Today's Evil Beet Gossip

Oh, Yo. Sarah Silverman Just Gave My Brain The Biggest Boner

Sarah Silverman did a little interview with MTV this weekend and when they asked her about her opinion on marriage in a country where gay marriage doesn’t exists, Sarah went from funny to serious in a millisecond. What she had to say is transcribed here, although I would take a moment to watch her say it yourself if you can:

“Not only would I not get married, it actually actively bums me out that anyone who is for equal rights would get married right now. There’s nothing different between that and joining a country club that doesn’t allow blacks or Jews back then. Who needs to get married that bad that they’ll be a part of a club like that? This is embarrassing. It’s embarrassing.”

I know we talk about this issue a lot over here and well, everywhere, but when it’s said as plainly as this, you cannot hear it enough. We’re living in a country that’s treating homosexuals in the same abhorable way that blacks and Jews and Irish and whomever we decided we hated for a period in time were treated. That’s so fucked up. Something has to change because, like the reporter starts to say in the video, in 50 years we will all look back and be so ashamed that we lived in a country where this kind of exclusion and hatred was going on.

41 CommentsLeave a comment

    • Mr. Anonymous, don’t even go there. Children are children. We’re talking about two people old enough to decide they want to get married.

      Contrary to what you might think, homosexuality doesn’t equal pedophilia. Straight men have raped little girls, even their own daughters, and we don’t condemn heterosexuality as a whole because of that, right?

  • I completely agree with Sarah Silverman, and not just as a gay man. Though I would never ask anyone to not get married, I would also ever join a club that discriminates against other minorities.

    Oh, and to answer the Anonymous person above me, you can still be in loving relationships and have children, just without endorsing an unfair marital system. I believe that Sarah Silverman’s point is that she would prefer to have those things on the same terms that same-sex couples have them at the moment in most of this country.

  • You have got to be kidding. I agree with equal rights for all but comparing homosexuals to “blacks” and “Jews” is ridiculous. Jews were exiled and killed for being Jewish. Blacks were enslaved and basically tortured. Both of these actions were backed by a govrnmental power who never sought to punish any wrongdoing. I agree that homosexuals are sometimes exiled and even murdered just for being homosexual, but these instances are illegal and punishable by law.

    Like I said, equal rights for all but homosexuals have not endured even a tenth of what blacks and Jews have. Period.

    • “I agree that homosexuals are sometimes exiled and even murdered just for being homosexual, but these instances are illegal and punishable by law.”

      Not punishable by law in all countries. If you only want to talk about US law, that’s fine, but then you can’t include the statement: “Jews were exiled and killed for being Jewish.” And if, as I suspect, you are referring to the Holocaust, then you should know that homosexuals were also exiled, put in concentration camps and killed.

    • As Jess said below, it’s only in very few countries that the killing of homosexuals is frowned upon. Throughout Africa and the Middle East, to name a few, there are countries who WILL actively kill you for being gay (yes, I’m speaking of the government), will turn the other cheek while homophobic crimes/murders are being committed because it’s considered to be a long-outdated part of culture, or deny the existence of homosexuals in their countries outright. None of these things are remotely acceptable behavior for a world that wishes to advance. It’s just like any other crime of hate.

      Think of how ashamed we are now for the way our country treats black citizens, and occasionally STILL treats black citizens. That’s how we should view this situation right now. Separate but equal counts just as little now as it did in the times of segregation.

      • I think they’re doing the right thing in those countries. If the Government doesn’t take care of it, the good Lord will.

  • I think in terms of eugenics, you can’t make a clear-cut case for homosexuals in this country. After all, they’re not being sterilized against their will due to their color or ethnicity, a practice that was shockingly common until the 1960’s in the US.

    However, in terms of discrimination I think the case is well-made. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is one of the more blatant cases of discrimination at the level of the government.

    And denying marriage is another case of government sanctioned bigotry that parallels experiences of other minorities in this country. Just last year a judge in Louisiana denied a mixed couple a marriage license due to his concerns for their future mixed babies. Everyone went into an uproar about how that was just awful and backward. And yet, most Americans see no problem in denying homosexuals the right to marry. I see the hypocrisy. I see the suffering. Does it take lynching and/or genocide for a group’s suffering to be acknowledged?

    • just remember that the denial of marriage was not decided by the government’s but by the people’s vote due to states rights to decide on their laws.

      • True, but a vote wasn’t necessary to make it legal for non-homosexual couples to marry, right? Why is it a voter’s issue for homosexuals? If there truly is separation of church and state, then the church shouldn’t be able to affect what is a civil issue.

      • I don’t think everything should be left to the people’s vote, especially when the rights of minorities are involved. Especially because, as minorities, it is harder for them to achieve a majority in votes.

      • Jeneria, it’s a voters issue for homo’s because they are gay and obviously not in the right state of mind. Think of it just like they were mentally retarded or something, we have to care for those people 24/7.

  • I still don’t know how I feel about gay marriage. I have nothing against gay people. One of my best friends is a lesbian. I just don’t think is natural. But if they want to get married who are we to deny those rights to them.

  • I believe marriage should be between two consenting adults, and no one has the right to tell gay couples they cannot get married. With that said, I do agree with most of SS’s quote. However, to answer her question of “Who needs to get married that bad”. Well, many Americans are actually moving toward marriage faster than they would otherwise, due to the fact that they need certain necessary ‘perks’ like health insurance that they have trouble getting otherwise. I’m not saying it’s fair for this to be denied to gay couples, but I also don’t think it’s fair to call out married people as a WHOLE, with the assumption that they aren’t doing enough to support equal rights. Not everyone has their own tv show and can afford basic things like medical bills. I am in a position right now where I cannot visit the doctor without a $200 visit fee, plus everything that goes on top of that. I will not get married for the purpose of obtaining health insurance from my insured boyfriend, but I can see how some individuals may have no other choice.

  • The right to marriage is a Civil Right which should be extended to all American Citizens. Anything less is discrimination and has nothing to do with religious beliefs or sexual preferences. If you believe in God and that he created everything, then why discriminate against any of God’s creations.

  • I’m all for gay marriage that’s recognized by the state. It’s going to be a little more difficult to force churches and such to allow it, however.

    Also, it being illegal for gays to marry does not in any way compare to the slavery, torture and murder of blacks, Jews, Russians, etc. Just a wee bit different.

  • Um, exclluding blacks or jews from buses and restrooms is not equivalent to INCLUDING genders of people into an institution which never, ever, ever, ever included them in the first place. You’re imposing political correctness on me which is no better than me imposing my beliefs on you. So, stop.

    It may seem hateful (and all that crap-ola) to not want them to be included in what is called “marriage”. Whatever. O.K. then, call it civil marriage so that men marrying women can be called “traditional marriage”. If you want to afford gay marriage equial legal rights, so be it. It’s not the same unon for ALL of the same purposes. It never, ever will be.

    No, we WON’T be looking back fifty years from now, etc.. blah blah. You are very mistaken.

    • Hi, I’m Shae, and black people confuse and upset me. I don’t want to DENY them rights or anything like that, but it makes me really uncomfortable that they would want to ride on the same section of the bus as me. I mean, white people have the majority in this world and have been calling the shots for a long time now, and it’s only recently that black people were even allowed the privilege to go anywhere without us supervising them at all, so shouldn’t we have the right to what is defined to be the most comfortable, convenient part of the bus? For real.

      Okay, well, I guess maybe I wouldn’t feel so bad if they got their OWN buses to ride on. Maybe we could call them “civil buses” so we can differentiate between the “traditional” buses that are the ones for us white folks and the OTHER buses that the black people can ride on. That way, they won’t be threatening my presence on the bus of my choice, and I won’t necessarily have to even think about the fact that we’re riding on the exact same vehicle but calling it different names. It’ll just be something used to make me feel more comfortable about who I am as an American and a white person.

      • Big thumbs up Shae.

        The very idea of seperation is unjust. It’s marital Apartheid.

        Imagine, Muttley, that the love of your life came up to you and said “Mutt, will you join me in a civil union? Not a traditional union–a civil on”
        You’d be unhappy with the proposition, I’m sure.

  • Sarah has a point – but it could simply be an excuse for not getting married. You can’t lump all of us married folk into the same discriminating group. That’s completely unfair.

    I can see how certain churches (to each their own) wouldn’t marry two people of the same sex – but legally two people regardless of orientation should be able to marry – and be protected by all laws that apply to a married man and woman. It may be 25 years before this will happen – but it’s going to.

  • I pity Sarah Silverman for having such a cold view of marriage. I wholeheartedly support and rally for gay marriage, BECAUSE I am married and I know how it changes a relationship. My parents split up when I was 1, and I do not remember any time when I felt the security of a family unit as a child. I do believe that unmarried couples can be very committed and great parents, but there is something about declaring your unity as a family to the world legally which really solidifies the family unit.

    I didn’t get married for any reason other than love. In my country we have access to free health care and defacto relationships are given the same legal recognition as marriages. I feel sad for SS that she is so clinical about something which is essentially the foundation of family AND society.

    The best thing to do to support gay marriage is have MARRIED people rally behind it. We need to show that we value the sanctity of marriage and wish others to have the same opportunities, and don’t feel threatened (as some conservatives obviously do) by other people joining our “club”.

  • OMG, so much I wanted to reply to after reading all of these comments…just gonna start my own comment thread.

    First off, yes other groups of minorities technically have had larger scale physical and mortal harm done to them over history (simply in terms of numbers). That being said, you can not count how many severe injuries and deaths have been caused to homosexuals over the whole course of time. Before the gay rights movement started off, someone who was killed for being gay wouldn’t have had their death recorded as a hate crime. And regardless of any number of deaths in any particular group, just ONE death due to discrimation is a tragedy. We can’t lose sight of that. Additionally, what about emotional/mental abuse? It’s a lot harder to account for, but having to hide your identity for all of history, except for recent years, is going to have a negative impact you wouldn’t wish on anyone. (<—I hope).

    Second, what's with the name calling? We are not going to agree on everything…let's not make it worse, k?

    Third, who cares if churches never allow it? That's why we're fighting for the GOVERNMENT to legalize gay marriage. Religion is a private institution that is allowed to forbid it- like it or not. Government is not allowed to forbid it because it's not constitutional. End. of. story.

    Last, yes…we will look back 50 years from now and wonder why this was such scary thing for some people. History proves this. And, if you personally don't look back with a changed heart, younger generations will.

  • She’s proves here that she’s just as stupid as she is unfunny and childishly profane with this idiotic interpretation of an issue that’s gotten way too much attention over the past couple of years. So anybody who believes in equal rights including herself shouldn’t get married right now because gays can’t get married? Why stop there, Sarah? What about many of the other more important rights that people, both gay and non-gay, are deprived of in this world such as the right to have access to proper nutrition, the right to a roof over their heads, or the right to a decent paying job? Are you going to give any of those up, too? I kind o’ doubt it, as giving those up wouldn’t gather the attention of the liberal Hollywood elite and your largely gay fan following, and would make your currently quite comfortable life quite uncomfortable. Frankly, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about gay marriage, either way. I’m just tired of the same rants I hear over and over about this issue and the absurd comparisons to segregation and other forms of discrimination that take place in the world — it’s not even on the same level. Let it be a state mandated issue where the people can vote on it, period. That’s what happened in California and that should continue to stand as the majority should rule. It doesn’t need to become a national issue or law.

    • Now this people, this is a very well written post. All my shitty comments aside, I agree 100% with this guy right here.

  • What she said and the original post disgust me. People who are getting married now cannot be compared to the people who enslaved and murdered my ancestors. Kind of like comparing a drunken slur to the holocaust that happened “like 45 years ago,” a really “retarded” thing to do. *

    The shit that gay people have to deal with today cannot be compared to what black people were dealing with 50 years ago (I have close family who went through one or both of these times and issues).

    Modern “liberals” like her are cowards. When people were fighting for civil rights and against war in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, they risked their careers and their lives, were often beaten for their troubles, jailed and subjected to government harassment and surveillance that makes the Patriot Act look benevolent.

    To say she is not going to marry as a form of protest is a major insult to others before her (celebrities included) who put it all on the line for something they believed in. Notice how she and most other celebrities who are vocal on this issue are doing so when it’s perfectly safe to have this opinion?

    BTW, I fully support gay marriage, gays openly serving in the military (I even openly said so when I was in the military way back in the day) and gays having the same rights to adoption, etc. I include the entire LGBT community in this.

    * Many of you will know exactly what posts I’m referring to.

  • Then she shouldn’t party at the clubs where celebrities party because they don’t allow other people in.
    Her argument is ridiculous.

  • ah yes, sara silverman, the occasionally mildy amusing comedian, has the world all figured out.

  • Isn’t her argument fallacious? She uses the argument, “Who needs to get married that bad?” as a way of supporting people who want to get married that bad. Something’s wrong there.

    There has to be a question of separation of church and state here. I think that there is no reason for the state to discriminate on grounds of homosexuality (although the question gets a little bit mixed here in the UK where our church and state are NOT legally separated, and yet we have ‘civil partnerships’ ie gay marriage). But I don’t see that one should insist on religions allowing gay marriage if it’s against the beliefs of the religion. Is that a bit like insisting that the Klan allow black members?

    That said, I think it’s pretty sad for religious people who are also homosexual. Maybe they would like to get married within their own religious institution but they are forbidden. You can’t legislate for that, though.