Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, June 15, 2009
Homo Cooler Heads
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:54 AM
Some commenters suggested that people like me and John Aravosis and other crazy gay bloggers out there were overreacting—just like crazy gay bloggers would—to the Obama administration's insanely bigoted DOMA brief. But it's not just those always-furious-about-something bloggers who are pissed:
Here's Jon W. Davidson, the calm, cool, and collected Legal Director of Lambda Legal:
Whether or not the administration felt a need to defend, there are many ways one can defend. The administration could have rested on the first two arguments raised in their papers (jurisdiction and standing) that these plaintiffs were not entitled to sue without arguing at this point that DOMA is constitutional. Doing that would not have waived those arguments. What they need to be asked is why they gratuitously went out of their way to make the outrageous arguments they unnecessarily included such as that DOMA does not discriminate based on sexual orientation or that the right at issue is not marriage but an unestablished right to "same-sex marriage" or that DOMA is somehow justified in order to protect taxpayers who don't want their tax dollars used to support lesbian and gay couples (while it's apparently fine to make lesbians and gay men pay the same taxes but be denied the benefits provided heterosexual couples). Their public statements about the filing try to sidestep these points. They absolutely knew they did not need to make these additional arguments, especially at this time and consciously decided to do so. I am seething mad.
Here's Richard Socarides, former top aide to President Clinton:
Like many other gay people who support the president, and as someone who had hoped he would be a presidential-sized champion of gay civil rights from the start, I was disturbed by his administration’s brief defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), filed late last week, in opposition to our full equality. It had such a buckshot approach to it, a veritable kitchen sink of anti-gay legal theories, that it seemed expressly designed to inflict maximal damage to our rights. Instead of making nuanced arguments which took into account the president’s oft-stated support for repealing DOMA — a law he has called “abhorrent” — the brief seemed to embrace DOMA and all its horrific consequences.I was equally troubled by the administration’s explanation that they had no choice but to defend the law. As an attorney and as someone who was directly involved in giving advice on such matters to another president (as a Special Assistant for civil rights to President Bill Clinton), I know that this is untrue.
Here's Dale Carpenter, Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School:
The Obama DOJ is saying that DOMA doesn't discriminate against gays and lesbians because they are free to marry people of the opposite sex... It's identical in form to the defense of Texas's Homosexual Conduct law in Lawrence v. Texas: a law banning only gay sex doesn't discriminate against gays because it equally forbids homosexuals and heterosexuals to have homosexual sex and because it equally allows homosexuals and heterosexuals to have heterosexual sex. This sort of formalism has incited howls of laughter over the years when made by religious conservatives. Now it's the official constitutional position of the Obama administration.... there's little in this brief that could not have been endorsed by the Bush DOJ.
2
Meanwhile the Seattle Times (didn't Will in Seattle claim that these "mainstream" papers didn't care about DOMA, DADT, etc.?) is making arguments against Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/ed…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/ed…
3
They're right, and you're spot-on to keep after this. Harper's mag has been right on top of Obama's amazing failure to remove the shit-for-brains wingnut DOJ appointees left over from Gonzales. Even before he was sworn in, Harper's mag and blog hammered away on the point that if Obama didn't axe them right quick, briefs would inevitably get filed that really fucked with a) the constitution and b) his constituency. Then the honeymoon would be over right quick.
And voila. As predicted, a loyal voting bloc properly outraged, and O looking like a fool, a tool, or worse.
Y'all are doing a great job and a service to all of us keeping the heat on as best you can.
And voila. As predicted, a loyal voting bloc properly outraged, and O looking like a fool, a tool, or worse.
Y'all are doing a great job and a service to all of us keeping the heat on as best you can.
4
This is politics plain and simple. And since so few Gay folk can be bothered to get involved, is it any wonder that some one else calls the shot about Gay Americans lives?
If Gay Americans want equality under the law, Gay Americans will need to demand it. Demand it in any and every way they have open to them.
Keep blogging Dan. Speaking truth to bigotry, discrimination, and power is the beginning of change.
If Gay Americans want equality under the law, Gay Americans will need to demand it. Demand it in any and every way they have open to them.
Keep blogging Dan. Speaking truth to bigotry, discrimination, and power is the beginning of change.
5
So lets see, Obama lied to his Armenian American supporters (in addition to lying about recognizing Genocide, he is also cutting funding to Armenia and pumping up Azerbaijan’s military budget- also against his campaign promises) and now he is doing the same to his civil rights supporters. Who is next? It is starting to feel a little like that Martin Niemöller poem. It is time to start being loud about our disssatifaction with Obama.
6
Aravois (and now Socarides) remain incorrect: this was non-discretionary. Socarides' argument is especially ridiculous: apparently to him, it is entirely appropriate for the Department of Justice to effectively repeal laws conforming to the constitution based on nothing more than policy judgments of the White House.
If that were the case, Bush could have circumvented the Congress and destroyed Social Security by executive fiat.
If that were the case, Bush could have circumvented the Congress and destroyed Social Security by executive fiat.
8
@1: i'm irritated and disappointed, not SEETHING mad. i was seething mad about the iraq invasion. i was seething mad about the supreme court in 2000. & just look how productive that was.
but since i'm not SEETHING, i must be your enemy.
but since i'm not SEETHING, i must be your enemy.
9
I feel like I should point out that Dale Carpenter, in addition to being a law professor, is also a gay blogger. FYI.
10
It has been obvious from the start and anyone who can't see it is a totally naive liberal retard.
He went to a black-nationalist Christian church for 20+ years, a church that gave notorious Jew and fag-hater Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award, but all you naive fags just chose to TOTALLY IGNORE that, and you also called anyone who pointed out the TRUTH to you a "racist".
HAW HAW HAW you stupid naive fags!
He went to a black-nationalist Christian church for 20+ years, a church that gave notorious Jew and fag-hater Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award, but all you naive fags just chose to TOTALLY IGNORE that, and you also called anyone who pointed out the TRUTH to you a "racist".
HAW HAW HAW you stupid naive fags!
11
AC - your "nondiscretionary" refrain's grown a bit threadbare. Got anything else in your knitting bag?
12
I'm bothered, but not RED FACED AND ANGRY, mainly because of BS like a Clinton staffer preaching from the mountain top about how he's suddenly seen the light after several years of doing exactly what Obama's DOJ did.
Clinton put DOMA in place, but Socarides is acting as though he's in some moral high point with this thing. No, Socarides, you defended DOMA and your administration put these arguments into place (look at the citations Obama's DOJ made).
Clinton put DOMA in place, but Socarides is acting as though he's in some moral high point with this thing. No, Socarides, you defended DOMA and your administration put these arguments into place (look at the citations Obama's DOJ made).
13
8 Welcome to the club. Anyone who's not 100% on board with their wish list is considered an enemy by them.
14
#3 is right. What was Obama thinking? He should have known that a brief like this would get filed sooner rather than later when he let Gonzales' holdover Joe Pitt stay with the DOJ.
15
Loveschild, you hypocrite-- you're the one insisting you're "preserving marriage" and "protecting children" and making reference to a gay mafia while insisting Dan and Terry are a pair of monsters.
You lie enough to get your own mouth on the three-headed beast in the afterlife.
You lie enough to get your own mouth on the three-headed beast in the afterlife.
16
I'm still angry. I believe the kindest, most loving thing we can do is to refuse to shut up. We can become a nation where "freedom and justice for all" has meaning, a nation that cares for and protects all its people equally.
17
@12 I agree. It's ridiculous a former top aid of President Clinton is "disturbed" and "troubled" about the Obama Administration's actions when President Clinton signed into law DOMA and DADT.
18
Why can't we cause the mayhem that is usually reserved for sports victories in response to this? Let's start some fires, Dan.
19
Dan and John are correct to keep up the pressure.
Furthermore, I'm surprised that no one has yet pointed out that the statements in the DOJ brief are not dissimilar to using the canards of "Blood Libel" and Jews as "Christ killers" to deny basic human and civil rights by dredging up known lies and falsehoods against a minority group.
The statements in the DOJ brief were no less false or damaging - the only difference is the group targeted.
Most major news outlets wouldn't let a similar slur against an American minority group (racial or religious) pass without comment, nor should it be excused, tolerated, or ignored when the GLBT community is attacked.
Furthermore, I'm surprised that no one has yet pointed out that the statements in the DOJ brief are not dissimilar to using the canards of "Blood Libel" and Jews as "Christ killers" to deny basic human and civil rights by dredging up known lies and falsehoods against a minority group.
The statements in the DOJ brief were no less false or damaging - the only difference is the group targeted.
Most major news outlets wouldn't let a similar slur against an American minority group (racial or religious) pass without comment, nor should it be excused, tolerated, or ignored when the GLBT community is attacked.
20
19
The brief reminds of Dan's various "Watches".
The targets are different but the inflamatory over the top rhetoric identical.
The brief reminds of Dan's various "Watches".
The targets are different but the inflamatory over the top rhetoric identical.
21
Dan, these people you're quoting are making contradictory arguments. You're also totally cherry picking their arguments to make them look like they agree with you.
Davidson & Carpenter are both saying the DOJ had to defend the law but could have done it in a more limited, less inflammatory way that would get the case dismissed at the district level so it didn't mess with the more substantive constitutional case. I think that's a fair criticism, but it has no resemblance to the cries of betrayal coming from Aravosis. Socarides is saying the DOJ didn't have to defend the law. That's totally different.
Carpenter also says: "My point here is not to claim that the DOJ's arguments are anti-gay, homophobic, or even wrong. Much of the brief seems right to me, or at least entirely defensible, as a matter of constitutional law. "
Davidson & Carpenter are both saying the DOJ had to defend the law but could have done it in a more limited, less inflammatory way that would get the case dismissed at the district level so it didn't mess with the more substantive constitutional case. I think that's a fair criticism, but it has no resemblance to the cries of betrayal coming from Aravosis. Socarides is saying the DOJ didn't have to defend the law. That's totally different.
Carpenter also says: "My point here is not to claim that the DOJ's arguments are anti-gay, homophobic, or even wrong. Much of the brief seems right to me, or at least entirely defensible, as a matter of constitutional law. "
22
Good god man stop arguing down in the weeds.
You don't defend fucking DOMA because it's fucking wrong and inequal and denies even recognition of Vt. marriage i Fl. and good god if the man can't uphold human dignity of gay people he's fucking you !!!!!!
Get out on the streets already like they are doing in Iran.
You don't defend fucking DOMA because it's fucking wrong and inequal and denies even recognition of Vt. marriage i Fl. and good god if the man can't uphold human dignity of gay people he's fucking you !!!!!!
Get out on the streets already like they are doing in Iran.
23
@6: IANAL, but my mother is a Constitutional Law Professor, and I asked her about this issue. She said that, while a general policy of failing to defend any law with which the president disagrees would be iffy, choosing not to defend the occasional objectionable law (even if it may be Constitutional) is well within the DoJ's discretion. Importantly, this does *not* constitute a de facto veto because, unlike in most lawsuits, when a law is challenged, the government's failure to defend that law does *not* mean that it is automatically overturned - rather, the court will listen to arguments from the plaintiffs and possibly arguments for the defense from someone other than the government (any law that has any degree of popular support is going to have amicus briefs filed in defense of it), and then rule. Obviously, the law is more likely to be overturned if the government does not defend it, but overturning is by no means guaranteed.
24
Loveschild @ 13,
Wow, that's rich. Aren't you the same person who donated to help make petitions to put Ref. 71 on the WA state ballot: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/achives/… ? Isn't Ref. 71 about stripping Domestic Partnership benefits from gays and lesbians? Wow! You sure know how to be supportive. Enjoying your faux martyrship?
Wow, that's rich. Aren't you the same person who donated to help make petitions to put Ref. 71 on the WA state ballot: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/achives/… ? Isn't Ref. 71 about stripping Domestic Partnership benefits from gays and lesbians? Wow! You sure know how to be supportive. Enjoying your faux martyrship?
26
24, Which just goes to show that we can't settle for anything less than full rights and equality. If gay people were to suddenly to take the position that civil unions were okay, then folks like Loveschild would fight to ban that.
27
24 You have repeatedly accused me of only wanting to read what I want to, but that's precisely what you do. I clearly stated that I'm against Ref 71 but that I was appalled by the undemocratic, Nazi like, intimidatory tactics, threats of publicizing names, addresses and such targeted at those who want to sign the petition. This is america and the rights of the citizens when it comes to votes and how do we want our society to be modelled after needs to be respected. Our liberty is at risk once we the people start conceding that to any group be it homosexual or of any other persuasion.
28
@10, all of us here on the Slog are trying very, very hard to avoid the use of the word "retard." Your rhetoric and credibility will doubtless be helped IMMEASURABLY by likewise eschewing that word.
29
And yes, that's why I have donated to protect marriage Washington, just as I believe many others who support domestic partnerships but don't like the bullying being done by some.
30
28
Because all of us here on Slog are very sensitive about what mega-RETARDS we are. That plus being jiggly disgustingly fat.
Because all of us here on Slog are very sensitive about what mega-RETARDS we are. That plus being jiggly disgustingly fat.
31
My anger at the BHO administration is forcing me to put my flame disabled pajamas on and go to bed for the next 4 years...
34
Anger can be productive. I think there are great reasons to be angry at BHO. I just don't think a brief written by some mid-level DoJ staffers is a good reason at all.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/13/…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/13/…
36
Maybe Obama is making the mistaken assumption that he will somehow make the right wing like him. They hate you Mr. President. Start listening to your base.
37
Meanwhile 100 million Americans have ZERO health insurance.
None.
Nada.
Nil.
And don't get me started on how many people don't have jobs.
None.
Nada.
Nil.
And don't get me started on how many people don't have jobs.
38
@ 27,
Your defense is hollow. In the state of Washington once signature petitions for initiatives and refrenda are submitted and verified by the Secretary of State they are public record. This isn't a Nazi and bullying tactic its public record. If people don't want to give an answer than they are free not to sign, because any person's address can be found by using their name, zipcode, and whitepages.com. One should expect to give a reason for signing a petition, and if this makes them uncomfortable they have two options: a) Don't sign any. b) Work to change the law that makes petition signatures public record.
You do know you gave your money to an organization founded and run by an Oregonian, an Oregonian who doesn't pay his taxes? Perhaps your kind donation can help him with his problems with the IRS?
Your defense is hollow. In the state of Washington once signature petitions for initiatives and refrenda are submitted and verified by the Secretary of State they are public record. This isn't a Nazi and bullying tactic its public record. If people don't want to give an answer than they are free not to sign, because any person's address can be found by using their name, zipcode, and whitepages.com. One should expect to give a reason for signing a petition, and if this makes them uncomfortable they have two options: a) Don't sign any. b) Work to change the law that makes petition signatures public record.
You do know you gave your money to an organization founded and run by an Oregonian, an Oregonian who doesn't pay his taxes? Perhaps your kind donation can help him with his problems with the IRS?
39
And in Will's world, all of those without insurance and jobs are straight and we need to protect all straight people now. We must not help gay or lesbian people because ... they are not straight and don't suffer from job losses or lack insurance. Only straight people experience those issues.
To clarify my remarks: Will's point is a stupid and reactionary response to the demand for equality that gay and lesbian citizens in this country insist upon.
To clarify my remarks: Will's point is a stupid and reactionary response to the demand for equality that gay and lesbian citizens in this country insist upon.
40
Dan's point seems to be that it's not just gay bloggers are also outraged over this issue. To prove this, he points to:
Dale Carpenter (openly gay man, posting on the blog The Volokh Conspiracy),
Richard Socarides (openly gay man, posting on the blog AmericaBlog),
and Jon Davidson (openly gay man, no citation for his words)
By my count, in an effort to disprove the idea that only gay bloggers are outraged, he points to two gay bloggers and one gay man who might or might not blog.
Dale Carpenter (openly gay man, posting on the blog The Volokh Conspiracy),
Richard Socarides (openly gay man, posting on the blog AmericaBlog),
and Jon Davidson (openly gay man, no citation for his words)
By my count, in an effort to disprove the idea that only gay bloggers are outraged, he points to two gay bloggers and one gay man who might or might not blog.
41
@37 to DEH @ 39's point -- legalizing gay marriage would do a hell of a lot to help the recently unemployed gays who would be eligible to buy into their partners' insurance if they were straight. This would help these people quickly instead of waiting for a complete overhaul of the system.
Like I said in another thread, I think this language of scarcity is disingenuous -- can the administration really only do one thing at a time? Could not one single spokesperson come out and make a vaguely queer-friendly statement and let us know that despite signs to the contrary, they really are on our side?
Now that Iran's exploding, I'm sure that'll be used as a justification too. There will always be another crisis. At what point does that stop being a good excuse?
Like I said in another thread, I think this language of scarcity is disingenuous -- can the administration really only do one thing at a time? Could not one single spokesperson come out and make a vaguely queer-friendly statement and let us know that despite signs to the contrary, they really are on our side?
Now that Iran's exploding, I'm sure that'll be used as a justification too. There will always be another crisis. At what point does that stop being a good excuse?
42
38 "If people don't want to give an answer than they are free not to sign"
If you believe that threatening to use records of any kind to keep people from engaging in the political process is not a Nazi tactic then I dread to know what else are you willing to condone.t Intimidation as shown by your statement is precisely what people like you want and that is un democratic and goes against everything this nation stands for. I doubt that when that disclosure law was enacted they intended it to be used for the type of intimidation like you are defending.
And for the record Mr Stickney is not an Oregonian like you, he's a resident of Washington state.
If you believe that threatening to use records of any kind to keep people from engaging in the political process is not a Nazi tactic then I dread to know what else are you willing to condone.t Intimidation as shown by your statement is precisely what people like you want and that is un democratic and goes against everything this nation stands for. I doubt that when that disclosure law was enacted they intended it to be used for the type of intimidation like you are defending.
And for the record Mr Stickney is not an Oregonian like you, he's a resident of Washington state.
43
Of course one must give an address on a petition: shocking as it may seem, people do tell lies. Gasp! And, were the names not public information, who would verify that the deck hadn't been stacked? Or are we to assume anti gay marriage people are above telling porkies?????
Separate but equal is not equal - LC, as African American you should know that better than anyone. And I keep pointing out that, while Canada is FAR from perfect, the sky hasn't fallen in since gay marriage was legalized there. And gee, government expenditures did not go up after it was legalized in Canada!
Separate but equal is not equal - LC, as African American you should know that better than anyone. And I keep pointing out that, while Canada is FAR from perfect, the sky hasn't fallen in since gay marriage was legalized there. And gee, government expenditures did not go up after it was legalized in Canada!
44
At least government expenditures did not increase in Canada because of gay marriage.
And don't gay people pay taxes and deserve equal treatment under the law?
And don't gay people pay taxes and deserve equal treatment under the law?
45
@42
If people want to treat gay people like second class citizens they should have the courage of their convictions. If they're gonna hate me, they should have the balls to do it in the open, not whine and hide.
If people want to treat gay people like second class citizens they should have the courage of their convictions. If they're gonna hate me, they should have the balls to do it in the open, not whine and hide.
47
Loveschild - so you don't like it that transparency is required in political donations? I suppose we should ban "operation rescue" and other anti-choice groups that post personal information that leads to the assassination of doctors?
Double standards are your people's bread and butter. You and Sarah Palin - two peas in the same pod.
Double standards are your people's bread and butter. You and Sarah Palin - two peas in the same pod.
48
43 No it's not. Nobody is keeping them from participating from the american system of governance. They live in a free society and are free to reap the benefits from it, unlike African Americans were, nor are they dredging a visit by the secret police, like many are at this moment in Iran. Theo, don't join the petulant chorus that some here have formed in insulting the African American experience and all other legitimate freedom movements. Your comments are always reasonable and well thought out, so I urge you to think further before commenting such things.
49
46 Not in the way that you want to use them, to hurt, intimidate and have people decide between their personal security and expressing their views.
You wouldn't like it if it were being done to you. And these type of tactics have the potential for being used against everyone. These people are not the Westboro circus, they're not coming to where you are, picketing you, they just want to have the option to engage in a free democratic process, without fear.
47 You're not seeking "transparency" you're threatening to intimidate people and that's wrong. I'm done.
You wouldn't like it if it were being done to you. And these type of tactics have the potential for being used against everyone. These people are not the Westboro circus, they're not coming to where you are, picketing you, they just want to have the option to engage in a free democratic process, without fear.
47 You're not seeking "transparency" you're threatening to intimidate people and that's wrong. I'm done.
50
Yes, they are free not to sign, because they should understand that their signature and address are part of the public record.
I never said anything about intimidation using it as a political tool or defending it being used as a political tool, you want to read that (as always), I said that it was the law that permitted the public to view the addresses of the signers. And, as the law that means their addresses are available to be viewed by the public, it would be prudent to keep that in mind whenever one chooses to sign an initiative. I don't support the use of intimidation tactics.
And for the record Mr. Randall, founder of the Faith and Freedom Network and PAC, who has been collecting money since Feb. 09, is a resident of Oregon. Mr. Randall is the fundraiser.
Nice try, trying to make me out to be the villain here. As usual you made your own bed, your "support" is viewed with a grain of salt by some, and utter disbelief by others, you did it to yourself. Your "I'm being picked upon because I believe gays aren't worth full equal rights under the laws of this country, but I'm really your supporter because I'm pro Domestic Partnership and Civil Unions, although I think your the gay mafia for using the legislative branch or the judicial in our Republic to achieve that Domestic Partnership or any civil rights, and the gays who want to access legal public records in the state of Washington to determine which zip codes contain the greatest numbers of individuals who are against Domestic Partnerships so that they can address that communities concerns in an open dialogue are a bunch of Nazis, and I helped pay for a petition to strip WA residents of their Domestic Partnerhips which as scare tactic printed lies in bold and aren't part of the actual Domestic Partnership bill (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…) signed by the Govenor of WA, but remember I support Domestic Partneships and Civil Unions, so you should be grateful for my support because I'm the majority, and as the majority I have the power to strip gays of civil rights, eventhough I said I won't.", grows old, tiresome, and more offensive with each day.
More...
I never said anything about intimidation using it as a political tool or defending it being used as a political tool, you want to read that (as always), I said that it was the law that permitted the public to view the addresses of the signers. And, as the law that means their addresses are available to be viewed by the public, it would be prudent to keep that in mind whenever one chooses to sign an initiative. I don't support the use of intimidation tactics.
And for the record Mr. Randall, founder of the Faith and Freedom Network and PAC, who has been collecting money since Feb. 09, is a resident of Oregon. Mr. Randall is the fundraiser.
Nice try, trying to make me out to be the villain here. As usual you made your own bed, your "support" is viewed with a grain of salt by some, and utter disbelief by others, you did it to yourself. Your "I'm being picked upon because I believe gays aren't worth full equal rights under the laws of this country, but I'm really your supporter because I'm pro Domestic Partnership and Civil Unions, although I think your the gay mafia for using the legislative branch or the judicial in our Republic to achieve that Domestic Partnership or any civil rights, and the gays who want to access legal public records in the state of Washington to determine which zip codes contain the greatest numbers of individuals who are against Domestic Partnerships so that they can address that communities concerns in an open dialogue are a bunch of Nazis, and I helped pay for a petition to strip WA residents of their Domestic Partnerhips which as scare tactic printed lies in bold and aren't part of the actual Domestic Partnership bill (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…) signed by the Govenor of WA, but remember I support Domestic Partneships and Civil Unions, so you should be grateful for my support because I'm the majority, and as the majority I have the power to strip gays of civil rights, eventhough I said I won't.", grows old, tiresome, and more offensive with each day.
51
And, come to think of it, if government expenditures WERE to increase due to gay marriage, why would that be a valid argument for denying justice to gay people? Money trumps justice?????? Does anyone want to argue that?
And gay people in America don't reap the benefits of living in a free society!!!!! They are excluded from certain rights because of who they are.
And gay people in America don't reap the benefits of living in a free society!!!!! They are excluded from certain rights because of who they are.
52
Loveschild- Does a white person (the majority of Americans) have the ability to strip African-Americans of their civil rights? Should they do so just because they can?
53
49, Who has threatened anyone? Petitions are public records. If you sign one, people can use the data in any legal way they see fit. Publishing the data on a website is a legal use of public records. If I sign a petition, I accept that, and it wouldn't stop me from signing. I'm not ashamed of my beliefs.
54
@ 48,
Thanks Loveschild, I can stop trying to understand you, and I'm exceedingly grateful for it. You finally answered clearly. To you the struggle of gay Americans to be seen, treated, and protected equally under the laws of this country is not legitimate, that their's isn't a legitimate freedom movement in your eyes. Finally, I get it. I'm sorry for you, sorry that your prejudices are such that you refuse to acknowledge that separate treatment is immoral and it can never be equal. And, I can now get why you believe your being so magnanimous in supporting Deomestic Partnerships and Civil Unions and hate crime legislation. I hope your views change someday.
Best wishes on your life's journey.
Thanks Loveschild, I can stop trying to understand you, and I'm exceedingly grateful for it. You finally answered clearly. To you the struggle of gay Americans to be seen, treated, and protected equally under the laws of this country is not legitimate, that their's isn't a legitimate freedom movement in your eyes. Finally, I get it. I'm sorry for you, sorry that your prejudices are such that you refuse to acknowledge that separate treatment is immoral and it can never be equal. And, I can now get why you believe your being so magnanimous in supporting Deomestic Partnerships and Civil Unions and hate crime legislation. I hope your views change someday.
Best wishes on your life's journey.
55
good afternoon kim and everyone, yes even Loveschild
I am all screamed out and I don't think I have another cuss word left after this weekend!
I am all screamed out and I don't think I have another cuss word left after this weekend!
56
40 - you're wrong. Dan's point was that his critics were saying only hysterical, get-mad-about-everything gay bloggers were pissed about this DOMA brief. So Dan provided links to gay bloggers who are basically considered more cool, calm and collected and don't get angry over every little slight as (supposedly) Dan does.
Dan made that pretty clear if you read the post.
Dan made that pretty clear if you read the post.
57
@ 54 - YES. That's the long & short of it - she hates gay people, for various reasons, so as far as she's concerned, we're entitled to nothing. No rights, no protections under the law, nothing. And then she wants to throw "civil rights" in our face. As far as her support for "domestic partnerships" goes, you can bet that's a crock of shit, too. I'm sure she'll eventually find some rationale to not support that, as well.
As for the "Nazi" complaint, it just goes to show how woefully ignorant she is of actual history. People who can't wait to call other people Nazis whom they have political disputes with demonstrate that they have no idea what that term means or signifies. Not that that's too surprising - she's clearly an idiot.
As for the "Nazi" complaint, it just goes to show how woefully ignorant she is of actual history. People who can't wait to call other people Nazis whom they have political disputes with demonstrate that they have no idea what that term means or signifies. Not that that's too surprising - she's clearly an idiot.
59
Hi Jason,
You are one of many that I wanted to meet at Slog Happy last week. Perhaps, we'll meet another time.
You are one of many that I wanted to meet at Slog Happy last week. Perhaps, we'll meet another time.
60
@ 59 - I didn't realize you'd be there. Damn, I should have gone! I'd love to meet you. OK, next time for sure.
Cheers!
Cheers!
61
@ 60,
Next time for me is a good six to nine months from now. Sad, but true, my calendar is already booked.
Take care.
Next time for me is a good six to nine months from now. Sad, but true, my calendar is already booked.
Take care.
62
Loveschild you are done? Is that a promise? Can we hold you to it?
You are 100 percent right. If you arent with us, you are against us. You, and the others who call us whiny pussies or tell us to get to the back of the bus because our civil rights arent as important as other things happening in the country, clearly have no idea what it means to be discriminated against.
You either believe that I have a right to the the same tax benefits as heterosexuals, or you dont. You either believe that I have a right to protect my family or you dont. You either believe that I have a right to adopt a child or you dont. As we watch Obama throw us under the bus, it's clear we cannot accept liberal guilt as a substitute for real action.
I will scream, yell, bully, vote, march, and fight for my civil rights. And that means people like you, Loveschild, are right in my crosshairs. I have fought and bled for the right to be considered a decent human being. My friends have been beaten and raped for daring to stand up to people like you who consider us subhuman. We will not be silent because other people feel like my right to fight for my country isn't as important as healthcare. The recession will not be used as an excuse to try keep me down. You, Loveschild, and the hateful people like you will be defeated.
You are 100 percent right. If you arent with us, you are against us. You, and the others who call us whiny pussies or tell us to get to the back of the bus because our civil rights arent as important as other things happening in the country, clearly have no idea what it means to be discriminated against.
You either believe that I have a right to the the same tax benefits as heterosexuals, or you dont. You either believe that I have a right to protect my family or you dont. You either believe that I have a right to adopt a child or you dont. As we watch Obama throw us under the bus, it's clear we cannot accept liberal guilt as a substitute for real action.
I will scream, yell, bully, vote, march, and fight for my civil rights. And that means people like you, Loveschild, are right in my crosshairs. I have fought and bled for the right to be considered a decent human being. My friends have been beaten and raped for daring to stand up to people like you who consider us subhuman. We will not be silent because other people feel like my right to fight for my country isn't as important as healthcare. The recession will not be used as an excuse to try keep me down. You, Loveschild, and the hateful people like you will be defeated.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (63) RSS