Slog
News & ArtsMonday, June 22, 2009
Politics / Homo Queer Quisling
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:08 PM
With "leaders" like this...
When the White House needs a token homosexual to give them political cover for stabbing gay Americans in the back, there's one name apparently at the top of their list. Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council.Ms. Chrisler has confirmed to the New York Times that she is proudly going to the hastily arranged White House cocktail bash next week, organized after the community over Obama's Justice Department comparing us to incest and pedophilia.
Chrisler has said that she isn't "satisfied" with the limited benefits the Obama administration recently extended to gay federal employees—benefits that excluded health insurance—but she's nevertheless showing up at the White House's Big Gay Cocktail Party for gay "leaders" like Chrisler, i.e. gay "leaders" who won't make waves, gay leaders who invariably place a higher value on access (for themselves) over results (for average gays and lesbians), gay "leaders" who allow themselves to be used as political cover—queer human shields—for a White House that just compared gay marriage to incest and child rape. Pathetic.
Not satisfied with the White House, Ms. Chrisler? Don't allow the White House to use you like this.
1
Dan, my only hope is, that any gay or lesbian attending this big shindig will use the opportunity to hammer at this administration for its blatant disregard of gay issues.
If it were me, I'd go just to "make waves" and demand the answers I wanted, straight from the horse's mouth. But that's just me.
If it were me, I'd go just to "make waves" and demand the answers I wanted, straight from the horse's mouth. But that's just me.
2
I'm agreeing with Frau Blucher @ 1, about "making waves" and demanding answers.
Another question. Is Obama even going to be there?
Another question. Is Obama even going to be there?
3
Wow, I didn't realize that the DADT and DOMA repeals had all the votes lined up to go in the House and Senate and all we had to do now is pressure Obama to sign the legislation.
Because he's obviously the stumbling block here, right?
I mean, it couldn't possibly be the House and Senate because I never hear gay groups criticizing their beloved reps.
Because he's obviously the stumbling block here, right?
I mean, it couldn't possibly be the House and Senate because I never hear gay groups criticizing their beloved reps.
4
Also, claiming that Obama "compared gays to incest and pedophilia" is the mark of someone who isn't credible.
5
Quisling! Exactly. Exactly the correct word to use, because the Obama Administration is exactly the same as the Third Reich occupation of Europe in 1942.
The whole reason Obama hasn't eliminated DADT is not enough gay activists are saying Barack Obama is Adolph Hitler. Literally.
The whole reason Obama hasn't eliminated DADT is not enough gay activists are saying Barack Obama is Adolph Hitler. Literally.
6
What good is Jim "My seat is safely Democratic" McDermott to us if he doesn't have the balls to introduce the repeal legislation and start lining up votes? I guess he's too tuckered out from all the heavy lifting for the Rainier Club earmarks....
8
Can't you find someone more credible and less drama queeny to link to than John Aravosis? His writing style is like a college freshman who just discovered politics.
His site is like a cult. If you dare say anything even remotely negative to any of the regulars, you get bounced out of there. It's like a Free Republic for overwrought homos.
His site is like a cult. If you dare say anything even remotely negative to any of the regulars, you get bounced out of there. It's like a Free Republic for overwrought homos.
10
So the gay community finally wants to Sistah Souljah a sitting president because they are tried of token handouts? Wow. Glad it took the scary black man to make the gays finally grow some balls.
Jesus Christ. For eight fucking years I had to listen to rich white gays make excuses for Clinton (you know, the one who ACTUALLY SIGNED anti-gay DOMA) with oh-so clever responses like "he got nookie in the White House, you know he's REALLY with us!" and "Hillary is fierce, girl!". But, hey, a measured cautious BLACK MAN doesn't even get FIVE MONTHS before he is a betrayer!
I get it, we're fed up. However, I think there is going to be a bittersweet tone to this when all is said and done. I mean, it's not like repeal of DOMA or DADT is waiting on HIS signature. A year is too long to give someone? We don't have that universal health care yet either. But hey, white man Clinton gets 8 years and is still worshipped. The black man? He gets 5 months.
Just asking, because I don't know, did Clinton hold Stonewall events at the White House?
Jesus Christ. For eight fucking years I had to listen to rich white gays make excuses for Clinton (you know, the one who ACTUALLY SIGNED anti-gay DOMA) with oh-so clever responses like "he got nookie in the White House, you know he's REALLY with us!" and "Hillary is fierce, girl!". But, hey, a measured cautious BLACK MAN doesn't even get FIVE MONTHS before he is a betrayer!
I get it, we're fed up. However, I think there is going to be a bittersweet tone to this when all is said and done. I mean, it's not like repeal of DOMA or DADT is waiting on HIS signature. A year is too long to give someone? We don't have that universal health care yet either. But hey, white man Clinton gets 8 years and is still worshipped. The black man? He gets 5 months.
Just asking, because I don't know, did Clinton hold Stonewall events at the White House?
11
Remember that there were some nasty words thrown around when the interracial marriage movement was being brought to the forefront…not much consolation, but “Just Breath” – ‘In the Heights’
12
Perez Hilton is on tape calling Obama a faggot before Michelle hit him. TMZ has the footage, when will Slog post it?
13
Damn, still bitchin' about this. Still don't know why the administration would want to organize anything for a group that refuses to give him any props on the things he does for them. I say to the white house, just skip it, there's more fish in the ocean that will be more appreciative of the President's accomplishments so far.
14
Right on, Dan. I still think Obama will man up and do the right thing, but it's the blank-check mentality of ascribing "good" intentions to one party and "bad" intentions to the other that gives politicians license to ignore inconvenient people. Like you two-kids-and-a-Subaru radical homos who wanna make legal commitments in front of god and family. Subversives!
15
I don't suppose it's occurred to any of you geniuses that the only reason Obama has even scheduled this event in the first place is because HE'S FEELING THE HEAT and hopes to use this to dial down the burners a little.
I think the boycott of the Dem fundraiser is a perfectly appropriate tactic, but at the same time, I personally think the GLBT community should show up en masse for this photo op - it's called using the "carrot and the stick" approach - and, as someone suggested in one of the earlier threads, bring a vet who's been discharged under DADT as their date. Drive the fucking point HOME.
Because, if history has proven anything, it's that, as a general rule, constituency groups only get a seat at the big table when they either spend huge sums of money, or raise bloody hell, and in this instance the GLBT community is in a position to leverage both; the White House - and more importantly the Democratic Party Central Committee - knows it, and you guys would be, frankly, stupid to not take advantage of it.
I think the boycott of the Dem fundraiser is a perfectly appropriate tactic, but at the same time, I personally think the GLBT community should show up en masse for this photo op - it's called using the "carrot and the stick" approach - and, as someone suggested in one of the earlier threads, bring a vet who's been discharged under DADT as their date. Drive the fucking point HOME.
Because, if history has proven anything, it's that, as a general rule, constituency groups only get a seat at the big table when they either spend huge sums of money, or raise bloody hell, and in this instance the GLBT community is in a position to leverage both; the White House - and more importantly the Democratic Party Central Committee - knows it, and you guys would be, frankly, stupid to not take advantage of it.
16
god forbid someone use a different tactic than you, dan. it obviously makes them the gay equivalent of an uncle tom if they accept an invitation to talk to someone with whom they disagree.
17
Yeah, I think this logic of "any activist who uses a different tactic than me is my enemy" is very misguided.
A multiplicity of tactics simultaneously is how shit gets done.
A multiplicity of tactics simultaneously is how shit gets done.
18
Also, you don't really think two sixteen year olds getting married is pedophilia, do you dan?
I guess that's the difference between truth and truthiness.
I guess that's the difference between truth and truthiness.
19
Loveschild, what are the things "he does for them"? Oh yeah, he's almost making them first class citizens like him, but not quit. Right. When a group of citizens are treated second class, but yet must pay first class prices, they get sort of mad after a time. Just sayin...
20
The mainstream gay rights groups (FEC, HRC, etc.) are all run by opportunistic sell-outs who are only interested in rubbing elbows with politicians on the Hill.
The Democrats love to talk a big game about gay rights come election time, but as soon as they're in office the LGBT community gets the door slammed in their faces and are told to take a number.
Anybody can give a good speech. Anybody can make a promise. There's no courage required to tell people what they want to hear. Real courage means actually following through on your commitments and living up to your end of the deal.
Washington belongs to the Democrats right now. They have the White House and both houses of Congress. If they can't pass gay rights legislation now then they never will.
The LGBT community hasn't gotten a thing from the Democrats, and so the Democrats should now expect the same in return. No money. No volunteer hours. No votes. It's long overdue that this bullshit came to an end.
The Democrats love to talk a big game about gay rights come election time, but as soon as they're in office the LGBT community gets the door slammed in their faces and are told to take a number.
Anybody can give a good speech. Anybody can make a promise. There's no courage required to tell people what they want to hear. Real courage means actually following through on your commitments and living up to your end of the deal.
Washington belongs to the Democrats right now. They have the White House and both houses of Congress. If they can't pass gay rights legislation now then they never will.
The LGBT community hasn't gotten a thing from the Democrats, and so the Democrats should now expect the same in return. No money. No volunteer hours. No votes. It's long overdue that this bullshit came to an end.
22
Two things.
1. Obama didn't personally write that DOMA brief, and probably didn't even see it.
2. A lot of people keep using inflammatory comments about incest and pedophilia. The court rulings sought to uphold a state's right to not recognise marriages that are legal in another state. Just as polygamy is not universally recognised, neither is cosanguinity (the case against an Italian married to a niece), nor is the age of consent equal in all states (hence the 16 year old who married in one state and sought recognition in another). Your use of the language implies an intolerance of what other people hold to be legal relationships, all the while demanding something they are denied! The brief does NOT say that our same-sex relationships are equivalent to incest or pedophilia, but that the government has consistently refused to foist one state's values on another state. If you'd read the brief, you might recognize that these are cases which uphold a state's rights against the federal government (one of the founding principles of this great nation) which is a fundamentally good thing.
I want equal rights under the law in all states and on my federal tax return, but I don't think stamping our feet and accusing the Obama's office of saying things they didn't say nor even imply is the way to do it. Nor is calling other countries' or states' laws and customs 'incest' and 'pedophilia'. Dan, I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: I've agreed with you over the past 15 years or so, but you're wrong on this. Save your anger!
1. Obama didn't personally write that DOMA brief, and probably didn't even see it.
2. A lot of people keep using inflammatory comments about incest and pedophilia. The court rulings sought to uphold a state's right to not recognise marriages that are legal in another state. Just as polygamy is not universally recognised, neither is cosanguinity (the case against an Italian married to a niece), nor is the age of consent equal in all states (hence the 16 year old who married in one state and sought recognition in another). Your use of the language implies an intolerance of what other people hold to be legal relationships, all the while demanding something they are denied! The brief does NOT say that our same-sex relationships are equivalent to incest or pedophilia, but that the government has consistently refused to foist one state's values on another state. If you'd read the brief, you might recognize that these are cases which uphold a state's rights against the federal government (one of the founding principles of this great nation) which is a fundamentally good thing.
I want equal rights under the law in all states and on my federal tax return, but I don't think stamping our feet and accusing the Obama's office of saying things they didn't say nor even imply is the way to do it. Nor is calling other countries' or states' laws and customs 'incest' and 'pedophilia'. Dan, I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: I've agreed with you over the past 15 years or so, but you're wrong on this. Save your anger!
23
Quisling.
Because obviously Obama is Hitler.
And the Democrats are Nazis.
And Dan is the brave Norwegian Resistance fighter putting his LIFE on the line every day for the "cause"...
what a pompous pile of shit
Because obviously Obama is Hitler.
And the Democrats are Nazis.
And Dan is the brave Norwegian Resistance fighter putting his LIFE on the line every day for the "cause"...
what a pompous pile of shit
24
wow
Obviously Chrisler didn't get the
"All Gays in America
Must Clear Their Actions
With Dan Before-hand" memo...
Obviously Chrisler didn't get the
"All Gays in America
Must Clear Their Actions
With Dan Before-hand" memo...
25
#22: So true about the state department DOMA brief. I read the actual thing and NOT cherry-picked pits of in intermingled amongst angry blogs and was not offended. It was a legal cases and precedents. In fact, I came away enlightened and pleased I had read it. We are up against more legal precedent that supports DOMA than I has thought originally when I felt the "states' rights" argument was going to be one the PRO-gay, anti-DOMA side could use pretty freely.
You know I actually LIKE having a president that is a big constitutional scholar nerd. I would expect nothing else than to have the every legal angle to DOMA examined. I don't want a left version of George Bush who will make my side feel good but just talk a bunch of empty rhetoric. He called for that Constitutional ban on gay marriage knowing full well it was impossible, but wanting to make the anti-gay bigots happy.
DADT: Another story...good for Jim McDermott. Obama does have the power to use his executive privledge to not enforce the firings and make the Congress tackle this. He still needs Congress, and again, I like having a president who seems to realize that there are three branches of government.
You know I actually LIKE having a president that is a big constitutional scholar nerd. I would expect nothing else than to have the every legal angle to DOMA examined. I don't want a left version of George Bush who will make my side feel good but just talk a bunch of empty rhetoric. He called for that Constitutional ban on gay marriage knowing full well it was impossible, but wanting to make the anti-gay bigots happy.
DADT: Another story...good for Jim McDermott. Obama does have the power to use his executive privledge to not enforce the firings and make the Congress tackle this. He still needs Congress, and again, I like having a president who seems to realize that there are three branches of government.
27
"comparing us to incest and pedophilia"
Anyone who says or links to this phrase
either
is helplessly stupid and unable to understand
or
willfully misstating the facts to mislead and inflame opinion.
Dan,
are you stupid or a demagogue?
Anyone who says or links to this phrase
either
is helplessly stupid and unable to understand
or
willfully misstating the facts to mislead and inflame opinion.
Dan,
are you stupid or a demagogue?
28
I honestly feel that those hammering on Dan are completely missing his point.
I think, but could be wrong, that Dan's message is in questioning President Obama's integrity. It takes integrity to stand up for what is "right," even in the face of being unpopular. Repealing DADT/DOMA is the "right" thing to do, yet we all know it will prove to be highly unpopular with some Americans. However, those "some" Americans already dislike President Obama, to begin with. I mean, come on. We can all imagine the Limbaughs of the world using such an action to rally their minions to almost, if not, civil unrest and disobedience. I have no doubt that will happen.
When we all threw our support for President Obama, a great deal of that was based on what we perceived to be his level of "integrity." President Obama appeared to be the kind of leader that had the integrity we all were looking for, in a President. A man that would do the "right" thing, even in the face of opposition that was based on ignorance, or might prove to be unpopular. His speeches rang with a belief that "right is right," and it was time leadership of this country uphold that philosophy.
My personal belief is, the anger about President Obama's actions (or rather, inaction's) are more based on how he portrayed himself to be: A man of high integrity. A man that would do the "right" thing, not the "popular" thing. Therefore, his inaction is disappointing to those of us that truly wanted to "believe" in this new form of leadership.
There are those that will state, "oh surprise, you gullible fool. A politician acting like a politician." But that wont stop me from hoping that one day, there will be a politician that has the integrity that I desire in my public officials. I even hope that it is not too late for President Obama to change my "new" opinion of his level of integrity. Time will only tell.
More...
I think, but could be wrong, that Dan's message is in questioning President Obama's integrity. It takes integrity to stand up for what is "right," even in the face of being unpopular. Repealing DADT/DOMA is the "right" thing to do, yet we all know it will prove to be highly unpopular with some Americans. However, those "some" Americans already dislike President Obama, to begin with. I mean, come on. We can all imagine the Limbaughs of the world using such an action to rally their minions to almost, if not, civil unrest and disobedience. I have no doubt that will happen.
When we all threw our support for President Obama, a great deal of that was based on what we perceived to be his level of "integrity." President Obama appeared to be the kind of leader that had the integrity we all were looking for, in a President. A man that would do the "right" thing, even in the face of opposition that was based on ignorance, or might prove to be unpopular. His speeches rang with a belief that "right is right," and it was time leadership of this country uphold that philosophy.
My personal belief is, the anger about President Obama's actions (or rather, inaction's) are more based on how he portrayed himself to be: A man of high integrity. A man that would do the "right" thing, not the "popular" thing. Therefore, his inaction is disappointing to those of us that truly wanted to "believe" in this new form of leadership.
There are those that will state, "oh surprise, you gullible fool. A politician acting like a politician." But that wont stop me from hoping that one day, there will be a politician that has the integrity that I desire in my public officials. I even hope that it is not too late for President Obama to change my "new" opinion of his level of integrity. Time will only tell.
29
It's always great to see folks like #10 pulling the old "rich white gays" rabbit out of a hat. Like that trick takes the wind out of our sails anymore.
Try the using the white guilt thing on the grad students down at the co-op. It's ringing hollow on us.
Please now reply with boiler-plate comments about racism and the importance of community outreach.
Try the using the white guilt thing on the grad students down at the co-op. It's ringing hollow on us.
Please now reply with boiler-plate comments about racism and the importance of community outreach.
30
Dan, unbunch your undies and tone down the rhetoric before you end up licking a doorknob and making an ass of yourself.
31
The truth is:
The DOMA brief basically says:
- States are allowed to refuse recognition of all kinds of marriages that are legal in other states (i.e. marriages between first cousins) or countries (i.e. uncle and niece). So why should all states have to recognize same sex marriages if they don't want to?
[Good point. States probably are not obligated to recognize same-sex marriage if they choose not to. This is where all that incest and pedophilia stuff comes from].
- The Federal government shouldn't have to recognize gay marriage because, heck, gay guys can choose to marry a woman just like any straight guy. It's the same deal with lesbians. So they have the same opportunities as everyone else, and therefore aren't being discriminated against..
[This is where it all falls flat. While the government may allow certain states to refuse to recognize other marriages, the Federal Government recognizes ALL of them, no matter how "icky." And the idea that because gay people are free to marry people of the opposite sex and therefore aren't discriminated against by DOMA is just idiotic. Let's say I pass a law banning reading of the New Testament. Can I legitimately say that the law doesn't discriminate against Christians since the law forbids atheists and Hindus and X from reading the New Testament? No, because everyone knows that Christians are more interested in the New Testament than any other group. Such a law clearly affects Christians much more than anyone else, and as such is discriminatory.
The DOMA brief basically says:
- States are allowed to refuse recognition of all kinds of marriages that are legal in other states (i.e. marriages between first cousins) or countries (i.e. uncle and niece). So why should all states have to recognize same sex marriages if they don't want to?
[Good point. States probably are not obligated to recognize same-sex marriage if they choose not to. This is where all that incest and pedophilia stuff comes from].
- The Federal government shouldn't have to recognize gay marriage because, heck, gay guys can choose to marry a woman just like any straight guy. It's the same deal with lesbians. So they have the same opportunities as everyone else, and therefore aren't being discriminated against..
[This is where it all falls flat. While the government may allow certain states to refuse to recognize other marriages, the Federal Government recognizes ALL of them, no matter how "icky." And the idea that because gay people are free to marry people of the opposite sex and therefore aren't discriminated against by DOMA is just idiotic. Let's say I pass a law banning reading of the New Testament. Can I legitimately say that the law doesn't discriminate against Christians since the law forbids atheists and Hindus and X from reading the New Testament? No, because everyone knows that Christians are more interested in the New Testament than any other group. Such a law clearly affects Christians much more than anyone else, and as such is discriminatory.
32
Regarding those who counsel patience:
I WAS PATIENT until the Obama DOJ filed this brief on 6/11.
I WAS PATIENT until I learned that the Obama administration refused to even discuss the DOMA cases with our advocacy groups, until we got ENRAGED.
I WAS NEVER PATIENT with Obama's refusal to issue a stop loss while DADT is under review.
I Have snailmailed, emailed and phoned my two senators, my rep., Maj. Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi, and the President and told them:
"No more money, no more votes until I see action on these matters. No more promises and no more excuses."
I hope all of us have done the same.
We get more done by expressing our fury AND meeting with the Obama administration. We must keep our goals in mind and sit down with the administration WITHOUT LETTING THEM OFF THE HOOK for the promises that have already been made.
Our collective anger is useful towards that goal.
I WAS PATIENT until the Obama DOJ filed this brief on 6/11.
I WAS PATIENT until I learned that the Obama administration refused to even discuss the DOMA cases with our advocacy groups, until we got ENRAGED.
I WAS NEVER PATIENT with Obama's refusal to issue a stop loss while DADT is under review.
I Have snailmailed, emailed and phoned my two senators, my rep., Maj. Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi, and the President and told them:
"No more money, no more votes until I see action on these matters. No more promises and no more excuses."
I hope all of us have done the same.
We get more done by expressing our fury AND meeting with the Obama administration. We must keep our goals in mind and sit down with the administration WITHOUT LETTING THEM OFF THE HOOK for the promises that have already been made.
Our collective anger is useful towards that goal.
34
@33 that is a good idea!
Lawdork has the best coverage, and once again demonstrates that John Aravosis is not operating in good faith. http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/…
Why would anyone in their right mind listen to this guy, when there's so many smart gay voices out there who are just as passionate, just as effective, but not so dishonest, not so incapable of basic reading comprehension?
Lawdork has the best coverage, and once again demonstrates that John Aravosis is not operating in good faith. http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/…
Why would anyone in their right mind listen to this guy, when there's so many smart gay voices out there who are just as passionate, just as effective, but not so dishonest, not so incapable of basic reading comprehension?
35
I agree with the "every guest at the party brings a soldier discharged under DADT as the date" from #33 and I believe originally proposed by COMTE... If you are going to attend show up and make them deal with their shit.
36
I'm with #22 and #25. Pretending the DOJ brief equates gays with incest and child rape is even more absurd than Palin saying Letterman was laughing about child rape. I don't listen to shrill people and doubt Obama does either. The framing of the argument in absurd terms suggests we don't actually have a good argument. Its like a child throwing a tantrum. And that's all fine and good if thats the type of behavior you yourself respond to and reward. But my guess is when people raise absurdities with you at most, you say thats interesting, and laugh when they are gone, and that more likely you just tell em fuck you to their face.
I'm not against anger and there are plenty of real things to be angry about. But putting words in someone elses mouth, and then being angry about the words you put there, is simply pathetic. So I call bullshit on the continued false assertions that the DOJ brief equated gay behavior with incest and pedophiles/child rape. It didn't. You did. And you diminish your credibility more every time you repeat the lie.
I'm not against anger and there are plenty of real things to be angry about. But putting words in someone elses mouth, and then being angry about the words you put there, is simply pathetic. So I call bullshit on the continued false assertions that the DOJ brief equated gay behavior with incest and pedophiles/child rape. It didn't. You did. And you diminish your credibility more every time you repeat the lie.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Confidential to Conservative Christians: Keep Doubling Down On Hate, Assholes by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Show This Woman Some Love by Dan Savage
-
Dharun Ravi Sentenced to 30 Days by Dan Savage
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Seattle's Forthcoming Waterfront Ferris Wheel by David Schmader
-
NOM's Brian Brown Said I Could Name the Time and the Place by Dan Savage
-
Why KeyArena Won't Work by Goldy
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
SL Letter of the Day: Anti-Gay Sister-In-Law Getting Her Kink On by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (37) RSS