Slog Comments


Comments (87) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
leek 1
Wow. This is fascinating and it's really impressive that you were able to have such civil conversations.

I really do want to know why people can't grasp the concept of one word being used for two different things--civil marriage and religious marriage. And I always want to ask these people with indeterminate fears if they have ever heard of a single case of a Catholic church being forced to marry divorcees. Because it's exactly the same thing, if they could just be brought to realize it.
Posted by leek on November 5, 2012 at 6:20 PM · Report this
bleedingheartlibertarian 3
In other words: I can't read, God, buttsex is gross, God, God, God, God, and God.
Posted by bleedingheartlibertarian on November 5, 2012 at 6:35 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 4
I just don’t approve of some of their behavior, and I believe I have a right to do that. I believe I have a right to disagree. I don’t have a lot of problems with people who disagree with me. But unfortunately, they are not going to leave me alone.

This is the heart & soul of the rank hypocrisy of the center of the religious right.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on November 5, 2012 at 6:36 PM · Report this
What’s unhealthy about gay people?
"Well, if you don’t know, you need to study—I am not going convince you."

Bigot. That's all.
I see that kind of "logic" all the time.
It means that they know that you do not already agree with them and that you will wreck their arguments for/against whatever.
Either you can say what is wrong or you cannot.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on November 5, 2012 at 6:37 PM · Report this
Two things: First, thanks for this fascinating glimpse and allowing them to explain themselves. Just calling someone a bigot or crazy doesn't productively advance an idea; it's a nonstarter, even if accurate. That was probably a bit testing to listen to all of these explanations.

Second, how fucking old is the time-defying Mr. Curtiss "I was with Lincoln" Wikstrom?!?
Posted by California on November 5, 2012 at 6:49 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 8
Thank you Mr Holden for this. It is just a matter of a few short years before there will be civil equality in America. Then these people that "do not hate" Gay people, but don't want them to enjoy the same civil rights they do, will be called out as bigots. Just like Jesse Helms, George Wallace, and like minded people were not racists in their minds, they just had an "opinion". They are bigots, their actions speak louder than their words.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on November 5, 2012 at 6:55 PM · Report this
scary tyler moore 9
what's 'game marriage'? is it marrying an elk or a moose?
Posted by scary tyler moore on November 5, 2012 at 6:55 PM · Report this
It took a real journalist to make those calls, Dom. Unfortunately there aren't many of you left.
Posted by sarah70 on November 5, 2012 at 7:03 PM · Report this
What an appalling waste of money. At least I hope we'll hear by Friday at the latest that they wasted their money. But damn, that cash could have done some good in the world. Hell, it could have been set on fire and still be used better than it was by these people.
Posted by Prettybetsy on November 5, 2012 at 7:04 PM · Report this
When she felt compelled to say "It is not because I don’t like them, it’s not because I resent them, not because I don’t think they are good enough," what she meant was it is because she doesn't like us, it is because she resents us, and it is because I doesn't think we are good enough.

Posted by Samuel on November 5, 2012 at 7:04 PM · Report this
I can't tell whether it's important to ridicule these people or not. My hunch is yes. Then again, the kind of nonsensical logic they employ that is beyond embarrassing as a fellow human being reminds me a lot of the thinking coming from wishy washy "independent" voters. Do we alienate them by tearing into these ostensibly well-meaning but idiotic people? I'm not sure. Maybe we shouldn't care. Maybe we should just let the old guard die out of natural causes.
Posted by joshplumridge on November 5, 2012 at 7:08 PM · Report this
What @3 said, but with a smattering of "I've got plenty of gay friends!".

Great article.
Posted by DVNODVNO on November 5, 2012 at 7:09 PM · Report this
God. This is one fuck of a depressing article. We are a country of really fucking stupid people.
Posted by Racing Turtles on November 5, 2012 at 7:13 PM · Report this
raku 16
It’s very different from say, opponents of legalizing pot, who are afraid roving bands of police will pull them over for no reason, forcibly take vials of their blood, run expensive sham lab tests to fake active THC even though they totally weren't stoned, convict them of DUI, take their cars and jobs and medicine and dogs they found, leaving them broke and unstoned, all part of a conspiracy orchestrated by Progressive Insurance and Big Newspaper.

Posted by raku on November 5, 2012 at 7:13 PM · Report this
GhostDog 17

I..I think I love you a little right now.
Posted by GhostDog on November 5, 2012 at 7:16 PM · Report this
You cannot be pulled over without cause. Police don't roam in "bands". The tests don't "fake" anything. Getting a DUI is usually insufficient grounds for termination unless you're like, a truck driver or something. You're a little nuts.
Posted by pheeeew!crack!boom! on November 5, 2012 at 7:20 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 19
“Penetration of the rectum is bad for them,” Wikstrom said.
This always makes me feel a little bad for lesbians. They get totally ignored by the anti-gay marriage bigots.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on November 5, 2012 at 7:29 PM · Report this
I am a straight woman, and I love getting penetrated in my rectum. How come no one is trying to deny my right to marry the man I love (who also, as it happens, loves penetrating my rectum)?
Posted by Leoba on November 5, 2012 at 7:37 PM · Report this
raku 21
Posted by raku on November 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM · Report this
I can't think of any kind of gay sex that I am not actively engaging in as part of my legally recognized heterosexual marriage, but for me it must be healthy. Right?

What a bunch of fuckwads. I am thrilled that these people have bilked themselves out of their money in their efforts to control what others may or may not do.
Posted by catballou on November 5, 2012 at 7:51 PM · Report this
Fascinating. Thanks for doing this -- a genuine public service.
Posted by Pliggett Darcy on November 5, 2012 at 7:54 PM · Report this
The Third Rail 24
I think you have to go at their assertion that marriage has been the same forever and never changes.

I mean, if the answer is "the bible" then should we still be selling women?

If the answer is "procreation" should straight couples who choose not to, or who are unable to, procreate be prohibited from marrying?

If the answer is "domestic partnerships" should non-religious straight people also be barred from marriage?

I think you have to take their arguments and show them that, contrary to the beliefs they've been able to construct in their heads, they are being discriminatory. I'm sure none of these folks would like to live under Sharia law (to take a popular republican fear mongering tactic), why would they force gays and lesbians to live under their Christian equivalent?
Posted by The Third Rail on November 5, 2012 at 8:01 PM · Report this
fletc3her 25
Truly tragic. I'm amazed people are willing to go on record as standing against civil rights, but there you go. Nobody likes being called a "bigot", but if the word doesn't apply to somebody who gives $12,000 to deny a minority equal rights then I don't know who it applies to.
Posted by fletc3her on November 5, 2012 at 8:10 PM · Report this
Leoba: Don't let them know, or they'll be trying to ban marriage for you, too.
Posted by Joe in Seattle on November 5, 2012 at 8:10 PM · Report this
pfffter 27
I guess it's a good article. But all I could think while I read it was FUCK THOSE STUPID FUCKING FUCKITY FUCKS
Posted by pfffter on November 5, 2012 at 8:19 PM · Report this
Eric Arrr 28
Dom, you have a tough fuckin' job. Seriously.
Posted by Eric Arrr on November 5, 2012 at 8:21 PM · Report this
These people should know that they are the major reason I am no longer a Christian.
Posted by Don't you think he looks tired? on November 5, 2012 at 8:21 PM · Report this
NotSean 30
Allergic to the idea that they are bigots

I think that cuts straight to the heart of it.

Posted by NotSean on November 5, 2012 at 8:21 PM · Report this
What a good post! Thank you.
Posted by gloomy gus on November 5, 2012 at 8:28 PM · Report this
@24, you can't show them anything. They are afraid of change, period.

And if anyone wants to judge this in an ageist fashion, take a look at who marched Sunday. Lots of greyheads included in the crowd.
Posted by sarah70 on November 5, 2012 at 8:29 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 33
He asked, “Are you gay, Dominic?”

“I am.”

“I love you as a person," Harris said.

Stay tuned for scenes from next week's episode of Tacoma Revisited ...
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on November 5, 2012 at 8:34 PM · Report this
biju 34
You're retired and have $12,000 to blow on THIS? Fuckin' A!
Posted by biju on November 5, 2012 at 8:44 PM · Report this
Puty 35
This ridiculously great article makes me feel bad for all the irrational human calamities you spoke to, Dominic. They would surely be broken were they capable of grasping how much harm they cause.

I'm pretty tired of the notion that a person's religious beliefs gives them a veto over someone else's marriage, though.
Posted by Puty on November 5, 2012 at 9:00 PM · Report this
stirwise 36
@24: I've always wondered about this: what if the government said "okay, churches, you can have "marriage," and we'll grant civil unions, and we'll declare what is a legal civil union, and what rights go with that, and you can have your stupid fucking party and do whatever nonsense you want around the union, it's none of our business." Sort of like how you can have a bar mitzvah, but it don't mean you can go to war or vote. Perhaps your temple says you're a man, but the government has no obligation to agree.
What then? Would the bigots shut up? If they would take that as a win, the "you can have marriage" bit, I would vote for secular civil unions in less than a heartbeat. But the cynic in me doesn't believe that they would let that happen.
Posted by stirwise on November 5, 2012 at 9:04 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 38
#36 sweet heart just pause a moment and think of all the work that would have to take place (I know we need the jobs, but...)to change all legal and other forms and documents and literature that have the term "marriage" and replace it with the words "civil union". That is what you are suggesting, right?. That won't happen. It's far too expensive and needless. it's more realistic to grant civil marriage to every pair of consenting adults that want that contract.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on November 5, 2012 at 9:13 PM · Report this
Mary Ann Boulanger is lying when she says it's "not because I don't think they are good enough." It is precisely because hetero-supremacists regard gay people and their relationships as inferior that they want to deny gay people their right to marry.

It's really quite simple: Hetero-supremacists like their little exclusive marriage club where they get to feel special, and if you let the gays in, if you acknowledge that gay people are just as good as straight people, those straight people feel like you're saying that they're not special anymore. The hetero-supremacists think marriage belongs to them, and they're afraid that marriage won't be regarded as special anymore if you let the Gays have at it and sully it up with their perversion. Anti-gay marriage supporters are, by definition, bigots, and what they're most afraid of is being told that they're no better than any homosexual.
Posted by ignatz ratzkywatzky on November 5, 2012 at 9:24 PM · Report this
hetero (romantic) one-man, one-woman marriage as we know it has been around for only a couple hundred years.

marriage has changed drastically since biblical times.

these people are bigots, if at least polite ones.

i really hope 74 passes tomorrow! my vote was in a week ago and ive been emailing and calling my fellow heteros to make sure they vote!
Posted by Cassette tape fan on November 5, 2012 at 9:35 PM · Report this
I know. All that money, and to spend it like this in a blue state during a presidential election year. That's how passionate they are about their hatred of homosexuals.

And it is hatred of homosexuals, even though they keep saying that they love them. (They probably believe that themselves.) The more retirement money they throw in this hole, the more they hate homosexuals, deep down.

I don't believe for a second that they don't. They probably think a lot of things in this world are "wrong". But to commit that much money to it, when they could be spending it on a trip to Paris, or whatever? That takes it to a different level. They can't sleep at night unless they're safely secure that gays and lesbians are still second class citizens.

Thanks for being fair with them in this article. It reflects well on the rest of us.
Posted by floater on November 5, 2012 at 10:04 PM · Report this
If that is love, maybe they need to love less. Just keep their love to themselves.
Posted by Spike1382 on November 5, 2012 at 10:08 PM · Report this
Simply Me 43
I hate direct democracy.
Posted by Simply Me on November 5, 2012 at 10:46 PM · Report this
Looking For a Better Read 45
Never trust anyone who defends his actions by claiming to be doing God's work.

This is why these people can throw away $1000, or $12,000 or however much they've burned. They're okay with it, because they believe they are defending some higher value. Neither you nor I will ever talk them out of this belief. One hopes that some day, they'll come around on their own, once they see that marriage equality does not cause the end of times.
Posted by Looking For a Better Read on November 5, 2012 at 11:00 PM · Report this
Simone 46
Fascinating that all of these anti-gay people know more than one gay person and/or are friends with more than one gay person and/or all have some family members who are gay.
Posted by Simone on November 5, 2012 at 11:04 PM · Report this
National Organization for [bigoted] Marriage (NOM) saying you can vote against same sex marriage without being a bigot is like the KKK saying you can vote against interracial marriage without being a racist.
Posted by hifiandrew on November 5, 2012 at 11:13 PM · Report this
This is why once the measure passes, it will never be repealed. These people are mostly resisting a change to a law based on faulty logic and religious beliefs, not outward hatred of gay.

Repealing the measure would be much more obviously bigoted, and once the Beast doesn't appear to brand 666 onto every straight married couple in response to gays getting married, any impetus for repeal that may exist tomorrow night will be gone.
Posted by madcap on November 5, 2012 at 11:21 PM · Report this
very bad homo 49
I hope these fuckers all cry when it passes tomorrow.
Posted by very bad homo on November 5, 2012 at 11:29 PM · Report this
I wonder if Inrix CEO Bryan Mistele was one of those Dominic called. He and George Reece both donated $5,000 and Reece made the list. Imagine being a gay employee of their companies.
Posted by Brian Murphy on November 5, 2012 at 11:37 PM · Report this
...and all this time, I was receiving a higher calling to celibacy and just didn't know it! I can't wait to tell my husband!
Posted by Clayton on November 6, 2012 at 5:10 AM · Report this
prompt 52
I really can't comprehend spending a year's pay (for many of us) in order to defeat this referendum.
Posted by prompt on November 6, 2012 at 5:12 AM · Report this
Of course, we all know how well that higher calling to celibacy works with Catholic priests.
Posted by Clayton on November 6, 2012 at 5:13 AM · Report this
Frau Blucher 54
Great article, Dom, but there's something nagging on me that I'd like to understand. I'd be interested in knowing how many of these people voted against R-71 when it was up for vote, a couple of years ago?

They speak as though they "gave us" this gift of "rights" and that we should actually be thanking them for doing so, yet my bet would be that all of them voted against R-71 for the same reasons they plan on voting against R-74. When each spoke of Domestic Partnership rights, I felt the sting of "we gave you this, why are you still coming back for more" attitude. Yet I'd bet a weeks pay "they" never even voted to give us any of the current rights we have.

Seems strange to me.
Posted by Frau Blucher on November 6, 2012 at 6:06 AM · Report this
Thanks to Dominic Holden for conducting this flagrant act of journalism, and to the respondents, for going out on a limb and trusting that they'd be quoted fairly and in context. Kudos all around.

I'd suggest that a nebulous concern about bad consequences of change is a truly conservative temperament. There are ALWAYS unforeseen consequences to change, both good and bad. And risk averse people, who may otherwise be good and loving people, may oppose change just out of that concern. That's a legitimate political philosophy, and one that should not be denigrated.

In a lot of ways, it's good that there's a bias in favor of the status quo, even when the status quo is unjust. It makes life more stable and predictable and just plain easier and safer.

Like I've said, my guess is that the unintended consequences here will be pretty minimal. And the gains immense. But that doesn't mean I don't respect the other side.
Posted by Corydon on November 6, 2012 at 7:20 AM · Report this
jcsmith2 56
"These people are not crazy. ... They simply can't quite explain why they believe what they believe."

I'm pretty sure this is the definition of crazy. "I don't know why I believe the sky is green, and I know there's science to prove that it isn't green, but I still think it is green".

Honestly, I'd just prefer them to come out and say they hate/fear Teh Gay, at least they'd be intellectually honest.
Posted by jcsmith2 on November 6, 2012 at 7:22 AM · Report this
Frau Blucher, I've thought the same thing. Every time I've read someone say "you already have civil unions" , I've wished someone would ask them, "yeah, and you voted against them, too, didn't you?"
Posted by Jim98122x on November 6, 2012 at 7:34 AM · Report this
stirwise 58
@38: Well, sugar beet, I don't generally make a habit of writing a budget for rhetorical situations. Maybe you should read my comment to the end, mmmkay?
Posted by stirwise on November 6, 2012 at 8:06 AM · Report this
These people aren't crazy or confused at all. It's simple: R-74 will lead to same-sex marriages being a normal and acceptable fact of American life.

I think that outcome is great. They think that outcome is awful.

It's the little girl in the ad being taught at school that same-sex marriage is okay. That's what they're voting against. And they're right. That will happen. Not that kids will be taught that at school. Even worse: they'll be taught that by just observing the world around them.

And if same-sex marriage is okay, then being gay is okay too. Equally okay as being straight.

That's what these people are afraid of. And the fact that they are ashamed to come out and say this (in large part because they have loved ones who are gay), means that in the long run they've already lost. (And they know it. "I don't think in my lifetime." He knows that that's his very best case scenario.)
Posted by crater on November 6, 2012 at 8:25 AM · Report this
Larry McDonald is an idiot. If he truly believed in marriage as a biological institution, then he should also be against sterile couples and childfree couples. And his position is in fact based in bigotry. You can tell that by how he felt the need to deny it.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on November 6, 2012 at 8:30 AM · Report this
@10: LOL @ Dominic Holden being a real journalist.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on November 6, 2012 at 8:32 AM · Report this
Frau Blucher 63
@57 & @59 - I just don't believe they have the right to use Domestic Partnerships as part of their argument, if they never supported Domestic Partnerships when it came up for a vote. But then, CONServatives have never been ones to suffer an abundance of humiliation.
Posted by Frau Blucher on November 6, 2012 at 8:50 AM · Report this
@60 very well said.
Posted by fotini901 on November 6, 2012 at 9:04 AM · Report this
"These people aren't crazy and hateful."

They are. If you ask a white supremacist his opinion on black people, he'll say, "Oh, I don't hate niggers. I'm just proud of my rich aryan heritage and wish to defend it."

Same bullshit here. These people are perfectly capable of explaining their bigotry. On top of being bigots, they're also liars, and will blatantly dodge around the issue of why they hate gays.
Posted by GermanSausage on November 6, 2012 at 9:48 AM · Report this
Good job, Dom. Thank you for this. Really well done.
Posted by Alice Dreger on November 6, 2012 at 9:58 AM · Report this
Great article, Dom. I wish you had asked why they thought that they have the right to impose their religious beliefs on people who don't share them. Maybe ask them if the Catholic Church should be able to ban divorce since their official position is against it and divorced people aren't allowed to marry in Catholic churches.

And ask if Mormons should be able to ban coffee for everyone, since it goes against their religious beliefs to drink it.

And don't get me started on pork.
Posted by NotYourStrawMan on November 6, 2012 at 10:02 AM · Report this
Define "hateful." Define "crazy."

Clearly these reasons, like all anti-74 rationalizations, are rooted in anti-gay animus. There's an assumption that homosexuality is deviant rather than within a normal variance of human sexual expression. The change in cultural attitude toward glbt people from "deviant lifestyle choice" to "normal sexual variant" triggers fear and/or loathing in these people. Why? Because their anti-gay prejudice is entrenched.

And yet they are not introspective enough to reflect honestly on their own assumptions and motives. Is that insanity or stupidity? Or both? Or merely an aspect of the human condition?

One problem with correctly identifying these people as "hateful bigots" is that the terminology tends to flatten them into caricatures. Ordinary monsters never live up to our monstrous expectations of them. This is what they look like.
Posted by Meat Weapon on November 6, 2012 at 10:07 AM · Report this
Womyn2me 69
The previous article lists in the comments that Mr and Mrs Matthews live opposite a beach. We could go to the neener-neener dance there. just saying, not that I am prone to neener moments.

"Ooh, one notes the Matthewses of Madison Park live di-rectly across from the new Madison Park Beach North. Who knew their front windows would be facing a lovely public beach where hordes of homos might gather at any time"
Posted by Womyn2me http://http:\\ on November 6, 2012 at 10:12 AM · Report this
it is kind of amazing that some people are willing to blow what is several years salary for most of us to keep someone else from getting married...
Posted by econoline on November 6, 2012 at 10:27 AM · Report this
Matt the Engineer 71
Excellent work, Dominic. I often feel like I just don't understand the other side's point. This was the best way to really find out if they have one. They don't.

I think @60 has it.
Posted by Matt the Engineer on November 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM · Report this
@71 Maybe they were reluctant to tell Mr. Holden what they really think because they assumed, correctly, that he is gay.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on November 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM · Report this
Ziggity 73
@72: Haha - yes, I'm sure they have a watertight argument that actually holds up to the most basic logical scrutiny but they're just waiting until a straight person asks them before they reveal it.
Posted by Ziggity on November 6, 2012 at 10:57 AM · Report this
Fnarf 74
Some of these guys are overlooking the perverted practices of straight people too, which can be just as harmful. Me, for instance; I'm straight as an arrow, but I have a powerful desire to tie all of these people up and piss and shit on their faces. Sick stuff, I know. And yet, I have all of my civil rights!
Posted by Fnarf on November 6, 2012 at 11:03 AM · Report this
@73 I don't know about watertight arguments, but I bet they held back a lot of visceral hatred for gay people when they talked to Dom. Both because they wanted to be agreeable and because they didn't want to see their extreme views written about in the newspaper.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on November 6, 2012 at 11:21 AM · Report this
Knat 77
Apparently Curtiss Wikstrom has a real problem with teh gayz bursting into his house every night and having buttseks right on the dining room table. I guess I'd get pretty peeved at that too.

Also, is he a practicing or retired proctologist? He seems awfully preoccupied with the details of buttseks.
Posted by Knat on November 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM · Report this
bleedingheartlibertarian 78
@68--I guess we could call that "the banality of bigotry". Good point.
Posted by bleedingheartlibertarian on November 6, 2012 at 11:53 AM · Report this
Helenka (also a Canuck) 79
For the donor (no, I refuse to type his name) who so conscientiously worries about gay men's health (definitely lol) as one of the primary reasons for his opposition, I'd urge him to devote a bit of his energy toward the unhealthy consequences of a woman giving birth to 20 or so children.

Will no one think of the straight, married mothers?
Posted by Helenka (also a Canuck) on November 6, 2012 at 12:02 PM · Report this
McJulie 80
My husband got into a facebook argument with a childhood friend who sounded exactly like these people. I'm pretty sure they're just bigots who really, really don't want to believe that they are bigots, because they know that being a bigot is bad.

In some ways they're a lot worse that out-and-proud Archie Bunker types, because they spend so much energy trying to redefine bigotry, and provide a rhetorical cover that makes bigotry "okay."
Posted by McJulie on November 6, 2012 at 12:15 PM · Report this
Calling these people stupid bigots really isn't doing anything to help further gay rights. They don't see themselves as bigots, and honestly, most of them don't sound like hateful people. Listening to their concerns the way Dominic has, and then countering those concerns -- pointing out the difference between civil unions and marriage in the rights afforded to gay by each, reminding them of all the different examples of marriage in the bible -- is better than namecalling.
Posted by Amanda on November 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM · Report this

"better than name-calling."

You're implying that coddling and enabling these bigots is going to do something to help further gay rights. It's not.
Posted by GermanSausage on November 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM · Report this
bleedingheartlibertarian 83
@81--I agree that name calling is, generally speaking, counter-productive.

That said, I got to a point not so long ago in a fairly heated discussion on the subject where I had to point out that I wasn't calling someone a bigot because they were opposed to marriage equality. Rather, I am for marriage equality because I believe that to be against it is to be bigoted.

If you cannot explain why you believe what you believe, it's just an arbitrary opinion.
Posted by bleedingheartlibertarian on November 6, 2012 at 2:31 PM · Report this
"But if Washington voters legalize gay marriage, he intoned, they'll open the floodgates for persecution of Christians..."

Oh, sweet Jaysus, Wikstrom, lions have to eat too ya know??????

Geez, should ancient Romans have all the fun at those ancient Coloseums of theirs???

Can't we modern folk have a wee bit of fun also??

Posted by sgt_doom on November 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM · Report this
They're on their last gasp of air. Marriage equality will be a done deal in this country one day and everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about. Same thing as interracial marriages.
Posted by Patricia Kayden on November 6, 2012 at 2:43 PM · Report this
TampaDink 86
What an incredible piece of journalism. I applaud you. It boggles the mind when these same people (who all seem to mean well...except for that pesky donating scads of dough to prevent others full civil equality) never seem concerned about the allowance of other groups. They seem to be unconcerned that non-religious, senior citizens, sterile, those who just don't want to reproduce, felons, & even death row inmates who can't have physical contact visitation are allowed civil marriage. The Menedez brothers can marry....but not us queers.

Thank you for shining a light on these people who toss money towards issues that they cannot even seem to coherently legitimize their views about. I wonder if they give to charities & churches in the same percentage of giving to campaigns to deny human rights to a minority.
Posted by TampaDink on November 6, 2012 at 3:05 PM · Report this
@82, 83 -- Calling someone a bigot isn't necessarily name-calling, but I was referring more to all of the people in the thread saying things like stupid fuckers. And I don't think enabling bigots will help gay rights, but I do think explaining your stance to them in a rational way will help, at least more so than calling them stupid fuckers.
Posted by Amanda on November 6, 2012 at 3:41 PM · Report this
Bonefish 88
"Gentle" bigotry is still bigotry. Lazy thinking is only excusable for people who stay the fuck out of politics.
Posted by Bonefish on November 6, 2012 at 3:45 PM · Report this
RebeccaBush 91
However they choose to "explain" their "feelings" nothing explains away the fact that denying to others the rights that you yourself enjoy is simply a way of keeping that other group out of power.
Posted by RebeccaBush on November 7, 2012 at 9:42 AM · Report this
quix 93
Please do a follow-up story a year from now to see how each of these people feels their lives have been affected by the passage of marriage equality.
Posted by quix on November 7, 2012 at 11:18 AM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 94
@92 - What have you done to "hate" hatred?

And yes you do.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on November 7, 2012 at 10:29 PM · Report this
A general observation and a reply in part to Ms Amanda - Why do they get the unilateral right to decide whether they're hateful or not, and really, what difference does it make? I'm reminded of a thread elsewhere in which one poster who claimed not to agree with the reasoning she was defending gave a passionate defence of how most of the black women who voted in favour of Proposition 8 did so for reasons that were completely not homophobic (but then, so what? were we supposed to give them all cupcakes?), only to come half around in the end and agree that it wasn't her place to proclaim or deny what constituted homophobia.

After all, if all that's necessary is just to claim not to hate X, Y or Z, cite a feeble statistic or two as incontrovertible proof, and then oppress X, Y or Z to smithereens, that's not the most difficult standard to meet...
Posted by vennominon on November 9, 2012 at 4:33 PM · Report this
Roma 96
They don’t even argue a pretense of logic,...

No surprise there. Religion is based on belief -- whether it's the belief that God created Adam and Eve, or the belief that Allah spoke to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel over a period of 23 years, or the belief that same-sex love is an abomination -- not on reason.

Posted by Roma on November 9, 2012 at 5:39 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.