Comments

1
The rats are running, because every generation that grows old and dies takes a huge chunk of their clout away. The war is going against them and they know it.
2
Breaking news: Conservatives are sniveling cowards unwilling to engage in actual debate.
3
..it's because they're all a bunch of punk ass unclefucking hypocrites
4
I wish I could post a picture of Job Bluth's chicken dance here.
5
This needs to be a cover story.
6
5's got it right - get the word out! Don't let this rest in SLOG, Stranger. Make it known that they all backed out.
7
So when are you going to email a notification to people who managed to get tickets?
8
Roaches don't like the light. Do you really have to cancel or can't you all Judy Garland it up and PUT ON A SHOW!?
9
@7) Soon. We're on it.
10
What a shame.

At least there are proud, family-protecting Christian partisans willing to stand up for what's "right" in anonymous internet forums, though!
11
Maybe we should turn it into something good... like a giant phone banking operation to support the marriage campaign.
12
What a bunch of fucking cowards.
13
What Baconcat said - this has to be a feature story.

What a bunch of pussies. They sure don't have the courage of their 'convictions', do they?
14
Ooh! Idea! Proceed as planned, but begin by announcing to the audience all the names of people who declined to support their side. Offer the audience the chance to elect one of their own to support the anti-marriage side. If no one volunteers, party in Town Hall!
15
Well, I think you covered any bullshit excuse the trolls could think up to excuse the bigots, so this thread should be free of their drivel.
16
Except... what exactly was the point of such a debate in the first place? The antis have no rational argument. Nobody that attended would budge in their opinion one way or the other. I suppose it made some sense to air stuff out in public but it just struck me as more of a masturbation fest with all the surprise of a typical presidential address or a campaign stump speech. Or, does someone think there's a non-zero chance that an attendee would go, you know, now that you mention it, Jebus' agents are wrong and the heavenly father wants the gay to marry.
17
Try Rep. Matt Shea in Spokane Valley. He is a right wing Xtian crazy.
18
DIRTY FUCKIN WORDS!
19
Try Rep.Matt Shea in Spokane Valley. He is is as right wing Xtian crazy as they come.
20
"Nobody that attended would budge in their opinion one way or the other. "

OK, I'll grant that among people who would care enough to show up for such an even (either pro or anti) there probably aren't a lot of people who don't have their mind made up pretty firmly.

However...nearly any poll that tracks opinions re marriage equality (or related issues) over time shows a pretty strong trend in favor of equality. Somebody is changing their mind.

That, or one side is literally dying off. It's probably a bit of both.

I think that the general cowardice displayed by one side here indicates nothing so much as they see the writing on the wall.
21
Pol Pot, if I could, I'd post a picture of Lucille Bluth doing the chicken dance.

But I think you're all being dreadfully unfair to the clergy. They have a tough life, with their one day work week and all. I'm sure their busy social calendar precludes appearing at events where they might have to defend their faith. After all, It's easier to preach to the choir. And even better when the choir is tithing.
22
I don't understand why they agreed to it in the first place. Other than that they somehow have suddenly realized how thoroughly indefensible their position is... or at least how badly that position would be made to look if examined under scrutiny. Perhaps they didn't want to be on camera saying things that are demonstrably untrue, lest they give Washington United some fodder for campaign ads later this year. Nevertheless... we shall prevail. Onward!
23
@22 The simplest explanation is that they're dumb.
24
I posted this in the first thread when a member of Hutch's church was chiming in but it was late so I'll paraphrase it here:

They claimed that Hutch was willing to pay for renting out a venue in Bellevue but it was just in Dec that he sent emails out to his church demanding they start giving more because the pastors on staff weren't getting paid regularly. I have those emails so I am not sure where he was going to pull that $ from.

In the 5th chapter of Matthew Jesus (You remember him, Hutch?t) said to let your yes be yes and your no be no "anything beyond this comes from the evil one." Hutch has proven himself to be a false prophet and an opportunist. How many times has the man said that God told him something and it didn't come to pass? Whether it was him making an ass of himself in front of Microsoft or claiming that God was not going to allow the pass of Ref 71 he has proven himself to be untrustworthy. I'm not sure why his church can't see that.

Please, for his sake and everyone else within earshot of him, get this man out from behind a microphone and get him help. He obviously has mental issues and he's using God to validate his narcissism and delusions of grandeur.
25
I think it might be valuable to ask those Democrats who want to send this to a "vote of the people" to defend themselves. It is limited to look at the "anti" side as only including Jesus-jumping haters. I, for one, am sick and tired of people I door-belled for pretending that EQUAL PROTECTION should be a popularity contest. New debate with the cowards please...
26
Don't be lame and cancel. Call NOM. Call Maggie. Get a video linkup. Make this happen. Savage speaks all over the country. Surely, in a country that elected George W. Bush twice, you can find a couple of assholes to debate.
27
No big surprise that all those he-man preechurs would turn out to nothing more than a big buncha pussies.
28
Why not go on -- without the cowards?

Spread the good word, and read the list of those who have no defense for their slanders.

Which also gives you the opportunity for signing up the audience for action!
29
bok bok bok bok, meow meow meow meow.
30
LGBT activists need to stop thinking that our rights are debatable. Our rights are unalienable and must be unconditional. We are already human enough for human rights and American enough for constitutional rights. What is there to debate? Whether we should all be arrested, stoned to death and set on fire by the mythical Jesus?
31

Pretty obvious for politicians, starting this election, the rule is Go Gay or Go Home.
32
judybrowni, I agree. If they made a scene, this could go big.
33
Pastor Gaydos...

heh.
34
Have you asked John Carlson yet?
35
The bigots will not engage in a serious conversation about this with people who actually have skin in the game. They will make an attempt to proselytize, but as soon as you present a rebuttal of any sort, they dismiss you as a "radical homosexual activist" and leave you to Satan or whatever. This is what their world view does to them.
36
I recommend a rematch, but with a twist:


OK, these guys were afraid of being outnumbered and beat down. They didn't want to preach to someone else's choir, it would do no good. Or so they're telling themselves.


Maybe try it again, but in an invite-only manner for the audience. Instead of polarized, decisions'-already-made factions, why not invite as many undecideds as possible? Including state senators that are still on the fence?


This frames things a little more fairly (in their mind) and gives them something of a mission (again, in their mind). And, frankly, these kinds of debates aren't a show for people who've made up their minds, they're a way for each side to reach out to those who, for whatever reason, haven't yet.

37
Hold the debate anyway. Have Dan speak for the con side since he's heard all of their arguements already. Or he can just read their comments aloud. Gawd works in myserious ways.
38
Could it be that they are totally afraid of being Santorumed? Not, you know, in the frothy way...but in terms of having their names redefined?
39
What about Washington State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Madsen?

Mrs. "marriage is procreation and gheys are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex."
40
So the bigots are cowards, too? Color me shocked.
41
@4: You can.
Also, MOO!
42
I hear Michelle Bachmann is free.
43
So... were all the tickets given away? No more room, standing room only, "sold out" as the case may be? If so, it doesn't seem exactly difficult to pinpoint why these folks canceled -- there was no way for them to get their little (or big) cheering section into Town Hall. I'm sure facing the reality of the general public disagreeing with their message made them queasy. Cowards.
44
In fairness to those who refused to sign-on for the debate, it's not entirely reasonable to ask someone to step into a debate after the moderator, location, audience, and other details have been determined. The fact that someone else, who shares the same "side," was involved in those details, doesn't necessarily mean that the new person should accept whatever was previously agreed upon (by the previous participant, not by themselves). I'm not saying that once the debate was scheduled, the Stranger was wrong to see if someone else was willing to fill in. But they shouldn't be too critical of people who don't want to join a debate they didn't plan.
45
I'm with the people who want to call out the legislators who think people should voting on equal rights. Bring it! @25! @30! @36! I like it.
46
Thank you venomlash
47
I just posted my two cents on Sen. Joe Fain's Facebook wall.

The 47th probably won't let me into the monthly meetings at Roundtable Pizza any more...but...what can you say!
48
#30 so even if it is an effective weapon we should refuse to use debate so our "radicalism" remain pure and intact? It doesn't damage us, it doesn't diminish us - if anything as was shown the threat of an open debate made them back down.

These aren't idiots, they know they would be hammered into the soil if they cannot readily use the Bible as a crutch (which demands that everyone listening believes in the same version of it as them) so they backed down.

All that remains now is to hound them. Whenever they argue openly someone needs to step up and say "why did you all back down from debating this?" do that long enough and they will say so much shit as an excuse that they will bury themselves in manure.
.
49
If you think marriage can't be between a man and a man and you're not man enough to stand in a room full of people and tell them you don't think their love is as equal as anyone else's love you have no class. You will be reincarnated as a slug.
50
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

-1 Peter 3:15-16

Oops!
51
There is only one debate that will matter, and we all know it. Whatever the venue costs, whatever the tickets cost.
Pay-per-view it, whatever. You just have to wait till he's free that is...

The 2012 Marriage Equality Debate
Savage Vs. Santorum.

...for the love of Jesse, somebody make this happen.
52
It would be great if the next mention of Ken Hutcherson in The Stranger is in a post about HIM contacting YOU because he misses the attention. Wait long enough, and it'll happen.

Also, a style suggestion: Rather than (for example) "City Church Pastor Judah Smith," can it be "Judah Smith, pastor at City Church?" Giving clergy capitalized titles seems unwarranted; let them do that for themselves if they want.
53
Why not ask SLOG's own Seattleblues to debate? At the very least, he'd get to meet his man-crush Dan Savage in person.
54
53

oh no, never....
Danny wouldn't be able to delete comments he finds awkward and impossible to answer....
55
DUDE!

Purocuyu @ 51 has an abso-fucking-lutely brilliant idea!

A Savage vs. Santorum debate on contraception and marriage equality as a pay-per-view event would rake in bucks. Mr. Santorum might accept because he could use the money to pay campaign expenses. It would provide his supporters with an unregulated method to support his campaign, like book sales for Gingrich, Obama, and Cain. I don't imagine that Mr. Savage would object to some national exposure and windfall income.

I think the area of discussion would have to be expanded beyond marriage equality to contraception, anti-sodomy laws, and all manner of reproductive rights. It would really center around the government's authority to regulate citizen's intimate behavior. That way it would include the broader scope of interests - both Mr. Santorum's and Mr. Savage's.
56
....trolls for thee.....
57
The other team stayed home? FORFEIT.
58
Why would anyone want to be associated with Savage after the "Frothy" google bombing of Rick Santorum?

59
WEAK WEAK WEAK LAME LAME LAME.

Buncha weenies.
60
@44 It would be one thing if this post was finger-pointing at people who were asked to participate but declined. However, the anti-gays mentioned all agreed to participate and then reneged for whatever lame reason. They deserve to be singled out as the cowards, liars and hypocrites they clearly are.
61
Let's be real. Why would Hutcherson, or anyone of his ilk, agree to a debate sponsored by the Stranger, on their their turf, with a liberal moderator? In Hutcherson's case the answer is of course his apparently limitless exhibitionism (which -- as 52 points out -- the Stranger feeds on a continuing basis), but apparently even that does have a limit and it has been reached. 58 does have a point as well. From the anti-gay position, engaging with Savage dignifies his Santorum google antics (which many progressives also find distasteful) in an unacceptable fashion.

Don't get me wrong. I was looking forward to the show! Sounded like a hoot and a half. I'm disappointed it won't happen -- but not surprised. I second 14's motion.

62
Let's be real. Why would Hutcherson, or anyone of his ilk, agree to a debate sponsored by the Stranger, on their their turf, with a liberal moderator? In Hutcherson's case the answer is of course his apparently limitless exhibitionism (which -- as 52 points out -- the Stranger feeds on a continuing basis), but apparently even that does have a limit and it has been reached. 58 does have a point as well. From the anti-gay position, engaging with Savage dignifies his Santorum google antics (which many progressives also find distasteful) in an unacceptable fashion.

Don't get me wrong. I was looking forward to the show! Sounded like a hoot and a half. I'm disappointed it won't happen -- but not surprised. I second 14's motion.

63
Isn't the rule that if you back out and refuse to play the game you forfeit the game?
64
I've been thinking about this all day, since seeing it yesterday.

Someone recently suggested here on SLOG that many of these "advocates" for "traditional values" are cynical exploiters of their flocks, using the issue to raise money and for little else. That they don't give a damn about the issue other than to use it for self-aggrandizement.

This proves it.

They have a good deal, a money-making machine in their big fish/fetid pond scenario. They know that the underlying issue, their position on marriage (in)equality is not defensible, though. It can be easily shredded on legal, moral or religious grounds. They can't allow that.

As long as they don't show up, they can keep selling their fear and hatred to the rubes, and keep filling their coffers. If they show up and get publicly embarrassed, it's game over.
65
Fred Phelps?
66
You win by default. They are cowards who know they are wrong.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.