Top democrats are in favour of gay marriage. Again.
I bet they'll stop the war in Iraq and investigate torture, too :lol:
And habeus corpus, too, right? :lulz:
:lulz:
And something vague about improving healthcare.
SO LONG CAMP X-RAY! SEE YA IN ST LOUIS, EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION!
Jacobin Magazine, as one would expect of a publication with such a name, brings the goods
http://jacobinmag.com/blog/2012/05/stonewall-was-a-wedding/
QuoteAre we done yet? Do we have to endure another full day of self-congratulation at Obama's personal endorsement of same-sex marriage? His announcement was heralded with as much praise as last summer's legalization of gay marriage in New York. And that was, you know, actual legislation.
This is hardly surprising given the fact that marriage equality is designed to distract liberal consciences and give Democrats political cover to gut social services. While the passage of gay marriage enjoyed the support of prominent campaign donors, it was directly preceded by cuts to homeless shelters for queer youth. It's a campaign season bait-and-switch — winning votes without making real concessions.
Case in point: Bloomberg commended Obama for joining a legacy of "courageous stands that so many Americans have taken over the years on behalf of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, stretching back to the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village." This days after slashing youth homeless shelter funding by $7 million, in a city where 40% of homeless youth are LGBT.
Looked at from this vantage point, the chief beneficiaries of gay marriage will be Crate & Barrel, not the queer folks with the most desperate needs. There is an obvious disconnect between the desires of politically connected, wealthy gay people and the needs of queer youth, and yet the major gay rights organizations have all rallied around gay marriage as if it will solve the problems of gay people everywhere, regardless of race or class.
Gay marriage proponents feed us two flavors of justification for their crusade. For the romantics they supply fantasy — the notion that legal inclusion brings social justice; for the cynics, they tout the thousand individual rights that a marriage certificate bestows.
These arguments should raise serious red flags for the Jacobin rank-and-file, and indeed, neither holds water. You'd think in the "age of the 99%," we teeming masses would be able to see that what's good for the few isn't good for us all. It's true that marriage comes with material advantages — healthcare, citizenship, and inheritance chief among them — but therein also lies the problem. Marriage consolidates privilege by creating a legal basis for denying access to those thousand rights; it literally sanctions discrimination. Instead of bestowing rights based on relationship status, the state should guarantee those rights for all people. Instead we attach basic rights to an institution with a 50% failure rate.
The obsession with marriage also sanitizes the history of queer struggle. Stonewall was not a wedding, it was a riot, led by the very queers who are now erased from the public image of gay equality. Drag queens, trans people of color, young queers, and butch dykes fought systematic violence and in Sarah Schulman's words, "[...] arose to change society, to expand rigid gender roles, to break down confining social mores of privatized families and to defy the consumerism that accompanies monogamy and nuclear family lifestyle in the United States." That transformative vision has been sidelined by the marriage crowd, who are content to bestow rights only on the deserving few.
I think I'll have to start reading that site.
Also, I think Obama should go the extra step and marry Biden.
Quote from: Bruce Twillis on May 12, 2012, 02:03:24 PM
I think I'll have to start reading that site.
Also, I think Obama should go the extra step and marry Biden.
He's already married. He has to divorce his wife first, or that's bigamy. And NOBODY except Mormons support bigamy.
Quote from: Cain on May 12, 2012, 01:55:20 PM
Jacobin Magazine, as one would expect of a publication with such a name, brings the goods
http://jacobinmag.com/blog/2012/05/stonewall-was-a-wedding/
QuoteAre we done yet? Do we have to endure another full day of self-congratulation at Obama's personal endorsement of same-sex marriage? His announcement was heralded with as much praise as last summer's legalization of gay marriage in New York. And that was, you know, actual legislation.
This is hardly surprising given the fact that marriage equality is designed to distract liberal consciences and give Democrats political cover to gut social services. While the passage of gay marriage enjoyed the support of prominent campaign donors, it was directly preceded by cuts to homeless shelters for queer youth. It's a campaign season bait-and-switch — winning votes without making real concessions.
Case in point: Bloomberg commended Obama for joining a legacy of "courageous stands that so many Americans have taken over the years on behalf of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, stretching back to the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village." This days after slashing youth homeless shelter funding by $7 million, in a city where 40% of homeless youth are LGBT.
Looked at from this vantage point, the chief beneficiaries of gay marriage will be Crate & Barrel, not the queer folks with the most desperate needs. There is an obvious disconnect between the desires of politically connected, wealthy gay people and the needs of queer youth, and yet the major gay rights organizations have all rallied around gay marriage as if it will solve the problems of gay people everywhere, regardless of race or class.
Gay marriage proponents feed us two flavors of justification for their crusade. For the romantics they supply fantasy — the notion that legal inclusion brings social justice; for the cynics, they tout the thousand individual rights that a marriage certificate bestows.
These arguments should raise serious red flags for the Jacobin rank-and-file, and indeed, neither holds water. You'd think in the "age of the 99%," we teeming masses would be able to see that what's good for the few isn't good for us all. It's true that marriage comes with material advantages — healthcare, citizenship, and inheritance chief among them — but therein also lies the problem. Marriage consolidates privilege by creating a legal basis for denying access to those thousand rights; it literally sanctions discrimination. Instead of bestowing rights based on relationship status, the state should guarantee those rights for all people. Instead we attach basic rights to an institution with a 50% failure rate.
The obsession with marriage also sanitizes the history of queer struggle. Stonewall was not a wedding, it was a riot, led by the very queers who are now erased from the public image of gay equality. Drag queens, trans people of color, young queers, and butch dykes fought systematic violence and in Sarah Schulman's words, "[...] arose to change society, to expand rigid gender roles, to break down confining social mores of privatized families and to defy the consumerism that accompanies monogamy and nuclear family lifestyle in the United States." That transformative vision has been sidelined by the marriage crowd, who are content to bestow rights only on the deserving few.
They make some hella points, there.
Quote from: Cain on May 12, 2012, 01:55:20 PM
Gay marriage proponents feed us two flavors of justification for their crusade. For the romantics they supply fantasy — the notion that legal inclusion brings social justice;
It fucking well does.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 13, 2012, 09:33:14 AM
Quote from: Cain on May 12, 2012, 01:55:20 PM
Gay marriage proponents feed us two flavors of justification for their crusade. For the romantics they supply fantasy — the notion that legal inclusion brings social justice;
It fucking well does.
Sorta like how that whole "equal rights for blacks" thing didn't eliminate racism, but it did move society as a whole forward in a hugely significant step by doing away with legally sanctioned bigotry.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on May 14, 2012, 03:53:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 13, 2012, 09:33:14 AM
Quote from: Cain on May 12, 2012, 01:55:20 PM
Gay marriage proponents feed us two flavors of justification for their crusade. For the romantics they supply fantasy — the notion that legal inclusion brings social justice;
It fucking well does.
Sorta like how that whole "equal rights for blacks" thing didn't eliminate racism, but it did move society as a whole forward in a hugely significant step by doing away with legally sanctioned bigotry.
Not only that, but once the laws are in effect, you can force people to treat each other accordingly. You can't force them to change their views, but you CAN force them to change their behavior, which eventually changes society's view as a whole.
Also, crying and sniveling because you (the author, I mean) got what you wanted but now it isn't GOOD ENOUGH is fucking fantastic. It sure as hell doesn't play into the hands of the RWNs with the low foreheads or anything.
"Okay, we got this, let's move forward." <--- Useful attitude.
"SO HE ENDORSED GAY MARRIAGE! THAT'S LIKE SHOVING GAYS INTO THE GAS CHAMBERS BECAUSE THERE'S STILL PROBLEMS!" <--- Useless fucking hipster attitude.
RAD
link CAIN. obama ought to become a homeless gay youth and harass the next president in regards to race, sex, health and homelessness issues. obama should totally go tranny and run with Genesis p. orridge in 2016. that's probably what he's planning on doing, this is all just a primer
Quote from: E.O.T. on May 14, 2012, 04:10:18 PM
RAD
link CAIN. obama ought to become a homeless gay youth and harass the next president in regards to race, sex, health and homelessness issues. obama should totally go tranny and run with Genesis p. orridge in 2016. that's probably what he's planning on doing, this is all just a primer
I'd be fine if Obama just became the flamboyant version of Putin.
BREAKING: RON PAUL DROPS OUT OF THE RACE. AT THE STARTING LINE.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 14, 2012, 08:15:26 PM
BREAKING: RON PAUL DROPS OUT OF THE RACE. AT THE STARTING LINE.
I'm starting to think that Republicans mostly just use the Presidential race as a moneymaking scheme.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 14, 2012, 08:15:26 PM
BREAKING: RON PAUL DROPS OUT OF THE RACE. AT THE STARTING LINE.
The funniest part is listening to Paulites explain how this is a sure sign of his victory.
EDIT: RON PAUL HAS BEEN BRAINWASHED BY THE LIZARD MEN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cglWm0nD8w0&feature=related
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on May 19, 2012, 05:16:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 14, 2012, 08:15:26 PM
BREAKING: RON PAUL DROPS OUT OF THE RACE. AT THE STARTING LINE.
The funniest part is listening to Paulites explain how this is a sure sign of his victory.
EDIT: RON PAUL HAS BEEN BRAINWASHED BY THE LIZARD MEN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cglWm0nD8w0&feature=related
Wow. :aaa:
RON PAUL
was never gonna make the finals, don't be ridiculous
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on May 19, 2012, 05:10:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 14, 2012, 08:15:26 PM
BREAKING: RON PAUL DROPS OUT OF THE RACE. AT THE STARTING LINE.
I'm starting to think that Republicans mostly just use the Presidential race as a moneymaking scheme.
I probably would too, if I could.
Here's another way to tell it's an election year.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/22/11816421-obama-aides-gave-classified-information-on-bin-laden-raid-for-film-watchdog-says?lite
Whoopsie! :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 23, 2012, 02:44:07 AM
Here's another way to tell it's an election year.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/22/11816421-obama-aides-gave-classified-information-on-bin-laden-raid-for-film-watchdog-says?lite
Whoopsie! :lulz:
Wait, I thought Disney was floating the "Seal Team Six" movie, and then announced they weren't going to touch the subject....
So Sony outbid them?
Quote from: Cain on May 12, 2012, 01:55:20 PM
Jacobin Magazine, as one would expect of a publication with such a name, brings the goods
http://jacobinmag.com/blog/2012/05/stonewall-was-a-wedding/
QuoteAre we done yet? Do we have to endure another full day of self-congratulation at Obama's personal endorsement of same-sex marriage? His announcement was heralded with as much praise as last summer's legalization of gay marriage in New York. And that was, you know, actual legislation.
This is hardly surprising given the fact that marriage equality is designed to distract liberal consciences and give Democrats political cover to gut social services. While the passage of gay marriage enjoyed the support of prominent campaign donors, it was directly preceded by cuts to homeless shelters for queer youth. It's a campaign season bait-and-switch — winning votes without making real concessions.
Case in point: Bloomberg commended Obama for joining a legacy of "courageous stands that so many Americans have taken over the years on behalf of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, stretching back to the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village." This days after slashing youth homeless shelter funding by $7 million, in a city where 40% of homeless youth are LGBT.
Looked at from this vantage point, the chief beneficiaries of gay marriage will be Crate & Barrel, not the queer folks with the most desperate needs. There is an obvious disconnect between the desires of politically connected, wealthy gay people and the needs of queer youth, and yet the major gay rights organizations have all rallied around gay marriage as if it will solve the problems of gay people everywhere, regardless of race or class.
Gay marriage proponents feed us two flavors of justification for their crusade. For the romantics they supply fantasy — the notion that legal inclusion brings social justice; for the cynics, they tout the thousand individual rights that a marriage certificate bestows.
These arguments should raise serious red flags for the Jacobin rank-and-file, and indeed, neither holds water. You'd think in the "age of the 99%," we teeming masses would be able to see that what's good for the few isn't good for us all. It's true that marriage comes with material advantages — healthcare, citizenship, and inheritance chief among them — but therein also lies the problem. Marriage consolidates privilege by creating a legal basis for denying access to those thousand rights; it literally sanctions discrimination. Instead of bestowing rights based on relationship status, the state should guarantee those rights for all people. Instead we attach basic rights to an institution with a 50% failure rate.
The obsession with marriage also sanitizes the history of queer struggle. Stonewall was not a wedding, it was a riot, led by the very queers who are now erased from the public image of gay equality. Drag queens, trans people of color, young queers, and butch dykes fought systematic violence and in Sarah Schulman's words, "[...] arose to change society, to expand rigid gender roles, to break down confining social mores of privatized families and to defy the consumerism that accompanies monogamy and nuclear family lifestyle in the United States." That transformative vision has been sidelined by the marriage crowd, who are content to bestow rights only on the deserving few.
I'm a give this piece a "stopping there and not stopping there." Author's basically right. Gay marriage means fuck all to social justice if the queer movement stops there. But the author, in not stopping there, basically went on to call any queer person or ally who is pouring their energy into marriage rights, an "Uncle Tom" (or Uncle Mary, if you will).
I hear a lot of my gay friends say the same thing on a regular basis. Fuck that and fuck them. Social justice, at it's core, walks hand-in-hand with dignity. Some dudes prefer the bath-house and some dude's prefer the picket fence, but I guess the latter aren't "real queers," they're just posing for the man. So much for dignity, right? Clear example of black sheep are still sheep.
--
Totally agree with the take on the circus surrounding Obama's "courageous" pronouncement, though. "After, uhhh, speaking to my girls I just, uhhh, couldn't pass up an opportunity to try to, uhh, regain some of the progressive base I've spit in the face of these last four years. But, uh, let me be clear, I still believe in the 10th amendment. I have, uhh, at times...wiped my ass on it, sure. But, uhh, in this particular instance, uhhh, I think the state's should decide this issue for themselves, and moderate conservative voters should, uhhh, focus on my record of killing muslims instead of my private personal beliefs."
Quote from: Cain on May 12, 2012, 01:55:20 PM
Jacobin Magazine, as one would expect of a publication with such a name, brings the goods
http://jacobinmag.com/blog/2012/05/stonewall-was-a-wedding/
QuoteAre we done yet? Do we have to endure another full day of self-congratulation at Obama's personal endorsement of same-sex marriage? His announcement was heralded with as much praise as last summer's legalization of gay marriage in New York. And that was, you know, actual legislation.
This is hardly surprising given the fact that marriage equality is designed to distract liberal consciences and give Democrats political cover to gut social services. While the passage of gay marriage enjoyed the support of prominent campaign donors, it was directly preceded by cuts to homeless shelters for queer youth. It's a campaign season bait-and-switch — winning votes without making real concessions.
Case in point: Bloomberg commended Obama for joining a legacy of "courageous stands that so many Americans have taken over the years on behalf of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, stretching back to the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village." This days after slashing youth homeless shelter funding by $7 million, in a city where 40% of homeless youth are LGBT.
Looked at from this vantage point, the chief beneficiaries of gay marriage will be Crate & Barrel, not the queer folks with the most desperate needs. There is an obvious disconnect between the desires of politically connected, wealthy gay people and the needs of queer youth, and yet the major gay rights organizations have all rallied around gay marriage as if it will solve the problems of gay people everywhere, regardless of race or class.
Gay marriage proponents feed us two flavors of justification for their crusade. For the romantics they supply fantasy — the notion that legal inclusion brings social justice; for the cynics, they tout the thousand individual rights that a marriage certificate bestows.
These arguments should raise serious red flags for the Jacobin rank-and-file, and indeed, neither holds water. You'd think in the "age of the 99%," we teeming masses would be able to see that what's good for the few isn't good for us all. It's true that marriage comes with material advantages — healthcare, citizenship, and inheritance chief among them — but therein also lies the problem. Marriage consolidates privilege by creating a legal basis for denying access to those thousand rights; it literally sanctions discrimination. Instead of bestowing rights based on relationship status, the state should guarantee those rights for all people. Instead we attach basic rights to an institution with a 50% failure rate.
The obsession with marriage also sanitizes the history of queer struggle. Stonewall was not a wedding, it was a riot, led by the very queers who are now erased from the public image of gay equality. Drag queens, trans people of color, young queers, and butch dykes fought systematic violence and in Sarah Schulman's words, "[...] arose to change society, to expand rigid gender roles, to break down confining social mores of privatized families and to defy the consumerism that accompanies monogamy and nuclear family lifestyle in the United States." That transformative vision has been sidelined by the marriage crowd, who are content to bestow rights only on the deserving few.
Fuck. Yes.
What Obama has said is election year rhetoric. It means not a damn thing for us queers. Nothing at all.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 05, 2012, 08:43:27 AM
Quote from: Cain on May 12, 2012, 01:55:20 PM
Jacobin Magazine, as one would expect of a publication with such a name, brings the goods
http://jacobinmag.com/blog/2012/05/stonewall-was-a-wedding/
QuoteAre we done yet? Do we have to endure another full day of self-congratulation at Obama's personal endorsement of same-sex marriage? His announcement was heralded with as much praise as last summer's legalization of gay marriage in New York. And that was, you know, actual legislation.
This is hardly surprising given the fact that marriage equality is designed to distract liberal consciences and give Democrats political cover to gut social services. While the passage of gay marriage enjoyed the support of prominent campaign donors, it was directly preceded by cuts to homeless shelters for queer youth. It's a campaign season bait-and-switch — winning votes without making real concessions.
Case in point: Bloomberg commended Obama for joining a legacy of "courageous stands that so many Americans have taken over the years on behalf of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, stretching back to the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village." This days after slashing youth homeless shelter funding by $7 million, in a city where 40% of homeless youth are LGBT.
Looked at from this vantage point, the chief beneficiaries of gay marriage will be Crate & Barrel, not the queer folks with the most desperate needs. There is an obvious disconnect between the desires of politically connected, wealthy gay people and the needs of queer youth, and yet the major gay rights organizations have all rallied around gay marriage as if it will solve the problems of gay people everywhere, regardless of race or class.
Gay marriage proponents feed us two flavors of justification for their crusade. For the romantics they supply fantasy — the notion that legal inclusion brings social justice; for the cynics, they tout the thousand individual rights that a marriage certificate bestows.
These arguments should raise serious red flags for the Jacobin rank-and-file, and indeed, neither holds water. You'd think in the "age of the 99%," we teeming masses would be able to see that what's good for the few isn't good for us all. It's true that marriage comes with material advantages — healthcare, citizenship, and inheritance chief among them — but therein also lies the problem. Marriage consolidates privilege by creating a legal basis for denying access to those thousand rights; it literally sanctions discrimination. Instead of bestowing rights based on relationship status, the state should guarantee those rights for all people. Instead we attach basic rights to an institution with a 50% failure rate.
The obsession with marriage also sanitizes the history of queer struggle. Stonewall was not a wedding, it was a riot, led by the very queers who are now erased from the public image of gay equality. Drag queens, trans people of color, young queers, and butch dykes fought systematic violence and in Sarah Schulman's words, "[...] arose to change society, to expand rigid gender roles, to break down confining social mores of privatized families and to defy the consumerism that accompanies monogamy and nuclear family lifestyle in the United States." That transformative vision has been sidelined by the marriage crowd, who are content to bestow rights only on the deserving few.
I'm a give this piece a "stopping there and not stopping there." Author's basically right. Gay marriage means fuck all to social justice if the queer movement stops there. But the author, in not stopping there, basically went on to call any queer person or ally who is pouring their energy into marriage rights, an "Uncle Tom" (or Uncle Mary, if you will).
I hear a lot of my gay friends say the same thing on a regular basis. Fuck that and fuck them. Social justice, at it's core, walks hand-in-hand with dignity. Some dudes prefer the bath-house and some dude's prefer the picket fence, but I guess the latter aren't "real queers," they're just posing for the man. So much for dignity, right? Clear example of black sheep are still sheep.
--
Totally agree with the take on the circus surrounding Obama's "courageous" pronouncement, though. "After, uhhh, speaking to my girls I just, uhhh, couldn't pass up an opportunity to try to, uhh, regain some of the progressive base I've spit in the face of these last four years. But, uh, let me be clear, I still believe in the 10th amendment. I have, uhh, at times...wiped my ass on it, sure. But, uhh, in this particular instance, uhhh, I think the state's should decide this issue for themselves, and moderate conservative voters should, uhhh, focus on my record of killing muslims instead of my private personal beliefs."
And I agree with this too. Though I cringe a bit, because it always seems like the picket fence crowd comes back around to bite the rest of us queers in the asses for being too deviant and not conforming to their slightly widened gender standards.