Politics trumping lives

March 19, 2011 at 2:26 pm 46 comments

By Adam Bink

I was reading an interview of 10 questions that TIME Magazine did with Dan Savage, founder of the It Gets Better Project. Here’s one I definitely agree with:

Q: Who hasn’t made a video yet who you hope will?

A: Rick Santorum. Tim Pawlenty. Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck. The Prime Minister of Britain, who leads the Conservative Party there, made a video, and we haven’t seen one from anyone on the right in the U.S. to even say, You’re 14 and gay. Don’t kill yourself.

Tell me about it. Is that so hard a message? I’m not even sure a Santorum or a Palin would come out the worse for wear, politically speaking. Sure, they’d get some fundies interpreting it as “Palin is saying it’s okay to be gay! Aaaaiiiieeeee!” but on the whole, I bet she’d get a lot of people applauding for courage and just for a telling good message. And hey, maybe it’ll help her with her remarkably negative approval ratings. How ’bout it, Sarah?

Until then, it’s politics trumping lives.

Entry filed under: Community/Meta.

Hoyer will urge speedy implementation on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal Lesbian couple tests immigration law under Administration’s new stance on DOMA

46 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Rhie  |  March 19, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    Watching

    Reply
    • 2. Kathleen  |  March 19, 2011 at 2:36 pm

      Reply
      • 3. Ed Cortes  |  March 19, 2011 at 5:01 pm

        Reply
        • 4. JonT  |  March 19, 2011 at 10:39 pm

          Waiting for the republican party to ditch their American Taliban base.

          Reply
          • 5. Ronnie  |  March 20, 2011 at 6:16 am

            =………<3…Ronnie

          • 6. fiona64  |  March 21, 2011 at 11:25 am

            +1

            Love,
            Fiona

  • 7. Sagesse  |  March 19, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    Watching Rhie watching.

    Reply
  • 8. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 19, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    With so many like them, politics ALWAYS trump lives. The only lives they care about are their own!

    Reply
  • 9. Michelle Evans  |  March 19, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    They would never say anything like, “You’re 14 and gay. Don’t kill yourself.” These people want us all to disappear from the planet, so they really have no problem when LGBT people die, by suicide, murder, or whatever. Look at their responses after the bullying uptick. Without exception, they went on the rampage against THEIR religious freedoms being harmed if anyone would say that their religious garbage led to these deaths. They didn’t care for one second about any of the lives that were snuffed out.

    Reply
    • 10. Kate  |  March 19, 2011 at 3:21 pm

      Exactly. The more who kill themselves, the fewer gays there are left for the Palinites to have to figure out other ways to eliminate them. At this point, they’re probably busily telling themselves that murder is just fine — ‘cuz the bible tells them so. I heard on the news that a gay man was recently stoned (I don’t know if he died) by a group of those good Christians who used that exact justification.

      Reply
  • 11. Alan E.  |  March 19, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    But that wouldn’t be spreading the “christian love” that we keep hearing about. Tony P. knows what I’m talking about.

    Reply
    • 12. Michelle Evans  |  March 19, 2011 at 4:07 pm

      We have those on the site who believe in actual Christian principles, and you are all wonderful people. This is unlike Palin, Beck, et al, who call themselves “christian.” To these jerks “christian love” is an oxymoron (with the emphasis on the last two syllables).

      Reply
      • 13. Lora  |  March 19, 2011 at 10:21 pm

        Reminded me of this article I saw a couple weeks ago. Truer words were never spoken:

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/why-evangelicals-hate-jes_b_830237.html

        Reply
        • 14. Rob in CA  |  March 20, 2011 at 11:44 pm

          This afternoon I shared the article link above with a friend and asked him to read it and comment. He said it reminded him of the writings of a particular auther and being a curious sort I looked up the name and followed several links until I happend on the essay linked to below. It is somewhat dated, having been written in 2005, but the sentiment couldn’t be more contemporary. It’s a rather lengthy piece but the writing is excellent and kept my attention to the end. It doesn’t speak directly to our cause but similar to the article above, it offers insight into how the country has gotten to where it is in this debate. What it says in essence is that the fundamentalists need us for their salvation. The piece is by David James Duncan.
          Rob
          http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/156/

          Reply
      • 15. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 20, 2011 at 8:29 am

        They all so easily forget these words of Christ;

        “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. As I have loved you, you should also love one another” (John 13:34).

        There are NO footnotes or exceptions listed….no one left out. It’s simply about LOVE

        Reply
        • 16. Rhie  |  March 20, 2011 at 12:33 pm

          And he said that sums up all the other laws and prophecies. That is, everything else every said by him or about him boiled down to love.

          That reminds me: I see some older translations use charity in place of love. I think it makes more sense in some places, especially if you use the broad definition that covers actions, thoughts and words.

          Reply
        • 17. Peterplumber  |  March 21, 2011 at 5:45 am

          Somebody pissed off Don, a frequent commentor on the NOMblog.

          http://nomblog.com/6413/#comments

          The guy is a lil’ bit of a fanatic, and it didn’t take much to push him over the edge. If you are not aquainted with Don, he is the one who thinks all Equal Rights activism is sponsered by the Communist Party.

          Reply
          • 18. JonT  |  March 21, 2011 at 2:00 pm

            Oh boy…

            From Don:
            Your persistence is proof of your pathology.

            I think the same could be said of Don, no?. What a loon.

          • 19. Peterplumber  |  March 21, 2011 at 5:12 pm

            Yes, he is “out there”. Sometimes I can read his diatribes, other times he makes me puke.

            I kinda like that John Doon has him so upset he is sputtering.

  • 20. Alan E.  |  March 19, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    In my critical thinking class, we just started focusing on fallacies in argument. As an example, we watched Katie Couric’s interview with Sarah Palin, and we had to spot as many fallacies as we could.

    I couldn’t type my notes fast enough…

    Reply
    • 21. Michelle Evans  |  March 19, 2011 at 4:08 pm

      Sounds like a fun class Alan. Wish that was a required course for politicians and religious leaders! What a different world we would live in.

      Reply
  • 22. Sagesse  |  March 19, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    Ruminating on what a House Republican vote on DOMA might look like.

    Tammy Baldwin: House GOP Divided On Gay Rights, Marriage Ban DOMA

    http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=7857&MediaType=1&Category=26

    Reply
  • 23. Ed  |  March 19, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    OT, But, I see that NOM has ceased using their pdf files….instead opting to link to the real websites….interesting….

    Reply
    • 24. Ed  |  March 19, 2011 at 10:57 pm

      And one of their latest posts is referring to the onion (www.theonion.com)
      Really? Do they really need to reference a satirical site? (Which I love, btw).
      I sense desperation…….

      Reply
      • 25. Kathleen  |  March 19, 2011 at 11:01 pm

        I know… their site is hardly distinguishable from the onion most of the time.

        Reply
        • 26. Rhie  |  March 19, 2011 at 11:52 pm

          Poe’s Law in action?

          Yea the post says they are sharing a laugh about the Onion article about the apocalypse that comes from marriage equality.

          Um. Do they not realize that post is -laughing at them and people like them-?

          Reply
          • 27. JonT  |  March 20, 2011 at 3:55 am

            Um. Do they not realize that post is -laughing at them and people like them-?

            Their sheeple probably don’t, and that’s all that matters to them. :)

          • 28. Rhie  |  March 20, 2011 at 12:42 pm

            True. These ARE the same people who freaked out about the Onion article about Harry Potter and witchcraft.

      • 29. Ronnie  |  March 20, 2011 at 6:21 am

        rofl…NOM=Joke…. XP ….Ronnie

        Reply
    • 30. Kathleen  |  March 19, 2011 at 10:59 pm

      Wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that last week I contacted the WSJ, NYT, Reuters, Advocate, LezGetReal, Windy City Times and others, notifying them of NOM’s copyright violations.

      Reply
      • 31. Ed  |  March 19, 2011 at 11:05 pm

        You ROCK!!!!!!

        Reply
      • 32. Ed  |  March 19, 2011 at 11:07 pm

        If it’s not too late, could we chat on skype? :)

        Reply
      • 33. JonT  |  March 20, 2011 at 3:53 am

        I’m sure it didn’t hurt :)

        Reply
      • 34. Joe  |  March 20, 2011 at 12:27 pm

        Umm – Kathleen, under a recent copyright ruling, they weren’t committing copyright infrigment.

        In Righthaven vs. Center for Intercultural Organizing, the judge ruled that the case would be dismissed because a nonprofit using the article for factual purposes is fair use:

        “Mahan, who last year raised the fair use issue in the CIO case without being prodded to do so by CIO attorneys, said the copyright lawsuit would be dismissed because the nonprofit used it in an educational way, the CIO didn’t try to use the story to raise money and because the story in question was primarily factual as opposed to being creative.”

        Reply
        • 36. Kathleen  |  March 20, 2011 at 1:50 pm

          Thanks. First of all, that’s not a binding precedent. Until it’s appealed and upheld, it’s of limited value as case law. But even if it were binding, the facts regarding NOM’s action differs from those in the above case in significant ways. I’d have to look at the actual decision to be absolutely sure, but at least from the press report, that seems to be the case.

          1) The judge was influenced by the fact that Righthaven appears to own the copyright for no purpose but to file suits. That’s not the case with these media entities who are publishing their own content.

          2) The lack of a takedown request or order hurt Righthaven’s cause. Apparently, Righthaven simply filed a suit, without first issuing a cease & desist.

          3) The CIO’s use of the story did not harm the market for the R-J story. If Reuters or other media outlets charge for reproduction or distribution rights, then unauthorized distribution is clearly harming their market.

          4) NOM isn’t merely copying material from another site and using it in its blog. It’s actually offering for distribution a .pdf file of an item that is clearly marked as being for personal use only and not for copying or redistribution. Because NOM doesn’t refer back to the original source of the copyrighted material, they are diverting possible traffic from the other sites. And as we all know, in the land of the internet traffic often means revenue.

          These are just a few facts that distinguish the cases, off the top of my head. Don’t have time to do more.

          Reply
          • 37. Joe  |  March 20, 2011 at 3:55 pm

            “It’s actually offering for distribution a .pdf file of an item that is clearly marked as being for personal use only and not for copying or redistribution.”

            The Reuters website says:

            http://www.reuters.com/info/copyright

            “Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. ”

            The PDF’s that NOM distributed were definitely printed from the website, and using a printout (regardless of form) to argue political opinion is definitely a non-commercial use. Thus, NOM (a non-profit corporation that has personal rights) can probably claim that the use falls within the allowed uses.

            While I see that the cases are not 100% on all fours, nevertheless they are also not that different.

          • 38. Kathleen  |  March 20, 2011 at 4:12 pm

            Downloading an entire article is not “downloading and printing extracts” nor is distributing the files through an organization’s website to members of the public equivalent to using a printout “for their personal use.”

            The case is so far away from being on all fours that I’d be hesitant to cite to it to support NOM’s actions, even if the case had any value as binding precedent.

          • 39. Joe  |  March 21, 2011 at 9:42 am

            I’ll just respectfully disagree.

  • 40. BK  |  March 20, 2011 at 1:16 am

    Who do you all think would be the first right-winger to make an “It Gets Better” video?

    Reply
    • 41. JonT  |  March 20, 2011 at 3:57 am

      The first one that did probably would not be a right-winger anymore. They’d be an outcast. Banished from all that is pure and talibanish…

      Someday perhaps. But not with 2012 elections coming up.

      :)

      Reply
    • 42. Tigger  |  March 20, 2011 at 5:06 am

      Cheney..

      Reply
    • 43. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 20, 2011 at 8:32 am

      Dick Chaney would be my guess

      Reply
    • 44. Rhie  |  March 20, 2011 at 12:31 pm

      Meghan McCain

      Reply
  • 45. James Sweet  |  March 20, 2011 at 6:20 am

    I’m not even sure a Santorum or a Palin would come out the worse for wear, politically speaking.

    Hah! Are you kidding me? Look at the flack that Ann Coulter got for daring to say, “Hey, maybe it’s no big deal to allow a gay Republican group at CPAC.” Yes, that’s correct, the Right is questioning Ann Coulter’s anti-gay credentials.

    Making an “It Gets Better” video would be political suicide for anyone in the American Right. Basic human decency is apparently not a family value they support.

    Reply
  • 46. pgbach  |  March 20, 2011 at 10:55 am

    What’s new here? The GOP considers all non-white persons in a 3/5 human perspective?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,293 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...