AC360: Dan Savage Takes on Tony Perkins Over Prop 8

[FreeState]

Run time: 08:49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTySVskUcrU   Posted on YouTube: November 13, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 13, 2008 By DU Member: FreeState Views on DU: 6457

 

[cooolandrew]

1. YEAH, it's change!! and nothing is going to stop it. HR 676 next on the list.

[cooolandrew]

2. They should protest every church till it's law in every state. Equality or bust. CHANGE.

[ksimons]

3. two words - Ted Haggard

Me thinks he doth protest too much, that preacher boy.
Are there men out there with stories to tell?
Tabloids to be spoken to, perhaps?

[stlsaxman]

4. The "Institution Of Marriage" is about one thing only- Property Rights.

believe what you will about "love" being involved but strip it down and property rights is at its core throughout history.

Abolish Prop 8.

[Mesteryo]

26. well if marriage is just property rights..

Then why are the gay marriage absolutists so adamant about having gay marriage when California's civil union laws allow the exact same privileges as marriage.

[ZeitGuy]

29. Civil Unions do not equal Marriage.

A civil union is a legal status created solely to give state-only rights to same-sex couples. They preclude the possibility of gaining federal protections, as well as the dignity, clarity, and power of the word “marriage.” Marriage is more than simply a collection of legal rights. It tells the community that two people love each other and are a family. Since everyone understands the legal relationship called marriage, being married is significant to many people, and something that protects families in daily life as well as during times of crisis. No other word or legal status can provide that protection.

Would heterosexual couples in Massachusetts and Connecticut or elsewhere happily give up the word “marriage” in exchange for the state-sponsored legal protections provided by a civil union? If the legal protections and status granted by civil unions are the same as those in marriage, the only reason for the difference in name is prejudice. If the protections are not on the same par, then portraying them as such is dishonest and disingenuous. In either case, "domestic partnerships" are created by legislation based on bias.

Marriages are respected from state to state, but questions remain about how civil unions will be treated in other states. Civil unions in some states award different rights than do civil unions in other states. Civilly-united, same-sex couples will be unable to move or travel and rest assured their relationships are protected or recognized in states other than Massachussetts and Connecticut.

One thing that both sides of the marriage issue can agree on is that marriage strengthens families—children are more secure if they are raised by two loving parents whose relationship is legally recognized and who can share the responsibility of parenthood equally. Children of same-gender parents also benefit from the cultural acceptance of legal marriage.

Even if there were not the significant inequities in the way the law treats marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status for gay people represents real and powerful discrimination. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires legal equality for all. Including same-sex couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest way to provide both the respect and protections that every citizen deserves.

Finally, same-sex marriage does not threaten the "institution" of heterosexual marriage. The 50%+ divorce rate among sex-sex couples in America didn't require any assistance in that respect.

[Mesteryo]

31. I can't respond in full..

But the person I responded to said marriage is about property rights. They said it wasn't about love.

[ZeitGuy]

32. I believe the spirit of stlsaxman's remark...

...about marriage not being "about love" has to do with the legal, historical relevance of the institution in America -- in contradiction to the sanctimonious hypocrisy of fundamentalist bigots -- and not what many in the gay and lesbian community view as not only their civil right under equal protection of the law, but also as a public and unashamed assertion of their love and commitment as couples.

As to any problems you might have with the finer points of my post to you, above, you can address them in full, in part or not at all. But at least now you have no excuse for not understanding the differences between the rationalizations you proffer, and the sentiments, needs and denied rights of the LGBT community.

[stlsaxman]

36. Exactly point of my post- thank you. and it goes back beyond America-

back to when women were property as in the biblical days through the enlightenment.

I have never married but i was engaged a short while back. the decision was hers to break the engagement. i did and still do love her dearly and not getting married will never change my feelings. even though now we are no longer spiritually coupled i am pleased as punch that after 50 years of living i had found someone i felt that way about at least once. our relationship is still a blessing and we don't need "the state" to sanction our love for one another.

That being said- who the fuck am i to tell a person where they can and cannot find love. she and i were allowed a public and unashamed assertion of our love and commitment as a couple only because we are of differing genders. as long as any couples are refused that ability it makes the whole "institution" a sham.

[ZeitGuy]

38. ...

:hug:

[Mesteryo]

51. yeah I get it..

The difference between gay marriage and civil unions is that marriage offers a designation that same sex couples are as accepted as hetero married couples. I agree with that, however I don't believe that can be forced on anyone. That's why I agree with allowing a popular vote on whether to designate civil unions as marriage.

Doing this without popular approval sets back acceptance of gay people because it appears like the issue is being forced on people.

[ZeitGuy]

55. Bullshit. It's not being "forced upon" anyone. That's a Repug argument.

By your "logic," integration of the armed services, interracial marriage and black sufferage should have been left up to the popular vote of Southern whites, because "forcing" equal treatment "upon" them only served to harden their racism.

I don't give two shits whether homophobic, psuedo-Christian bigots "accept" gay marriage or not. Many of them don't accept racial equality or gender equality or cultural diversity, either. F#ck what they're willing to accept or not accept. This is about civil rights. Period. Apparently, that's one important distinction that you still don't get.

I'm fairly certain you're not for real, sport. But you may want to try to be less obvious about the fact.

[Mesteryo]

58. you need to calm down...

I didn't say gay people were being forced upon anyone. I said that when judges make a decision to overrule the popular vote and just sanction gay marriage it appears like it's being forced to sanction gay marriage.

In case you forgot, racial integration and civil rights were instituted by the 14th amendment so your argument falls short. You can't argue the 14th amendment was forced on the states.

I don't think marriage laws are about civil rights because civil rights involves individual constitutional rights. Many Democrats like Barack Obama oppose gay marriage but it's silly to suggest they oppose civil rights.

As far as homophobic, psuedo-Christian bigots "accept" gay marriage or not.

Does that include Obama who also opposes same-sex marriage?

[Montauk6]

5. Good thing Tony Perkins (RIP) isn't around to see his name linked to this madness

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. Hey....Savage is really strong in that kind of exchange.

I had thought he was a sort of "paper" tiger, but he managed to dispense with the other guy's claims and rapidly put the issue's social and historical context together.

That's not easy to do in that kind of setting.

[grannie4peace]

7. i watched him on colbert & on american morning.....

he's smart and i'm glad he was able to make some inroads in the interviews. i wish he could have a "real" debate with his opponents.i am very happy that the protests have grown in size since 11-05. i think the morman church asked for everything they are getting now---sock it to 'em!!!!!!!

[goddess40]

8. Perkin's wouldn't shut the hell up and let Dan speak

and then he had the gall to accuse Dan of not letting him finish. He wasn't going to finish, and Dan was so right that this asshole was filibustering.

Actually, I planned on e-mailing the show today to complain that they continue to let this happen with right wingers. It is typical though of that side, they do what they complain is wrong and have the balls to whine about it as they are doing it.

[SavageDem]

9. Ding-ding-ding! And that's the end of the 3rd round, ladies and gentlemen.

That was good stuff! I have never watched/heard Tony Perkins speak before, and he's just as slimey in person as the stuff I've read and heard from him. Sleazy bastard. Savage was all over him, which was most sweet. I don't think Tony's used to people being quite in-his-face like that. Perkins had no facts - as usual for the dark side - to support his case. Although it was quite amusing to see Perkins get flustered, I think Dan would be more effective in preaching the cause if he interrupted slightly less; I usually equate that tactic with the moronic right-wing establishment.

[newmac]

10. I propose we define far right conservatism as a mental illness

We can all play with definitions....

[raystorm7]

11. Was that Rahm Emanuel to the right, or am I just seeing things? :p

[tishaLA]

12. At least Dan has gotten off his "blame the negroes" bullshit

[Lochloosa]

13. I read it as "Doc Savage" The Man of Bronze

:evilgrin:

[PerpetuallyDazed]

14. I keep hearing this meme, and it needs to be crushed and put into perspective...

African Americans did not turn out to vote for Prop 8 -- they came out to vote for Obama! That ballot was was another Republican ploy (a la 2004 Ohio) to get out the Evangelical/Republican vote.

[trthnd4jstc]

15. I work real hard not despising the Xtian Right. They are such a hateful, intolerant, and

tyrannical group. I wish their G-d would come back and rapture all of them away, and the Mormon Heaven G-d would lift up his Mormon Believers into their celestial realm. These people hold back progress, and they work to keep the rest of us down. If their G-d was a G-d of justice, why would he continue to allow these petty tyrants to dominate over the rest of us?

[felinetta]

16. Tony is probably gay - me think thou dost protest too much!

Religious leaders always project and try to hide their selves. Sad and pathetic. If they must punish, then punish themselves and shut the fuck up!

[MagicKenny]

17. "You Stripped Me Of My Rights and I Interrupt You." BAM!

Ignorance and fear - mix 'em together and you get the religious right.

[realitythink]

18. Good Job Dan

Keep taking it to them!!

[jgraz]

19. Someone needs to start following these bigots to see what they get up to in private.

They're so interested in everyone else's bedroom activities, let's see how they like it. I bet we'd be in for some surprises.

[liberal texan]

20. the mormon church was founded on the principle of

a mom and a mom and a mom and a mom
and a dad

Don't we love hipocrasy.

[Idealism]

21. Go Dan Savage!

I really would like more people to bring up the fact that more than once in our country's past, if states were to put civil rights to a vote, african americans would still be segregated without rights to vote and women would still be second-class citizens and not have suffrage. Tyranny of the majority is the reason why the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. The founders realized there must be something in place to protect minority rights from being trampled on by the ignorant herd.

[Mesteryo]

24. Civil rights was put to a vote..

The 14th amendment would count as something passed by a vote.

I'm sorry but gay rights groups seem to support popular votes deciding on gay marriage when the vote turns out the way they want.

[ZeitGuy]

34. I believe that the 14th Amendment was ratified by the respective legislatures of individual states..

...rather than put up to public referendum. I could be wrong, but I understand that the decision to ratify/not ratify was placed in the hands and votes of state senators and representatives, who were, in turn, responsible to their constituencies for their vote and its effect.

The Founding Fathers did not include the concept of ballot initiatives in the Constitution/Bill of rights for a reason: they recognized the very real threat of the tyranny of the majority.

[Mesteryo]

53. I didn't say it was put to a popular vote...

My point was that civil rights protections were passed by a vote on legislation and not by courts.

But it's funny because supporters of same sex marriage support putting this to a popular vote when it gets the result they want.

[ZeitGuy]

56. Actually, even though you left out "popular," you seemed to allude to just that.

"Civil rights was put to a vote...The 14th amendment would count as something passed by a vote."

And if the court overturns Prop 8, it should be set back in the laps of legislators.

The supporters of same-sex marriage want the equal treatment under the law that they are entitled to as the tax-paying, economy supporting, community-involved, American citizens that they are. Getting those rights secured, by referendum or by legislation or by judicial means, does not diminish the rights of anyone else. Having basic civil and human rights stripped away from you by the popular vote of bigots is a completely different matter.

Oh, and for the record, it's not one bit "funny."

[Mesteryo]

59. read my above response...

I don't believe marriage laws are about civil rights and President elect Obama is not a bigot.

Homophobia doesn't mean not supporting gay marriage so stop throwing the term around.

[Piewhacket]

22. Dan's right. It isn't about religion. Its about civil rights.

So said the CA Supreme Ct. I agree with them and Dan.
The argument for Prop H8 is alarmingly irrational
and bigoted.

Perhaps it is time to consider a readjustment of
privileges extended courteously to the church.

Consider:

We could solve our entire economic crisis by taxing church
real property at standard rates.
It doesn't interfere with freedom to believe or practice.
I don't think taxes would interfere with any first amendment rights.
Christ had no physical church. Why is a cathedral required?
So,

Q: Why is the Church exempt from taxes paid by every other legal enterprise?
A: Perhaps they shouldn't be.

[Mesteryo]

23. bits like this make me a proud centrist..

On one side you have the far right conservative attacking gays and on the other side is a rabid anti-religion bigot bashing Christianity.

[ZeitGuy]

25. Interesting that you seem to reserve more vitriol for the latter.

Because your post hardly bears up as any evidence of your self-professed "centrism."

I'd say that Savage was quite eloquent in elucidating his points, with the facts and the constitution and the law behind him. That he doesn't want religious dogma and prejudice legislated and used as a cudgel with which to beat down a minority group doesn't make him the bigot.

[Mesteryo]

28. amazing..

I said Perkins was "attacking gays"; I guess you're choosing to ignore that.

Dan Savage goes beyond just arguing against "religious dogma and prejudice legislated and used as a cudgel with which to beat down a minority group". I've seen interviews where he mocks Christian beliefs.

[ZeitGuy]

30. No, I wasn't ignoring anything. Merely noting your lop-sided use of loaded modifiers.

If you can point to an instance in this interview where he "mocks Christian beliefs," please feel free to note it. Otherwise, in this case, it's a straw man.

If, in other interviews, Savage has given himself over to negative rhetoric regarding "Christianity," I'll bet that it's framed by a discussion of the legalized imposition of the belief structures of some organized religions. Regardless, if you can find examples to support your claim, I'll certainly listen to them.

[kevinbgoode]

42. Oh....are we accepting Tony Perkins as a "Christian"

simply because he SAYS he is one? That's the biggest hypocrisy, in my opinion. When someone displays a history of deliberately and willfully engaging in the creation of falsehoods, I wouldn't consider him "Christian." Or do conservatives by nature always get away with manufacturing lies as long as they attach the word "Christian" to themselves?

[Mesteryo]

54. I won't judge that..

All people lie.

[Eryemil]

49. If you do not want people to make fun of your beliefs then do not have such funny beliefs

Keep your religion private (as it should be) and I will hold my tongue for the sake of common courtesy, try to use it as a weapon against me and all bets are off.

Most homophobia comes from religious indoctrination so pardon me if I am not too keen to accept religious beliefs as being on par with rational thought. This is of course my personal opinion which you would not have been made aware of have you not been such a tool.

[Mesteryo]

52. you just proved my point

You want the right to spout anti-religion bs yet flip out when Christians talk about their religion.

You're being pretty presumputious calling my beliefs "funny" when I never defined them so that just means you have a knee jerk reaction to any Christianity not just Bible literalism.

As far as rationality goes what's considered rational differs from person to person. You behave pretty irrationally in my opinion.

[ZeitGuy]

57. What point?

[wutangfan85]

27. There were cerain parts in that exchange when

Tony Perkins was talking Dan Savage looked like he wanted to whoop his ass! I think the Mormon Church made a huge mistake when they bankolled this movement and sooner or later it's going to blow up in their faces.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[blogslut]

35. That was a thing of beauty

More Dan Savage please.

[ihavenobias]

46. Amen n/t

[Divine Discontent]

37. This Dan guy, rightfully is angered, but he interrupts the moron Perkins too much, let him preach

his hate! It makes them look so judgmental. I loved Dan when he calmed down a bit towards the end slamming him with the "pray to Christ with that mouth while he bares false witness against his gay brothers and sisters", and the other thing saying something like you take away my rights, I interrupt you, who's being hurt more... HA! love it... Tony is a complete mo-ron on this - and I love him LYING about the youth vote... He's gotta answer to God for the amount of vitriol and hate he seems to harbor against Gays, I mean, sheesh, what happened to him when he was young, it sure makes it look like he experimented with a boy and made himself sick over it, or he was touched by a pervert or something... he's got too much invested in keeping the Gay community out of the church and society.

Many different Yes We Did items in the Obama/Biden section www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[swag]

39. Dan's good here, though I still haven't found where he's gotten off his pro-Iraq war

murderous bullshit.

Dan's Extreme Suckage:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=12237

FUCK YOU, DAN!

[RollWithIt]

40. As a Straight Guy, I'm happy to see a Strong Pro-Gay Advocate like that... he Fights with Facts....

I like it.

[katandmoon]

41. Tony Perkins' weird obsession with gay marriage makes me wonder what he likes to do in his free time

[swag]

43. Fuck Dan Savage and his pro-Iraq-war anti-Islam bigotry

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=12237

[TheWatcher]

44. Dear God, I hope that was Satire.

I know it was six years ago, but he sounds just like a freeper in that article.

On THIS particular issue, though, he is right.

If the above article you linked to is NOT satire, how could he be so right on this, and so wrong about Iraq?

[swag]

47. That's a good question to ask him.

All I've heard from him in answer so far is twisted "logic."

[Hippo_Tron]

48. He supported it on the premise of liberating people from oppressive religious governments

And that's all well and good except for the fact that Saddam's regime was secular. Quite an oversight for such a seemingly smart guy.

[D23MIURG23]

45. Saw this on Crooks and Liars

And it was a thing of beauty.


K&R

[BigBearJohn]

50. I love Dan Savage. That is one smart cookie.