Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, October 28, 2009
Politics / Homo / Religion Conservative Christians in Maine Urge Washington State Voters to Approve R-71
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:00 AM
There's no other way to interpret the most recent ad from opponents of marriage equality in Maine...
You have to hand it to these opportunistic bigots. The Yes on 1 campaign in Maine had been running around arguing that same-sex marriage was a dire threat to children because gay wedding ceremonies usually begin with the ritual tossing of the flower girls into a wood chipper. That wasn't working—the bigotry was too rank, too obvious, too transparent for independent-minded, lightly-churched Maine voters. So the bigots have shifted gears: "We want to be tolerant of gays..." They're appealing now to Maine voters' better—if still slightly bigoted—angels. It's an effective ad, one that could pull undecideds over to the "no" side.
And it should really gall people in Washington state. In Maine religious conservatives now argue that domestic partnerships do not represent an existential threat to the institution of marriage. At the same time here in Washington state, at the other end of the county, religious douchebags cut from the same cloth argue that domestic partnerships for same-sex couples do represent a threat to the institution of marriage. Because... um... well, because Ozzie and Harriet.
They're all lying liars and bearers of false witness. They'll say one thing in Maine and the opposite in Washington state because they don't have a coherent argument. Only bias and animus and bile.
2
Bearing False Witness is Bad.
Isn't it, Dan-
It makes God sad when we near False Witness.
I heard Dan say that on TV.
We don't want to make God sad.
We should be careful what we do with our mouth.
So we don't make God sad.
Sucking some man's dick with our mouth, that makes God happy.
Right Dan?
Isn't it, Dan-
It makes God sad when we near False Witness.
I heard Dan say that on TV.
We don't want to make God sad.
We should be careful what we do with our mouth.
So we don't make God sad.
Sucking some man's dick with our mouth, that makes God happy.
Right Dan?
3
This reminds me of a chart on fivethirtyeight during the election last year. Washington's right-wingers are more conservative than any state except Oregon and Tennessee. Washington's left-wingers are more progressive than any state except Oregon, Vermont, and Maine.
Washington and Oregon have the largest divides where our lefties are hard left, but our righties are hard right. Compare that to Maine where their lefties are hard left, but their righties are relatively moderate.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/r… (scroll down for the chart).
Washington and Oregon have the largest divides where our lefties are hard left, but our righties are hard right. Compare that to Maine where their lefties are hard left, but their righties are relatively moderate.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/r… (scroll down for the chart).
4
In Washington, Ed Murray and Jamie Pedersen explicitly told us domestic partnership was intended as a tactical step toward marriage equality. We can't be too surprised the fundie bigots took them at their word.
5
I never weary of Dan's screechy nagging when the Religious fall short of his lofty aspirations for their moral behavior.
The only thing that could make it better would be if Dan posted a YouTube of himself reading them-
in his whiny bitch nasal tone-
"...animus.
and BILE!"
The only thing that could make it better would be if Dan posted a YouTube of himself reading them-
in his whiny bitch nasal tone-
"...animus.
and BILE!"
6
I know this sounds obvious, but they are not supposed to make sense or be logical. Their whole religious concept depends on things NOT being explicable. It is called faith. If it is explainable, there is no reason to have faith.
It is inherent in religion to be absurd.
It is inherent in religion to be absurd.
7
4
When Dom doesn't get that point I assume he's just a dumb kid.
When Dan ignores that point, however, I am forced to believe, despite not wanting to think it could Possibly be true, that he is intentionally misrepresenting things, you know, a LYING LIAR and BEARER of FALSE WITNESS!!!!
When Dom doesn't get that point I assume he's just a dumb kid.
When Dan ignores that point, however, I am forced to believe, despite not wanting to think it could Possibly be true, that he is intentionally misrepresenting things, you know, a LYING LIAR and BEARER of FALSE WITNESS!!!!
8
@2: What makes you think this "god" of yours cares one whit what anyone puts in their mouths? Or do you believe he gets hot & bothered every time you put a shrimp in your mouth?
9
you know, Dan, when the Fundies Punk you like this it really is better if you don't get all red-faced and flustered and spew and sputter.
cause the more you carry on the funnier it is and the more laughs for the Right.
Sure- Domestic Partnership for Gays is juuuust fine!
(except when it's not...)
cause the more you carry on the funnier it is and the more laughs for the Right.
Sure- Domestic Partnership for Gays is juuuust fine!
(except when it's not...)
10
@8
You misunderstand-
it wasn't my God- it was Dan's.
He said it makes God unhappy when we bear False Witness with our Mouth.
Dan didn't say anything about shrimp-
you'll have to ask him about that.
You misunderstand-
it wasn't my God- it was Dan's.
He said it makes God unhappy when we bear False Witness with our Mouth.
Dan didn't say anything about shrimp-
you'll have to ask him about that.
11
Ed and Jamie were clear: this was a step in the direction of same-sex marriage. But if support doesn't grow for same-sex marriage, it's all we're going to get. If religious conservatives support equal treatment for same-sex couples, and fairness, they should endorse domestic partnerships and say, "but no more." That's not what they're doing.
There's no trigger in our domestic partnership law. It doesn't magically turn into legal same-sex marriage after five or ten years. It would require an act of a future legislature, and a future governor's signature. Ed and Jamie's stated intent—hopefully this will move us to marriage—is irrelevant, really, in the debate about what R-71 does, what our domestic partnership laws do, etc. We're being asked to repeal domestic partnerships. That won't prevent a future legislature or governor from passing a marriage equality law at some point down the road.
There's no trigger in our domestic partnership law. It doesn't magically turn into legal same-sex marriage after five or ten years. It would require an act of a future legislature, and a future governor's signature. Ed and Jamie's stated intent—hopefully this will move us to marriage—is irrelevant, really, in the debate about what R-71 does, what our domestic partnership laws do, etc. We're being asked to repeal domestic partnerships. That won't prevent a future legislature or governor from passing a marriage equality law at some point down the road.
12
1)I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how my marriage is being threatened. 2) I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how my religious freedom is being threatened. 3) And, finally I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how my children are going to be forced to learn about same-sex relationships in school.
Do people not realize that within the schools there are students with same-sex parents, and fellow students in same-sex relationships, so saying children will be forced to learn about same-sex relationships is hopelessly behind the times (especially since my district also provides comprehensive sex ed), they already know about them and it's part of their normal everyday life. When they see an ad like this or a flyer, they roll their eyes, they've already determined that we are behind the times. And, the vocal amongst them freely share their disgust, we're a bunch of idiots making fools of ourselves. God bless them.
Do people not realize that within the schools there are students with same-sex parents, and fellow students in same-sex relationships, so saying children will be forced to learn about same-sex relationships is hopelessly behind the times (especially since my district also provides comprehensive sex ed), they already know about them and it's part of their normal everyday life. When they see an ad like this or a flyer, they roll their eyes, they've already determined that we are behind the times. And, the vocal amongst them freely share their disgust, we're a bunch of idiots making fools of ourselves. God bless them.
13
11
Since Murray and Pedersen explicitly said domestic partnership was intended as a tactical step toward marriage equality, a 'camel's nose under the tent', anyone who opposes gay marriage is compelled to oppose R71; regardless of their feelings toward domestic partnership.
Perhaps their statements were ill advised and poor tactics but there we are.
Since Murray and Pedersen explicitly said domestic partnership was intended as a tactical step toward marriage equality, a 'camel's nose under the tent', anyone who opposes gay marriage is compelled to oppose R71; regardless of their feelings toward domestic partnership.
Perhaps their statements were ill advised and poor tactics but there we are.
14
@13 that's the dumbest statement I've ever heard. You're not voting on gay marriage, regardless of the 'tactics' of the authors of the bill. If the Gov signs a gay marriage bill into law, the you've got every right to pull a R-71 2.0; it would probably garner more support than the current one - if that were the referendum at hand this fall, it would probably be rejected.
But if you really believe (not just pretend to believe in order to not look like a homophobe) in providing a decent marriage-like substitute for gay and lesbian couples, there's no reason not to vote approve on the current legislation.
But if you really believe (not just pretend to believe in order to not look like a homophobe) in providing a decent marriage-like substitute for gay and lesbian couples, there's no reason not to vote approve on the current legislation.
17
It's too bad this is about much more than the being able to get married, because marriage is a fucked up, failed antiquated institution that would be better repealed for everyone.
xo
xo
19
@18
Maybe.
But homosexuals through out the ages never had Dan.
He's the smartest faggot ever!
Dan will get us Gay Marriage.
Just because we want it.
You wait and see.
Maybe.
But homosexuals through out the ages never had Dan.
He's the smartest faggot ever!
Dan will get us Gay Marriage.
Just because we want it.
You wait and see.
20
@12 "I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how my marriage is being threatened."
I know, I feel the same way. I don't think we're going to actually get an explanation any time soon, because there isn't one.
I know, I feel the same way. I don't think we're going to actually get an explanation any time soon, because there isn't one.
21
For those few traditional marriage folk here on Slog, besides cooperating in whatever way you can with ground level organizations like protect marriage Washington you can also help with the Yes for Maine campaign in the same way being done by the other side. I already am.
http://www.standformarriagemaine.com
http://www.standformarriagemaine.com
22
@4: You're actually surprised that the bulk of their argument is slippery slopes?
They attempt to guide conversation so that people don't see that the pro-family/pro-equality movement has been crystal clear from day one, and that the push has been on-going for well over 60 years.
They make it seem as though we're hiding something, that way they can take pretty straightforward and logical remarks like those of Murray and Pedersen and turn them into some kind of shocking revelation that indemnifies the equality movement.
They've done this in Washington State since Seattle passed its anti-discrimination ordinance in 1978, campaigning against it with Proposition 13 by turning a visible and large gay community into a shadowy organization, making salacious claims about the gay nightlife and attempting to guide people into thinking of the community not as people but as some secret cabal attempting to upset the status quo.
There used to be a whole battery of claims they could level against the gay community in order to derail the move toward equality, but now about the only one is "protecting the children", but as we've seen, that one only really has a few years of traction left on it. It happened in the 50s and 60s as an argument against integration and busing, saying if you integrate, non-white children will bring a negative aspect into school and that they would propose to other kids that being non-white was okay and that schools would be forced to teach that some kids have a non-white parent, and some kids have no white parents. Eventually, screaming "won't SOMEBODY think of the children" became useless in the context of race, and by the 70s and 80s, it was really just all about social status and forced ghettos. This tactic is an endgame scenario, of course, as we've seen with anti-catholic sentiment, anti-jewish sentiment and now anti-gay sentiment.
The idea of a slippery slope toward an evil and socially-destructive endpoint is part of a campaign of equivocation, using shifting sands arguments to perpetuate this non-idea that there's a vested social interest in excising a portion of society via laws and social stigma, when in reality, these folks just plain don't like gay people and their supporters.
More...
They attempt to guide conversation so that people don't see that the pro-family/pro-equality movement has been crystal clear from day one, and that the push has been on-going for well over 60 years.
They make it seem as though we're hiding something, that way they can take pretty straightforward and logical remarks like those of Murray and Pedersen and turn them into some kind of shocking revelation that indemnifies the equality movement.
They've done this in Washington State since Seattle passed its anti-discrimination ordinance in 1978, campaigning against it with Proposition 13 by turning a visible and large gay community into a shadowy organization, making salacious claims about the gay nightlife and attempting to guide people into thinking of the community not as people but as some secret cabal attempting to upset the status quo.
There used to be a whole battery of claims they could level against the gay community in order to derail the move toward equality, but now about the only one is "protecting the children", but as we've seen, that one only really has a few years of traction left on it. It happened in the 50s and 60s as an argument against integration and busing, saying if you integrate, non-white children will bring a negative aspect into school and that they would propose to other kids that being non-white was okay and that schools would be forced to teach that some kids have a non-white parent, and some kids have no white parents. Eventually, screaming "won't SOMEBODY think of the children" became useless in the context of race, and by the 70s and 80s, it was really just all about social status and forced ghettos. This tactic is an endgame scenario, of course, as we've seen with anti-catholic sentiment, anti-jewish sentiment and now anti-gay sentiment.
The idea of a slippery slope toward an evil and socially-destructive endpoint is part of a campaign of equivocation, using shifting sands arguments to perpetuate this non-idea that there's a vested social interest in excising a portion of society via laws and social stigma, when in reality, these folks just plain don't like gay people and their supporters.
23
@16 way to direct attention away from your inability to form a coherent, self-consistent argument. Have fun splatting your pants in the back of the short bus.
25
But, LovesChildPorn, I'm "traditionally" married (in a church an' everything) and I still don't support your bigoted point-of-view. Please explain how my "traditional" marriage is threatened by the 18,000 same-sex married couples here in California?
27
As far as I can tell, "traditional" marriage can be analyzed like any supply-and-demand chain. If more people are allowed to get married, then the relative value of any one marriage falls. As long as the fundies limit the number of marriages, each marriage retains a higher value. If just anyone can get married, it's no longer special.
I'd point out that the value of a marriage would be higher if they outlawed divorce and second, third, fourth, fifth marriages, but none of them want to be tied down like that.
I'd point out that the value of a marriage would be higher if they outlawed divorce and second, third, fourth, fifth marriages, but none of them want to be tied down like that.
28
Nothing new here. Same folks that opposed women's rights, civil rights, desegregation, emancipation, blah, blah, blah. It's all about power and supremacy. Where are these religious nutcases when it comes time for straight white folks to be stripped of rights (say, the right to divorce)? I'd love to see Loveschild standing out in a Walmart parking lot gathering signatures on a petition to ban divorce, instead of advocating stripping away the civil rights of others.
29
@4, no, no, I didn't mean to suggest I was surprised. In fact I was hoping to suggest it was disingenuous for any of us to feign surprise.
31
Allegedly! So nice to see you! Up to our regular morning constitutional, are we?
@2 Ooh, juxtaposition, that's one of your favorite games, Allegedly. Yes, very good. The oral orifice has many uses, including eating, breathing, vocalizing and articulating. It can even be used to pleasure a partner or via communication invoke deception. And look at how clever you were: bearing false witness >> one oral function >> another oral function >> pleasuring. What a clever, clever link you made.
Your juxtaposition is this: something an atheist does with his mouth, which he encourages others to do :: something a God-fearing Christian does with his mouth which he discourages others to do. Very good! Dan's Integrity :: Rival Hypocrisy.
Or were you intending a different interpretation?
Does Dan sucking cock make your god sad, Allegedly?
Does God's commandment against bearing false witness only apply to fellow parishioners Allegedly?
Does it make God happy when Christians lie to smear the queers, Allegedly?
@7 Wow, you think that Dan is hostile to his readers and would intend to deceive them? Not simplify, not reframe, not spin but outright lie? Good heavens! Myself, I thought it an omission of the obvious. Of course, it's a step towards total equality and normalization within society. Do you think women would be satisfied with only 3/5 of a vote? Do you think they're satisfied with only $0.77 to the male dollar earned? Do you think African Americans will be content until a non-white president can reside in office without racial tension oozing through the streets?
It's a step towards what America promises us all, but has yet to deliver: Equality.
Do you believe America promises equality to all, Allegedly?
Do you believe gays should have fewer rights, or less equality in our fine nation than do straights, Allegedly?
Funny Allegedly, you don't answer my questions much.
@10 Now, now, I did a word search and the first incidence of the word mouth came from you Allegedly, not Dan. Same with the word god. You don't want to be putting words in his...well, you know.
Y'know, Allegedly, you really are a clever, clever guy. It's so fun, fun, fun playing SLOG with you. I'm going to miss you come November.
You should send me your address so I can send you a big fruit basket.
More...
@2 Ooh, juxtaposition, that's one of your favorite games, Allegedly. Yes, very good. The oral orifice has many uses, including eating, breathing, vocalizing and articulating. It can even be used to pleasure a partner or via communication invoke deception. And look at how clever you were: bearing false witness >> one oral function >> another oral function >> pleasuring. What a clever, clever link you made.
Your juxtaposition is this: something an atheist does with his mouth, which he encourages others to do :: something a God-fearing Christian does with his mouth which he discourages others to do. Very good! Dan's Integrity :: Rival Hypocrisy.
Or were you intending a different interpretation?
Does Dan sucking cock make your god sad, Allegedly?
Does God's commandment against bearing false witness only apply to fellow parishioners Allegedly?
Does it make God happy when Christians lie to smear the queers, Allegedly?
@7 Wow, you think that Dan is hostile to his readers and would intend to deceive them? Not simplify, not reframe, not spin but outright lie? Good heavens! Myself, I thought it an omission of the obvious. Of course, it's a step towards total equality and normalization within society. Do you think women would be satisfied with only 3/5 of a vote? Do you think they're satisfied with only $0.77 to the male dollar earned? Do you think African Americans will be content until a non-white president can reside in office without racial tension oozing through the streets?
It's a step towards what America promises us all, but has yet to deliver: Equality.
Do you believe America promises equality to all, Allegedly?
Do you believe gays should have fewer rights, or less equality in our fine nation than do straights, Allegedly?
Funny Allegedly, you don't answer my questions much.
@10 Now, now, I did a word search and the first incidence of the word mouth came from you Allegedly, not Dan. Same with the word god. You don't want to be putting words in his...well, you know.
Y'know, Allegedly, you really are a clever, clever guy. It's so fun, fun, fun playing SLOG with you. I'm going to miss you come November.
You should send me your address so I can send you a big fruit basket.
32
Last I checked, Dan, we downgraded to only tossing flower effigies into the chipper, and then begin the ceremony with a reading of And Tango Makes Three.
Or, King and King, if you're on the east coast, those crazy New England provincials.
Still, no earplugs for the toddlers.
Or, King and King, if you're on the east coast, those crazy New England provincials.
Still, no earplugs for the toddlers.
34
I'm really not surprised at all by any of this. In Wisconsin, we had a marriage amendment passed in 2006 prohibiting marriage and anything "substantially similar" for same sex couples. At the time, the organization fighting to get the amendment passed was saying that domestic partnerships were fine, those wouldn't be too substantially similar, of course not. Of course, now that same group that argued those points in 2006 to try and get the group of people who support domestic partnerships, but not marriage, for the gays to support the amendment.
Of course, when the state then proceeded to go on ahead with domestic partnerships, know who's fighting the state because its unconstitutional? The same group who argued it wouldn't be in the first place.
These groups always will try and argue whatever points they can to try and get their referendum or amendment or whatever it is passed, even if they don't believe it, because thats how politics work, unfortunately.
Of course, when the state then proceeded to go on ahead with domestic partnerships, know who's fighting the state because its unconstitutional? The same group who argued it wouldn't be in the first place.
These groups always will try and argue whatever points they can to try and get their referendum or amendment or whatever it is passed, even if they don't believe it, because thats how politics work, unfortunately.
36
@2: And Jesus said, "Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man." - Matthew 15:16-20a
37
@2: I spaced and included the explanation, but not the key line itself; here it is:
“It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” - Matthew 15:11
“It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” - Matthew 15:11
38
What's particularly galling about the anti-equality folks in Maine telling voters they can vote against gays with a clear conscience because couples can get taken care of with domestic partnerships is that the SAME people, ie the Catholic bishops and their friends, are dead-set against DP and have fought them all over the place - this post includes quotes from and links to the Catholic bishops' own clear statements on this: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ma…
39
31
you did a word search?
you really do need a hobby.
or a man.
save your nickels then try the classifieds in the back of the Stranger.
did you word search Dan's TV appearances?
did you even read @2?
you did a word search?
you really do need a hobby.
or a man.
save your nickels then try the classifieds in the back of the Stranger.
did you word search Dan's TV appearances?
did you even read @2?
40
36
37
Thanks for the sermon, Reverend-
I believe I see the Light already!
Hallelujah!!
I hope Dan sees your explanation.
Then he can calm down about hamburgers.
And E Coli.
Tell Dan that E Coli contaminated meat won't defile him.
Hamburger or cock.
37
Thanks for the sermon, Reverend-
I believe I see the Light already!
Hallelujah!!
I hope Dan sees your explanation.
Then he can calm down about hamburgers.
And E Coli.
Tell Dan that E Coli contaminated meat won't defile him.
Hamburger or cock.
41
I did. Allegedly @39 I did a word search. Shock, gasp and awe. It took me oh, ten seconds at most. It takes me longer to link to your pathetic posts so you don't get lost.
But why the concern about my lack of hobby? Dan is your hobby, Allegedly, why can't you be my mine? Heck, are you single, Allegedly? Are you a man, Allegedly?
I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions; all my mockery, and all you could pull out is that I did a word search? Allegedly, you're not at the top of your game, today.
And no, I don't see Dan on TV, since I don't really watch the telly much. You know the rules: Links or pics or it didn't happen.
@40 with you, it all comes back to the buttfuckery. It's all about the buttfuckery, Allegedly, isn't it.
Admit it, Allegedly, you think more about anal penetration more than Dan does.
Isn't it all about the buttfuckery, Allegedly?
Do only lonely, lonely (oh so lonely) men conduct word searches, Allegedly?
Should we start a special, exclusive club of men without lives, me and you, Allegedly?
These were rhetorical questions. My previous ones weren't.
But why the concern about my lack of hobby? Dan is your hobby, Allegedly, why can't you be my mine? Heck, are you single, Allegedly? Are you a man, Allegedly?
I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions; all my mockery, and all you could pull out is that I did a word search? Allegedly, you're not at the top of your game, today.
And no, I don't see Dan on TV, since I don't really watch the telly much. You know the rules: Links or pics or it didn't happen.
@40 with you, it all comes back to the buttfuckery. It's all about the buttfuckery, Allegedly, isn't it.
Admit it, Allegedly, you think more about anal penetration more than Dan does.
Isn't it all about the buttfuckery, Allegedly?
Do only lonely, lonely (oh so lonely) men conduct word searches, Allegedly?
Should we start a special, exclusive club of men without lives, me and you, Allegedly?
These were rhetorical questions. My previous ones weren't.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Liveblogging the Washington State House Debate and Vote
onIN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE by Eli Sanders -
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Jeff Bezos' Racist, Pro-Life, Anti-Evolution, Rape-Apologist Search Engine by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
"The law at the time required a prosecution." by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (41) RSS