Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, January 13, 2010
Homo / News See How That Works?
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:43 PM
Opponents of same-sex marriage are arguing that gays and lesbians are not discriminated against—the proof: Brokeback Mountain and Will & Grace—so they should be allowed to discriminate against us. Because we're not discriminated against. It's magic!
2
Dan, brace yourself; it's going to much much worse.
The result in Ref. 71 is going to be used by the anti-gays for the same purpose.
It's all part of the SCOTUS's test for deciding whether a class is so politically powerless that it needs the federal courts to step in and judicially ensure equal protection.
It's not common sense, but it is the law.
The result in Ref. 71 is going to be used by the anti-gays for the same purpose.
It's all part of the SCOTUS's test for deciding whether a class is so politically powerless that it needs the federal courts to step in and judicially ensure equal protection.
It's not common sense, but it is the law.
3
They're really just making shit up at this point and not even trying to sound convincing.
Next, gay marriage will be a bad idea because it'll melt the ice on Mars or cause cats' hair to fall off or something.
Next, gay marriage will be a bad idea because it'll melt the ice on Mars or cause cats' hair to fall off or something.
4
Calm down people...Breathe...What is important is the now - this is the future.
Dan - Thank you for being an advocate
Dan - Thank you for being an advocate
5
Next time anyone whines about being a persecuted Xian whitey, I'm gonna scream "700 Club, so there!"
6
Yeah, like the Stepin Fetchit [character] in 1930's movies was proof that blacks were not discriminated against.
7
#2 is dead right. We've got 5 justices on the SCOTUS that WILL use Brokeback MT and Will and Grace to justify ruling against us. In the case right now out side is trying to establish us as a "suspect class", in other words a group that could be subject to discrimination, and the only way we get anything as a suspect class is if we're "politically powerless", meaning we can't protect ourselves and need the courts to step in. If the douchebag anti-gays can show we have enough political and social support, SCOTUS will fuck us over, because 5 of them are assholes and have no reason to give us anything. They will hide behind our "political power" and we will lose. This entire case has me, and many others, freaked the fuck out, and it should freak #4 out more. I'm all for calm, but there is A LOT at stake here, and we all need to be on the same page about it. The stakes here are enormous, and I hope we're all ready to let our voices be heard.
8
Does the fact that Brokeback Mountain was the punchline of choice for every straight male writer in every form of media for 2 about years play in our favor at all?
I know people will get on my case for being whiny, but man if they'd made fun of African Americans or Jews the way they made fun of gays over that movie, there would have been street rioting.
I know people will get on my case for being whiny, but man if they'd made fun of African Americans or Jews the way they made fun of gays over that movie, there would have been street rioting.
9
I have never seen Brokeback Mountain or Will and Grace, yet I am a strait man for marriage equality, does that void their argument? Or does my viewing of Hedwig and occasional quoting of Big Gay Al (Super, thanks for asking) void my own argument?
10
You know who never gets discriminated against?
Swedes and Norse...all the Scandinavian peoples.
When's the last time you heard a slur for a Dane?
Or heard about some Irish guys beating up on an Icelander?
See...the Vikings got it soft.
You know who never gets discriminated against?
Swedes and Norse...all the Scandinavian peoples.
When's the last time you heard a slur for a Dane?
Or heard about some Irish guys beating up on an Icelander?
See...the Vikings got it soft.
11
Brokeback Mountain? The movie where one dude gets murdered by homophobes and the other lives a life of closeted heartbreak? That movie shows that gays aren't discriminated against?
13
So, all you American homos. What are you planning to do if this case goes as horribly awry as it well could? Take to the streets? I'm not trying to be facetious: what do you do when discrimination is perpetuated by the very system that's supposed to protect you, with the distinct probability that if that discrimination is upheld by the courts it will likely persist for decades?
14
I managed to watch 5 minutes of Will and Grace once. I didn't stick a fork in my eyes or light myself on fire or nothin'. Though it was touch and go for the last 30 seconds.
15
@8 Short answer is "yes" with an "if"; long answer is "no" ... with a "but."
If there is evidence of homophobic jokes related to Brokeback, it could be taken into consideration by the court.
More likely, though, the Olson/Boies team won't see much advantage to revisiting the subject, because they will conclude that revisiting this tiny piece of cross-examination is, in the long run, detrimental to their case, and they won't bring it up again.
This was a small part of the cross-examination of the expert who devoted most of his testimony to the history of overt discrimination against homosexuals, in an attempt to show that it was all in the past, and now gays can be seen in movies (and on TV) in a "positive" light.
@11: Brokeback wasn't mentioned because it showed that gays aren't discriminated against. Instead, it was raised to show that some progress has been made from a time when gays were depicted only as sexually deviant predators.
In other words, it's probably not that big a deal. And it shouldn't be blown out of proportion. It's a long trial. A lot of stuff is going to be said; most of it will be disregarded by the judge.
If there is evidence of homophobic jokes related to Brokeback, it could be taken into consideration by the court.
More likely, though, the Olson/Boies team won't see much advantage to revisiting the subject, because they will conclude that revisiting this tiny piece of cross-examination is, in the long run, detrimental to their case, and they won't bring it up again.
This was a small part of the cross-examination of the expert who devoted most of his testimony to the history of overt discrimination against homosexuals, in an attempt to show that it was all in the past, and now gays can be seen in movies (and on TV) in a "positive" light.
@11: Brokeback wasn't mentioned because it showed that gays aren't discriminated against. Instead, it was raised to show that some progress has been made from a time when gays were depicted only as sexually deviant predators.
In other words, it's probably not that big a deal. And it shouldn't be blown out of proportion. It's a long trial. A lot of stuff is going to be said; most of it will be disregarded by the judge.
16
@#7 like lucky #13 says, she done speak it plain..... since you and yours are all freaked out about this, how really freaked out will you be should the Supreme Court of these here United States say Gay folk should not enjoy the same civil rights as Straight folk? Really just how freaked out are you gunna be? Two or three more words on a blog post freaked out?
17
It makes me think of all the Nazis that are Holocaust deniers. It seems that they're arguing that it's OK for Nazis today to want to kill all the Jews now as long as Nazis in the past didn't try to kill all the Jews.
18
If they are trying to use Will & Grace to show that gay people aren't politically powerful enough to use the normal legislature and court system to protect our rights, what about the states with anti-gay laws on the books (or the Republican Party platform)?
If it comes back to bite anyone, it should the defense. "See, see, they're on Teevee and we can laugh at them!" Yeah, right.
This is, of course, ignoring that the vast majority of the actors playing these roles that prove we aren't discriminated against are straight men, because of the toxic effect major gay roles have on the careers of actual gay actors.
That dog not only won't hunt, it won't even scratch at the door to be let out to pee.
If it comes back to bite anyone, it should the defense. "See, see, they're on Teevee and we can laugh at them!" Yeah, right.
This is, of course, ignoring that the vast majority of the actors playing these roles that prove we aren't discriminated against are straight men, because of the toxic effect major gay roles have on the careers of actual gay actors.
That dog not only won't hunt, it won't even scratch at the door to be let out to pee.
20
Assuming they're right (which they aren't), why does gays-don't-face-discrimination lead to can't-we-then-discriminate-against-them-in-this-case?
21
Even if Gays were discriminated against and made fun of and even brutalized it would not follow that marriage must be mutilated to allow homosexual marriages.
Sorry.
The two are not connected.
(and the Supremes realize it, even if Dan and the Slog Sobbers don't...)
Sorry.
The two are not connected.
(and the Supremes realize it, even if Dan and the Slog Sobbers don't...)
22
@ 19 Oh wow, that gave me a good laugh!
So by their logic whites are long overdue being discriminated against. In fact, now every group of people can be discriminated against! Certainly women, I mean we have Desperate Housewives and Charlie's Angels among the rest of the drivel as proof that we are not discriminated against. Chivalry is dead! Gay bashing is dead! Let us now treat them like shit so they never forget their place under the straight man's heel.
So by their logic whites are long overdue being discriminated against. In fact, now every group of people can be discriminated against! Certainly women, I mean we have Desperate Housewives and Charlie's Angels among the rest of the drivel as proof that we are not discriminated against. Chivalry is dead! Gay bashing is dead! Let us now treat them like shit so they never forget their place under the straight man's heel.
23
Yes, and there is no more racism because we have shows like The Cosby Show, and we elected a black president.
24
Maine needs Gay Marriage.
But it will come too late for Bruce Davidson, James Pombriant or Fred Wilson. Davidson was convicted this week of shooting Wilson while Prombriant was having sex with Wilson. The three partners were having a drug fueled orgy in a basement dungeon using guns as sex toys when things got out of hand.
Davidson, a Dartmouth College graduate was in a committed relationship when he testified in favor of keeping Maine's now-overturned gay marriage law at a public hearing, four days after the discovery of Wilson's body and several weeks before he was indicted by a grand jury in Cumberland County.
After the shooting, Pombriant and Davidson left Wilson's body behind for hours before Pombriant called police.
But it will come too late for Bruce Davidson, James Pombriant or Fred Wilson. Davidson was convicted this week of shooting Wilson while Prombriant was having sex with Wilson. The three partners were having a drug fueled orgy in a basement dungeon using guns as sex toys when things got out of hand.
Davidson, a Dartmouth College graduate was in a committed relationship when he testified in favor of keeping Maine's now-overturned gay marriage law at a public hearing, four days after the discovery of Wilson's body and several weeks before he was indicted by a grand jury in Cumberland County.
After the shooting, Pombriant and Davidson left Wilson's body behind for hours before Pombriant called police.
25
The California's Proposition 8 trial is being held in San Francisco, one of the most pro-gay marriage venues in the country. This is a decided home-court advantage for those challenging the law and, by implication, the nation's marriage laws.
Judge Vaughn Walker has pushed this case to trial despite many objections from the proponents of Prop 8. Already, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has been peppered with appeals from the backers of Prop 8 over Walker's procedural rulings, which have significantly tilted the litigation environment in favor of the opponents.
It is virtually unprecedented that Walker is forcing a full-blown trial of this issue.
Either limiting the definition of marriage to one man and one woman is constitutional, or it isn't. This is a question of law. That's why every other challenge to a state marriage law has been decided on the basis of legal precedent, analysis of legislative intent, scholarly analysis and expert reports.
The constitutionality of Proposition 8 does not hinge on the views of the sponsors of Prop 8 about marriage and sexuality, nor does it depend on the TV commercials and other communications put forth by the campaign in favor of the measure. Yet Walker has not only ruled that these issues are relevant, so are the private thoughts of backers never communicated to voters.
Walker will allow the plaintiffs' lawyers to grill the sponsors of the initiative, their campaign consultants and key supporters on the stand. They'll be asked to explain and defend their private views about homosexuality, religion and a variety of other matters.
Wlaker is after legal theater instead of Justice. He revealed his true intentions with his unprecedented ruling allowing cameras in the courtroom and videos to be run on YouTube.
More...
Judge Vaughn Walker has pushed this case to trial despite many objections from the proponents of Prop 8. Already, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has been peppered with appeals from the backers of Prop 8 over Walker's procedural rulings, which have significantly tilted the litigation environment in favor of the opponents.
It is virtually unprecedented that Walker is forcing a full-blown trial of this issue.
Either limiting the definition of marriage to one man and one woman is constitutional, or it isn't. This is a question of law. That's why every other challenge to a state marriage law has been decided on the basis of legal precedent, analysis of legislative intent, scholarly analysis and expert reports.
The constitutionality of Proposition 8 does not hinge on the views of the sponsors of Prop 8 about marriage and sexuality, nor does it depend on the TV commercials and other communications put forth by the campaign in favor of the measure. Yet Walker has not only ruled that these issues are relevant, so are the private thoughts of backers never communicated to voters.
Walker will allow the plaintiffs' lawyers to grill the sponsors of the initiative, their campaign consultants and key supporters on the stand. They'll be asked to explain and defend their private views about homosexuality, religion and a variety of other matters.
Wlaker is after legal theater instead of Justice. He revealed his true intentions with his unprecedented ruling allowing cameras in the courtroom and videos to be run on YouTube.
26
no, you guys, this makes total sense. I mean, when they put Amos and Andy on radio/tv , discrimination against black folks totally stopped. this is the same thing.
27
@25 - Sewer rats always hate exposure.
That's why they scuttle back into the dark, once a light is shown on them.
That's why they scuttle back into the dark, once a light is shown on them.
28
15 - dude, I KNOW that Brokeback was used as an example of how the American AUDIENCE has "accepted" gay people and that it wasn't the story itself that was the example.
It is the IRONY of the situation.
I wish there were an emoticon for sarcasm. Would save a lot of wasted breath on the internet.
It is the IRONY of the situation.
I wish there were an emoticon for sarcasm. Would save a lot of wasted breath on the internet.
30
I wish @7 wasn't right, but the activist justices and their anti-American right-wing agenda are indeed a threat.
33
Wow, what a valid point they make... This makes me wonder why people bothered with the Civil Rights Movement, I mean there were African American musicians and in movies. Representation in media must mean that all is well and no one needs any advocacy for rights. I'm sure Jews and undocumented immigrants would totally feel the same way. :-p
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 (33) RSS