.
I am not condemning anyone here. I don't know what the actual truth is. I don't know what is the truth, what is purely misunderstanding, what is deliberate, what is accidental, and what is a lie. I can not call for a public apology without knowing the truth.
I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the nuances of this case, nor do I know if any person is willfully misinterpreting the brief inorder to use it. We have commenters with different opinons, one who said they were an attorney. With the internet there is no way to confirm or disprove what people say. Also, I haven't seen the brief in total either, to form my own individual opinion about it.
I was addressing Kevin and him alone. I was addressing his personal feelings. I've appreciated his comments.
I am not condemning anyone here. I don't know what the actual truth is. I don't know what is the truth, what is purely misunderstanding, what is deliberate, what is accidental, and what is a lie. I can not call for a public apology without knowing the truth.
117
Loved your big sigh at 3:10 about the ducks in the row. Cowardice or animus? "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Pressure him b/c he's an idiot.
118
Now that's what I call being a fierce advocate. We need more "drunk-Irish-Catholic-uncle-losing-it-at-Thanksgiving" fierceness in this debate.
119
Well done, Dan. It's about time representatives from the gay community stopped rolling over and taking the administrations' betrayals up the ass like a good little minority. It's time for action.
120
Kevin Erickson - I'm real impressed with you. I'm not a lawyer, haven't read the brief, and am not familiar enough with the intricacies of Constitutional law to definitively know whether you're right or not, but you've conducted yourself with a lot of class and aplomb throughout this whole thing, and for that I thank you. Also, the fact that Aravosis has been fundraising for the last week & change, under headlines saying "Show the DNC you mean buisness, donate to AmericaBlog" is just disgraceful on so many levels. That dude is nuts.
121
Dan:
I never lost my senses. I told you I thought the brief was hateful, but you were too busy screaming and not trying to have civil dialogue. Believe it or not, I can hold two thoughts in my head; the President should be held to account for the DOMA brief, but he also be given time to implement on our agenda. The two thoughts are not mutually exclusive...though you seem to think they are. The President's first opportunity to make amends will be the brief to be filed on June 29th in the MA federal case challenging DOMA. Rest assured, the tenor of the DOJ's arguments will be different.
The DOJ and the President have heard us, but now we need to let them feel it in the pockebook. You don't compare my relationship to incest and expect me to give you money. So, boycotting the DNC event is a single focused action that says "we are mad as hell." However, I think it is premature to completely withhold our funds from Democrats, let's see how they respond and if actions in the next few months warrant the complete opening of our coffers once again.
I never lost my senses. I told you I thought the brief was hateful, but you were too busy screaming and not trying to have civil dialogue. Believe it or not, I can hold two thoughts in my head; the President should be held to account for the DOMA brief, but he also be given time to implement on our agenda. The two thoughts are not mutually exclusive...though you seem to think they are. The President's first opportunity to make amends will be the brief to be filed on June 29th in the MA federal case challenging DOMA. Rest assured, the tenor of the DOJ's arguments will be different.
The DOJ and the President have heard us, but now we need to let them feel it in the pockebook. You don't compare my relationship to incest and expect me to give you money. So, boycotting the DNC event is a single focused action that says "we are mad as hell." However, I think it is premature to completely withhold our funds from Democrats, let's see how they respond and if actions in the next few months warrant the complete opening of our coffers once again.
122
121 - While I think it's cool that you responded here in a civil way, and I agree that Dan spoke over you AT THE END OF THE SEGMENT, you spoke over Dan almost every time he started talking except his :30 opening remarks. You were the loud, abrasive one way before the ending DOMA bit.
Dan, that's your "drunk uncle" bit? I was expecting a lot more. Something like "and Obama can't even keep it up! What do you think of that?" sloshing around a martini. You were pretty tame until the end.
Dan, that's your "drunk uncle" bit? I was expecting a lot more. Something like "and Obama can't even keep it up! What do you think of that?" sloshing around a martini. You were pretty tame until the end.
124
#121.
Make amends? He should have never let this happen in the first place. And if he had no knowledge of it happening, he should have dropped everything to apologize and condemn it.
We shouldn't have to threaten them by withholding our money. We shouldn't have to prove our worth to them. Our only value to them shouldn't be the money we send them anyway. That part of our lives should have ended when Obama took office, because goddamnit he told us it would.
You're an apologist, Stampp, and you're angry because you know you've been used.
And YOU were the tiresome, prating, one-trick-pony on CNN, not Dan. He showed you more respect than you deserved.
The President's first opportunity to make amends will be ...
Make amends? He should have never let this happen in the first place. And if he had no knowledge of it happening, he should have dropped everything to apologize and condemn it.
We shouldn't have to threaten them by withholding our money. We shouldn't have to prove our worth to them. Our only value to them shouldn't be the money we send them anyway. That part of our lives should have ended when Obama took office, because goddamnit he told us it would.
You're an apologist, Stampp, and you're angry because you know you've been used.
And YOU were the tiresome, prating, one-trick-pony on CNN, not Dan. He showed you more respect than you deserved.
125
Stampp should be applauded for willing to be public about his change of opinion, and for posting comments here.
It will be fascinating to see wgat happens after the DNC LGBT Caucus conference call on Monday....
It will be fascinating to see wgat happens after the DNC LGBT Caucus conference call on Monday....
127
Why did it take him so long? It seems more of a calculated move than one of personal conviction. I think Stampp realized the huge uproar was becoming a tidal wave and decided to hop on a surf board and ride it rather than be on the bank waiting for it to roll in, and over him.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Seattle's Crappiest Bus Route by Unpaid Intern
-
Your Daily Douchebag by Dominic Holden
-
How Many Ballots Are Left to Count? by Eli Sanders
-
The Procession for Officer Brenton by Dominic Holden
-
Cyclist Hits Pedestrian by Dan Savage
-
What She Said by Dan Savage
-
What He Said 2 by Dan Savage
-
The Morning News by Paul Constant
-
The World Series of Baseball by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: She Needs Oral by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (127) RSS