Dan Savage and the "house faggots" incident

During my absence a medium sized political bomb blew up in United States. A medium sized public persona, one Dan Savage, who is a staunch supporter of the current administration and a no less staunch enemy of accepted behavior norms, has called the GOProud, a coalition of LGBT Republicans "house faggots" for their endorsement of Mitt Romney. Here are the reasons for that endorsement, if you are interested.

My colleague on the Watcher of Weasels team, gay Republican Daniel Blatt aka GayPatriot, like many other gay Republicans, felt insulted by the unbridled attack, and I thought it necessary to weigh in as an outsider. The nature of the offense may be questionable to some people: after all it is one gay person using what is undoubtedly an insulting term, but addressing another group of gays, so the matter could have been considered an "internal issue". After all, it is not unknown for Jews to use the word "kike" (or its equivalent in other languages) toward each other or black people using the N word toward each other as a term of endearment, etc. However, the best measure of an insult is that it be considered an insult by the person(s) it is aimed at, so if GayPatriot (and other gay Republicans) think that Dan Savage crossed the line, than he obviously did so.

The situation is not simple for me. To start with, I can't use the usual "some of my best friends are gay" intro, since for some reason I don't happen to have any. At least not that I know of. While I favor the policy of "live and let live", I am not an activist where gays' rights are concerned.

Then the political side of that outburst: I am not especially in love with the two main US parties, being rather a sympathizer of Libertarians (probably after an overdose of Robert Heinlein and other, non-SF writers). Sans their current leader, of course... Besides, being an Israeli, I am quite used to political debates and political fights spilling into personal and ethnic insults of various categories - from plainly stupid to outright offensive and sometimes possibly racist.

Religion now: being an atheist, albeit a non-militant one, I should at least be supportive of the general thrust of Savage's anti-religious activity.

So, on the face of it, Dan Savage should kind of count on my sympathy, at least as far as the three aspects of his activity I have mentioned above are concerned. One could say that I don't have a horse in this race. And yet...

Savage's treatment of his fellow gays is, as I have mentioned above, offensive. It is also contemptuous and befitting a self-appointed "left wing intellectual" who is ready to fling dirt at people who should be counting on his support - at least on one issue, where it is really needed. As Justin Sedor, the author of the above linked article asks: "How can we expect to erase the pain that we associate with the word "faggot" when we perpetuate its hateful message?" Savage's marks for his attitude to Republican gays: offensive and stupid. 

The first thing that came to my mind when reading about the "house faggots" incident was a somewhat similar case of (mostly) African American supporters of Democratic party labeling Colin Powel "Uncle Tom". At the same time Condoleezza Rice was called "Aunt Jemima" and several explicitly racist cartoons appeared in the "progressive" press. Then (in 2004), exactly as now, the main movers and shakers of Democratic establishment remained silent. And then, exactly as now, this silence stunk to high heaven.

One would think that Democratic party and its supporters must be forever mindful of the racist and bigoted history of that party and would be exceedingly careful not to remind people of this past (?). Dan Savage seems to be not in tune with the idea of being careful, and his sensitivity hardly differs from that of the wrecking ball. I wonder, besides, how many Democrat gays this incident will turn from supporting Democrats. So, for politics: offensive and stupid.

Religion: there are ways to debate theology-related issues (I have my own doubts about the efficacy of these debates, but who knows?). However, an anti-religious activist should pick up his fights with a person of his/her own caliber. Of course, the late Hitch comes to mind as an atheist who could and did pick some heavy opponents. But comparing Hitch to a self-inflated egomaniac like this one... Rallying against religion by calling a bunch of high school kids “pansy assed” is hardly a way to debate religion (or anything else for that matter) and influence people. Bullying people when trying to make them see your point of view is a poor replacement for intelligence and logic. So what mark could I award Savage for his anti-religious effort - besides offensive and stupid? None other...

All in all, offensive and stupid seems to be the name of the game where Savage is concerned. However, there is one caveat. Mr Savage, as his Wiki entry, patchy as it is, shows quite extensively, had experienced a few failures in his life, but has never missed the value of publicity, be it good or bad. Thus the scandal mentioned here will not really phase him in any possible way, that's for sure.

And he will definitely find himself more doorknobs to lick, don't you worry.