Slog
News & ArtsFriday, June 19, 2009
Politics / Homo Straight Answers
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM
A change in style...
...if not, as of yet, in substance. Remember Gibbs' pained expression and grudging answers the last time he was asked about gay issues? But we've heard Obama and his appointees say all the right things in the past. Now we won't be satisfied until they start doing the right things on DOMA, DADT, the HIV Travel Ban, hate crimes, ENDA, et al.
1
i, for one, am convinced that gibbs' physical reaction to these questions has been pained. i don't think he hates the gays, or doesn't care, i think it is killing him to do his job on this point. i think he has a soul, and is filled shame and discomfort. maybe only because i like everything else about him, including when he's dickish, but i see a man twisting.
2
I do not understand why they want to count the number of Same Sex Couples in the Census. If there relationships are not acknowledged then why would they need to be counted, I just do not understand.
4
@2 You make a great point that I am going to cut and paste here for those that do not read the unregistered comments:
"I do not understand why they want to count the number of Same Sex Couples in the Census. If [their] relationships are not acknowledged then why would they need to be counted, I just do not understand."
Posted by: "If I do not count then why am I being counted"
"I do not understand why they want to count the number of Same Sex Couples in the Census. If [their] relationships are not acknowledged then why would they need to be counted, I just do not understand."
Posted by: "If I do not count then why am I being counted"
5
@4 Is there some parallel blog that doesn't display unregistered comments?
Or are you just assuming that people skip over unregistered commenters?
In any event, your gesture to make @2 feel counted was just plain sweet. What a darling.
Or are you just assuming that people skip over unregistered commenters?
In any event, your gesture to make @2 feel counted was just plain sweet. What a darling.
6
@5 There's a toggle switch at the top that allows you to turn off unregistereds (at least in Firefox there is).
7
@5, right under the top of the comments header Slog added little buttons for readers to click if they want to not even see unregistered comments. It's a nice feature, though one I've never used.
8
I dunno-- his body language still says "gays-- ick" to me. Why the fuck can't people speak confidently and matter-of-factly about queer issues?
9
@5 at the top of the comments space you can actually turn off the unregistered comments and not see them at all. Many registered commenters do opt to turn them off ...
I choose not to do that because, though there are some dickish trolls out there, there are also some very good comments that I enjoy reading. I'm afraid I am going to miss something.
And thank you :)
I choose not to do that because, though there are some dickish trolls out there, there are also some very good comments that I enjoy reading. I'm afraid I am going to miss something.
And thank you :)
10
@3 et al literally translates to "and others" and is used to finish a list without actually reciting the whole list. how did exactly dan use it wrong?
11
cranky @1, I totally agree. Gibbs looks like he's in pain uttering those words. He looks extremely uncomfortable talking about GLBT issues. The Obama administration looks like they may be moving in the right direction, finally, but Gibbs looks painfully embarrassed to half to talk about it. It makes me want to slap him.
12
@10 - "et al" is an abbreviation of "et alii", meaning "and other people", not "other things". Other things is expressed by et cetera. #3 could have been a bit more diplomatic, but s/he is right -- "et al" was misused. Mrs. Johnson would have assigned homework.
13
And didn't anyone else notice in the follow-up question that Gibbs said the Administration is committed to progress and knows the math. But he did NOT say that anyone in the Administration is putting any kind of arm on any Republican Senators to get the number right. So, basically, they're committed to progress but damned if they'll lift a finger to advance the process. A grateful nation sings . . .
14
If you're claiming to be an EDITOR of a paper, you should at least know how to use the phrase 'et al'. It's a legal term used to describe Co-Defendants, not a quick way to make a dumb columnist sound smart. But then again, Dan likes to purport himself as some kind of legal mind. He read a WHOLE opinion. It's a shame that every state makes you sit for the bar for the ability to give legal advice.
15
Hey Dan (not faggot, as we used to call you in the old days, if I remember correctly)!
I'm a long time reader, and I think this may be the first time I disagree with you; the response to DOMA is making us look like a bunch of demanding cry-babies. Henceforth I shall say us/we the queers; we're being too critical and demanding of Obama to move on an issue that the sea change is moving in our direction anyway. He can do nothing, and we will end up getting what we want. Second of all, he has a lot bigger issues that he's grappling with and doing all the right things on (Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, Economy, Healthcare Reform, Banking Industry) which to be honest are a lot more important to a larger majority of people. I don't understand why DADT's still being enforced, but considering how Obama's been doing all the right things for other major issues, I hope/trust that he's doing something behind the scenes. I don't understand his silence on our issues for the most part, but I'm going to trust that he's doing the next right thing. For another thing, he's not a dictator, so he can't just throw out laws left and right as he sees fit. He swore to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land, not just the ones he agrees with. And lastly, I read that brief, in whole, and fail to see where my civil partnership was likened in substance to pedophilia or incest. Those were legal cases where one state was not forced by the courts to recognise relationships deemed legal in another state. The federal government not dictating over state powers is eminently a good thing. It's up to our congress members to overturn DOMA, and our state laws to determine the legal status of our relationships. And we're already winning, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. Give it time! Relax! It's Pride month!
More...
I'm a long time reader, and I think this may be the first time I disagree with you; the response to DOMA is making us look like a bunch of demanding cry-babies. Henceforth I shall say us/we the queers; we're being too critical and demanding of Obama to move on an issue that the sea change is moving in our direction anyway. He can do nothing, and we will end up getting what we want. Second of all, he has a lot bigger issues that he's grappling with and doing all the right things on (Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, Economy, Healthcare Reform, Banking Industry) which to be honest are a lot more important to a larger majority of people. I don't understand why DADT's still being enforced, but considering how Obama's been doing all the right things for other major issues, I hope/trust that he's doing something behind the scenes. I don't understand his silence on our issues for the most part, but I'm going to trust that he's doing the next right thing. For another thing, he's not a dictator, so he can't just throw out laws left and right as he sees fit. He swore to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land, not just the ones he agrees with. And lastly, I read that brief, in whole, and fail to see where my civil partnership was likened in substance to pedophilia or incest. Those were legal cases where one state was not forced by the courts to recognise relationships deemed legal in another state. The federal government not dictating over state powers is eminently a good thing. It's up to our congress members to overturn DOMA, and our state laws to determine the legal status of our relationships. And we're already winning, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. Give it time! Relax! It's Pride month!
17
So why does the Obama Administration want to include the same sex couples? Is it his plan for the next election by saying that in 2010 there were X-amount of Same Sex Couples so as proof in my next term I will be that fierce advocate that I was not in my first four years.
If that is the case then I would much rather go to the Cuff or the Eagle and have other things blown up my ass.
If that is the case then I would much rather go to the Cuff or the Eagle and have other things blown up my ass.
18
Pecking away at single policies like DADT and the HIV travel ban are great short term fixed of the most egregious civil rights inequalities, but the real prize is a strong Equal Rights Amendment. Gender equality, and gender equality in relationships. Otherwise, there will always be inequality somewhere.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (18) RSS