Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, July 8, 2009
Homo Assholes
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Our fundamental right to wed once again heads to the ballot:
Gay marriage foes in Maine say they’ve collected enough signatures to stop the new law from going into effect and to force a statewide vote in November.Mark Mutty from the Stand for Marriage Maine coalition says it took only four weeks to gather the more than 55,087 signatures necessary to put gay marriage to a vote. But he says signature gathering will continue to ensure there’s more than enough petitions.
The law that’s scheduled to go into effect on Sept. 12 will be put on hold after the signatures are submitted and certified by the secretary of state’s office.
Interracial marriage would not have survived a popular vote in any state when it was declared a constitutional right.
2
"Interracial marriage would not have survived a popular vote in any state when it was declared a constitutional right."
and we know this, how?
and we know this, how?
9
And we'll probably lose again because we gays are nothing but a bunch of whining pussies who don't know how to play dirty. All we know how to do is make weepy appeals to "fairness" and "equality," while the religious right is going out and actually persuading people.
10
Troll feeding and all, I know, but to the sorry piece of shit in the first few comments, can you just shut the fuck up please? Making snide remarks about someone advocating for their equal rights really makes you look like an unbelievable douchebag.
The people (the majority) have no business voting on the rights of minorities. This is basic. You are an imbecile.
PISS. THE. FUCK. OFF.
The people (the majority) have no business voting on the rights of minorities. This is basic. You are an imbecile.
PISS. THE. FUCK. OFF.
12
So true. Same goes for desegregation. It's a well-known principle that usually our Supreme Court is about 15-20 years behind popular sentiment when it comes to cultural change, but the Warren Court was the most progressive court we've probably ever had. It illustrates just one of a long line of Supreme Court precedent that we often take for granted--especially since it was so controversial at the time. Things like not only the ability to marry another race, but to have sex with another race, to have access to contraception, to have a right NOT to be discriminated against for a variety of reasons, and so on. Many of those things, then as now, if left up to a popular vote, could never have been maintained.
Populism is a double-edged sword.
Populism is a double-edged sword.
14
I'm trying to find the story, but if I remember correctly, here in MD, we had a right wing group with a petition to trying to put a gay marriage ban in the state constitution. (or some anti-gay legislation) on the ballot. The petition was rejected because it had bogus signatures. Let us hope that this is the case in ME.
16
My sense is that the vast majority of this country are simply not pro-gay marriage. Even in those states where there is now gay marriage. The majority are still working toward being okay with civil unions. And I bet some of those people signing the petition in Maine are pro-civil unions but for them gay marriage is taking it a step too far. In 10-20 years time, maybe not. So it all boils down to the fact that it just takes time. You guys are just going to have to accept that. Keep pushing, of course, but drop the impatience because you're just going to frustrate yourselves. Racism still exists in the U.S. even decades after the law changed.
17
Speaking of assholes, here's another set of 'em.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/me…
Assholes: Problema nacional
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/me…
Assholes: Problema nacional
20
#15 we can vote on Christians' Rights when someone bothers to get off their ass and collect signatures for such an initiative. The Radical Religious Extremists think they are called to start these Civil rights denying actions, Liberal Progressives don't think the same, hence they don't do much but whine, call others "assholes" (as Dan does) and watch as the Radical Religious Extremists win ballot measure after ballot measure denying Gay Americans the same Civil Rights they take for granted.
It's really not complex, it's called "making an effort". Too many progressives can't be bothered it appears.
It's really not complex, it's called "making an effort". Too many progressives can't be bothered it appears.
21
Sent Dan an email, but just saw that Mass. is suing the federal government over the definition of marriage.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090708/ap_o…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090708/ap_o…
22
Confluence, minority groups don't owe it to anyone to give them time to "get comfortable" with the idea of equal rights. That's why it's a bad move to put them up to a popular vote. We need to get rid of all the bigoted legislation first, then all the whiny bigots can take their sweet time getting their little sensitive asses over it.
25
10-20 years. Among the age cohort of people getting married NOW, support for gay marriage is well over 60%. We shouldn't need to wait for more old bigots to die off.
26
No, that's their problem. Our government is set up to prevent situations where the ignorance of the majority results in the infringement of a minority's rights. Which means that if someone is too stupid to see where this is very obviously a civil rights issue, they are the ones who need to be left behind and forced to adjust.
The entire function of the courts is to side-step that whole process of waiting for ignorant people to stop being ignorant before group A can get their full civil rights. While it doesn't solve the problem then and there, it is a necessary step that can't be "saved" and used as the final one. Legalizing equal rights forces people to live with the idea of equality; they get more familiar with it and it becomes much less of a scary thing. We saw it in Massachusetts; even though there's still homophobia there (obviously), there isn't enough for a new gay marriage ban to stand a chance. We also saw it with interracial marriage; even though there's still racism in this country (obviously), any bill seeking to ban interracial marriages wouldn't stand a chance.
Yes, we have to be patient for homophobia to completely disappear from our culture. But we don't have to be patient for it to disappear from our LAWS, especially since the latter is necessary if the former is ever going to happen.
The entire function of the courts is to side-step that whole process of waiting for ignorant people to stop being ignorant before group A can get their full civil rights. While it doesn't solve the problem then and there, it is a necessary step that can't be "saved" and used as the final one. Legalizing equal rights forces people to live with the idea of equality; they get more familiar with it and it becomes much less of a scary thing. We saw it in Massachusetts; even though there's still homophobia there (obviously), there isn't enough for a new gay marriage ban to stand a chance. We also saw it with interracial marriage; even though there's still racism in this country (obviously), any bill seeking to ban interracial marriages wouldn't stand a chance.
Yes, we have to be patient for homophobia to completely disappear from our culture. But we don't have to be patient for it to disappear from our LAWS, especially since the latter is necessary if the former is ever going to happen.
27
Really, it's the stupidest thing in the world to argue that national policy has to accommodate ignorance. There was a time when most people didn't know that lead and mercury are poisonous. Should we have waited for them to learn this on our own before regulating what products can contain them?
After all, most people wouldn't see that as a health risk, so it doesn't matter if it actually is, according to your logic.
After all, most people wouldn't see that as a health risk, so it doesn't matter if it actually is, according to your logic.
28
they didn't say they collected 55,000 valid signatures, they said they collected 55,000 signatures. the fact that they say they're still collecting tell me they know they are unlikely at this point to have enough to qualify for the ballot. looks like this will be a close one.
29
Dan, I'm registered so I'll reiterate what the unregistered commenter said at the beginning - what source do you have to support your statement that "Interracial marriage would not have survived a popular vote in any state when it was declared a constitutional right." That was in 1967, and the law in question was in the South. I'm skeptical.
30
The Gallup Organization has been tracking this question for decades. After California's Perez decision, 90% of Americans opposed interracial marriage. After Loving, it had dropped to only 77% opposed. In the mid-80s, approval had finally risen to 50%. In their latest poll listed, 17% still disapprove.
Dan probably assumed he was citing something widely known.
Dan probably assumed he was citing something widely known.
31
@30:
That still doesn't support what he said. He said "any state" not "if a nationwide vote on the issue were hypothetically possible which it isn't and renders nationwide polling moot."
That still doesn't support what he said. He said "any state" not "if a nationwide vote on the issue were hypothetically possible which it isn't and renders nationwide polling moot."
32
Agreed with @30. We know this from Gallup polls dating back to the '60s.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-Am…
77% of Americans today approve of interracial marriages. In 1958 that number was only 4%; in 1968 it was 20%; in 1972 it was 29%. It's pretty safe to say that had interracial marriage been subjected to a popular vote at any time around Loving v. Virginia, it would have failed miserably.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-Am…
77% of Americans today approve of interracial marriages. In 1958 that number was only 4%; in 1968 it was 20%; in 1972 it was 29%. It's pretty safe to say that had interracial marriage been subjected to a popular vote at any time around Loving v. Virginia, it would have failed miserably.
33
@32:
Again, I am skeptical that interracial marriage polls in northern states would look the same. Throw in the rest of the country, and I believe the Gallup research. But this still isn't what Dan said, and really doesn't have anything to do with the issue, anyway, as nationwide sentiment has no direct bearing on legislation or the courts.
Again, I am skeptical that interracial marriage polls in northern states would look the same. Throw in the rest of the country, and I believe the Gallup research. But this still isn't what Dan said, and really doesn't have anything to do with the issue, anyway, as nationwide sentiment has no direct bearing on legislation or the courts.
35
Although I agree that marriage is a fundamental right, the vote in Maine isn't dealing with a "right," at least when it comes to state law. It's dealing with a law that the people have an opportunity to veto by a simple majority vote. It won't codify a marriage ban into law, it'll prevent marriage equality from becoming law. That's an important distinction, although the result may be pretty much the same.
36
Confluence @ 16 - This is true, but at the same time, the practice of majority voting on matters of minority legal rights is setting a very dangerous precedent, and that worries me. The US is NOT a direct democracy - that's the whole point of the constitution!
37
10
you crack us up-
you little scamp you!
gay marriage is not a "civil right".
when Dan gets all sanctimonious and 'disappointed in America' over it it's just hysterical.
when he compares gay marriage to black civil rights we roll in the floor laughing.
especially blacks.
who know a civil right when they see it.
and oppose gay marriage more than any other group.
get over it.
but don't deny us our Fundamental Right to be amused.
you crack us up-
you little scamp you!
gay marriage is not a "civil right".
when Dan gets all sanctimonious and 'disappointed in America' over it it's just hysterical.
when he compares gay marriage to black civil rights we roll in the floor laughing.
especially blacks.
who know a civil right when they see it.
and oppose gay marriage more than any other group.
get over it.
but don't deny us our Fundamental Right to be amused.
38
California is special fucked place since we don't (yet) have constitutional provisions to defend the rights of minorities, so a >50% vote can annul the rights of any given group disliked by the majority.
What's Maine's excuse? Can this sort of thing actually fly, or will the courts punt it as soon as it's challenged?
What's Maine's excuse? Can this sort of thing actually fly, or will the courts punt it as soon as it's challenged?
39
33: Oh, shit; Dan worded it as "any" state, not "all states put together." Clearly, that makes his entire statement invalid, because it is theoretically possible that the entire 4% that approved of interracial marriage lived in the exact same state and comprised over 50% of that state.
So, Dan, theoretically, if you really stretch the limits of possibility, there could have been one state in the union that would have legalized interracial marriage on its own through a popular vote. Suck on that, Dan! Apparently, that technicality completely invalidates your overall point that popularity has nothing to do with the validity of civil rights!
Seriously; the idiots here on slog. Unfuckingbelievable.
So, Dan, theoretically, if you really stretch the limits of possibility, there could have been one state in the union that would have legalized interracial marriage on its own through a popular vote. Suck on that, Dan! Apparently, that technicality completely invalidates your overall point that popularity has nothing to do with the validity of civil rights!
Seriously; the idiots here on slog. Unfuckingbelievable.
40
@39:
He was talking about a popular vote in one state. He made a claim that attempted to draw a parallel between popular votes on gay marriage in single states and popular votes on interracial marriage in single states. His apologists came up with nationwide polls, not examples of popular votes in single states. These are wholly irrelevant.
I agree, the idiots here on Slog.
He was talking about a popular vote in one state. He made a claim that attempted to draw a parallel between popular votes on gay marriage in single states and popular votes on interracial marriage in single states. His apologists came up with nationwide polls, not examples of popular votes in single states. These are wholly irrelevant.
I agree, the idiots here on Slog.
41
One good reporting one another thread totally soiled by this one Mr Savage. What in heaven's is wrong with you? Don't you get it? I've come to believe you must be in a twelve step program cause you just don't get it, and you seem to enjoy throwing out these as you have in your last sentence. Admitting the problem, in your case, visceral reactions that lead you to make poor, intellectually challenged comparisons, is the first step.
42
For that matter, there was an incredibly longer-lasting movement against miscegenation statutes at the time it was declared a constitutional right. From the Loving v. Virginia decision: "Over the past 15 years, 14 States have repealed laws outlawing interracial marriages: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming." That doesn't even count states that didn't have one in the first place. We're not there yet, so the parallel with interracial marriage is once again invalid.
43
@41 - That's one of the most inarticulate posts you've ever written. Are you strung out on Lortabs?
44
@5-7
How dare you critisize Dan!
It's his blog and if he finds it therapeutic to whine like a bitch and rant like a lunatick you just suck it up and play along.
Or get out.
How dare you critisize Dan!
It's his blog and if he finds it therapeutic to whine like a bitch and rant like a lunatick you just suck it up and play along.
Or get out.
46
The gay haters have been gathering signatures under false pretenses. They are deliberately vague about what side they're on, and people who are pro-gay-marriage have been duped into signing because they think the petition is in support of marriage rights. Then the person gathering signatures won't let them remove their names. http://www.theportlanddailysun.com/cgi/s…
49
@ #46 and anybody interested, here is the working link to the story.
http://www.theportlanddailysun.com/cgi/s…
IMHO - very shady tactics indeed.
http://www.theportlanddailysun.com/cgi/s…
IMHO - very shady tactics indeed.
51
When you title people who disagree with you "Assholes" you reveal yourself to be immature, unable to engage in reasoned debate and unworthy of being taken seriously.
Keep it up and those invitations to be on national TV you crave so much will dry up.
Keep it up and those invitations to be on national TV you crave so much will dry up.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
-
Planned Parenthood Exposed! by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (52) RSS