But Dan his marriage is weak enough where a happily married gay couple could threaten it!

He's a bigot, a misogynist, and a liar. He's a bully who has instigated every fight he is in right now. You are doing the right thing, Dan, and anyone calling you a bully for doing it to people like Santorum or Marcus Bachmann (I was one of them initially but have since changed my views) doesn't understand the difference between bullying and self-defense.

hear, hear!

(here, here? they kinda both make sense to me, and i see the expression written both ways...)

Wow. You are NOT a popular man among the commenters on News Busters.

"Dan Savage is a perfect example of how EVERYBODY behaved right before the flood and right before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. When God looked and saw that the Earth was so full of wickedness that there was nothing worth saving."

poor poor persecuted christians. they're only 80% of the population, why is everyone so mean to them?

I'm not usually one of those aggressive internet atheists, but you can, with a fair degree of certainty and prejudice, lay this kind of hypocritical victim-complex bullshit squarely at the feet of the Christian martyrdom complex, and especially the Protestant notion of being able to do no wrong once you're "saved," or, even worse, Calvinist predestination.

Once you're one of the good guys, anyone disagreeing with you is "persecuting" the "elect."

That creates an environment where self-righteous bullies and - unexaggeratedly - psychopaths thrive. Why have any empathy for anyone else when they're "godless"? You already know you're good. If they don't agree with you, they must not be good, and any ill you heap upon them is a blow for (self-)righteousness.

Well said, Dan.

You're getting to him, Dan. Keep up the good work.

Bloody Santorum!

Santorum wouldn't just split up your family and keep you from Terry's bedside if he gets stomped by Rastafarians in a mosh pit.

Santorum would see you in jail.

Never forget that. The interview that got him his name was in relation to his pro-Texas position on Lawrence vs Texas, which he hasn't backed down one millimeter from.

Yep, the Christians are always crying persecution while they're busy committing atrocities. It began as soon as Constantine legalized them up until today. The only difference today is that they farm out the atrocities on the personal/family level-- they get the family/neighborhood to commit the heinous acts instead of organizing armies to do it.

Rick needs to send you a thank you card, Dan. The only thing worse than being talked about is NOT being talked about. Without you Rick wouldn't have gotten that additional 10 minutes of news coverage.

Santorum, like the other GOP fascists, can dish it out but they can't take it.

"hatefuck"? Srsly?

@6 and Dan - thank you keep up the good work.

I think I'd like to be "bi-bational".

@6

"The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists..."
--Bertrand Russell

grow up

What @20 said - Bill Maher and his guests should clean up their act.

@23 - You're absolutely right but does anyone REALLY believe any of this bullshit about gay marriage wrecking straight marriage anyway? None of the homophobes ever walk us through a case study, you know, some princess of a daughter who just met the man of her dreams -- but because of the gays can't abide settling down and having children? Waaaah?

This is about the only time I've ever agreed with raindrop, but... just because I'm philosophically in line with Bill Maher on topics like religion and equal rights doesn't me he isn't kind of a douche, as well as an uncritical, irresponsible ignoramus about things like "complementary and alternative" medicine and vaccination. Dude needs to learn that his words and actions in one arena can create entirely unintended ripples in others he's not even aware of.

But he's a "pundit." What do you expect? They're a class that's more or less exempt from rationality and responsibility by popular consensus, because we as a nation really like to watch people on television sputter angrily about things we either passionately agree with or can get smugly outraged about.

I think the use of "douche" or "douchebag" or "douchenozzle" as a pejorative is sexist and counterproductive. I think, particularly in the case of Santorum, we should use the terms "enema", etc. Which is not to say that I disagree with anyone's assessment of Santorum or his just deserts.

Hahahaha "please folks stop reading his column."

Welcome to the internet, grampa.

"Blowheart." Tee hee hee.

@27: Well, since you asked so nicely...

No, fuck you, I'm not gonna stop reading; I suspect you won't either. Rick Santorum deserves every "mean unkind thing" that can be said about him and then some.

And Dan is way past "15 minutes of fame" at this point, BTW.

I see, so in every other arena Mr. Savage is the soul of decorum and would never use inappropriate and vulgar language on television. That language was the fault of Rick Santorum in Mr. Savages perennially adolescent mind.

Threatening to anally rape a man for having the audacity to have different opinions, disgusting language about hate sex he never questioned, comparing a principled stand on economics (wrong or right) to a mass murdering terrorist,- all these are fully appropriate in your twisted minds.

No, it's Rick Santorums fault for defending families and sexual morality. Well, that and the unrequited crush Mr. Savage has on the poor man. It's like watching a 7th grade girl bad mouth the person who rejected her advances.

Keep digging Mr. Savage. It'll make real America see you for the disgusting vulgarian you are all the sooner. It'll make them realize that all you bring to the national discourse is the human equivalent of feces throwing.

BTW-

This isn't Christians persecuted by atheists, or left against right or progressive versus conservative.

This is basic decency in public conduct, a thing of which Mr. Savage is wholly incapable.

This is about Mr. Savages inability to enter the political arena without vile personal attacks, wholly inappropriate language about those who dare disagree with The Savage, his highne!s of sexual depravity! This is about the lowering of public discourse, not by the right but by nearly a century of progressive ideology.

Here's a hint, Mr. Savage. If you're only argument politically is to threaten to rape an opponent on television, you're the one whos the bully, the bigot, the fundamentalist.

I am now 75% more convinced that Seattleblues is a troll.

Either that or the bizarro world version of my dad.

@32

Whatever. The fact remains that Dan Savage is by character and personality a destructive element in the national discourse. He has nothing to say worth hearing, but insists on saying it in the most vulgar, tasteless or obscene way possible.

He is, to be sure, a symptom, not a disease. How could such a hollow man, an ir-redeemable construct of obscenity and vice and depravity, be anything else? Since the 1960's the left has tried to convince people that no value is worth fighting for. No belief is inherently better or worse than another. Everything is relative.

Well, this is the result of your indoctrination. This cage full of chimps throwing scat at each other is what replaced dialogue between proponents of different beliefs.

Congratulations.

I find it ironic, actually, that someone like Dan Savage would be such a prominent face at the gay "pride" events, since he is exactly the sort of person who makes many gay people -- like me -- no so proud to be associated with other gays. Between the company he keeps and the trash that comes from his mouth, that clip sort of summarized the culmination of a useless, aimless life.

No one but a knowing troll could possibly collapse that many irrelevancies, ad hominems, non sequiturs, tu quoques, and straw men into such a dense nugget. It would take me an hour to refute each post if I were foolish enough to waste my time doing so, just due to the sheer volume of nonsense.

It really is a art, isn't it?

@35

You're making an assumption that I don't accept, that isn't rooted in reality. You assume that gays aren't fully equal as citizens already.

Or do we have busses with gays only allowed to ride in the back? Gays denied jobs due to their chosen lifestyle? Gays denied the right to practice their sexuality as they see fit? Gays denied the right to buy or rent a house in Magnolia or Beaux Arts?

No, we don't. Gays are already fully equal. But that isn't enough. Some, like Dan Savage and many posting here, want from the position of the 3% of society they at most represent, to set social and legal terms for everyone else.

And when the majority objects, they aren't making the imminently reasonable request that this self selecting minority accept the consequences of their choices. They're haters, bigots, homophobes, or closeted gay themselves. They're the target of vicious personal attacks. Without even the faintest tinge of the decencies of debate, the arguments revolve around their wealth, or personal lives, or invented terms to ridicule them in the grossest possible sense.

So who really are the haters? Santorum, who responded to a threat of rape without a single obscenity or personal attack on the man who made the threat on television? Or Savage, who can't open his mouth publicly in a way that doesn't need censored? Who can't pass a day without an unwarranted attack on Marcus Bachman or Rick Santorum, neither of whom really matter in political dialogue? Yep, that would be Savage as well.

I can do no better than suggest that if Mr. Savage is really concerned about hatred and bigotry and bullying, he should take the advice- Physician, heal thyself.

Good succinct post and a pleasure to read. Also a good reminder to not look at unregistered comments on Dan's posts. ick ick icky ick.

@Functional Atheist: I think you mean "descendants will blush", not "ancestors" but great comment nevertheless.

@Balderdash: You made me Google "tu quoques".

Hey Seattleblues, glad you're here. I wanted to ask you something. (Sorry to threadjack, everyone, but you gotta get SB where SB is, not where he was.)

Yesterday, I saw you posting, on the thread about the dead NewsCorp whistleblower, that people should assess that on the evidence.

Then, on another thread, you ridiculed the idea that global warming was even happening.

I mention this, because that latter statement is as intellectually (and factually) dishonest as all the assumptions that the whistleblower was bumped off.

For your consideration:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/2…

For it to be a threat of rape, wouldn't that necessarily imply that Santorum was opposed to the idea? Maybe Dan was thinking Santorum would be a willing participant!

Okay, Seattleblues. I'm going to help you out, like I did with the abbreviation "Xtain". I am, of course, presuming that you are unaware that there are indeed places where a LGBT person could be denied/fired from a job or denied/evicted from housing. I know we disagree the idea of equality. You appear to believe that all human are not equal, and those that fit your definition of "moral" deserve special legal rights and benefits for their heterosexuality. I on the other hand believe that the laws of this nation need to apply equally to all citizens, I don't think heterosexuality is worthy of special legal rights and privileges. Nor do I consider heterosexuality a "moral" gold star. You will not admit how you chose to be romantically and sexually attracted to Mrs. Seattleblues, but insist upon your opinion that LGBT persons choose who they find themselves romantically and sexually attracted to. You are not unintelligent, you understand precisely what you have been asked, and your unwillingness provides that your insistence that LGBT persons choose is merely an unfair opinion of your's. Which makes your opinion not based in fact. While we disagree on the need for all humans to be treated equally, I still think that you have within you to acknowledge that all is not fair on the job and home front. I hope that you, with interest in your own integrity, will stop claiming that LGBT persons have the same rights as you do. So here you go, a quick copy and paste:

Openly lesbian and gay members of the US military were previously subjected to the US's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. However, on December 18, 2010, The U. S. Senate voted 65-31 in favor of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 permitting homosexual men and women to serve openly in the armed forces, to take effect 60 days after certification by the President, Secretary, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. President Barack Obama signed the repeal on December 22, 2010.[15] As of June 2011, certification has not occurred and it is still the policy of all branches of the US military to discharge individuals under the provisions of DADT.[16]

Employment discrimination

Current U.S. LGBT employment discrimination laws.
All employment:
  Sexual orientation and gender identity
  Sexual orientation only
State employment:
  Sexual orientation and gender identity
  Sexual orientation only
  No state-level protection for LGBT employees

Animation showing the evolution of U.S. LGBT employment discrimination laws.
Employment discrimination refers to discriminatory employment practices such as bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation, and various types of harassment. In the United States there is "very little statutory, common law, and case law establishing employment discrimination based upon sexual orientation as a legal wrong."[17] Some exceptions and alternative legal strategies are available. President Bill Clinton's Executive Order 13087 (1998) prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in the competitive service of the federal civilian workforce,[18] and federal non-civil service employees may have recourse under the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.[19] Private sector workers may have a Title VII action under a quid pro quo sexual harassment theory,[20] a "hostile work environment" theory,[21] a sexual stereotyping theory,[22] or others.[23]

Twenty-one states, the District of Columbia, and over 140 cities and counties have enacted such bans. The states banning sexual orientation discrimination in employment are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin (the first state to do so, in 1982).[24] Four states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces only: Indiana, Michigan, Montana, and Pennsylvania. On November 22, 2007, Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm issued an order guarding the rights of transgender men and women. She prohibited discrimination of state workers based on gender identity or expression.[25] Many of these laws also ban discrimination in other contexts, such as housing or public accommodation. A proposed bill to ban anti-gay employment discrimination nationwide, known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), has been introduced in the U.S. Congress, but its prospects of passage are not believed to be good under a Republican-controlled Congress.

Thirteen states have reformed their state civil rights code by legislation or under the force of court decisions to include sexual orientation and gender identity, while another seven have amended their civil rights code to include sexual orientation, but not gender identity.[citation needed] Aside from state law, about a hundred cities in thirty three states have enacted civil rights legislation that includes sexual orientation.[citation needed]

Housing discrimination

Housing discrimination refers to discrimination against potential or current tenants by landlords. In the United States, there is no federal law against such discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, but at least thirteen states and many major cities have enacted laws prohibiting it.[26] See, for example, Washington House Bill 2661.

Medical facilities

On April 14, 2011, President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order to the Department of Health and Human Services to draft new rules for all hospitals accepting Medicare or Medicaid funds. They would require facilities to grant visitation and medical decision-making rights to gay and lesbian partners, as well as designees of others such as widows and widowers.[27] Such rights are not institutionalized in law in many states. Obama said he was inspired by the case of a Florida family, where one of the mothers died while her partner and four children were denied visitation by the hospital.[27]

Hate crime laws

Main article: Hate crime laws in the United States

Current U.S. LGBT hate crimes laws by state. A national hate crimes law encompasses both sexual orientation and gender identity.
  Sexual orientation and gender identity recognized in state hate crimes law
  Sexual orientation recognized in state hate crimes law
  Sexual orientation recognized for data collection about hate crimes
  State hate crimes law uninclusive of sexual orientation or gender identity
Hate crime laws (also known as bias crimes laws) protect against crimes motivated by feelings of enmity against a protected class. Until 2009, statutes permitted federal prosecution of hate crimes committed against a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity (see 1969 hate crime law). On April 2009, the House of Representatives passed H.R.1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, which would define hate crimes in federal law to include gender, sexual orientation, gender-identity, and disability. The legislation would also remove the prerequisite that victims of hate crimes be engaging in a federally protected activity (see Matthew Shepard Act). On July 16, 2009, the US Senate also passed a Hate Crimes bill, originally S.909, as an amendment to the 2009 Defense Appropriations bill. On October 8, 2009, the House of Representatives voted 281 to 146 to approve the Conference Report Department of Defense Authorization, which contained the hate crimes provisions. On October 22, 2009, the U.S. Senate voted 68 to 29 to approve the Conference Report Department of Defense Authorization, which contained the hate crimes provisions.[28] On October 28, 2009 President Obama signed the bill into law.[29]

The DOJ/FBI, as well as campus security authorities, are required to collect and publish hate crime statistics (see Hate Crime Statistics Act and Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act).

45 states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of bias-motivated violence or intimidation (the exceptions are AR, GA, IN, SC, and WY). Each of these statutes covers bias on the basis of race, religion, and ethnicity; 32 of them cover sexual orientation; 32 cover disability; 28 cover gender; 13 cover age; 11 cover transgender/gender-identity; 5 cover political affiliation.[30] 31 states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action, in addition to the criminal penalty, for similar acts.[30] 27 states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics; 16 of these cover sexual orientation.[30]

I don't get the logic behind you wanting to hate fuck Santorum somehow making Mark Maron less of a misogynist for wanting Michelle Bachman to get hate fucked, but whatever, I agree with the rest of it. Santorum is trying to paint himself has someone who's being abused for disapproving of gay people when he's clearly being abused for actively legislating against the equality of gay people. I don't think anyone's really buying that.

Seattlebluey,

couching your unfounded thoughts on a yuppish style is not going to give you the evidence basis you need for the claims you make. As long as all you need is state 'facts' for them to be facts, you can be simply ignored.

Santorum, a defender of decency? :-)

Whenever you feel like actually discussing specifics, let us know. Till then, all you are doing is reasserting your own opinion to yourself. And since society is gradually moving away from your opinions, these will eventually only be important for historical reasons.

Kim in Portland, quite an excellent bit of research. I'm copying that text and saving it on my hard disk for future reference (but only with your permission, of course).

I wished Seattleblues would do that: actually try to document his claims with anything resembling actual data, actual facts. I personally enjoy discussion and debates, and I like it when an opponent actually brings well-founded information that I was unaware of. It gives me something to think about.

But Seattleblues won't do that. He doesn't want to change anyone's thoughts, or argue any new points, or actually question and/or compare experiences... All he wants is to keep on repeating claim after unfounded claim, in ever changing new ways so as to have the illusion of novelty.

(On the argument that 'gays are already equal, because they have the same right to marry an opposite-sex person as straights do', I feel like saying that this makes just as much sense as claiming that straights are oppressed because they, like gays, also don't have the right to marry a same-sex person. :-)

Come on now, seattleblues, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that Santorum wants to recriminalize homosexuality and that if he were successful in doing so, even under your standard gays wouldn't be fully equal.

And how about an admission that Savage's vulgar joke at Santorum's expense is less oppressive, less persecuting, and less harmful, than Santorum's goal, which he is actively pursuing, to put gay people in jail for being gay.

Where is your sense of proportion?

Great post, Dan.

Yes, where are all the apologies from the hateful right? They're always the victim.

making fun of someone who believes in the values that built America.

Lemme tell you about the people who built America. They didn't wear white glove and clip coupons. They had calluses and sore muscles. And THEN they left for work.

Those aren't the people Republicans talk hard for ... bankers and financiers. Repubs' reverse psych attempt to define themselves as "the people who build America" are hilarious.

As far as values are concerned, the rights values are: grab all you can while complaining about the government spending that's putting big money into their pockets and their rich buddies pockets. There's the only thing that differentiates their value system. (As opposed to the people they con into supporting them ... and who they fuck over in D.C.)

I really feel bad for the unfortunate Mrs. Seattleblues.

Ankylosaur,
I cut and pasted it from Wikipedia. There is no need for permission.

Take care,
k

Seattleblues: "And when the majority objects, they aren't making the imminently reasonable request that this self selecting minority accept the consequences of their choices."

Laying aside the arguments you refuse to engage anyway, Seattleblues, you really should learn to accept the consequences of your own choices.

It is your choice to reject the credibility the APA and other scientific communities regarding sexual orientation and instead follow a belief system without demonstrable veracity. Consequently, you shouldn't get all apoplectic when confronted with reality-based arguments. No one is challenging your right to go apeshit in your attempt to win the internet, but your hardline repetition of strawman talking points lacks decorum. It's as if you don't understand that publicly holding unfounded opinions will result in those opinions being challenged.

It is your choice to oppose reasonable requests for equal treatment of gay families under civil law even when such treatment has no demonstrable effect on you or your family. You should accept that the consequence of this will be that you receive the label of "bigot," which is entirely appropriate and congruous with the generally accepted definition of the word "bigot." You seek to deny others rights and privileges you enjoy; therefore you are a bigot. You should be able to own this inevitable consequence of your own choices without resorting to ridiculous claims of persecution.

You have chosen to develop a neurotic fixation on Dan Savage and to make him the target of your anti-gay vitriol on a decidedly liberal-leaning blog. One might think such behavior means you want to engage people with opposing views, but instead you choose to repost the same "opinions" over and over again without any citation or backing evidence, the same puerile reductions of "liberal vs. conservative," the same baseless assertions. The consequence of this behavior is that you will likely be mocked and ridiculed on said liberal-leaning blog.

And Santorum should be able to accept the consequences of his choices, too. His public record makes it irrefutably clear that he is an anti-gay bigot, and when he is called out for his bigotry, he should have a more cogent counter response than, "you used naughty words and hurt my feewings."

"The fact remains that Dan Savage is by character and personality a destructive element in the national discourse"

Some things NEED destroying in the national discourse. Santorum is a prime example.

"The fact remains that Dan Savage is by character and personality a destructive element in the national discourse"

That's Seattleblues for you, using words like "fact" without knowing what they mean.

@9 - If there's blood in your santorum, you're doing it wrong.

Seattleblues is so far inside his sphincter he is truly "lostinhisownasshole".

Seattleblues, you know you're just jealous that Dan didn't offer to fuck you. You so obviously want him inside you. (Other than just your head, where he lives rent free.)