Slog
News & ArtsFriday, March 4, 2011
Homo Lying Sack of Judas Shit Assumes a Convoluted New Position
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:21 AM
Maryland House delegate Sam Arora was for marriage equality—he campaigned on it—until he was against it. Now he's for it again... but not really:
As the vote drew nearer, I wrestled with this issue in a way I never had before, which led me to realize that I had some concerns about the bill. While I personally believe that Maryland should extend civil rights to same-sex couples through civil unions, I have come to the conclusion that this issue has such impact on the people of Maryland that they should have a direct say. I will vote to send the bill to the floor because it deserves an up-or-down vote. On the floor, I will vote to send the bill to the governor so that Marylanders can ultimately decide this issue at the polls. I think that is appropriate.
For those of you keeping track at home: Sam Arora was for marriage equality when he was running for office but now he opposes marriage equality and backs civil unions. But he's going to vote for marriage equality—like he promised he would—because he thinks the people of Maryland deserve a chance to vote against marriage equality. (Because it's "appropriate" for the public to vote on the civil rights of minorities—so long as the minorities we're talking about are queers.)
This douchebag is a real profile in courage. We're still going to work to take him out.
2
Asshole. Now we learn he's not only a crypto-bigot, but lazy to boot. He respects the voters so little that he'll happily abuse a referendum to spread unexamined half-truths to gull the public into doing the work he's too inept and cowardly to perform legislatively.
Man, sometimes when politicos go bad, they go rotten.
Man, sometimes when politicos go bad, they go rotten.
3
It bears repeating:
This should apply to the US, too.
Gay rights=civil rights=human rights.
"I rise in support of a [country] in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law...The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of [citizens] who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority."
--Paul Martin
This should apply to the US, too.
Gay rights=civil rights=human rights.
5
Wow! Well, one thing is certain, that guy is definitely a politician...
"I'm for it, unless it will anger some of my constituents, then I'm against it, but not entirely, because I don't want to anger anyone else. So I'm sort of for AND against it, depending on who I'm talking to."
Slimy.
"I'm for it, unless it will anger some of my constituents, then I'm against it, but not entirely, because I don't want to anger anyone else. So I'm sort of for AND against it, depending on who I'm talking to."
Slimy.
6
Don't know what to say. Maybe, this is the only way he figures he can honor his oath, avoid having to return donations, and keep NOM who is giving Maryland the heavy press happy? I'm waiting for the persecuted for his faith violin to start playing.
8
Not quite yet... let him vote first. It looks like there may be a few of these wavering types. One thing at a time: First the Judiciary Committee vote, then the floor vote, then the governor's signature, THEN skewer those who deserve it WHILE AT THE SAME TIME gearing up for the inevitable ballot-initiative fight.
9
@3 (Canuck)
I'd love to see huge signs with the above preceded by [Canada =} and followed by "Ur doing it rong".
:::sighs::
It feels weird that a group of people (the navel-gazing majority) so stripped of compassion can equate giving equal rights to a minority as trampling on their own (otherwise untouched) rights.
The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority.
I'd love to see huge signs with the above preceded by [Canada =} and followed by "Ur doing it rong".
:::sighs::
It feels weird that a group of people (the navel-gazing majority) so stripped of compassion can equate giving equal rights to a minority as trampling on their own (otherwise untouched) rights.
10
Helenka...I know, right? And of course, being surprised at hypocrisy is a complete waste of time, but the right wingers are so busy shouting "freedom," and so busy denying it...
Preaching to the choir here, but can you think of any way straight marriage has changed up here lately? While it's great that same-sex marriage exists here, it's just so NOT on the radar, never discussed, no one gives a shit, except of course, the people getting married. There simply isn't one coherent example of how anything has changed in daily life since the 2005 decision. Cripes.
Preaching to the choir here, but can you think of any way straight marriage has changed up here lately? While it's great that same-sex marriage exists here, it's just so NOT on the radar, never discussed, no one gives a shit, except of course, the people getting married. There simply isn't one coherent example of how anything has changed in daily life since the 2005 decision. Cripes.
12
If both chambers pass the bill and the governor signs it, there will be a petition drive for referendum. We'll do everything we can to prevent that from happening, but if the referendum goes to the ballot, we'll have a fight on our hands. NOM is moved into Maryland big-time. Our population center, the Baltimore-Washington DC corridor, is also our liberal center. Northern, North-Western, and Southern Maryland tend to be much more conservative.
Still, Arora matters. He's giving candy to NOM as the "young democrat who realized he was wrong..." He's gone to the dark side, even though our cookies are better. Right now it sounds like he's going to support the referendum, but if he decides to fight it, what good would his "help" be? Trying to avoid taking a moral stand, he demonstrated that he has no morality to stand on.
I may be the only one commenting here who actually lives in his district, but those of you who don't can call or write. Better yet, get to your friends and family in Maryland and ask them to call and write. Be civil, be angry, be right.
Still, Arora matters. He's giving candy to NOM as the "young democrat who realized he was wrong..." He's gone to the dark side, even though our cookies are better. Right now it sounds like he's going to support the referendum, but if he decides to fight it, what good would his "help" be? Trying to avoid taking a moral stand, he demonstrated that he has no morality to stand on.
I may be the only one commenting here who actually lives in his district, but those of you who don't can call or write. Better yet, get to your friends and family in Maryland and ask them to call and write. Be civil, be angry, be right.
13
Equality Maryland is asking for 2000 emails to MD delegates from their constituents TODAY, even if they are ostensibly supporting the bill. Tell your friends.
http://equalityfederation.salsalabs.com/…
http://equalityfederation.salsalabs.com/…
14
Dan, a while back I recall you alluding to a photo involving you and a diaper. Is this it? http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3157/3095…
16
@15 Scroll down to Dan's earlier post on Arora, and see @26 & @29, they have some good info on the nuts and bolts of this.
17
Canucks, both of you, I don't think they believe that for one second.
I think their reasons are entirely religious. But, a large section of them understand that this invalidates their entire argument. So they manufacture non-religious reasons.
If you don't think it's that intentional, try googling it.
Just google for secular arguments against same sex marriage. You will get a lot of web sites explicitly set up to instruct people on how to argue against same sex marriage without bringing up religion.
There are one or two actual essays on the subject. If you read them, you'll see they are very much intellectual exercises. Some clever sod thought to himself, "let me see if I really can make a secular argument for this." I won't lie. I can respect that on a level or two.
But mostly it's How To Pretend You Oppose Same Sex Marriage Because Of Something That Sort Of Seams Like Logic.
I think their reasons are entirely religious. But, a large section of them understand that this invalidates their entire argument. So they manufacture non-religious reasons.
If you don't think it's that intentional, try googling it.
Just google for secular arguments against same sex marriage. You will get a lot of web sites explicitly set up to instruct people on how to argue against same sex marriage without bringing up religion.
There are one or two actual essays on the subject. If you read them, you'll see they are very much intellectual exercises. Some clever sod thought to himself, "let me see if I really can make a secular argument for this." I won't lie. I can respect that on a level or two.
But mostly it's How To Pretend You Oppose Same Sex Marriage Because Of Something That Sort Of Seams Like Logic.
18
Okay, shw3nn@17, let's say you're right (and you probably are to a large degree, as the most right wing people also tend to be the most religious.) How do they justify ignoring all that other stuff the Bible tells them to do, like slavery, stoning to death, hellfire for eating shellfish, etc.? I'm going to Google what you said, just to see, because I've never heard a coherent secular argument against same-sex marriage, where they are asked to provide evidence showing the "harm" same-sex marriage has caused...They really don't have a leg to stand on, from a religious or secular perspective. I hate that stupid people have so much power, drrrr.
19
I would say it's confirmation bias.
You pay extra close attention to evidence that supports your own position and no attention to evidence that conflicts with it.
Everybody does it. I do it. If I come across information that proves I've been completely wrong about something, it's a horrible feeling. You will tell yourself anything to free yourself from that feeling which is called cognitive dissonance.
You will lie to yourself and believe your own lies. I don't think I have to tell you what those lies are, the ones that justify slavery in the bible and all that.
As a skeptic, this is a big flag for me. The more a piece of information bothers me, the more I know it is important. The more I am uncomfortable and want something to be wrong, the more I force myself to allow that it might not be.
It's much harder to explain the slavery thing because you HAVE TO agree that slavery is wrong. The avenue of agreeing with the slavery bits is completely shut down, no through road, can not do. If that road were open, they would take it. Trust me.
They agree with the bits about homosexuality because they can still sort of get away with agreeing with it.
The Fuckers.
P.S. I know it's probably a typo but I lilke "DRRRR". For when you are angry "GRRR" at stupidity, "DUH".
You pay extra close attention to evidence that supports your own position and no attention to evidence that conflicts with it.
Everybody does it. I do it. If I come across information that proves I've been completely wrong about something, it's a horrible feeling. You will tell yourself anything to free yourself from that feeling which is called cognitive dissonance.
You will lie to yourself and believe your own lies. I don't think I have to tell you what those lies are, the ones that justify slavery in the bible and all that.
As a skeptic, this is a big flag for me. The more a piece of information bothers me, the more I know it is important. The more I am uncomfortable and want something to be wrong, the more I force myself to allow that it might not be.
It's much harder to explain the slavery thing because you HAVE TO agree that slavery is wrong. The avenue of agreeing with the slavery bits is completely shut down, no through road, can not do. If that road were open, they would take it. Trust me.
They agree with the bits about homosexuality because they can still sort of get away with agreeing with it.
The Fuckers.
P.S. I know it's probably a typo but I lilke "DRRRR". For when you are angry "GRRR" at stupidity, "DUH".
20
ON A TOTALLY UNRELATED TOPIC (but it's difficult to post something here without it being in some comment thread -- sorry if this inconveniences anyone),
March 3rd (today or yesterday, depending on where you are) happens to be International Sex Workers' Rights Day. It's a day that should be remembered more often but sadly isn't, as Maggie McNeill points out in her blog. I thought of placing this here (among other places) to remind/inform people of that. Maybe Dan will want to do a post on this someday... even though it's not the kind of thing he usually blogs about.
March 3rd (today or yesterday, depending on where you are) happens to be International Sex Workers' Rights Day. It's a day that should be remembered more often but sadly isn't, as Maggie McNeill points out in her blog. I thought of placing this here (among other places) to remind/inform people of that. Maybe Dan will want to do a post on this someday... even though it's not the kind of thing he usually blogs about.
21
@19 It wasn't a typo! I just like to be free and easy with my made up sounds... (and I loved your response, but I'm running out the door...)
23
@10 (Canuck)
Hee! I love being in OUR "choir". You're right. Even though things may be a bit different where you live (the CONservative heartland?), it's not a topic of conversation anywhere here in Toronto. If straight people were intendng to get married, they're still getting married. Nobody goes about moaning that the institution of marriage has been destroyed for everybody (meaning straight people, natch). And same-sex weddings just keep happening, as quietly as getting a marriage licence from a genuinely respectful clerk at City Hall ... all the way through to the splashiest and most fabulous wedding extravaganza (ultimately highlighted in a special same-sex edition of a local wedding mag). And, hey, all those ::coughs emphatically:: bridal registries aren't complaining, now having a wider market for increasing consumerism. Ditto for florists, caterers, hotels, etc., etc., etc. It's just plain common sense for the economy (you may add "stupid" to this sentence).
Of course, there was that recent wrinkle when JPs (marriage commissioners?) protested but were denied their reason (religious-based conscientious objection) to refuse to officiate over same-sex ceremonies. After all, as public servants, it is their job to serve ALL of the public.
The best thing (besides the freedom to marry) is that hundreds of thousands of dollars are being saved (on both sides of the fence: can you say "tax" dollars?) from not having to keep fighting for every inch closer to equality. And retaining the incentive and energy to lead a normal, productive life (just as everybody else does) instead of having to fight the battle because it was finally won.
It's a relief that the H (sorry, I just can't type its name) government finally let the issue drop, recognizing that there wasn't enough kindling to get the populace righteously incensed (one of the wonders of Canadian tolerance, but probably more so because the fundies never became as powerful as they are in the States). And it's gratifying to know that the more same-sex weddings take place, the more uneventful marriages there are (with [choose as many as apply] mortgages, in-laws, kids, homework, shopping, watching TV, vacations, and all the other minutiae of daily life), the illogical ammunition and fear-mongering of the CONS is being shredded. And that's why they're in a panic. Because they absolutely need for there to be a crisis to justify their cause. If everything seems to be business as usual, then their arguments can be deflated much more easily.
It's actually been 10 years since the two first same-sex ceremonies were performed at my church (Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto) and recognized retroactively (thanks to our legal beagle and the unearthing of the practice of "reading of the banns" that states nowhere that the two applicants must be one man and one woman). I can only hope that the stubborn, bull-headed sibling of ours to the south will eventually recognize that all marriages contribute to the glue that helps to build and bind a society.
More...
Hee! I love being in OUR "choir". You're right. Even though things may be a bit different where you live (the CONservative heartland?), it's not a topic of conversation anywhere here in Toronto. If straight people were intendng to get married, they're still getting married. Nobody goes about moaning that the institution of marriage has been destroyed for everybody (meaning straight people, natch). And same-sex weddings just keep happening, as quietly as getting a marriage licence from a genuinely respectful clerk at City Hall ... all the way through to the splashiest and most fabulous wedding extravaganza (ultimately highlighted in a special same-sex edition of a local wedding mag). And, hey, all those ::coughs emphatically:: bridal registries aren't complaining, now having a wider market for increasing consumerism. Ditto for florists, caterers, hotels, etc., etc., etc. It's just plain common sense for the economy (you may add "stupid" to this sentence).
Of course, there was that recent wrinkle when JPs (marriage commissioners?) protested but were denied their reason (religious-based conscientious objection) to refuse to officiate over same-sex ceremonies. After all, as public servants, it is their job to serve ALL of the public.
The best thing (besides the freedom to marry) is that hundreds of thousands of dollars are being saved (on both sides of the fence: can you say "tax" dollars?) from not having to keep fighting for every inch closer to equality. And retaining the incentive and energy to lead a normal, productive life (just as everybody else does) instead of having to fight the battle because it was finally won.
It's a relief that the H (sorry, I just can't type its name) government finally let the issue drop, recognizing that there wasn't enough kindling to get the populace righteously incensed (one of the wonders of Canadian tolerance, but probably more so because the fundies never became as powerful as they are in the States). And it's gratifying to know that the more same-sex weddings take place, the more uneventful marriages there are (with [choose as many as apply] mortgages, in-laws, kids, homework, shopping, watching TV, vacations, and all the other minutiae of daily life), the illogical ammunition and fear-mongering of the CONS is being shredded. And that's why they're in a panic. Because they absolutely need for there to be a crisis to justify their cause. If everything seems to be business as usual, then their arguments can be deflated much more easily.
It's actually been 10 years since the two first same-sex ceremonies were performed at my church (Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto) and recognized retroactively (thanks to our legal beagle and the unearthing of the practice of "reading of the banns" that states nowhere that the two applicants must be one man and one woman). I can only hope that the stubborn, bull-headed sibling of ours to the south will eventually recognize that all marriages contribute to the glue that helps to build and bind a society.
24
Wonderful recap, Helenka! Even here, in white cowboy hat country, you never hear anything, except the odd editorial (like when those SK marriage commissioners were griping...) in our ridiculous rag of a paper...and the sooner as we can vote he-who-shall-not-be-named out of office, the better.
25
He's a sack of shit, but at least he's a sack of shit that looks like he's going to vote the right way.
That being said - he's a delegate from Montgomery County. Anyone who replaces him is actually likely to be an improvement. (Note that Montgomery County was the only county from which every single state senator voted for marriage equality - that's our basis of comparison.)
That being said - he's a delegate from Montgomery County. Anyone who replaces him is actually likely to be an improvement. (Note that Montgomery County was the only county from which every single state senator voted for marriage equality - that's our basis of comparison.)
26
Canuck and Helenka, it was in, I think, the last Alberta provincial election when I read an article in the Edmonton Journal about one of the right wing fringe parties, most likely Social Credit, floated the idea of making a stink about same sex marriage as part of their platform. At a "meet the candidate" in Cardston or some other southern Alberta Mormon small town, they brought it up, and nobody cared. In the heart of social and religious conservatism in Canada, nobody wanted to talk about same sex marriage because it was boring and irrelevant - they wanted to talk about oil and gas royalties, and water, and taxes, and other things that actually affected their lives. They ended up dropping the idea, as it just couldn't get any traction, even among their own people.
If the people in rural southern Alberta don't care, then no Canadians care - it's a non issue.
If the people in rural southern Alberta don't care, then no Canadians care - it's a non issue.
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
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (26) RSS