Don’t worry, there’s some Santana Champ in the back of the fridge I saved for you.

I know! It is so crisp!

For my straight dude readers – I triple dog dare you to say the following to another straight dude today:

Dude, New Hampshire finally passed gay marriage. Sweet, yeah?

If you don’t, you hate gay people.

I’m being serious.  Tell me who you told.

Gay marriage aka The Sturm might be coming to New York pretty soon.  The bill has passed the State Assembly and Gov. Paterson has said he’ll sign it; we’re just waiting on the State Senate where the chances are kind of iffy.  The National Organization for Marriage started airing the following ad today, entitled “NY Consequences”:

(Pro tip -- note the spell check-free last frames -- “same same [sic] sex marraige [sic]“) [Update: original misspelled video taken down by user.  Spellchecked one in its place]

I put together the following video to illustrate what is in my brain when I watch their ads, read their press releases, etc., using the above ad as an example. 

I still can’t get over the fact that their name is NOM, which is both onomatopoeia for the sound baby animals make while eating and also a popular internet meme and also this organization which ironically shares their acronym. And they have a spinoff called 2M4M, which is not, as one might guess, Craigslist erotic listings shorthand.  How are people that know what the internet is supposed to take them seriously? 

We were putting up shingles, people. Calm down! It’s just a homonym.

In other news, the California Supreme Court is going to rule today on Proposition 8; specifically, the constitutionality of Prop 8, which was a constitutional amendment.  It’s kind of a big dea, no offense to Sotomayor, but stop stealing our limelight. I will not be surprised if they rule that a part of the Constitution is constitutional. It will make me sad for the left coast gays because they will not get to get gay married.

I’ll be on the road back to Boston when they make the decision, so in case it’s bad, here’s a funny clip of a Quaid who is not a quaid and a lady whose marriage might get invalidated:

]]> http://www.dyerstraightsgetit.com/2009/05/did-you-have-a-nice-memorial-day-weekend/feed/ 0 http://www.dyerstraightsgetit.com/2009/05/poes-law-strikes-again/ http://www.dyerstraightsgetit.com/2009/05/poes-law-strikes-again/#comments Thu, 21 May 2009 06:53:34 +0000 Steve http://www.dyerstraightsgetit.com/?p=512 Poe’s Law states that fundamentalists and parodies of fundamentalists are indistinguishable, absent a wink or a nod or context.  It’s especially true on the internet.  I’ve touched on the topic before, and it’s something that kind of fascinates me.

Example: “THE WORLD IS FLAT BECAUSE IT’S IN THE BIBLE”

Anyway, I’m just using that as a little introduction to this gem that a tipster sent in.  It’s the National Organization for Marriage’s newest ad for straight-only marriage in all its pedophile-implicatory, child-exploit-y, fear-monger-y shitasticness. [Update: NOM has pulled this ad, probably to keep them from charges of child abuse? Luckily, other users have reposted it.]

I’ll waste no words on the content.  I’ll just let Louis CK take care of it.  (COULD ‘CK’ STAND FOR CAT, KEYBOARD!?)

The ad came out about a week ago, but I’m putting it up because of the haps up in New Hampshire earlier today.  The governor said that he would sign a gay marriage bill that had already passed both houses of the legislature if they added extra special language that makes it super clear that churches and religious things can still keep discriminating against gay couples if they feel like it, First Commandment be damned.  It created a little snag when it went back to the House.  The House didn’t pass the revised version of the bill because some gay marriage supporters believed the language to be too broad. The new language says that anyone affiliated with a religious organization — Churches, adoption agencies, The can deny goods, services, and benefits to gay-married people.  It’s an understandable hang-up, since the language is pretty darned broad for something added to calm fears that churches would be legally obligated to marry people they don’t want to without the language, just like the Catholic church is legally obligated to perform weddings for divorced people and Mormon churches are also legally obligated to marry atheist straight couples.

That was sarcastic; don’t want Poe’s Law to trip anyone up.

I wish there were a way to spicify this kind of news, but it’s just so boring now. Read the guvna’s statement:

“I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.

“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs,” the governor said. “It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of church and state.

“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government,” Baldacci said.

Snoooooore. Duh, Baldacci.  Five down, 45 to go.  Sure, this makes me happy, but mostly it just preemptively exhausts me.  Who would think something so boring would need so much debate?  Do we really need to do this 45 more times?  The conversation should be pretty basic to get someone to support gay marriage:

1. Straight people are attracted to the opposite sex, but gay people are attracted to the same sex.
2. People have relationships with people they are attracted to.
3. Relationships result in marriage.
4. Straight people marry people of the opposite sex, but gay people marry people of the same sex.

That’s basically all it boils down to, which is why I feel that there is always a minimum level of snark, disdain, and gratuitous reductionism necessary when discussing this.  The biggest snag I can find is the part after the comma in number 1.  People don’t want it to be true, so they just say it isn’t, or they tack on a ‘but’ – but it’s yucky, but I don’t like it, but I think it’s wrong and have no compelling reason why but I don’t like new things, etc. (but I have gay friends, no offense!)

So, thanks to everyone that agrees with me that this is completely boring. If you don’t think it’s boring, and you think it actually warrants real discussion, you’re wrong. Tell me why you’re not.

And to answer my own question, yes. We do need to do this 45 more times.  Depressing.  And then keep doing this, because it’s not about marriage.  It’s a question about what a gay person is.  So I’ll keep on defending the basics of my existence on the internet, and we can all have fun doing it together.

(Princeton, NJ) – Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released this statement today clarifying the role of Carrie Prejean at a press conference held Thursday in Washington, DC:

“A number of media sources have described Carrie Prejean as a spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage.

As we made clear at our press conference yesterday: Carrie appeared with NOM as a private citizen; she does not work for the National Organization for Marriage. She is a spokesperson for her own views, as anyone watching her can tell.

We are grateful to Carrie Prejean for her willingness to stand up for marriage. We would love to work with Carrie in the future if she chooses, and we wish her well in all her future endeavors whatever she chooses. We’re proud of her. Americans are proud of her. She is a remarkable young woman. Thank you, Carrie. “

Tickety tack hot messes all.

Technorati Profile

Enjoy. Lie density is equally high as their last one. Alas, entertainment value is way down.
I will concede one point they make, though. I should stop oppressing you straight people. This is my official apology. I’ll try not to do it again.

The New Hampshire legislature passed a gay marriage bill yesterday, and it’s going to Gov. Lynch’s desk once it re-passes the House with some unneccessary but welcome amended language to be double triple dog sure that religious groups don’t have to marry dudes, cuz yuck.  

New England’s got a flu! And the only prescription is more marriage redefinin’!

After my last post about Carrie Prejean, I made a conscious decision to never post about her again, allowing her to fade out of the public’s consciousness, making one last stop in the first segment of VH1’s “Top 200 Unnecessary and Overblown Pseudo-Celebrity Feuds of 2009” before fading into oblivion.

But then this post from Dan Savage made me rethink my promise to myself. She hangs out with trannies that sing hooks to songs about cumshots, her sister isn’t a gay-rights activist, and the Miss USA pageant paid for her fake boobs.

Get a hold of yourself, Steve.  You can make it through this. These are distracting, inconsequential, superficial inanities.

I had hope for this poor soul, that she would be graceful and rise above Perez Hilton’s attention-seeking.

Wrong.  I guess you can never trust brainwashed know-nothings not to slip into tragic self parody:

More news from co-NOM troll Jeremy Hooper at Good As You: Miss Prejean is filming an anti-gay marriage ad for NOM, the organization you may remember from my favorite thing ever.

It’s on. I’m a strong feminist, which means I have no problem punching girls in the face.  Digitally. With words. And not fists.

Listen, Carrie. Here’s some unsolicited advice. You know you made a goof.  You said something on television that you had to end with the phrase “no offense”, and we all know what that means.  You’ve probably never had to explain your views on homosexuality before, much less to a provocateur like Hilton, and it was obvious that you were uncomfortable with what you were saying as you were even saying it.  It’s okay to admit that.  A statement like “Wow, I’ve never previously been forced to realize that snippets of my preacher’s sermons I’ve never thought about and just knee-jerk repeated actually denied the humanity of the probably thousands of queers I know that have tinted, spray-tanned, porcelained, weavified, manicured, and coached me to where I am now, not to mention the hundreds more that have designed everything I’ve ever worn on stage  and hosted the pageants I’ve been in for my whole life.  Totes sorry, let’s get cocktails, ya’ll!” would suffice. 

Okay, so I’m dreaming. What actually is going to happen is that you are going to portray the expression of hurt feelings (e.g. this post) that are resulting of your speaking tour and anti-gay ad, whose message is “I’ll let a fag do my hair as long as he knows that I am going to continue stomping around the country telling people that he is a horrific abomination that will burn in hell, no offense” as you being oppressed. And no one will be surprised when this happens.

For the record, I’m not pro-censorship.  I want Carrie to do what she’s going to do. Her new ad will probably be as good as NOM’s first one, which means it will be awesome at not convincing anyone, as well as be a delicious fresh canvas for all of those ubertalented YouTube parodists out there. And will probably give me at least one more post on the matter.

Aaaaand to cool my self-righteous outrage, let’s listen together to Carrie’s friend in the picture above, Miss Lapore, singing the hook of this incredible song about gay facials:

(For the record, Amanda Lepore and Carrie Prejean are not actually friends)

I’m friends with the National Organization of Marriage (the makers of this ad and general anti-gay rabble rousers) on Facebook,  and every time they post something, which is usually something like “call your state senator’s unpaid intern and demand they provide umbrellas to all constituents for the gay sturm” or “let’s hear it for this dude that curb stomped 5 queers, but compassionately, like Christ would do”, I leave an inflammatory comment and my blog address.  At first, it was just a way to self-promote, but it is surprisingly fun. 

But I fear it might be like, a cocaine fun, not, say, a swingset fun, or a volunteer-at-a-children’s-hospital fun.  As in unhealthy, destructive,  borderline immoral, and addictive, but also sometimes resulting in “Back to Black”.

I think of it as a game and a challenge.  I try to make my inflammatory comment from the perspective of a gay marriage opponent, and then see if anyone can figure out (or rather, if anyone can’t figure out) that I’m just mocking them like an asshole.

Example (posted under an invitation to a anti-gay marriage rally in DC):

Me: Same sex marriage in Iowa caused swine flu! If DC doesn’t preservate opposite marriage, what’s next!? ZOMBIE FLU?!?1?
http://www.dyerstraightsgetit.com

This comment is immature, snide, condescending, sophomoric, and warrants no attention.  (Although I do want to call your attention to this statement from a person that got elected once.)

Yet:

Ellen: Steve – Silly comments and outrageous claims diminish the cause.

and

Sherrie: Be careful of what motives you presume to ascribe to God whose property is always to have mercy, Steve. His ways are far above our ways. By the way, it’s PRESERVE.

Both of these replies are also ambiguous as to which side of the fight they are on, although I suspect Sherrie is pro-gay marriage and Ellen is contra. I don’t think it matters one way or the other, since they both thought I was being serious.

The comment threads get pretty ridiculous, since it’s probably 50:50 [people for gay marriage that loved their Gathering Storm ad] : [people who agree with this organization].  Each side vehemently hates the other, yet everyone unsuccessfully tries to come off  as “respectful of the other side’s view”, as well as tries to be successfully persuasive.

Now, this trolling is enjoyable to me as a game and a cathartic way to release some anger against total strangers, and I don’t suspect I’ll a single person’s mind, but my question is this: Is outright mockery a useful tool of persuasion in a general sense?

I offer two examples. First, Stephen Colbert’s incredible slaying at the Press Correspondent’s dinner in 2006, as well as his show and existence.  You may have seen this article about the study showing that conservatives that watch his show don’t know that he’s kidding.

Second, Dan Savage’s ruining of ex-Senator Rick Santorum’s life. The background is that Rick Santorum was a pretty vicious opponent of gay rights, so Savage defined a yucky sex act result after Santorum in retaliation. 

I love both of these events as theater, and I’d say that I support the spread of santorum while acknowledging the moral grayness of it. They’re also not really anything more than really skilled trolling.

There are several things that pull me in different directions.  I want to successfully persuade people to not be homophobes.  I want to express the frustration I feel at the reality that gays need to persuade others that in a neutral state, we are moral beings. I also want to get pageviews.  I think I can do the first two or the second two, but not all three.