The Gay Brain Drained

Comments

1
gay buttsex!
2
And an even bigger mistake is to wait a couple years and try to overturn the ban. We need a full throated campaign on equality, justice and fairness for five or ten years or the ban will be passed again and it will be fifty years before we can try again. In the meantime every effort needs to be made to erode the ban by getting the legislature to continue partnership rights. And to those who made stupid mistakes like this one, we forgive you but we don't need your "help" anymore.
3
this is not rocket science
preparation is the key to success
well-funded and well-staffed organizations usually and eventually prevail
4
Well, at least now this thread will benefit from all the heartfelt apologies of those who said that Obama wasn't speaking up on behalf of gay couples.
5
Dan, is Prop 8 going to torture you forever?
6
4
Right.
"Speaking up".
Loud and clear.
7
Let's just hope that Loveschild (and its companions) don't come forward here to cry and whine about why their oppression is worse than anyone else. Victimology 101.
8
I've been following "NoOnProp8" on twitter since before the election, when I was working 12 hours a day and I didn't have time to see what a crappy job they were doing. I left them on there because there are occasional news items.

Well today they sent out this:
http://twitter.com/NoOnProp8/status/1290…

*facepalm*

Maggie Gallagher's jowls are probably sore from all th laughing she's been doing lately...
9
Well, that sucks balls.
They might have been afraid of jeopardizing Obama's chances in more conservative swing-areas by hauling that letter into the spotlight. Sounds logical, until you consider that if Obama were afraid of losing votes over openly opposing Prop 8, he'd never have written the damn thing in the first place.
10
The best part is that once again EQCA is begging for our money so they can fuck up another $75 milliion election campaign. Um, no thanks.

Tell them to go to tell by emailing email@eqca.org. I can't guarantee it'll get read, but it made me feel better:

"Or perhaps we say "No, step aside and let someone run a campaign who knows what they are doing and won't fuck it up this time."

As Ru Paul says on his drag queen show, "Girls, don't fuck it up."

You fucked it up. Let someone else fix your mess."
11
you would think after all those years of running hip-hop magazines that the gays would have a better rep with the blacks.
12
Dan,

You are so naive and hopeless when it comes to politics. If they had used that during the campaign, we would have President McCain. Jesus Christ you get dumber by the day. Reading the NY Times does not make you a political expert. Also, you are not a lawyer, so stop talking about legal issues like you are some kind of authority. Douchebag.
13
Wow, it seems that the "No on H8" campaign has gays with no brains to drain.
14
@12-- Bitch, please.

You really think Obama would have lost California and all its electoral votes?

Exactly what states would Obama have lost due to this issue?

If you want to talk like an expert yourself, cite evidence.

If you don't have an answer or any evidence that this issue was a deciding one in a close (and electoral-rich) state, you're just talking out of your ass.
15
@14, Bitch, there was an election in 2004. I don't know if you heard about it. But the guy lost because of CULTURE WARS, dumbass. Being a faggot doesn't make you a Political expert. I never said that Obama would have lost because of CA. I said he would have lost because the Republicans would make it such a wedge issue that they would win. You're a typical ignorant queer: You're all about the causes, but have no idea about POLITICAL realities. Go back to school. Also tell your Mom that she should have had an abortion. The world would be grateful.
16
This was a campaign lorded over by a committee of insular lgbt non profit executive directors who...

...hired a heterosexual campaign manager.

The politically tone deaf leading the blind on this issue.
17
@read a book: Your venomous snark doesn't add up to even an elementary understanding of what happened in 2004. "Culture Wars" killed Kerry? Abortion, gay rights, and guns, that's what killed Kerry? Back it up, snarko. Where's the data that shows these were the foremost issues in tracking polls? Kerry lost because of a tone deaf campaign that never got far off the defensive. He put Vietnam front and center, in 2004. Total defensive/inoculative posture from the Convention to Election Day. Meanwhile, Rove was operating on the premise: "I'm not interested in attacking my opponent's weak points, I'm going after his strong points." Vietnam was all Kerry talked about. Fine, Rovie swift boated the f out of him.

Name one moment where Kerry had the offensive, and Bush bashed back with a "culture war" rebound, and I'll start listening to your b.s. Otherwise, I'm banking on 20 years of political trench warfare, at the state and national level, to know you're blowing it out your hole.
18
Obama won California by nearly 24 points. And Obama was on the record supporting civil unions, gay adoption, repealing DADT, and Biden swung for the fences and cornered Sarah Palin into backing marriage rights, if not marriage, for same-sex couples.

This letter -- sent by the Obama campaign, which is pretty savvy -- would not have cost him the election.
19
@18- Savage, you moron, I repeat: I am not saying that CA would have cost him the election. I'm saying that the gay marriage issue would have cost him Ohio, Florida, and other swing states. You are a total hack and a true emarassment to those of use who believe in achieving progressive goals through reasonable means. Seriously, the only thing you are qualified to do is talk about butt sex.

And as for #17: At the height of the Iraq war, what did Bush say? He said, with a loud microphone: 'Gay People Are Getting Married. Vote Democrat at your peril.' Learn some political lessons, idiot.
20
@19 - he had a 2:1 electoral college victory.

Most people have clued in that everything - and I mean EVERY THING - that America-hating Socialist Republicans say ... is a LIE.

At worst he would have lost a few points and still won more states than Nixon did in his landslide.

And still made Bush's "wins" look like feeble attempts at electoral manipulation.
21
interesting point, Dan. we really have no one to blame but ourselves if we let a detailed LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FROM THE NEXT POTUS lie around gathering dust. let's face it, these d-listers we chose to represent us simply weren't up to fending off an old pro like starr.
too late now, and another two generations to go until we reach equality. as sick at heart as this makes me, I'm ready to take up the gauntlet yet again. just ... damn it all!
22
I'm not getting Dan's point. Surely an out gay in the mainstream media, like Ellen DeGeneres engendered sympathy among the SAHMs and retired church-going moms, because the viewers would likely sympathize with her desire to be officially united with the person she loved.

Conversely, (I guess closeted) gay Frank DeCaro went from the MSM (Detroit Free Press, Daily Show) to the OutQ ghetto on XM satellite. I remember his paean of praise to the Little Debbie snack cake in the Daily Northwestern when we were students there.
23
And thank goodness I'm still around kicking butt and demanding answers from the A-gays who are royally fucking things up.

If had listened to all the nice gays who told me to stop demanding an SF town hall, at which Steve Smith, the straight consultant who rejected using the Obama letter to the Alice B. Toklas Club, we never would have had this idiot reveal exactly why he let the letter go to waste.

What is becoming more frightening to me, after the disastrous Supreme Court hearing, (we're gonna lose when they issue a ruling), is that after the decision is rendered, against us, and the community starts to organize a pro-active ballot initiative for 2010, we will look back on the months Nov-Dec-Jan-Feb-Mar-Apr and ask,

"Why the fuck weren't we out gathering signatures and getting organized for 2010?"

24
Dan, I'm a little confused by this.

The letter Obama sent to the Toklas club was pretty widely publicized: do a search of any of the major CA newspapers, and they had it up for discussion from the beginning. The problem was that the Obama campaign was unwilling to go further than a letter sent to a bunch of brunchers in San Francisco, and in the meantime was saying in debate after debate that he didn't support marriage. What effect to you think a campaign about a line in a barely circulated letter would have had?

Some effect, maybe, sure. Hindsight and all that. But this isn't nearly an issue to fly off the handle about, given that the letter was pretty widely discussed at the time. It's not like the No campaign was sitting on buried gold or something.
25
Dude, it's no wonder gay marriage is such a failure with Dan Savage at the helms.
26
So what are you all going to do when we lose this time?

The No On 8 campaign was run on the failed premise that if they could just muster enough votes in the more liberal, coastal areas, that they could cancel out the conservative base of the Central San Joaquin Valley. The Valley was ignored, and then proceeded to vote 60-72% in favor of Prop 8. We cannot afford to continue to ignore the Valley. These are the people that are robbing you of your rights, these are the people the Supreme Court Justices fear being recalled by.

For the love of God people, when the court issues its ruling -- don't just march in the Castro. It's time to bring the fight, gloves off, to the places that provide the backbone for the anti-gay movement in California.

Meet in the Middle 4 Equality ---Come to FRESNO!
27
So The Stranger has a bunch of second rate homosexuals on staff? That's mean Savage. But how does Muhdik and ECB figure into that? Are they just playing down?
28
27
Dan's not being mean. As a 3rd rate mind he looks up the the 2nd rate homos he hires.
29
This is all so precious.
You clowns still think Obama gives a rat's ass or is going to lift a finger for homosexual marriage.
30
As the original plaintiff in the CA Supreme Court Marriage case, and as
a petitioner in the case that was heard last week, I want you to know how
disrespectful the CA Supreme Court was to our side. I sat in the courtroom
and was shocked by the justices stonewalling of our arguments. Many walked out of the courtroom, stunned. I walked out angry-and with flyers ready to hand out. Candelight vigils? I think not. The CA Supreme Court blew the last candle out. Last week, we put up a website www.DayofDecision.org,
We older activists (who did stopdrlaura-and many national and local protests)are quickly organizing protests all over the country. The CA Supeme Court will rule looking at 1 word only. Not amendment. Not revision. The 1 word??
REELECTION. Please join us-go to dayofdecision.org. Yes, No on 8 ran a terrible campaign, and the CA Supreme Court will uphold our marriages, but also uphold Prop 8. Now, we have to get back on the streets-
Robin Tyler, plaintiff
31
30

Moo
MoooooOOOOOOOOO!!!
32
Robin Tyler was the only speaker in two days of rallies in SF that made an ounce of sense in regard to the hearing.

She is right on target when she calls on us to stop asking for rights and begin demanding them.

I hope the court throws the marriages out when the uphold 8. It might be the only way people start to realize the danger hidden in the 30 state amendments.

If the court says that there is no problem with carving an exception into equal protections that will designate a minority class as vulnerable to the will of the majority, then we have lost much more than marriage.

Why would we be due any employment protections? Why would it be discriminatory to deny us housing?
Why would it be wrong to deny us the right of adoption or child custody?

Dan might be real mouthy in regard to the letter from Obama's campaign now that it is March and the election is a distant memory, but I sincerely believe that he - and FAR too many other gay democrats - were too afraid to use this information to defeat 8 for fear that it would harm Obama's chances on election day.

We were blamed with losing 2004 for the shitty Kerry/Edwards ticket and it's real easy for Democratic party cheerleaders to get mouthy now and then real quiet and kiss assy when election day is looming.

Could this very public letter (written up in the NY Times) have been promoted in The Stranger?

Don't YOU read the Times, Dan?
33
@30

Robin,
perhaps I can be of assistance:

Marrying someone of your own gender is not a 'civil right'.

No one is, or can be, promised by the government that they can marry the person they 'love'.

Once you wrap your brain around these facts it will be easier for you to calm down and deal with reality.
34
Ms. Tyler:
Yes, the justices peppered Petitioners throughout oral arguments, and Kennard consumed an extreme amount of Petitioners' time. But that does not excuse the AG's (Kruger) inability to speak confidently to the justices' questions. His appearance was astonishing for all the wrong reasons.

And Petitioners' first attorney (Mitner?) took too long to hit his stride--Werdegar asked the same softball question regarding the distinction between an amendment and a revision three times before he finally capitalized on the favorable set up. He should have been prepared to crush that question. He should have made that argument without Werdegar having to ask--it was THE argument. That was a painful exchange to watch.

I thought your attorney was the best of Petitioners' attorneys. His line to the effect that "if the state is going to be in the marriage business, it must do so equally" was a potent distillation.
35
@5

just kiddin, Dan
36
@33 You keep posting this same verbage as though repeating would make it true.

What evidence can you use to support your assertion?
37
@36

fartiepie,

perhaps I can be of assistance:

Marrying someone of your own gender is not a 'civil right'.

No one is, or can be, promised by the government that they can marry the person they 'love'.

(I have read this several other places on slog. It must be true.)
38
@30: The oral argument is just a formality. The case is won or lost on the arguments in the briefs. Don't worry about the tone taken by the judges during questioning; odds are they have already made up their minds. Consider further that they might have seemed harsh merely because they wished to appear impartial.
39
@37

Why didn't your mother abort you when she had the chance? Did you dodge the coat hanger before she could evade a lifetime of misery listening to your stridently idiotic drivel? Let's be real coy and quick.

That just assumes the truth of the premise that it's not a civil right because...and here it is...because it's not a civil right, ya fuckin' moron! *jazz hands* That's some argument. Same sex marriage is not a civil right because it's not a civil right. So the fantasy that it is not a civil right is caused by itself! Jesus thinking...self caused unmoved movers...

Then idiots like you go off about it being a privilege because you have to meet certain criteria, whereas you don't have to meet any criteria for something to be a right like, say, the option of owning a firearm or being born in a country which acknowledges your right to free speech as a citizen of said country (also a privilege, and not a right according to this reasoning unless people choose to be born male or female) and yet, legal minors who can't access their RIGHTS yet because they don't meet certain criteria reduces said rights to privileges (daaaaaaaaaaaa)...and a criterion is, according to you douchey schmuck bastards, being male and female...once again, begging the question!

As to the GUVMENT not being able to make sure people have the option of marriage, and the rights and responsibilities that accompany said right, apparently you don't know what a marriage license is or that states issue them.

Even if it were a privilege (which there's no non-arbitrary way of distinguishing from a right that doesn't beg the very question by assuming the truth of the distinction), why should that privilege only be extended to opposite sex couples and not same sex couples? Why should religions be protected from workplace discrimination when gays aren't? Seems like you folks do advocate special rights and special treatment, but only for yourselves. That seems to reenforce extra special treatment and consideration to opposite sex couples for no other reason than discrimination. You idiots cheapen the discourse.
40
Hey 33/37:

Marriage is a civil right. We all agree on that part, or at least the Supreme Court did. You say that the court didn't guarantee that marrying who you love is a civil right, and that's correct, but that's not what we're arguing. We're arguing that there's no compelling reason to restrict marriage on the basis of gender, and the reasons that have been provided are unfair and (in some cases, like CA) illegal.
41
39
you really shouldn't feed the trolls
42
40

I disagree.

Marrying someone of your own gender is not a 'civil right'.
43
and divorcing someone of the opposite sex (not gender, idiot there is a difference) is the perfect description of civil rights.
44
I was at the town hall meeting where campaign manager Steve Sullivan admitted that they decided not to use Obama's endorsement. Steve is a straight dude, not a gay second-stringer, so Dan's theory about brain drain may not apply here.

In fact, the campaign was only able to undo some of the damage that Steve had done for the first few months of the campaign after they gave the gay consultants a little more authority, around early October. It seems to me that something different from gay brain drain happened: the best and brightest gays were hard at work on the campaign; but the straight leadership didn't want their help.
45
44
Damn, I knew it!
Stabbed in the back by dirty breeders!!
46
43
Maybe you should wiki gender.
47
46 maybe you should go to school
48
thank you barack obama for pulling all the black separatist homophobes in the tent.
49
#49:
So, you're saying the mother does not get fucked in the ass? Or just that she doesn't have a good time when she is fucked in the ass?
50
Part of the challenge is what ERW and other LGBT groups are doing: being soft hearted, gentle, kind, sweet, let's all hold hands and be friends, can we talk about this like adults?, etc etc etc. Of course there might be something to be said for that if it worked. The problem is NOW TODAY in 2009 it does not work. The Radical Religious Extremists (not just radical right, they ARE RELIGIOUS Extremists) are hard at work being mean, harsh, telling lies, pushing minorities around, and winning political battles to strip and deny Gay Americans of Civil Rights.

At some point "asking" for equality will not work, I think we have passed that point. HOWEVER, are there enough Gay Americans and concerned allies to "Demand" Civil Rights and equality? There in is the mystery.
51
Are there enough gays and allies to demand equality? There ought to be...but are they willing to do it even if it makes enemies out of some of their supposed friends in the Democratic Party? Even if there is a risk of that happening??

Probably not.

This post is proof of that phenomenon. The Party is always willing to risk the wrath of the gays (because it never gets any). Even when they tip their hand - like Obama did in his letter to Alice - the gays are too obedient to take advantage and use it to help themselves.

The gays are trained really well...aren't they, Dan? Didn't you read this in July

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/us/pol…

or this

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg…

Why didn't you make a bigger deal of this back then?


52
@49

Pay attention, Bill!
This is serious.

And leave Dan alone.
His rectum was going to leak anyway so so what if he's blown it out with anal sex.

The problem is that brilliant homosexuals' brains are starting to drain out through their leaky rectums.

It is glaringly obvious that today's homosexuals are just an intellectual shadow of Gays from the 70s and 80s.
Proof is in the fact that they are working so hard to get Gay Marriage legalized. Obviously they never polled already married men about this.

And of course if you hire heteros to run your campaign you'll get a shitty half-ass product. It isn't on purpose- it's just that the heteros have already been married and can't muster any creative genius to sell the concept.
53
First there were the dumb blacks and the dumb rednecks first, then there were the dumb queens that voted for McCain/Palin, and now just plain 'ol dumb queens.
54
[REWIND] First there were the dumb blacks and the dumb rednecks, then there were the dumb queens that voted for McCain/Palin, and now just plain 'ol dumb queens.
55
This and the importance of being GGG in the sack are the only two areas where Dan & I agree 100%. And, for the most part, the gay community STILL hasn't confronted the inept losers who ran the No on 8 campaign, and held their feet to the fire. What the fuck is up with that?
56
Finger pointing doesn't get us anywhere. You want to talk about a brain drain? When did Minorities or Women just "expect" people to give them equality during the 60s? We act more like apologists.

As to the "leaders", we're all suppose to be leaders in getting equality. You want to blame someone, ask what you did? Did you March? Organize? Talk? Or just give money? Ask an elder black male or female that actually lived during those times and see if they just gave money.
57
Dan, YOU accused Blacks of being instrumental in the passing of Prop 8. And now, with all this evidence to the contrary I have yet to hear a public apology from you. How can you get indignant about the truth until you fix the lie?
58
No, what we need to do is snort tons of crystal , bareback and spread HIV like wildfire now that its a "manageable" disease and give our very LAST dime to that pig Madonna right at the time our civil rights are hanging by a thread...

oh wait... we did that already...

todays gays are beyond pathetic and exist as a group of permanent adolescents to be marketed to... COORS LIGHT PrESENTS!!!! GAY PRIDE 2009!!! The LOGO channel reminds me that soon gays will be just as brainwashed marginalized and dull as our heterosexual counterparts... Politics are for the old and ugly ! ewww !! Madonna YAY!!!

Milk is rollling over in his grave... and he wasnt a bottom either ..

PATHETIC!!
59
@Patrick

You are SO right that if they uphold Prop 8 each of the bundle of rights Kennard spoke so lovingly of will be removed one-by-one. First they will go after adoption, then employment & housing discrimination and so-on. I truly hope the justices see how allowing this fundamental right leads to others in the bundle being taken away bit-by-bit until there is nothing left.