Grables'Daughter: Attention whores are the worst.

Tell me about it.

Grables'Daughter: Attention whores are the worst.

The worst what? Bakers? Bikers? Dancers? Farkers? You can't leave me hanging like that.

Uh, he kinda has to come out for gay marriage. Al Sharpton's entire schtick is equality for black people so he would be quite the hypocrite to be against equality for gay people. And he's not Republican.

Subby, you're supposed to say Reverend Al Sharpton.

Dunno what he's a reverend of; but the assumption is all religious people are anti-gay, right?

Whatever gets the votes.

As much as I loath Sharpton, this is actually pretty huge. The black clergy is traditionally pretty homophobic and have consistently been against gay marriage. It is likely that black churches provided the margin that passed prop 8 in CA. His endorsement could go a long way toward bringing that block around.

Someone who stumps for civil rights is in favor of civil rights?

Flabbergasted, I am. Truly.

If he's supposed to be speaking for black folks and particularly black religious folks he isn't doing a good job representing them.



/agree that gay marriage should be legal
//don't have a problem with this announcement per se but . . .
/// . . . . pretty sure in typical Al Sharpton fashion he will find a way to A) make money off this, B) do it in the douchiest way possible that alienates a lot of moderates C) make money off this and D) seriously it's all about the money with him.

StopLurkListen: Subby, you're supposed to say Reverend Al Sharpton.

Dunno what he's a reverend of; but the assumption is all religious people are anti-gay, right?

The majority of religious African-Americans are anti-gay marriage.

StopLurkListen: Subby, you're supposed to say Reverend Al Sharpton.

Dunno what he's a reverend of; but the assumption is all religious people are anti-gay, right?

Not all, just the vocal asshole types. Also, TFA sez that Sharpton is a baptist minister.

If Al Sharpton is for it, that proves it's wrong.

Supporting equality under the law is attention whoring?

watson.t.hamster: If he's supposed to be speaking for black folks and particularly black religious folks he isn't doing a good job representing them.

Those graph lines look like they are having an orgy.

Religions usually have their own government sanctioned marriage businesses. They maintain the rights to marry whomever they dictate no matter the government's policies. I don't really know why they would be interested in a state's [any government] policy that amounts to a family rights and taxation law.

I'm glad to see the majority of Catholics are in favor (although barely) of same sex marriages. Officially the RC Church does not want any legislation that legally forces anyone to behave in a more pious way than they have established in their lives. That's why the Church has no interest in the enactment of laws prohibiting prostitution, gambling, birth control or same sex activities. These laws take away from the free will and moral obligations of the church members. A person who refrains from birth control because it is illegal has not done anything good.

/as for abortion, the Church however takes a more Loraxian position.

watson.t.hamster: If he's supposed to be speaking for black folks and particularly black religious folks he isn't doing a good job representing them.

Where exactly does he claim to be speaking for all black religious folk?

Sharpton is a fully functioning paid member of the White House. If the GOP came out against cloudy days, Sharpton would stand on his desk and scream that Obama = cloud seeding against drought.

Sharpton and Jesse Jackson got into a hissy fight once. Andrew Sullivan's snark was, "Girls, girls! You're both beautiful, stop it." Maybe now, y'know, nudge nudge...

Wayne 985: A lot of black folks oppose it, so it's good that maybe he can provide some guidance or be a role model on the subject if they're following him.

Well, it would be a change from what he usually is, that's for sure.

Hickory-smoked: watson.t.hamster: If he's supposed to be speaking for black folks and particularly black religious folks he isn't doing a good job representing them.

Where exactly does he claim to be speaking for all black religious folk?

Every time he opens his mouth, or there abouts. I suppose sometimes it's to say various ethnic slurs.

When someone says anything that could be construed as offensive to blacks who is there, immediately, demanding an apology?

He took up the mantel. Can't be blamed for holding him to it.

StopLurkListen: Subby, you're supposed to say Reverend Al Sharpton.

Dunno what he's a reverend of; but the assumption is all religious people are anti-gay, right?



That ain't no Rev'rend.

I wish Bayard Rustin was still alive.

He's said this for quite awhile now. I remember him being pro-gay marriage several years ago...

/just sayin'

Maybe Rev Al is on the down low and wants to keep his options open.

watson.t.hamster: When someone says anything that could be construed as offensive to blacks who is there, immediately, demanding an apology?

By "saying anything offensive," you mean "police shooting unarmed black kids in the back," right?

I'm just trying to determine if we're talking about the same events here.

Hickory-smoked: By "saying anything offensive," you mean "police shooting unarmed black kids in the back," right?

I'm just trying to determine if we're talking about the same events here.


There was that whole 'nappy headed ho' thing too.

Robot Eats Towson:
Sharpton and Jesse Jackson got into a hissy fight once. Andrew Sullivan's snark was, "Girls, girls! You're both beautiful, stop it." Maybe now, y'know, nudge nudge...

[ts4.mm.bing.net image 300x249]

Hmm, I too would suspect that in this case "Jughead is the Queen of King Archie's world". Those two are on the down-low for sure. Giggity.

For SRS... Sharpton has been a real ass in his time, but that doesn't make him any less right about this. And if he's just being an opportunist here, at least he's playing the long game and picking the side that will, in the end, win.

I like him more every year.

I think it started when he hosted SNL.

I too think it's spiffy that the scum bag endorses men corn-holing other men.

watson.t.hamster: If he's supposed to be speaking for black folks and particularly black religious folks he isn't doing a good job representing them.

[filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com image 508x333]

/agree that gay marriage should be legal
//don't have a problem with this announcement per se but . . .
/// . . . . pretty sure in typical Al Sharpton fashion he will find a way to A) make money off this, B) do it in the douchiest way possible that alienates a lot of moderates C) make money off this and D) seriously it's all about the money with him.

Not a particular fan of Sharpton but I don't see how he has any obligation to parrot statistically-gathered ideas from a poll or a set of polls. That's not what "representation" is (aside from the fact that he's not really an elected anything outside of whatever religious organizations he is involved with).

Ablejack: as for abortion, the Church however takes a more Loraxian position.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "a Loraxian position" in the first place, before we can talk about whether one position is any more Loraxian than any other.

I assume you're making some allusion to the children's book The Lorax by Dr. Seuss?

Wook: I too think it's spiffy that the scum bag endorses men corn-holing other men.

I think the politically correct term these days is "men rump-rangering other men". We have to be sensitive, now don't we.

Hickory-smoked: watson.t.hamster: When someone says anything that could be construed as offensive to blacks who is there, immediately, demanding an apology?

By "saying anything offensive," you mean "police shooting unarmed black kids in the back," right?

I'm just trying to determine if we're talking about the same events here.

You're kidding right? You don't seriously think that's all he does.

All snickering aside, I personally find it very refreshing to see a prominent Black leader speaking up in favour of marriage equality. It baffles and dismays me how anti-gay a lot of Black communities are. I really don't understand why it's so hard to relate one struggle for equality to another, but I've come to accept the reality of that, even as I continue to oppose it.

Some years back, a local councilor who has styled himself in a similar role --- and, I want to say, has done a lot of really good things -- vociferously opposed marriage equality. At one point, he boldly stated that, "Martin Luther King would not have solemnized a gay marriage." I happened to have some access to a public media organ at the time, so I took advantage of that to respond publicly, noting that: 1) King was a man of his time, not ours, which makes the assertion pointless. Practically no one of King's time would have, but things change and get better, such as the things King was trying to change and improve. What would King have said to someone who told him, "FDR would not have let his kids go to an integrated school."? 2) It's like asking if Lincoln would have dropped the bomb on Richmond. It's senseless and pointless to make presumptions about people of earlier periods of history who lack our hindsight, especially those no longer around to defend themselves. 3) For what it's worth, Coretta Scott King believed differently, "but what would she know" about her own husband? It just infuriated me that this self-important, self-appointed community spokesman took it upon himself to invoke the name of MLK, and put words in his mouth that his own widow would not agree with, to provide illusory (and in fact invalid) support for his own inexplicable bigotry.

Sharpton's on the right side of this one. But he's still a farkhead.

I was listening to Al's radio show the day after the State of the Union address. I wanted to hear his spin on it. A black woman called in to talk about the address and stated that Obama had misquoted Lincoln in his speech and that the speech was on the internet. Rev Al cut her off told her the "Internet was wrong" and went to the next caller. I just thought it was odd that he didn't even want to discuss it, he couldn't get her off the air fast enough.

watson.t.hamster: Hickory-smoked: watson.t.hamster: When someone says anything that could be construed as offensive to blacks who is there, immediately, demanding an apology?

By "saying anything offensive," you mean "police shooting unarmed black kids in the back," right?

I'm just trying to determine if we're talking about the same events here.

You're kidding right? You don't seriously think that's all he does.

Were you?

Even a broken clock..

Hickory-smoked: watson.t.hamster: When someone says anything that could be construed as offensive to blacks who is there, immediately, demanding an apology?

By "saying anything offensive," you mean "police shooting unarmed black kids in the back," right?

I'm just trying to determine if we're talking about the same events here.

Eh, I've seen him do both. For the record, I have no opinion of him one way or the other, for the most part.

I do think it's good to have a black religious leader speak out in favor of marriage equality, because unfortunately the truth is homophobia is very strong in the black community, particularly the religious part.

So maybe a few blacks that are currently against same-sex marriage that like him and respect him will think twice about marriage equality now.

Would it not been better for those fighting for marriage equality if Rev. Sharpton had come out against gay marriage instead of for it?

TheMysteriousStranger: Would it not been better for those fighting for marriage equality if Rev. Sharpton had come out against gay marriage instead of for it?

Honestly, I suspect that Sharpton's remarks are a bigger deal to Black Americans generally than to the national population as a whole. But that's not to downplay his relevance, on the strength of sheer numbers. I think that most Americans, whoever they are, feel they're in some kind of minority that can benefit from guidance, and people like Sharpton fulfill that role for many people. You don't have to agree with him, but it's hard to ignore him, and hard to disclaim his real influence, whatever you might think of it. If you oppose marriage equality, you're still paying attention to what people like Santorum say, because whatever you think of him personally, deep down you're aware that there are many other people paying attention to what he says. A great deal of relevant American discourse takes the form of the rhetoric from and between people like this.

Separately, I want too note something that sometimes annoys me: 'gay marriage' has a slightly different meaning from 'marriage equality,' and I think the different usages often betray what people are really thinking. 'Gay marriage' allows for a rather narrow interpretation, pretty much only, 'people of the same sex marrying each other'. What's the problem with that? Well, it's twofold. First, it tends to tacitly segregate gays categorically, as if 'gay marriage' is somehow fundamentally different from all other marriage, as vanilla is to chocolate. (You known damn well your child feels there's a Very Big Difference between the two, even if they like both.) Second, it focuses on the sex of the participants, rather than the more relevant fact of them being U.S. citizens in good standing, equal under the law, which is what civil rights of all kinds is really about. 'Marriage equality' has the broader connotation of ignoring the gender of parties to a legal marriage, rather than defining or categorising them.

This is relevant for two further reasons: First, it acknowledges the slowly dimming realisation that what we call 'sex' isn't quite as cut and dried, or consistent, as many people would like it to be; that's a reality we've got to address at some point in our laws, and it may as well be now rather than later. (I've even argued that this medical fact alone should be sufficient to defend and enforce marriage equality, as it will become harder and harder to prove in a court of law what it means to be of a particular 'sex' and why should be relevant to someone's civil rights.) Second, it helps lay the groundwork for an ever broader understanding of civil liberties as something that Americans possess, not something that *some* Americans possess *some* of. Traditionally, laws expanding civil liberties (or, more commonly, acknowledging and enforcing ones found to already exist innately) use 'open' language, rather than constricting language. Thus, suffrage in 1920 doesn't say that woman can vote, it says that the right to vote shall not be abridged by reason of a person's sex. It says, "this is not a thing to consider," rather than defining a list of people who can vote (e.g., "men and women"). I note that a lot of people opposed to marriage equality, or dubious about it, or just disinterested, like to use this term 'gay marriage'. I'd like to suggest they try 'marriage equality' instead. This isn't some PC thing. It's good to try it on and see if you find it comfortable, if you really grasp what this is about. It's not about queers getting hitched. It's about U.S. citizens being equal to each other under the law, no matter who they are.