Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
So it seems this turned out to be the sleeper issue of the election, bizarrely enough. The people voted Bush, because they hate fags. (Personally, I'm not so convinced since there were states that went Kerry and yet still voted for a ban on gay marriage.)

Rather than legislating for gay marriage, what I'd prefer to see would be the disappearance of heterosexual marriage as a legal concept. Let people get married in churches or in humanist ceremonies or whatever, but take the law out of what is essentially a cultural, judeo-christian practice. And just stick to the idea of a civil contract of union between two or more people of whatever sex.

James R., Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:51 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This is the way marriage originally was in Massachusetts, which is why the judges here ruled the way they did and why the entire rhetorical spiel about "activist judges changing the law" is a gigantic crock of shit in this state.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

It's a red herring that played upon the fears and insecurities of people who aren't smart enough to use the Bible as anything other than what it should be used for -- kindling or a doorstop.

If two guys want to get married --- fuck, if two individuals who happen to love each other --- want to get married, how can that possibly hurt anyone?

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Thanks for the offer but I'm spoken for

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:00 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I feel like I keep repeating the same thing, but it really can't hurt. This isn't an issue about "marriage." It's pure and simple a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.

Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:02 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin and, as a result, being married in a Church is a slap in the face to many people of faith.

I am for gay marriage, but I also don't want to start pushing people about for their religion. It is their right to hold Christian views if they want and their right to want to keep the Church central to Biblical prose. I think Gay people should be married out of Church sermons. A registrar for example. Why would this bother anyone? (Unless we accept marriage is an intrisically religious thing anyway).

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:03 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states.....

Said novel also states that the world was created in seven days. In other words, IT'S A CROCK OF SHIT!

Let's all evolve, people.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:04 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

SASKATOON— There’s a lot at stake for a gay couple hoping to have their marriage recognized when a Saskatoon judge rules on the case Friday.
James and Willie Hein-Blackmore sat together in court Wednesday as they and four other gay couples asked Justice D. L. Wilson to allow them to obtain marriage licences.
The provincial and federal lawyers are not opposing the application, clearing the way for Wilson to rule in the couple’s favour Friday.
That would make Saskatchewan the sixth jurisdiction in Canada to grant wedding licences to gay couples.
The Hein-Blackmores are both HIV-positive. James isn’t sure how long he has to live.
His immune system is so weak a common cold could cause serious complications, he said.
“It’s very important that we get this done (in court),” James said.
“If something happens to me, I want (Willie) making the decisions for me.”
They met four years ago and have been a couple for the past three. Both are divorced from women, and Willie is a father of three girls.
Both say they’ve always known they were gay, but societal and religious pressure led them to marry women.
In Willie’s case, he served as a Pentecostal pastor in other cities across Canada where he lived. He also sat on various church boards. Part of the reason he got married was he “didn’t want to go to hell.”
Once they accepted their homosexuality, they lived much happier lives, they said.
This summer, they were turned down when they went to get a marriage licence in Saskatoon. So they went to Vancouver and got married in a small ceremony at the home of a marriage commissioner.
“When you live together, there’s a certain level of commitment. Once you’re married, it changes the relationship. It’s like glue that holds you together,” said Willie.
“This is the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.”
While the Hein-Blackmores are hoping to get their Vancouver marriage recognized in Saskatchewan, most of the other couples involved in the court action are not yet married.
“We’re very optimistic about the outcome (Friday),” said Nicole White.
“We’re very excited to get going on the wedding plans.”
White and partner Julie Richards were the original couple involved in the court application. They plan to marry next summer.
Represented by lawyers Greg Walen and Sarah Buhler, the couples put their faith in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality under the law.
Denial of marriage licences “denigrates same-sex relationships,” Walen said in court.
“It is offensive to human dignity.”

Federal government lawyer Chris Bernier did not oppose the application, but said the federal government could not technically consent to it either, as the Supreme Court is currently considering the issue.
Provincial government lawyer Thomson Irvine took the same neutral position, but said it was because marriage laws are federal.
Outside court, Walen said he’s happy to hear the governments aren’t opposing the application. He said some gay couples have told him they’ll be getting married as early as this Saturday if the ruling is in their favour.
Gay and lesbian couples can marry in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, the Yukon and now Nova Scotia.
CanWest News Network

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Genesis is most likely a gigantic metaphor.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Agreed, but I take it a step further.. Forget the civil contract as a substitute for marriage. Any two adults should be able to enter into a "right of survivorship" contract (name it whatever you want) that gives legal rights - it has nothing to do with sex or couples. It could be a married couple, it could be business associates, parent/child, neighbors, friends. You could only have a contract with one person at a time, but it could be changed every week if people wanted to. (That's not practical, but ideally, there would be no restrictions on this.)

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church. And if it makes people happy, the "right of survivorship" contract could be inherent in a marriage (or, registering that legal relationship could be part of the church/marriage registration process - just as marriages are registered with the county currently.) And if "no man can put asunder" the married couple contract - ie you MUST establish that contract with your spouse if you are married & cannot establish that contract with anyone else - then, that'll have to be part of the compromise.

So, anyway - it needs to be approached as contract law and a business deal, rather than a pseudo-marriage.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

And that sort of attitude is going to help bridge a glaring gap between two sets of beliefs how? "Oh your belief sucks", well yeah that'll help won't it? And would you say the same thing about Muslims and their beliefs? Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

See above a prime case of the need for rapid evolution among certain members of the human race.

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:07 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The Bible nowhere "explicitly states" that gay marriage is wrong.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Yes Kevin, but you can't expect people who've never actually read it to know that can you?

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Kevin OTM; in the Bible, premarital sex is a much larger sin than homosexuality.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

You've heard of "The War On Terror", no?

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin"

Where? Chapter and verse please.

Man lying with another man? I'll find my paper to tell you why that indicates nothing clear about God's rules about homosexuality.

Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

What is it about dumb people and their inability to argue in any way that isn't "oh well x is just as bad" rather than actually ARGUING THEIR FUCKING CASE?

Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Check out Paul the Apostle. I don't have a Bible handy just now, but it is indeed declared as a sin. Have YOU read the NT?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Um Huk, I don't think anybody is suggesting Bush is in the slightest bit PC.

x-post

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus. Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Oh, good point, Steve.n.

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

frakish zealot

(haha nabisco to thread)

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I have never read the bible but I often masturbate myself into a righteous frenzy with it.

Does that help the debate at all?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:13 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

That's one up on most people.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

There would be no Christianity without Paul.............. discuss

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

It's a civil rights issue, but it's more than that, and that's precisely because there's a confusion between marriage as a legal union and marriage as a religious union. I agree that these two should be decoupled, ie a secular state should not be legally privileging what is at heart a Christian religious custom. If marriages were things celebrated in church, and were separate from civil unions between people signed in a solicitor's office, it would surely take the wind out of conservative christians's sails. This, incidently was Derrida's position too. From his last interview:

"If I were a legislator, I would quite simply propose the disappearance of the word and the concept of marriage in the civil and secular code. "Marriage", a religious, sacred, heterosexual value - with the vow of procreation, eternal fidelity, etc.-, is a concession on the part of the secular state to the Christian church - in particular in a monogamy that is neither Jewish (it was only imposed on Jews by Europeans in the last century and was not an obligation of Maghrebi Jewry a few generations ago) nor, as we know very well, Muslim. When we take away the word and the concept of "marriage", this religious and holy ambiguity or hypocrisy, which has no place in a secular constitution, we would replace them with a contractual "civil union", a sort of generalized, improved, refined, and supple pact to be fitted between partners whose gender and number are not imposed.

As for those who want to ally themselves in a "marriage" in the strict sense of the term - for which, by the way, my respect remains intact -, they could do so before the religious authority of their choice - which, moreover, is how it happens in those countries which agree to accept the religious consecration of marriage between homosexuals. Some could unite themselves according to one mode or the other, others both ways, others neither by secular nor religious law. End of the conjugal parentheses. (It's a Utopia, but mark my words.)"

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

And Paul doesn't say anything about gay marriage - homosexuality maybe, but that is the only mention in the new testamnet - he also says that people who engage in such acts are murderers, thieves, liars etc., things which are demonstratably false.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

That's why it's in quotes. I mean to redefine it to make it a non-issue.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus and indeed not God. He is, regrettably, in the Bible, but I tend to forget about him because he's crap.

However, both you and I will have to wait for my rebuttal because i can't get to the paper I have on this for a bit

Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

So this Paul, he voted Bush in '04 too?

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:17 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Yeah, sorry Dave. I think it's not a non-issue though. People have always become married independent of religion, for long periods without any ceremony at all. I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

It's both, but much more on the legal agreement side.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Other than appeasing the bible-belt, why is anyone arguing what the christian bible has to say about it? It's not the only religious book out there.

I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?
I mean "faith" not "church" -- in other words, it's up to the individuals' own sprituality (or intellect) to decide what a valid "marriage" is. It has nothing to do with law, is my main point.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This is essentially a civil rights issue. Discrimination against same sex couples flies in the face of the concept of equality under the law. If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice, criminalizing or marginalizing sexual behaviors amongst consenting adults amounts to an act of the most basic cruelty.

The hypocrisy with which fundamentalists criticize gay marriage but do not outlaw divorce and remarriage, or require an unwed brother to marry his brother's widow, belies the religious basis of their argument. They cherry pick the OT and the NT to find stones to cast at those who are different, which I find particularly repulsive.

The state does have an interest in encouraging stable, long-term partnerships but why the state should recognize 'marriage' if it is essentially a religious ceremony, is beyond me.

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice

I thought this had been rejected/disproven by gay groups?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:22 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue. If gay marriage were legalised would it not be down to the individual churches to decide whether or not to allow gay couples to get married in that particular church?

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:23 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

(Church meaning denomination or congregation there, btw, I don't think it really affects my point either way.)

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:24 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Yes, it would.

x-post

Leon in Exile (Ex Leon), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I just read a news item - Sec. State Blackwell (Ohio) speaking against gay marriage .. not a quote, but asserts that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, which you can't do with a gay couple. This offends me to no end .. and to debate him on his own terms, leaving out the gay arguments - my wife and I have decided not to have children. Are we no longer allowed to be married? What about people who can't physically have children?

God, I hate that idiot.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

xp - Indeed it would. And that would closely resemble a constitutionally-guaranteed right called Freedom of Religion.

briania (briania), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

you first 'Chantel'

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue.

I don't think that really is an issue - anyone/any church can call two people married, the issue is that the rest of society doesn't have to recognize it.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The word "marriage" is charged with religious meaning, which is why I think it'd be best to jettison it from a legal opint of view and just talk about civil unions. This is what they've essentially done in France, where gay couples (or straight couples or brothers and sisters or whatever) can sign a PACS (pacte civile de solidarité) which affords most of the rights of marriage.

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:28 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

unfortuneately, "civil union" is also stigmatized as "a way for queers to approximate marriage".. So a new term is needed.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:29 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Chantel, I don't think you will find anyone supporting the death penalt in muslim nations here. And probably not the death penalty anywhere.

However, I won't allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, twisted and wielded to hateful ends. The arguments will have to come both in the religious world and the secular, because like it or not we live in a christian civilisation.

But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay souple get married in a church which recognises their partnership?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

FWIW, while I should be supportive of it, I think a large amount of the gravity in people standing up for it has made the issue seem like one for the left fringe when it should be a centrist civil rights issue - and thus people get scared of it. And as such, maybe jumping up and down in a country where most people don't want it hinders the cause.

edward o (edwardo), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:31 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

i'd rather not be KILLED

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:31 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Chantel, um, we're discussing gay marriage and, by extension, Christianity. Do by all means start a thread on why you hate Islam if you're so keen.

Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:31 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The only logical way to deal with is to get rid of the legal institution of marriage, but there is no way anyone is going to get away with that. Just imagine the hysterical family values hoo-hah that would result.

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:32 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

one legitimate reason that people worry about a civil union between two people is because it would inevitably lead to demands for a civil union between more than two people. Which, of course, is totally rational.

The government has absolutely no compelling interest to regulate civil matters between consenting adults (other than in areas of fraud, etc.)

don weiner, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:32 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

Okay, am I the only one who sees a deep irony here? The vast majority of the posters on this thread have been British!

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:32 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I apologize in advance for the US-centric viewpoint but our election was just yesterday and I presume was the shitstorm that spurred the topic.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:34 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

(I was hoping noone would notice Dan)

But still, you are the spawn of our nation (i.e. you speak English).

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:34 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

(Also we have the same debate going on in the UK)

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:34 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Hey, we have gay marriage/civil union stuff brewing here as well! And with an established state religion, there are real actual constitutional problems involved. Though I do take your point.

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

We don't have gay marriage yet either, Dan. (x-posts)

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Dan Perry - Spawn of England!

adam... (nordicskilla), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Her Majesty is proud.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:36 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Woah, does this mean I can be President AND King???

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:37 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Kneel before his er hrm ah er munificence.

Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:38 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Well, not King exactly, but you could get married to William and be the nu-duke of Edinburgh.

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:39 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Anyway, the liberal arguments will win - which is partly why the right are so afraid. We have been moving more and more towards egalitarian societies, ans they know they will lose. Add to that that I have never heard a proper argument against gay marriage and I am certain the egalitarians will win.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:40 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This should never be an issue. Let whomever wants to marry, marry. If they're crazy enough to want to do it, who am I to stand in their way? Hell, I'll even be flowergirl.

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:40 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

more like teh nude duke of edinburgh

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:41 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

'08 is going to be a banner fucking year for me.

It is probably best that I have four years to acclimate myself to the political realm before I turn 35 as right now I want to state all of my issues as satirical initiatives; my current solution to the gay marriage issue would be to pen a bill that banned divorce and heterosexual civil unions.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:43 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

As i thought. Trendy and acceptable to attack Christians. Unnacceptable to attack other religions which are actually tolerant and fluffy.

Ridiculous.

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:47 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay couple get married in a church which recognises their partnership? "

I have no problem with that. But you can't legislate to force a church to do that. On the other hand, it's the law's business to protect the rights of individuals. Therefore we should separate out what churches do from what the law does, and call the two things by different names.

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Chantel, Hooked On Phonics might work for you.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

tolerant and fluffy?

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The Passion of the Snuggle Bear.

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:49 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The day that the US and Britain become Islamic societies is the day that your objection to this thread makes sense, Chantel, just to spell it out for you.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:50 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

BBritain is a Christian country? When did this become official? As in the WHOLE of Britain? All of it Christian too?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:52 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

You are a gigantic moron.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:54 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I'm not the moron saying the UK is a Christian country.

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:58 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Basic logic would tell you that saying Britain is not an Islamic society does not imply that Britain is a Christian society.

You don't know this because you are a moron.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:58 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

attacking fluffy things is definitely unacceptable!!!! leave the furry bunnies alone!

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:01 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Uh huh, and so why does my point fail to register with you you brainless tosspot? Why the open attack on only one religion? Have you got an answer or not? Are you just going to sit there and dodge my question like the smug little prick you are?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:02 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The UK is a Christian country! We have a state religion! The Church of England - the Queen is it's head!

X-posts I don't want to force churches to hold gay services - none the less many would and want to, and saying that what happens in a Church is between a man and a woman and what happens outside is a civil union doesn;t help gay Christians.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:02 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I do not know enough about Islam the religion to comment on how it deals with homosexuality.

I do know enough about the way that homosexuals are treated in Islamic societies to know that what happens to gays in Islamic societies is wrong.

You are still a gigantic, oxygen-stealing idiot.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:04 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Haha, Calum must REAAAAALLY be lonely in Essex today. Not even his blow-up doll girlfriend can give him love.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:04 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Let's not play the Calum game, okay? If this is him and he wants to run a whole bunch of personalities, fine. I don't care.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:06 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

i don't it's true that he moved to Essex fwiw

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:06 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

(think)

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:06 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

the homosexual is the new jew. discuss.

Emilymv (Emilymv), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:08 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I have never heard a proper argument against gay marriage and I am certain the egalitarians will win.

Overcoming emotionalism and irrational fear with argument is admittedly classic, but it's not an automatic win.

Aimless (Aimless), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:08 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Church of England. That's it then. UK is a Christian country. There's not other part of the UK.

chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:18 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

are you a moron saying the UK is a Christian country now?

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:19 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I think it's a veiled version of his usual scotland =/= england schtick, stevem.

Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:20 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

the new testament section(the only section with jesus christ in it)
of the bible never mentions jesus christ's sexuality. never once.
he spends time mainly with eleven other men, his friend simon peter is repeatedly referred to in the gospels as 'the one jesus loved' despite him loving everybody anyway, and there are two seperate scenes that i can think of (there might be more) across the four gospels of jesus kissing a man. there is no scene of jesus kissing a woman.

these are the facts.

in case anyone's thinking that i may not know what i'm talking about, i went to 2 roman catholic schools for a combination of 13 years, i was an altar boy from the age of 9 until i was 16, and i read from the bible on the altar until i was 20.

can those in the 'anti' camp please stop quoting 'the bible' in relation to this subject, because it doesn't sound like you've actually read it, and it isn't doing you any favours.

cheers.

piscesboy, Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:45 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I'm Scottish, Chantel - I'm well aware there are other parts to the UK. Nevertheless, the Queen is Queen of Scotland too. She is also head of the Church of England.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:53 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Okay Chantel, we are all scared of those weird terrorist Muslims and afraid they will send Cat Stevens out to get us. Happy now?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:57 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The word "marriage" is charged with religious meaning, which is why I think it'd be best to jettison it from a legal opint of view and just talk about civil unions. This is what they've essentially done in France, where gay couples (or straight couples or brothers and sisters or whatever) can sign a PACS (pacte civile de solidarité) which affords most of the rights of marriage.

There's no real reason why the french *have* to give it a different name, though, other than to pander to homophobia. After all, in France, religious marriages are not considered legally valid, and haven't been since the 19th century. So why - considering that all couples who want a religious wedding in France aren't legally married unless they have a civil wedding as well - is there a need to differ between a marriage and a civil pact?

caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 4 November 2004 20:50 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Oh my God! She wants FRANCE to decide what's best for us!

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 20:56 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

How did this thread get so derailed?

J (Jay), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:00 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Three guesses, dude.

One of the guilty (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:01 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

take the law out of what is essentially a cultural, judeo-christian practice. And just stick to the idea of a civil contract of union between two or more people of whatever sex.

-- James R. (jgw...), November 4th, 2004 10:51 AM. (later) link)

And what a great idea this would be, except there are so many fundies who would call you a secular humanist and try to mandate teacher-led in-school prayer for your sins and then they'd bash you over the head with that big stone copy of the ten commandments they've been hanging in the courtrooms.

J (Jay), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:18 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

We should enact a bunch of laws based on the more ludicrous sections of Deuteronomy.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:29 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Ban those shrimp now!

caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:34 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Going back to near-relevance: my wedding had absolutely no connection with any religion. We were married by a notary.

What I'm wondering - when did it become legal (in the US and/or the UK) to marry without religious supervision? That is, when did civil marriage - by a judge, notary, or what have you - become recognized? Was it controversial?

Are people who were not married by clergy considered "not really married" by some?

Layna Andersen (Layna Andersen), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:39 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Search for "sexual immorality" in the bible too. Consider if homosexuality is classified under that in a lot of places too.

A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:52 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"can those in the 'anti' camp please stop quoting 'the bible' in relation to this subject, because it doesn't sound like you've actually read it, and it isn't doing you any favours."

I'm not saying I'm in the anti-camp, but if you want to understand the intelligent side of the anti-camp your best bet is to research where they are coming from. A lot of them get their position from the bible. Ignore it if you want to just blindly oppose them without understanding them, and that will get your agenda no where.

and your stuff about Jesus is cute. Don't forget about him crying too.

A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:04 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Uh, I don't think they really get that position from the Bible, man. They get from sweaty guys in suits who told them it was in the Bible.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj_l.htm#menu

J (Jay), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:07 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

there IS stuff in the bible that frowns upon homosexuality, although it's not really any more vociferous than injunctions against gambling and lying and stuff. which gives rise to my opinion that this isn't really about the bible at all, or even religion--although religion provides a *necessary* pretext.

amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:10 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

or maybe it is about religion, and not about the bible. the bible's relationship to christianity is not very straightforward. different aspects and interpretations seize the christian imagination at different times. see also: all monotheistic religions.

amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:11 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Well, there is stuff in the Old Testament, the law of which was fulfilled at Christ's resurrection. This is why Christians eat pork, for example - such laws are irrelevant, and Christ redifined a new moral law, which was the ten commandments plus love thy neighbour. Homosexuality is only mentioned once in the NT, in Romans I, in kind of a vague rambling way. Western society has had taboos against sexuality, but it hasn't used the bible for their justification - they were taken as self-evident. Now that is being questioned the religious right has decided the message of Christianity is contained in one nonsense and demonstratably false rambling of St. Paul.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:15 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This whole issue of gay marriage really depresses me. I really thought homophobia was a thing of the past.

daavid (daavid), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:16 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

That shoulld be homosexuality, not sexuality - though the latter is also true, but to a lesser extent. (x-posts)

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:17 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This is a wild idea, but maybe some are afraid that allowing same-sex unions would be one step closer to legalizing pedophilia or beastiality.

A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:19 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"maybe"? some people have explicitly said this.

see nabisco's point on my "why do people hate 'the homosexuals' so much" thread.

amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:21 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Homophobics have always mashed homosexuality and paedophilia together.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:22 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

With sexy results!

sorry! (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:23 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

the word is "homophobes"--"homophobics" sounds like some form of alternative medicine. or a reading aid.

amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:25 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

and probably a lot of people opposed to same-sex unions are not homophobes

A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:26 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

one is a policy the other is personal

A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:27 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

That's a tenuous position, A Nairn; I can see arguing that same-sex unions are not marriages based on (I believe tenuous) religious grounds but across-board opposition to even secular unions? That's some serious stone-casting.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:28 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I don't know where 'homophobics' came from. Very odd. that maybe true, A Nairn - those who think a legalisation of same sex union will lead to a legalisation of paedophilia probably are. And I can't think of a reason beyond homophobia for banning gay marriage.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:28 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

we're going in circles

amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:30 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

It's like a dream come true
Theorise
Come Alive
Through and through
It just goes to show
Take a chance
If you're ready
Let everything flow
Each and every one of us
Can talk in circles
Yeah each and every one of us
Will walk in circles
It's all you'll ever need
Chorus 1:
Why do we idolize it
(It's all you'll ever need)
If you can't justify it?
(It's all you'll ever need)
I'm bedazzled
By the answers that unravelled
That were fantasized
There's no single disposition
On the planet
Just the colours that collide
Yeah each and every one of us
Can talk in circles
Yeah each and every one of us
Will walk in circles
It's all you'll ever need
Chorus 1:
Why do we idolize it
If you can't justify it?
Why do we idolize it
If you can't justify it?
Get ready to go
Come on let's pick up speed
It's all in the mind
It's all you ever need
It's all you ever need

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:32 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

and probably a lot of people opposed to same-sex unions are not homophobes

They're either homophobes or they profoundly misunderstand the church/state nature of the argument.

Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:33 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

People keep saying odd things! That's where the circles come from.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:33 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

dan those are the worst lyrics ever. where are they from?

amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:35 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

:....-(

"Circles" - Meat Beat Manifesto

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:35 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

We should enact a bunch of laws based on the more ludicrous sections of Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 23 to thread, pls.

don weiner, Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:57 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

yes?

Deuteronomy 23, Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:01 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Doesn't Leviticus have something to say regarding homosexuality too?

Slept at Sunday School (Hereward), Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:12 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"It's a red herring that played upon the fears and insecurities of people who aren't smart enough to use the Bible as anything other than what it should be used for -- kindling or a doorstop."

OTM. i love you alex.

latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:34 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

in a totally heterosexual way of course.

latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:38 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

ok, a non-homophobe intelligent conservative Christian may think along these lines

1 - I should love my neighbor as myself.
2 - When I am at a fault it would be best for others to rebuke me with the truths of scripture.
3 - So, loving my neighbor would entail rebuking them with the truths of scripture (as the bible often tells to do, and in a gentle manner).
4 - Scripture makes known the wrongness of homosexuality
5 - I should vote aginst a law that would give the impression that the government encourages (or does not discourage in anyway) a same-sex relationship

A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:39 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I hate gay marriage, and so does my wife Frank.

Fred Beetle Barnes, Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:43 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

2 - When I am at a fault it would be best for others to rebuke me with the truths of scripture

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

4 - Scripture makes known the wrongness of homosexuality

No, we've been through this.

5 - I should vote aginst a law that would give the impression that the government encourages (or does not discourage in anyway) a same-sex relationship

This is where the invalis jump is made. (even if we assume the other premises, which I feel are false). 'Rebuking' and pointing out someone's sins is not the same as coercing them with force, as the law would entail. Also, the idea that morally wrong = illegal is nonsense. Adultery is legal. Lying is legal. etc. etc.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 00:32 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

2 - rebuking in truth of scripture would not be considered "casting a stone". The bible says this in many places and it may seem like a contradiciton to many people, but there is a difference.

4 - Many of them see this in the scripture. Like I said earlier it would be under the "sexual immorality" label

5 - This is too where I agree their easist to contest fault may be, but what they are concerned with is not coercing with force but rather not having the government endorse it.

A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:04 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"What's wrong with America today, pt 23222: Why do people think they must be personally endorsing something if they don't outlaw it?

oops (Oops), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:10 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I really thought homophobia was a thing of the past.

Good heavens. You seriously thought this?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:15 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

rebuking in truth of scripture would not be considered "casting a stone".

Yes it would. Christ was comforting those who scripture condemned, and protecting them from the indignation of those who seek to dish out God's Law. He comforts adultresses, prostitutes etc.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:19 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

yeah, but at this point it would seem that turning over outlawing it would be like endorsing it. And isn't marriage something directly endorsed by the government?

A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:20 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

(xxpost)

A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:20 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

there is a shortage of love in this world, if two individuals want to make a public statement of their feelings for each other by getting married i think that's great and their sexuality is completely irrelevant, we should do all we can to respect and value their wishes. that's my opinion.

also, apart from the general homophobia issue, i heard in an interview on the radio yesterday (i.e. i don't know the veracity of the statement) that some US states have gone further with their referenda and are in fact considering excluding homosexual relationships from other benefits, such as caring benefits and superannuation and insurance. which will eventually place an increased cost on a welfare system under great pressure. that's not cool either if you ask me.

this stuff makes me feel a bit queasy about the world we are living in.

gem (trisk), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:25 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I don't want to get into any tedious theology debate here (at least not now)

but there is a difference between "letting oneself be used by God to gently let someone else realise their fault" vs. "Thinking oneself is better than someone else and looking down on them; judging them" (in action they may appear very similar, but in motive they are opposite)
In the case of stoning the prostitute, Jesus was speaking to the second group.


This is the kind of thought that needs to be examined to see how to get your agenda across (to the non-homophobe intelligent conservative Christian). Just saying, "that kind of thought is religious and wrong" will get no where.

A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:40 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

So what are the chances that these gay marriage bans will be thrown out for being unconstitutional (since they seem to interfere with freedom of religion).

Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:51 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the Christians are against gay marriage. Can't have gays having babies out of wedlock can we?

Dan I. (Dan I.), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:53 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

(xx-post) Yes, I agree. I would never look down on someone for their faith - I have nothing but respect for people of faith. I do think, however that most people are homophobic, and those that use the Bible to justify their hatred are doing a disservice to themselves and God, and harming their brothers and sisters in the process. I've been surprised, since starting to use message boards (known lots of Americans, but I seem to meet religious liberals...) how anti-religion young Americans can be. The knee-jerk anti-faith is something I had only encountered among schoolchildren before - which isn't to dismiss the opinions of people who are anti-faith, merely illustrating how surprised I was to find intelligent people speaking like this. I know 2 reverends as friends (1 American), and several from doing Divinity for a while at Uni, and several who were my reverends. They were all, uniformly, both tolerant of homosexuality and supportive of gay marriage, in a civil and a religious sense. But this is Scotland, not the US. I don't accept that tolerance of homophobia comes within my definition of religious tolerance. I don't hate homophobes, and I think they can be shown the truth about homosexuality, but only once their preconceptions about what the Bible says about homosexuality are exposed, and they get a better grasp on the Biblical message. As for thinking I am better than homophobes, I don't - I think I am the worst person I know, and my failings certainly outweigh theirs. However, on this subject I believe that common humanity is right, and hatred is wrong.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Friday, 5 November 2004 02:58 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Okay, promised, and here it is. This is not my work, but, er, I approve this message.


IS HOMOSEXUALITY CONSIDERED A SIN IN THE BIBLE?

'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22)

'They shall surely be put to death' (Leviticus 20:13)

'Sons of Belial' (Judges 19:22)

''Their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature' (Romans 1 :26)

'Men leaving the natural use of the woman ,burned in their lust toward one another' (Romans 1:27)

'Men with men working that which is unseemly' (Romans 1:27)

These statements would at first glance seem to defintively prohibit homosexuality, but on further consideration this conclusion becomes less certain, if not highly questionable and is a debate that must be very carefully addressed. Those who do come to a decision against homosexuality can do so only with caution, as it results in significant implications for a number of wider issues.
Two overarching questions must be kept in mind throughout, which are of great importance: 1) What is a sin? A sin is usually defined as an act or thought which in some sense is contrary to God's will for humanity. Is this always inescapable the case with homosexuality? 2) Equally crucial is in what manner scripture is to be interpreted, how literally? With what freedom? Can science, theology and philosophy make valid contributions to the debate?

From the outset it is important to point out that despite the length of the Bible there are very very few mentions of a topic which today is considered of great importance, and these are almost equally distributed between the Old and New Testaments. This sparsity should alert us to the fact that it was not an issue of great concern throughout the Biblical period, no more than a very minor issue, and thus suggests that there was no developed theological stance upon homosexuality. Thus prohibition of homosexuality is more likely to be the result not of a theological given, but an imposition of social prejudice and taboo upon scripture. Prejudice against what? This might seem a strage quesstion, but did the ancient Israelites who wrote Leviticus or the Jews of Jesus' time have any real notion of homosexuality as we might do now? The word certainly did not exist. For those who did, homosexuality was not seen in the light of a loving committed relationship between two individuals, but as a lustful act committted by the depraved. It was a degradation of one individual by another, upsetting the natural order of things. This concept of 'natural order' is very important in understanding the Biblical statements. In Genesis God creates man and woman and commands 'go forth and multiply', thus homosexuality would seem to undermine if not directly threaten this command.' Homosexuality as an act then is perhaps less of a sin in itself, per se, but more because it prohibits this injunction, and upsets natural order. It is for this reason (amongst others) that contraception is banned by the Catholic church. Consequently, any church which accepts contraception (which i believe is all except the Catholic) runs a risk of contradiction on this issue. Why should some acts be condemend on the basis that they deny the possibility of life and not others? Moreover, it was for this reason that barren women were so stigmatised in the Old Testament, being incapable of having children they were a shame upon a godly society. This would be considered unacceptable now- yet the basis of the rejection of barren women is virtually the same as that of homosexuality. The importance of children and the idea of a natural order in terms of relationships to the ancient Israelites (as it continues today amogst many Jewish communities) cannot be underestimated. Equally significant was the idea of purity and impurity. Those who did acts contrary to God's will were considered ritually impure, they could not partake in any religious activities and were considered abominable, they threatened the entire community in fact, because of the potential callimg down of God's wrath. Part of the significance of the New Testament (for Christians of course) is that God/Jesus sweeps away this conception of the divine, God is no longer a 'jealous God' who demands the complicated ceremonial observance of the Jewish law as exhaustively outlined in the Law books, and enforced by the Pharisees. Instead the God of the New Testament fundamentally alters the divine-human relationship, reorientating it and internalising it, making motive, namely love, the chief criterion of a sinful act. For tis reason Christians do not follow the Laws which many Jews follow today such as those of food and that of circumcision. The prohibition s of homosexuality in the Old Testament must thus be considered very carefully- are they still valid? The Early Church Fathers decided that while ceremonial law was to be discarded, the moral must be kept. In many ways though, this is impossible to carry out, it is an artificial distinction, for the Israelites has no separation, all acts, were ceremonial and directly related to ritual purity. Most people today would consider it highly unethical to shun the ill and the infirm, but these individuals were considered impure and to be avoided. If one is to condemen homosexuality on the basis of the purity laws, it is done at the very great risk of ignoring the fundamental message of the New Testament, and by that logic the ill, the barren and the infirm must also be rejected as sinful and outside God's Kingdom. That there are references aginst homosexuality in Romans thus adds weight to the concept that it was a social and not divine prohibition, the result of Pauls' Jewish background. While Paul's marvellous contribution to Christianity cannot be denied, as neither can his importance, one must be caitious about accepting on face value all that he writes. If Paul's views are to be followed exactly then slavery is tacitly accepted as is the subjugation of women as naturally inferior to men (eg 1 Corinthians 14:35 'If they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.') Paul is thus clearly speaking in the mould of treditional Jewish belief, and this has serious implications for the woman's movment. It goes without saying that any church that gives women any role within it is already inconsistent with Paul, thus condemning homosexuality is a double inconsitency. To follow Paul in all things it to reject female equality and the dignity of freedom to all individuals. This is not to undermine Paul but simple to be aware of his limitations as an individual of his time, albeit inspired by God as an apostle. Jesus noticably says nothing on the issue of homosexuality, it is simply peripheral- does this not suggest that it is irrelevant if one's relationship with God is one of reciprocal love? A mentioned, God's love and HIs wish for this to be extended to all individuals is the defining feature of the New Testament revelation for Christians. Consequently, those who condemn homosexuality must do so with great caution- are they themselves failing to live up to a far more fundamental injunction of love? Love in its fullest sense surely inclides the wide-hearted, prayerful acceptance and tolerance of individuals. This is not a blanket acceptance that does away with morality, but that the debate must be conducted on this basis and that homosexual people must be considered as individuals with needs and desires who have their own relationship to God. Jesus in the New Testament is the friend of the outcasts and reviled minorities and those who condemn homosexuality should be very much aware of this- they may be attacking those whom God holds dearest as the persecuted. Moreover, modern psychology and genetics shows that homosexuality is not a lustful whim of devil possesion as the Israelites and the first Christians saw it, but an unallterable aspect of an individuals sexual preferences. Why would a loving God implant such inherent sinfulness in such a basic human urge? Romans might prhibit homosexuality as it is not a 'natural use', but surely it is a natural use for those whom it is their sexual orientation? Prohibiting homosexuality runs the risk of denying God's essential goodness. God as loving surely wills all His creatures to be happy and fulfilled. Relationships (whether woth other humans or with God) is the chief means to do achieve this- espescially the close loving bond of sexual relations with another person that simultaneously is a groing towards God, and for this reason marriage is considered a sacrament that should take place within the Church. Are homosexuals to be denied this, because of an unalterable facet of their nature which God himself has made? Other sexual practices such as bestiality or incest are immoral because they can never be non-exploitative and thus truly loving, but homosexuality is of another category and can fulfull these criteria, surely where love is, God is, as God is love? Moreover,to take the Biblical texts at face value is in many ways a direct affron to God's love and wisdom. A literal reading is a superficial one, and thus is failiure of respect for the Bible, and incredibley beautiful and complex text that God has caused to be written over thousands of years and through hundreds of individuals, it is truly representative of the mass of humanity and its thirst for God over time. To take it literally is to debase it to a simple text and without its true richness and value, and surely such a rejection of God is far more serious a sin than homosexuality ever sould be? As is the mental torture and judgement of individuals whom God loves. it strikes me that homosexuality can be seen as a challenge by God, a particular one of the present time to mankind to widen their love to more people. And it is interesting that the debate on homosexuality is espescially conducted in America, which (with the greatest respect for the diveristy of views that exist there) is having great difficulty in applying Christian love to people on an international basis. The Bible, far from declaring homosexuality a sin, actually may suggest that it is one of the many ways that individuals can reach out to God and reach out to each other in mutual love, trust and tolerance.





Bumfluff, Sunday, 7 November 2004 15:39 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Thanks for the article - it's very good, quite compelling.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Sunday, 7 November 2004 16:02 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I think a good solution to the entire fiasco would be this:

Fine, let gays have marriage. Whatever, they can keep it. So long as heterosexuals get to have SUPER marriages!

David Allen (David Allen), Sunday, 7 November 2004 16:18 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

D'oh, sorry about all the typos.

Bumfluff, Monday, 8 November 2004 00:46 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

one year passes...
Hahahahahahaha

Dan (Awesome) Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 18 April 2006 20:42 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Alex in NYC's sputtering rage upthread is most refreshing. I wish the producers of "Inanity & Colmes" would ask him to appear on the show.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 18 April 2006 21:25 (twelve years ago) Permalink

oh if only we could hack in and post our own "great things"...

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 18 April 2006 21:29 (twelve years ago) Permalink

A gay friend of mine shot me this link

don weiner (don weiner), Tuesday, 18 April 2006 23:34 (twelve years ago) Permalink

you misspelled "load"

Curt1s St3ph3ns, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 23:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

roffles baby roffles

don weiner (don weiner), Tuesday, 18 April 2006 23:44 (twelve years ago) Permalink

my mom has a wife! congratulate me

They aren't official anymore, unfortunately.

Maria :D (Maria D.), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 16:16 (twelve years ago) Permalink

What agitators for gay marriage never address is why a homosexual domestic partnership should be more worthy of government approval (or employee benefits) than a myriad of other domestic partnerships. Why not two single moms who live together with their children, like Kate & Allie? Or a straight woman and her gay male best friend, like Will & Grace? Or two unmarried heterosexual sisters who live together and share all expenses — kind of an old-fashioned
arrangement, but certainly not extinct; I happen to be friends with a pair like this myself. Why can't they get a tax break?

Hahaha this is actually my baseline opinion and why I think "marriage" should be secularized! Why should a household be defined as a married man and woman? That doesn't describe every household out there and there are certain living situations that make enough long-term sense that it seems odd to me that the people involved can't enter into some type of legal contract that would grant them the same legal status as a traditional married couple.

Dan (Egalitarianism: It's What's For Dinner) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 16:42 (twelve years ago) Permalink

unfortunately she comes up with the opposite conclusion, that once you look at it, traditional marriage makes no egalitarian sense, so gay people should be "above it" but us hets will keep it, thank you very much - ?? she also apparently believes that gay couples don't have children - ???

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 16:55 (twelve years ago) Permalink

There is no need for the government to be in the marriage business. A man's relationship with a woman only demands government intervention when there is a baby produced; everything else can and should be settled by normal private contracts between consenting parties.

I think her point is more that there is a slippery slope for the government to validate gay marriage.

don weiner (don weiner), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 17:20 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Cripes, dig this Mobius strip of a sentence:

Gay activists often point out various same-sex unions that have outlasted many heterosexual ones. But I don't see why sexual relationships of any stripe, if they're not at least inherently procreative, should trump all others.

I'm surprised it even shows up on the screen, so quickly is it disappearing up its own ass.

phil d. (Phil D.), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 17:23 (twelve years ago) Permalink

A man's relationship with a woman only demands government intervention when there is a baby produced; everything else can and should be settled by normal private contracts between consenting parties.

or a man's relationship with a man, or a woman's relationship with a woman - if you want to be unbigoted about it. I hope you realize, don, as the essayist you link above apparently does not, that many gay couple decide to have children via adoption, IVF treatment or what have you.

your suggestion, of course, amounts to a very slippery, very short, slope towards taking away privileges from people who decide not to have children, which hardly seems fair.

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 17:39 (twelve years ago) Permalink

the intelligent side of the anti-camp

A year and half later, still roffleicious!

rogermexico (rogermexico), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 17:47 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i mean, if the continually reaffirmed findings of UNESCO and basically every economist under the sun hold any water at all, the government should be paying people NOT to have children!

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 17:50 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Non-biological parents already utilize contracts in the manner I assert. What I'm trying to say is that the government probably DOES have a role in intervening on issues of biological parenthood (child support, custody, etc.) because in those cases there is a sort of biological contract between two people that cannot be denied or circumscribed except through other civil contracts. Adoption is a civil contract. IVF is a civil contract between donor and receiver. A civil arrangement trumps government moralizing.

Which privileges are eliminated from people who don't breed in my scenario?

don weiner (don weiner), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 17:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

all the privileges associated with marriage?

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 17:55 (twelve years ago) Permalink

maybe i'm not reading you right, but it seems like you're saying the govt should just BACK OFF MAN unless a man gets his woman pregnant by putting his dingaling in her hoo hoo - then it's ok to, say, live with them in their country of origin, visit them in prison, be on each others' health plans etc BUT NOT UNTIL HOO HOO BREACHING HAS RESULTED IN THE SHARP STINK OF BABIES

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 17:57 (twelve years ago) Permalink

It seems curious to claim that "a sort of biological contract" obtains in cases of straight parenting but not in cases of lesbian IVF parenting. It seems arbitrary to me: how do you know that there's a purely "civil contract" involved in such cases, necessarily?

The columnist's position rests on the assumption that gay marriages are "inherently non-procreative"; the increasingly large number of gay couples whose coupledom is reinforced and tested by the experience of raising children together looks an awful lot like any other marriage-with-kids to me. Why not grant it the same protections and benefits?

"It's a straight thing, you wouldn't understand"

Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 18:00 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I think we are on the same page but I'm probably not explaining myself well. As I note upthread, I don't think that the government should be in the marriage business. I think the government probably has a legitimate interest in interfering between a male/female relationship if there is a biological child involved, since typically offspring is by and large not a civil arrangement...not saying that gives government a right to validate their relationship with privilege, I'm saying it can legitimately enforce things like child support payments. Adoption, gay relationships, Kate and Allie, Dick and Jane, and any other consenting adult can create whatever kind of household they want to without the government's moralizing. In a general sense, there shouldn't be legal privileges for marriage, nor should there be for children.

I think what Cathy Seipp is saying is that if we allow gay marriage then what logic does the law hold against polygamy or Kate & Allie or a handful of broke college kids getting married to achieve the same privileges as two guys or two gals whose basis for this privilege is homosexuality. I think she's pointing out that marriage as a legal institution probably isn't going to ever leave the cages of government intervention, so we're better to be vigilant about trying to limit it less we face a slippery slope in the other direction.

don weiner (don weiner), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 18:30 (twelve years ago) Permalink

We can worry about that when the polygamists and the broke college kids lobby for like at least a decade to achieve equality with baby-having heterosexuals.

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 19:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink

whats stopping 2 broke college kids from getting married for $$$$ now? unless theyre both dudes or both chicks

-++-++-+--, Wednesday, 19 April 2006 19:08 (twelve years ago) Permalink

ned&stacy.wmv

-++-++-+--, Wednesday, 19 April 2006 19:08 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Jesus you're right ethan!

Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 19:14 (twelve years ago) Permalink

whats wrong with polygamy?

awesome is as awesome does (lucylurex), Wednesday, 19 April 2006 21:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

That article is irritating in more ways than one (though mostly because it is written with such a condescending pose of reasonableness - "now now, before you froth at the mouth..."). A lot of her comparisons and analogies and so forth are totally spurious, e.g the difference between the tradition of marriage and the tradition of Christmas is that the latter is opt-in as well as opt-out: if you want to celebrate it, you can, no-one is stopping you. As a practicing Jew or Muslim you might look a bit odd getting all into nativity scenes and the like (but then how many American Christians do that even?), but there's not a law actively preventing you from doing so.

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Thursday, 20 April 2006 05:24 (twelve years ago) Permalink

one month passes...
APOSTROPHE ABUSE

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 5 June 2006 18:24 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Turns out that I was wrong. Immigration ISN'T the gay marriage of the 2006 midterm elections. GAY MARRIAGE is the gay marriage of the 2006 midterm elections.

Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 5 June 2006 18:28 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Reid Petition

gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 5 June 2006 18:33 (eleven years ago) Permalink

LaShawn Barber and Dave Weigel mock the transparency of Bush's move = bring on the hilarity.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 5 June 2006 18:36 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Come get gay-married in Canada fast, cuz come fall, it might not be legal anymore:
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2006/06/03/1612637-sun.html

Huk-L (Huk-L), Monday, 5 June 2006 18:50 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Scarborough was on Today Show this morning referring to the move as "pandering."

Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 5 June 2006 18:50 (eleven years ago) Permalink

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/S/H/bush_turkey.jpg

MAYBE WE SHOULD STOP GAY MARRIAGE BECAUAES ONE DOESNT KNOW WHERE IT COULD LEAD

gear (gear), Monday, 5 June 2006 18:52 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Bush should stop Johnny Carsoning everywhere.

((((((DOPplur)))n)))u))))tttt (donut), Monday, 5 June 2006 19:03 (eleven years ago) Permalink

nine months pass...
Alfred brought this to my attention...

Garrison Keillor, in Salon:

Under the old monogamous system, we didn't have the problem of apportioning Thanksgiving and Christmas among your mother and stepdad, your dad and his third wife, your mother-in-law and her boyfriend Hal, and your father-in-law and his boyfriend Chuck. Today, serial monogamy has stretched the extended family to the breaking point. A child can now grow up with eight or nine or 10 grandparents -- Gampa, Gammy, Goopa, Gumby, Papa, Poopsy, Goofy, Gaga and Chuck -- and need a program to keep track of the actors.

And now gay marriage will produce a whole new string of hyphenated relatives. In addition to the ex-stepson and ex-in-laws and your wife's first husband's second wife, there now will be Bruce and Kevin's in-laws and Bruce's ex, Mark, and Mark's current partner, and I suppose we'll get used to it.

The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men -- sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts. That's for the kids. It's their show.


Response from Dan Savage: Fuck Garrison Keillor

jaymc, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 22:40 (eleven years ago) Permalink

ew gross.

like extended families didn't exist pre-1950 what the fuck ever

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 22:42 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I've always been an apologist for Keillor, but fuck that.

jaymc, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 22:44 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Keillor, as relevant as ever.

Michael White, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 22:47 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Savage's response is kinda pissy (quel surprise) but essentially correct about the blatant hypocrisy, which is just disgusting.

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 22:48 (eleven years ago) Permalink

mariage homosexuel

Real news, though not surprising.

Michael White, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 22:52 (eleven years ago) Permalink

hi guys, i'm here to defend garrison keillor! you knew i would! if you don't like/listen to keillor it's insurprising you don't (or don't want to) get his tone! he certainly wasn't being ironic/parodic! you couldn't have forgetten that this is the guy who's built a whole career on embodying ridiculous stereotypes about upper midwestern lutheran scandinavians! who he obviously hates! I like how Dan Savage counted the stereotypes but didn't bold Keillor's use of the word itself! like some of these dudes said!

gabbneb, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 23:51 (eleven years ago) Permalink

who is less cool: GK or Hillary?!

gabbneb, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 23:58 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I have to admit: this is pretty bad and muddled, as far as speech and tone go, but even in those limited quotes you can spot a smattering of the dry Keillor-funny lurking about -- "I suppose we'll get used to it" and "The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men," the latter of which Savage seems slightly unsure what to do with and then just plumps for taking it at face value. I have no clue what Keillor's thrust here is, which seems to make it a failure as far as topical humor goes, but it certainly doesn't read like an entirely straightforward statement of opinion.

nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 00:02 (eleven years ago) Permalink

in a way that's even worse, because it's stupider.

Maria, Thursday, 15 March 2007 00:07 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Well yeah, totally failed humor on topics that are fairly serious to other people = big mistake.

nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 00:26 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I think what he's saying is pretty clear. It is that marriage traditionally (i.e. when he grew up) has existed for the benefit of children, and that (never mind that it really isn't any more due to narcissistic breeders (like himself, apparently, though he doesn't say this)) this should continue to be the point of marriage whatever form it might take. He doesn't say out loud whether he likes gay marriage per se, but he does say that he thinks diversity is a beautiful thing even if it doesn't look anything like his childhood. Ultimately, I think the implicit message is that while the debate isn't going to be resolved soon, in the meantime it (and perhaps eventually the policy) should be framed around what's good for children rather than the rights or wrongs of adults.

gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 00:34 (eleven years ago) Permalink

or if you're more inclined to see him as less affectionate about his roots, you could read him to be saying sort of the flipside of my version - that he's ripping the "it's about the kids" attack by focusing on straight marriage and comparing the real results of the breakdown of monogamy with the fantasy evils of polka dots and chartreuse

gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 00:53 (eleven years ago) Permalink

this question is kinda rhetorical, but being single 4 life maybe I'm not privy to some of the legal intircacies of state-approved unions, so please enlighten: why the hell is the state involved in marriage to begin with? If two consenting adults want to get hitched they should contact two people: a clergyperson of their choosing (if they so wish) and an attorney. I realize there are tax benefits, but what are the other practical implications of government-sanctioned marriage?

will, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:08 (eleven years ago) Permalink

(i suppose adoption rights would be another)

will, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:09 (eleven years ago) Permalink

(and health care)

will, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:18 (eleven years ago) Permalink

There's an Episcopalian church in Amherst, MA. that has decided not to perform ANY marriages because of the Anglican rift.
Yay Western Massachusetts!
Keillor is funny. But this particular piece is not. I also think that calling Keillor out for his infedelities is very appropriate, in this case.
I really could not give a shit about who does what with whom. But having multiple children with multiple partners AND THEN writing a column about values and fidelity is fucking stupid.

aimurchie, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:25 (eleven years ago) Permalink

some of Dan Savage's comments:

Keillor is the worst thing on KUOW. Does anyone under 60 listen to him?

...

I think Keillor is possibly being satirical in this piece.

...

"It's Sat-tor-doy, the band is ploy-in..."

Fuck that dufus. He's gotten a little too carried away playing the fictional and folkloric sherrif, waving his arms importantly to his audience against the hard plastic backdrop inside the PHC snow globe.


...

Dan you're right most of the time, but not this time. Garrison's article is about (a) how much the world has changed and that gay marriage is part of that change and we've all got to accept that and (b) about how marriage is about children and how gay couples will have to learn to make all the same compromises as hetero couples. It is a pro-gay, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gay parenting article.

...

Hey y'all, turn down your sensitivity meters. This is not an anti gay rant. He's joking about how parents should be boring. This article is boring, not really that entertaining, and totally harmless.

GK has been an out liberal for a long time, and it's foolish to treat our friends as enemies. He's pro-gay. It's even in his book "Homegrown Democrat."

Dan, you're usually the guy with the sense to tell people to relax. You're going to have to take this back. It's totally not cool to smear people in this way.


...

Again, a bunch of humorless pinheads have your knickers in a twist over someone you have no clue about.

Garrison Keillor, whether you like him or not, is not a fuddy-duddy old nostalgist. He doesn't think "life was better in the thirties", and if you think that after hearing him you're an idiot. You're certainly incapable of grasping the humor in what he does.

But no: you lot assume that everything is or should be a serious opinion piece, as strident as possible, and if someone makes a joke he or she should be dragged off to rehabilitation camp. Such is life in Stalinist America.

Garrison Keillor is a humorist. You may not think he's funny, which is fine. But you should at least make an effort to understand what you think you're attacking.

"Lake Wobegon" is where every one of those stereotypes and soft-focus idealized visions of the imaginary past live. The entire show is an exploration of that. Keillor is not retailing these stereotypes, he is responding to them.

I suppose the tag line "where all the children are above average" makes you scream at your radio in rage, "HOW CAN THEY ALL BE ABOVE AVERAGE, YOU FUCKING SHITHEAD?????"

Garrison Keillor's approach is going to win a lot more converts to the cause of gay marriage than anything Dan Savage says or does anywhere. Grandma doesn't read Dan Savage; he mostly preaches to the converted. Keillor is telling Grandma, very gently, that's it's OK, I know Uncle Albert wears those chartreuse trousers that upset you, and you're afraid because some of The Gays don't even go to Sunday Service, but they're not going to burst into your living room and make you look at their cock rings. It'll be fine; we'll get used to Bruce and Albert the same way we got used to Sally's third husband.

Keillor is a supporter of gay marriage, you understand that, right? He's been a good friend to gays, you were aware of that, right? He's probably more comfortable with all the varieties of the modern extended family than you are, that's for sure.

gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:26 (eleven years ago) Permalink



...

If you are unable to tell the difference between APHC, his Salon pieces, and his Writer's Almanac spots, I can't help you. All I can suggest is to try to find a sense of humor somewhere, anywhere. Read some S. J. Perelman or something.

By the way, the only reason I'm not wearing chartreuse trousers right now is because it's not quite spring yet. I've got some, and I'll be wearing them soon, I promise.


...

Everyone had a yard? Leftovers in the fridge? What? This man was born in 1942! That's just about 13 years after the Great Depression began, six years before Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces, and 22 years before the Civil Rights act of 1964.

"You could put me in a glass case at the history center and schoolchildren could press a button and ask me questions," writes Keillor. Oh can we? Please tell us Uncle Garrison! Maybe we can ask about the twelve years of his life lived before Brown v. Board of Education? Wasn't life in America so much better then? You know, with the whole separate drinking fountains, racial unrest, and institutionalized discrimination? Where did Garrison Keillor grow up? Disneyland?


...

OMG, Dan. Lighten up. A year from now, Garrison Keilor's post will be considered a classic. Don't tarnish your reputation for fairness, insight, humor and intelligence. Do the right thing; delete your post.

...

dan i'm a big fan and consistently read blog posts of yours when i can find them, i posted on the portland mercury blog in response to a post of your about uneven standards of sexism once.

i'm really disappointed you're so clueless on this one. keillor writes in a variety of personas, most of them satirical, and always refuses to dumb down his language enough to delude the subtlety of his point, if there even is one. a lot of his articles are simply musings.

do you really think garrison keillor is not aware of his own marriage history? the article in question is a perspective on the current state of the american family. for you to misconstrue this as homophobic is really depressing to me.

in the future satire won't exist if we respond so dumbly to our most intelligent writers.

i hope you read this post and reconsider. i'm 100% certain that keillor is not homophobic and this piece was not intended to be.


...

Garrison Keilor...where to begin?
- Who told this asshole he could sing? So painful.
- He gives arrogant and conceited people a bad name.
- Made the mistake of seeing the show live...incredibly boring.
- He seems to live in this so called "bygone era" that never even existed. It's like the revisionists who talk about what an innocent time the 50's were. Bullshit!

gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:27 (eleven years ago) Permalink

warning pedant warning: attorneys are only really useful when state sanction comes into it. ie - you need someone that is familiar with the rules so that you can appeal to a 'higher' authority when the shit hits the fan. if there is no higher authority underwriting your marriage (other than G-D), then what's the point of an advocate, right?


but otherwise, yeah: the concept of state-sanctioned marriage is weird and antiquated if you ask me.

gbx, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:27 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Do you understand the significance of a church refusing to have any weddings because the congregation, and pastor, agree that EVERY wedding should be equal?
The fact that it's Massachusetts is helpful to the parish - same sex marriage is legal. (Their decision is backed up by the law of the state, in a way.)
But they are defying the Anglican church, which makes me so happy!
It is such a brave thing to do.
NOBODY is getting married in that church.

aimurchie, Thursday, 15 March 2007 04:58 (eleven years ago) Permalink

By "you" I mean - every person reading this.
This is really significant!

aimurchie, Thursday, 15 March 2007 05:15 (eleven years ago) Permalink

that (never mind that it really isn't any more due to narcissistic breeders (like himself, apparently, though he doesn't say this)) this should continue to be the point of marriage whatever form it might take

I actually agree with most of what you're saying, except for this. Marriage in the golden days of the 40s and 50s or whenever were the golden days were was not "about" children. It was just what you did, particularly if you wanted to have sex. Children were a by-product of that, and you had them because that was what you did. There was no thought that you were doing it for them in any sense. It was just what you did.

I'm largely unfamiliar with Garrison Keillor because I mostly just think he's boring, but it's obvious to me from that piece that he hates gay marriage about as much as Christopher Guest hates folk music.

accentmonkey, Thursday, 15 March 2007 08:37 (eleven years ago) Permalink

gabbneb, you haven't acknowledged that Keillor's using ridiculous stereotypes as a basis for his tepid shtick is just STUPID; and how is one supposed to be aware of the "persona" (according to one poster on the article) Keillor uses in this essay?

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:47 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I think what you're trying to ask gabbneb is whether or not he finds GK humorous.

Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 15 March 2007 13:35 (eleven years ago) Permalink

remember, gabb likes 'humor' not 'comedy'

and what, Thursday, 15 March 2007 13:40 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Does this mean that Keillor is now "edgy"? I'm confused.

J, Thursday, 15 March 2007 13:42 (eleven years ago) Permalink


I actually agree with most of what you're saying, except for this. Marriage in the golden days of the 40s and 50s or whenever were the golden days were was not "about" children.


So true! The only reason the accomplished housewife of the early- and mid-century was able to have dinner on the table and the shirts ironed, house clean, vegetable patch weeded, etc, was that she sure as hell wasn't driving the kids to soccer, piano, ballet, karate, science challenge, or anything else after school -- her offspring were riding bikes in the street with all the other kids on the block. (As Caitlin Flanagan pointed out in a recent book, why else did the family buy that nice house right across from the park if the kids weren't going to use it??) Conversation at dinner probably took place mostly between the adults present, with children allowed to interject occasionally or answer if spoken to. Etc. Definitely NOT life centered around children, PER SE, but around the household in its altogether.

Laurel, Thursday, 15 March 2007 13:53 (eleven years ago) Permalink

gabbneb, you haven't acknowledged that Keillor's using ridiculous stereotypes as a basis for his tepid shtick is just STUPID

i'm not going to acknowledge that because i don't agree with it

how is one supposed to be aware of the "persona" (according to one poster on the article) Keillor uses in this essay?

by reading? through familiarity with his voice? (and why would you read Keillor if uninterested in him?) 'persona' may be going a bit far, but it's not entirely wrong either

Does this mean that Keillor is now "edgy"? I'm confused.

some of Keillor's personae have always been "edgy"

I actually agree with most of what you're saying, except for this. Marriage in the golden days of the 40s and 50s or whenever were the golden days were was not "about" children. It was just what you did, particularly if you wanted to have sex. Children were a by-product of that, and you had them because that was what you did. There was no thought that you were doing it for them in any sense. It was just what you did.

you're referring to having children, not raising them. and were you there at the time? in his minnesota household? again, if you know his voice, you recognize that this is both idealized fantasy and parody - it's not like he doesn't know these things - but he's presenting a normative view of what marriage is about that is common today to both many opponents of gay marriage and many proponents of gay parenting.

gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:16 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Oh, I see, his humour is only about his specific family and is not supposed to be any kind of reflection on any wider community. I didn't realise that. I'm surprised he's so popular then.

accentmonkey, Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:27 (eleven years ago) Permalink

more from the Stranger's blog

Dan, I think you're fundamentally misreading Garrison's comments.

In the offending paragraph, he's saying that the country has come to a qualified acceptance of homosexuality, but only if gay people are willing to live within the confines of the stereotypes and roles that mainstream culture thrusts upon us. But that stereotyped role remains at odds with America's collective notions about what a "parent" looks like. (This is why he engages those stereotypes--as a gentle critique of Middle America's affinity for those same stereotypes--not in a mean-spirited mocking way. Middle America is cool with Will and Grace (remember that Republican women are that show's #1 audience). They're not comfortable with gay marriage and parenting yet because they don't really know what gay people's ACTUAL LIVES are like.

Keillor's not attacking you. How much of his work are you familiar with? Maybe you just don't understand his tone. I understand when attacks on gay families are coming so constantly that it's easy to be hyperdefensive about it, but Keillor's on our side. Maybe before wasting our activist energies on a protest campaign against someone who is an ally, you should ask him to clarify his remarks? Give his publicist a call.


...

Dan's judgement here is way off.

Keillor makes his living making wise-cracks that play off stereotypes: about stereotypical Democrats and Republicans, about stereotypical Norwegians and Lutherans, about stereotypical midwestern and coastal values and lifestyles. Now he's made a thoroughly in-character wise-crack about the confused modern family that plays off stereotypes of traditional families and gay men.

He hasn't come out against homosexuality, same-sex marriage, gay adoption, HIV/AIDS funding, or any other political sacred cow. He has just offended the hyper-vigilant PC language police, of whom Dan is unfortunately becomming increasing representative.

This isn't an issue for ACT UP, it's an issue for the Weekly's "Uptight Seattleite" column.


...

Keillor's overarching project is to comment on the world from this nostalgic midwestern perspective, and everything he does is built around a simultaneous genuine appreciation of and affectionate satire of that culture. His perspective gives voice to working-class sentiments, in a way that allows him to shepherd them in a progressive direction. Here he's acknowledging that, yes, middle america does feel a legitimate anxiety about the stability of american families and suggesting that their concerns about gay marriage are in part, a misdirected expression of this legitimate anxiety. But he also says with specific regard to gay families, "we'll get used to it."

I mean, the premise of this piece is "parents aren't supposed to care about their emotional well-being," which you really ought to find hilarious. He's pushing the "children must come first" argument to its logical endpoint, for comedic effect.

gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:28 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Oh, I see, his humour is only about his specific family and is not supposed to be any kind of reflection on any wider community. I didn't realise that. I'm surprised he's so popular then.

his humor is supposed to be about people like him, who grew up in the 40s and 50s in the upper midwest

gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:29 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Keillor isn't a good enough writer to delineate his "persona" or to make his purported ironies resonate; and, anyway, using a "persona" to express socio-political views when you're a mediocrity makes your cowardice more glaring.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:30 (eleven years ago) Permalink

his humor is supposed to be about people like him, who grew up in the 40s and 50s in the upper midwest

gabbneb I had no idea you were so old!

J, Thursday, 15 March 2007 15:04 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I really don't get into GK, despite my first college roommate playing GK nonstop for a year. But I totally get where he's coming from on this, which is probably enhanced a great deal by growing up in the upper midwest and being able to relate to GK's personifications and characters. Or maybe it's that + hearing his radio persona when I read that article. Besides, doesn't Savage have time for better targets, like politicians who can actually advance his agenda?

Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 15 March 2007 15:09 (eleven years ago) Permalink

gabbneb I had no idea you were so old!

i think GK is a better authority on the topic than you, me or accentmonkey

gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 15:29 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Those defending the essay are stretching things a bit far in Keillor's defense. Though he's famous for his ultra-dry, self-mocking wit, he always manages, eventually, to tip his hand: we always know who he's making fun of. And while he's often viewed as a comedian, he also famous for his sincere, common-sense defense of traditional values, even as he chastizes those who get a bit overexcited in their zeal for the same.

But if this essay is a sly, self-satirizing joke, he's not visibly tipping his hand. Not at all. In fact, he seems be speaking in common sense mode -- the opening paragraphs set this up very clearly. This is a straightforward defense of "man & wife till death do us part" marriage and its role in child-rearing. The only irony comes in Keillor's wry, resigned acceptance of his own fuddy-duddiness. Throw in a few dated jabs at the selfishness of "me generation" parenting, and you've got the gist.

He may be (very gently) mocking stuffy, Midwestern conservatives, but he's also sentimentally, nostalgiacally celebrating their core values. That's what he does. And in this case, it's a bit distasteful.

Pye Poudre, Thursday, 15 March 2007 15:59 (eleven years ago) Permalink

GK is a radio personality who performs well within a narrow range. He's a lousy writer. I've had the same problem with most of his articles. He's used to writing for radio, specifically his show, and it shows, but like with all his crappy articles, I imagined this one read in his voice, in character, possibly as a part of one of his radio plays, and they make a little more sense. It's obvious to me what he's trying to do here, and I'm not in the least bit offended, but bad art means you're not going to get a response consistent with your intended message.

I had the same problem with his movie. The movie would have been better executed as a 10 min guy noir sketch.

Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 15 March 2007 16:15 (eleven years ago) Permalink

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2007/03/garrison_keillors_apology

gabbneb, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 19:44 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I think his explanation that the column was meant to be read as it would be by people in the small world of arts and entertainment doesn't solve the problems with it, as his audience is far wider than that and he KNOWS it. I'm not part of that "small world," i don't know him and his gay friends personally, and i don't know his entire body of work, so i honestly misunderstood - but should that level of knowledge about the author really be required out of a reader of a syndicated column? Tongue and cheek or not, it seems pretty irresponsible to me.

Maria, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 20:24 (eleven years ago) Permalink

five months pass...

Not something I expected at all:

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Mayor Jerry Sanders abruptly reversed his public opposition to marriage for same-sex partners and revealed that his adult daughter is a lesbian.

Sanders on Wednesday signed a City Council resolution supporting a challenge to California's gay marriage ban. He previously promised to veto it.

The Republican mayor said he could no longer back the position he took during his election campaign two years ago, when he said he favored civil unions but not full marriage rights for homosexual couples.

He fought back tears as he said he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have their relationships protected equally under state laws.

"In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana," Sanders said.

It's going to start coming down to this more and more, I figure. It'll be interesting to see what the reaction is -- Sanders is a perfect fit for San Diego as mayor (former police chief, Republican, etc.) and without knowing all the local dynamics I find it hard to believe any challenger in the next race from the GOP side can chip away at him on anything else *but* this. (Two to one Duncan Hunter is off banging his head against the wall right now.)

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 20 September 2007 15:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

without knowing all the local dynamics I find it hard to believe any challenger in the next race from the GOP side can chip away at him on anything else *but* this.

Reading this on Sulllivan's site this morning, I had the same thought, then dismissed it. I mean, he's articulated his change of mind as clearly as possible. What GOP challenger would dare to say he's "anti-family" now?

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 20 September 2007 16:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm all for adult couples marrying whoever they like but the thing I don't get about this debate is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one - I certainly agree that gay couples should have all the same rights and legal priveleges and distinctions that straight couples have, but how can the state possibly legislate religion, it just seems completely stupid. Make civil unions have the same exact legal standing as trad marriages and voila - problem solved, at least legally speaking. But if Catholics don't wanna marry gays, I don't see how there's any way the law can tell them they have to.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 16:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

What GOP challenger would dare to say he's "anti-family" now?

It's a hell of a glove to throw down, for sure. Wouldn't be surprised if someone tries it, though.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 20 September 2007 16:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

It was nice of the Catholics to decide last year that unbaptized babies' souls now go to heaven instead of limbo.

dally, Thursday, 20 September 2007 17:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

What happens to those in limbo already?

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 20 September 2007 17:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

luckily nothing, since it never really existed in the first place, but not soon enough to prevent hundreds of years of psychic sorrow for believing Catholics whose kids were stillborn, aborted, etc...

but I guess that's another thread...

dally, Thursday, 20 September 2007 17:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

so wheres the motivation for baptism now?

sunny successor, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

My Mom is married to a Lady, but it looks like their union isn't legal anymore. They got married in Oregon. They've been together for nearly 25 years.

Maria :D, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm all for adult couples marrying whoever they like but the thing I don't get about this debate is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one

That's really odd...I'm legally married, but the ceremony was totally secular and performed by an agnostic friend who filled out a form on the internet. There's no box on my tax forms for "civil unioned filing jointly".

I see what you're saying though, if churches don't want to marry people, they shouldn't have to. But if marriage is exclusively a religious institution, then I guess I'm not married, despite all evidence to the contrary.

joygoat, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

you're not married according to any CHURCH, but you are married according to the law. That's the whole problem with this debate, the conflation of the two concepts together under a single term - its just not helpful.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

The Catholics wouldn't have to marry gays if gay marriage were legalized. They don't have to marry straight atheists or Jews or Lutherans now. Marriage is a weird religious-civil hybrid. (xpost - yeah pretty much)

Maria, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm all for adult couples marrying whoever they like but the thing I don't get about this debate is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one

You're joking, right? Or do you think atheists can't get married? Marriage is a religious and a civil union -- and it's the religious part which is optional. No one is saying Catholics have to marry anyone they don't want to.

xpost

Casuistry, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah I mean death is a religious and a secular concept too, it's only when we hook a bunch of machines up to a medulla with lungs that we run into problems with that

El Tomboto, Thursday, 20 September 2007 19:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

Isn't marriage the death of hope? (spot the quote)

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 20 September 2007 19:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm not joking at all - there's nothing in the Constitution about marriage, for ex., and there's nothing in the legal rights granted to couples that requires using that term.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 19:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yes, but marriage is two separate things. It is ceremonial and a civil union. And you're getting it all backwards. Nothing is stopping a gay couple from getting ceremonially married in a church that is open to it. It's the civil part of marriage that they are denied: the right to get married in, say, city hall and according to the law. And no church would be "forced" to marry gay couples if gay marriage were legalized, churches are not *required* to marry anyone.

Melissa W, Thursday, 20 September 2007 20:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's the civil part of marriage that they are denied: the right to get married in, say, city hall and according to the law.

I understand that perfectly well - which is why, say, Obama's position that he is for civil unions and wants to leave ceremonial marriages up to churches is perfectly understandable. But it seems apparent to me that there are people on both sides of the debate - gay and homophobe - who seem to think that a) "legalizing" gay marriage will force churches to marry homos, or b) that civil unions don't "go far enough".

There's also the whole "but if we legalize gay marriage people will be marrying box turtles/their cousins/five wives!" tack, which likewise makes no fucking legal sense whatsoever.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 20:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

<i>there are people on both sides of the debate - gay and homophobe - who seem to think that a) "legalizing" gay marriage will force churches to marry homos</i>
And they are both wrong, so what's your point?

<i>b) that civil unions don't "go far enough".</i>
Well, why not call it what it is? Why give them a ghettoized version of marriage?

Melissa W, Thursday, 20 September 2007 20:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

so that there's a clear distinction between LEGAL RIGHTS and religious ceremonies. Its just a word, is semantics what this debate is really all about? How is calling it a civil union "ghettoizing" it? Who is hurt by it, and how, exactly? This isn't like a "separate but equal" clause - just call all legal arrangements between couples civil unions and be done with it. Let the churches have "marriage", they invented it anyway.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

And they are both wrong, so what's your point?

my point is there confused by this willful blurring of the line between legal rights and religious ceremonies, and the sooner such distinctions are more clearly spelled out, the better.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

the only people benefitting from this confusion are demogogues.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

That wasn't what you were arguing to begin with. You were arguing that churches will be forced to marry gay people, and you were wrong about that. And now you've moved the goalposts to legal definitions. I think ceremonial marriage and civil unions *should* be separate matters, but that's a whole different argument. So for the time being while the two things remain entwined, I see no reason why gay people should be the only ones who have to get "civil unioned" while everyone else gets married.

Melissa W, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

I see you can't read very well.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

I see you can't reason very well.

Melissa W, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

to repeat:

how can the state possibly legislate religion, it just seems completely stupid... if Catholics don't wanna marry gays, I don't see how there's any way the law can tell them they have to.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

You were arguing that churches will be forced to marry gay people,

seriously I never said this, go back and read the thread.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

You said: Make civil unions have the same exact legal standing as trad marriages and voila - problem solved, at least legally speaking. But if Catholics don't wanna marry gays, I don't see how there's any way the law can tell them they have to.

And through that passage, I came away with the idea that you don't seem to realize that a) Catholics will never have to marry gay people, whether gay marriage is legalized or not, and whether it is called marriage or not.

Melissa W, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm sorry I snapped at you but maybe I used too many double negatives for you or something. The law can't make churches marry anybody, as my statement "I DON'T SEE HOW THE LAW CAN TELL THEM THEY HAVE TO" should make clear.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

anyway hurray my point is illustrated that semantics have completely fucked any rational debate about this subject

o the irony

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

What I am trying to ask you is why do you think the law is ACTUALLY TRYING THIS? Or that this is actually a goal to ANYONE?

Melissa W, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

I mean, churches can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want even with regards to straight marriage, so I don't think this is part of anyone's mission.

Melissa W, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

I don't know, were you just stating the obvious in the worst possibly phrased way?

Melissa W, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

yes probably

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 21:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

What I don’t get is why marriage should be restricted to couples. Why should a merry gang of lifelong friends be deprived of the possibility of sealing their togetherness? For it’s scarcely about love. I love plenty of people, and it’s revolting that I should have to single them down to some “significant other.” Coupleism — the last form of acceptable repression?

Jeb, Thursday, 20 September 2007 22:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, but think about how expensive dinner would be.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 20 September 2007 22:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

What I don’t get is why marriage should be restricted to couples.

cuz making it otherwise is a massive legal headache. the very concept of marriage "benefits" requires that those benefits not be conferred to anyone in any situation. sorry, some restrictions are necessary. besides, who wants to create a whole legal framework for polygamy, sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 22:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

polygamy also traditionally oppressive/beneficial to one gender at the expense of the other.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 22:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

Threesomes are fun and all, but I wouldn't want to worry about a partner's sexual stability when I have to wait in line for the bathroom.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 20 September 2007 22:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hi everyone I can remember sleeping with steals covers, I should MULTIPLY that by some larger number and freeze to death completely??

Laurel, Thursday, 20 September 2007 22:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also fuck you, you people, a bed is not a burrito.

Laurel, Thursday, 20 September 2007 22:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

my friend used to babysit for a kid who would say "tuck me in LIKE A BURRITO"

max, Thursday, 20 September 2007 22:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

I thought that said "fuck me like a burrito"

sorry

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 22:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

me too

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 20 September 2007 22:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

Funniest possible things to say during moment of climax.

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 22:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

seven months pass...

A very good thing -- but let's see what happens in November.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 15 May 2008 17:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

Of course, I can see people using this as a talking point:


One of the first couples to wed, the lead plaintiffs in San Francisco's lawsuit challenging marriage laws, has since separated and is no longer part of the case.

You mean gay couples can divorce like straight couples? You don't say!

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 15 May 2008 17:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm not optimistic about the amendment on the Florida constitution, up for voting in America.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 May 2008 17:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

four months pass...

Connecticut Supreme Court joins the party:

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hcu-gaymarriage-1010,0,7812756.story

Dr Morbius, Friday, 10 October 2008 16:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

Does that make you angry Morbs?

NJ Sucks (libcrypt), Friday, 10 October 2008 16:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

?

no. As long as the state is marrying people, it should be marrying everybody.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 10 October 2008 16:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

Need to bait the hook better next time.

NJ Sucks (libcrypt), Friday, 10 October 2008 16:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

bait yrself, Jersey hater

Dr Morbius, Friday, 10 October 2008 16:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

As long as the state is marrying people, it should be marrying everybody.

http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/wt/wt070226let_oscar_be_oscar/benigni-lg.jpg

Dow 30,000 by 2008 (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, 10 October 2008 16:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

yes, let's get Rev Moon to marry us all to Pinocchio.

Dr Morbius, Friday, 10 October 2008 16:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

I don't actually hate NJ. I just think it's cool that there's a character than looks like NJ.

NJ Sucks (libcrypt), Friday, 10 October 2008 17:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think gay marriage is bullshit--i think all marriage is bullshit. i was walking around christopher st this summer and some woman from fox news with a big camera wanted to interview me about the subject--i assume b/c i was the gayest person she could find in the village, but i declined.

it's a weird issue b/c i think it's so consumed the queer movement in the US that, at this point, if someone says theyre against gay marriage, it means they're homophobic. which made it hard to watch biden sidestep the question in the debate.

but in the end--why would i want to be part of your fucked up, heteronormative, historically misogynist tradition? so i can have my relationships okayed by straight people? whatevz.

pterodactyl, Friday, 10 October 2008 23:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

I hope this doesn't wind up giving fuel to the McCain campaign, given that both tickets are against gay marriage anyway.

Maria, Friday, 10 October 2008 23:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

While I have some sympathy for the "all marriage is bullshit" argument, I think it's a bit short-sighted. I don't think it takes into account why people enter into marriages, which is not always for normative reasons. (And there is nothing at all heteronormative about gay marriage? Almost by definition? I mean the whole problem is that it's a queering of a text/ritual/concept, surely.)

Casuistry, Friday, 10 October 2008 23:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think that the reason gay marriage has become the center of the gay rights movement is that it seems totally safe to straight people. i.e. they can see it as "oh, gay people are just like us!" which then leads to real downwithit straight folks asking halfjokingly who "the man" is, ha ha. i don't really buy that it's queering anything.

seems to me that any legit reason people enter into marriages for (i.e. civil rights, immigration, etc) should be guaranteed to people whether or not theyre fucking anyone.

pterodactyl, Friday, 10 October 2008 23:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

gays should go back to reminding us that they're not totally safe to straight people

original dixieland jaas band (Curt1s Stephens), Friday, 10 October 2008 23:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

I am using that post as evidence that when you die and your estate is getting divided, ptero

nabisco, Friday, 10 October 2008 23:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

remove "that" from sentence

nabisco, Friday, 10 October 2008 23:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

the second "that"

nabisco, Friday, 10 October 2008 23:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

ABORT SNAPPY POINT ATTEMPT REPEAT ABORT

nabisco, Friday, 10 October 2008 23:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

i dont have an estate b/c i am so RADICAL & QUEER

i float above your petty economics like a revolutionary fairy!!!

pterodactyl, Friday, 10 October 2008 23:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

Face it, breeders. We're just not cool enough to hang with the queers.

NJ Sucks (libcrypt), Friday, 10 October 2008 23:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

i float above your petty economics like a revolutionary fairy!!!

No, just a powerless one...

Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 10 October 2008 23:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

as opposed to if i had the incredibly powerful right of marriage? o please, bless me with yr straight privileges!

pterodactyl, Friday, 10 October 2008 23:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

take us to your magical land free from historically misogynist institutions

original dixieland jaas band (Curt1s Stephens), Friday, 10 October 2008 23:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

welcome to lesbian separatism my friend

you will feel weirdly at home here.

pterodactyl, Friday, 10 October 2008 23:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

Crutis, are you considering becoming a lesbian?

LATIN CAPITAL LETTER LJ (libcrypt), Friday, 10 October 2008 23:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

I mean, some gays aren't safe to straight people, and some straights aren't safe to gay people, and some are, and some of each want to get married, and some don't, etc., etc.

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

sure... it just is disappointing that the whole queer movement focuses around marriage when (it seems to me) there are so many more relevant & important issues. & i recognize it's a PR move, but for who?

i teach HS... i hear kids getting called faggot & dyke several times a day; see kids struggle vs in tolerant parents; watch pregnant teens slowly drop out. & then i'm supposed to rally behind the very (i think) middle class issue of gay marriage? like that's gonna make an iota of difference to the 16 yr old queer kid in my class? like thats gonna help transgendered people or poor people or anyone who isnt already doing ok?

i mean god bless the middle class & everything but it just isnt a movement i feel particularly inspired by.

pterodactyl, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

marriage is gay

sad man in him room (milo z), Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

i totally support gay marriage. equal rights, this is HUMAN BEINGS we're talking about!

internet person, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's not going to make a difference to them now, maybe; it surely will make more of a difference to the queer kid in your class ten, twenty years from now. Did Stonewall make a huge difference to the queer kid in a Seattle classroom in 1969? Maybe, but probably not right away.

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

(Also many European countries that have legalized gay marriages have also seen a steady decline in all marriages -- though of course correlation is not causation.)

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think stonewall (insofar as it was about people's right to exist as queer) was significantly more radical than gay marriage. and as such--perhaps trickled down to the rest of the queer community in a more meaningful way.

i buy this philosophy pretty much: http://www.beyondmarriage.org/index.html

i mean, i get the argument--that thru middle class gay folks becoming more mainstream the freaks and faggots and transpeople and whoever will benefit. but it's kinda a lame movement anyway. it's like--sure, mainstream 1970s white feminism helped out women of color, too. but it was still pretty wack the way that went down.

(not to draw inapplicable parallels or WHATEVZ)

pterodactyl, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

I feel like such a hypocrite about gay marriage because I have zero interest in being married myself, I've been in a relationship now for sixteen years and I'm psychically as married as I could ever be to another man, but the state has no business confirming/denying/permitting what is already true.

That said, the painful way that gay marriage's untouchability united McCain and Obama was truly cringe-worthy, and it reminded us all watching at home on TV that the whole "we'll give you whatever you want, just don't call it marriage" line that they BOTH trotted out is some seriously "separate but equal" segregationist bullshit that stinks to fag heaven.

Neotropical pygmy squirrel, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

with that said, if granting marriage to the homos can somehow magically undermine the institution of marriage, i am all for it!

xpost

pterodactyl, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

to pigmy: yeah, i agree totally. it's funny cuz when they asked that Q at the VP debate i was like, "oh who cares" & then by the end of biden's answer i was like, "YOU PIECE OF SHIT HOMOPHOBIC ASSHOLE!!!!" (let alone whatever palin was spewing about her 'tolerance')

pterodactyl, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yah, most queers I know are thoroughly modern and blase about their own queerness, kind of just getting on with particulars really, and then you see displays like that and realize that you're still a "touchy issue" for all these unseen millions.

Neotropical pygmy squirrel, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

ugh that 'tolerance' garbage was reprehensible

the valves of houston (gbx), Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I didn't expect him to come out swinging against it so strongly. It made me sad.

Maria, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

And Palin's answer wasn't nearly as bad as her record in Alaska (regarding benefits).

Maria, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's kind of perfect that marriage would be the topic that introduces this phony pretense of "I'm tolerant personally, but . . . ". That is in fact the Zizek formula for ideology- "je sais bien, mais . . ." ("I know very well, but all the same. . . ")- I say that it makes sense that this would be brought up in relation to marriage because marriage itself is almost always compromised by precisely this kind of performance for the Others who are watching- "We aren't religious, but Grandma really wants us to get married in church so we're doing it for her"- the ideology is perfectly happy to ride piggyback on precisely such supposed displays of "disbelief" since the outward form gets to stay the same.

Neotropical pygmy squirrel, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah it was kind of jarring!

it's funny tho, it's like how homophobia is lurking there somewhere. like how i grew up in a nice liberal northeast town and could have told you from age 5 that there was nothing wrong with being gay & still found myself horribly ashamed & in denial & not having met a single queer person by the time i was a teenager.

& maybe that's part of the argument behind gay marriage, that by normalizing it you can fight that sort of secret homophobia, otherness. but for some reason that argument doesn't really hold much sway for me.

(xpost)

pterodactyl, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

Face it, breeders. We're just not cool enough to hang with the queers.

― NJ Sucks (libcrypt), Friday, 10 October 2008 23:44 (Yesterday)

aren't you 40 and a big radiohead fan?

Matt P, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

sorry pterodactyl but gay people like you make me wish i wasn't.

Matt P, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

40 yes; Radiohead is good but not my fave in any category.

LATIN CAPITAL LETTER LJ (libcrypt), Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

i.e. get over yourself x-post

Matt P, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

I wasn't being sarcastic. Just goofy, Matt P.

LATIN CAPITAL LETTER LJ (libcrypt), Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

am i reading it right that you're against gay marriage cause you personally don't want to get married/aren't down with the whole concept?

Granny Dainger, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

well thats kinda mean!

cuz i'm not particularly inspired by gay marriage ?

pterodactyl, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

Ptero, I wasn't saying that gay marriage is as "radical" as Stonewall. You were talking about how effective it is for your student. I don't think either made much of a short-term difference in the lives of most of the contemporary queers, no matter how legendary Stonewall is treated now.

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also, I am totally willing to have Biden play the "give them equal rights but don't call it marriage" game if the alternative is Obama losing the election. I mean, ffs!

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

yo--i'm not against gay marriage!

i just think it's a lame issue to focus a queer movement around. b/c it doesnt address the actual issues/problems of a majority of queer people. & it also doesnt address the underlying inequality of the whole marriage debate, which is that whether or not you have health care or can immigrate or have visitation rights or whatever shouldn't depend on yr sexuality or who you're sleeping with or if you're sleeping with anyone!

AND i object to it cuz i think it's a fucked up heteronormative, misogynist institution that i honestly dont understand why anyone gay OR straight would want to participate in.

@ to casuistry--naw, i agree with you re: stonewall. wasnt trying to argue, was just kinda typing my thoughts aloud...

pterodactyl, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

"well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman and, unfortunately, that's where those steps sometimes lead"

Examples please? When and where has this happened?

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

Well, I still think there might be some things to salvage in that institution. You're not signing up for 1950s marriage, after all!

Plus I'm not sure what issues you're thinking of, but health insurance, hospital visitation rights, and parental rights have been fairly central issues to queers for a while now. Unless you think being queer should automatically mean you don't want kids? I mean, I don't want kids, but I don't think it's because of my queerness -- that just secures that I don't have any "happy accidents".

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

I just find the word tolerant really offensive, like, I feel like a bad smell is what you tolerate.

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

blondiegurl143 (1 hour ago) 0 Reply | Spam
ohmygodd.
this country is so fuckked up.
all love is the same.
my lesbian mothers will probably not be able to live to see gay marraige legal across the US. maybe even i wont.
this is so fucking ridiculous.
traditional marriage?
bullshit.

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

T., did you come here because of the "gay" or because someone mentioned "Zizek"? ;-)

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 00:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

I was really uninterested until then!

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

Great bit of Zizek upthread for anyone who's interested!

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

@ i know right (examples): connecticut!

casuistry: i dont think people shouldnt have/want kids, and i think middle class queer couples should certainly have the right to adopt kids. which is an issue that i actually feel slightly more mobilized by than gay marriage.

but i think health care, hospital visitation rights, parental rights, immigration rights, etc, shouldnt have anything to do with who youre sleeping with. a 20 yr old living with his older mother has just as much a right to all those things, in my mind, as a queer couple. a woman living in an apt with 3 friends who wants to raise a baby there should have just as much a right as a queer couple. or a straight couple.

i think marriage as the inevitable goal of all relationships limits our imaginations to other possibilities, other forms of kinship. & in poorer communities, i think those 'other' forms of kinship are, by necessity, much more common.

pterodactyl, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

Your examples maybe don't make sense? A 20yo does have visitation rights to his mother? A single woman who has a baby doesn't have anyone else who needs legal authority over decisions in the baby's life?

You're also acting as if marriage rights impede other types of relationships, the way some people think gay marriage somehow impedes straight marriage, even though there's no sane way it would.

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think this is all getting a bit pointlessly idealistic, and to a point, ptero, you're right. But maybe gay people don't all share your dream of queer otherness, maybe they just want everyone to start out on the same page. I mean, its gays who want this, not really anybody else, do you not think that undermines your implication that this is about appeasing conservative white middle class straight people? I mean, they're pretty much the ones saying no, aren't they? Or maybe it's just that there's a lot of middle class white gay people now who don't want to be so different from their friends. I mean, I don't think that we're all falling over ourselves to keep it queer, most people just want to keep their head down and get by and not really worry about redefining or subverting or whatever all the time. Like, I'm pretty whatevs about the whole thing, though, mainly because I think weddings are pretty naff.

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

I mean I don't disagree with the things you're for, I just disagree with the things you're against. If that makes sense.

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also I think my point is that straight people also engage in relationships that aren't "marriage". Like, plenty of them do. Perhaps the same proportion as queer people who do?

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

a 20yo taking care of his mother does not have the same benefits as a married couple if he wants to put her on his health insurance. or if he is american and trying to have her immigrate to live with him.

a single woman cannot in many states adopt a baby, right? which is the same battle that queer couples are facing, right? cuz a lesbian couple can certainly HAVE a child, wherever they're living.

i don't think marriage rights impede other rights, which is why i am for gay marriage. but i think the idea we have that the ultimate (successful) end to any relationship is marriage limits the ability of people to imagine alternatives. ask any 8 yr old what they want to do when they're older.

& i also object more to the 'queer movement' focusing on gay marriage than i do to gay marriage as an issue.... cuz i think it reinforces this idea of gay ppl as 'just like straight people' & very mainstream & etc. & again, that mode of activism just doesnt resonate with me very much.

x post x 4 or so

pterodactyl, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

ptero's argument is weird, its not like its forcing ppl to enter into this 'heteronormative tradition,' its giving ppl the option

isnt this the equivalent of arguing that bcuz white school taught eurocentric history black students would be smarter not to try to integrate white schools in the first place? like theres certainly something legitimate to it but for christs' sake lets at least get ppl over the straight-up ban on it so they have the OPTION before arguing that it might be smart to forgo it after all

joe 40oz (deej), Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

naw, i think it's a movement led by gay people!!! just like mainstream 1970s feminism was run by women! but they're still just not movements i feel particularly inspired by. i mean, by all means, pass gay marriage. but i don't want that to be the end of queer activism.

pterodactyl, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

I dropped by for the Zizek. Hi peeps!

Mordy, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

(Also, I'm a straight dude who is married and loves being married and thinks anyone who wants to be married should be allowed. Cause like - it's pretty cool and makes me happy.)

Mordy, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

which is the same battle that queer couples are facing, right?

No, that's not, although it's a different problem. My friend had a baby (gave birth to it); her partner (other mommy!) has no legal rights over that baby. THAT is the problem. So if the baby is sick and birth-mommy is out of town, other-mommy has no rights; if birth-mommy dies, problems might ensue with other-mommy's rights to be mommy; if other-mommy gets health insurance, she might not be able to cover her baby on it; etc.

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

which is the same problems that unmarried straight woman would face, right? when she leaves town lovely roommate surrogate parents have no rights. b/c we can only imagine child rearing occurring within some sorta partner-union.

pterodactyl, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

Sounds like a conservative move to me

Vision, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also, let's put it another way: I think your sense of "straight people" is weirdly prejudiced. Straight people are not homogeneous. To be "just like straight people" means to have the legally and socially recognized right to be yourself. I mean it's more complicated that that, of course, but it's really hard, in 2008, to see straight people as inherently heteronormative -- even if some are, maybe most!

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you that there shouldn't be other types of coparenting arrangements! But gay marriage does seem like it would do a lot of good for a lot of people, even if it is by no means a cure-all.

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

AND i object to it cuz i think it's a fucked up heteronormative, misogynist institution that i honestly dont understand why anyone gay OR straight would want to participate in.

:(

Mordy, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

That sounds like a failure of imagination to me.

Mordy, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

Ptero, I swear I'm not having a go, so just tell me if there's a tiny kernel of truth in this. You're like 24 right? If so, then three years older than me. And I always feel like my generation, was pretty post-gay, like it's not really a thing y'know? I never really worried about it in school or anything, it wasn't some angsty burden and I wasn't the only one. And I grew up in a small, rural, farming town in Ireland at the exact age where I was from the last generation who remembers Ireland pre-boom years. But like, it seems like all that Stonewall shit is a bit whatevs too, I mean, I don't really care about that narrative or see it as something I fit into and it's because, mainly what defines your version of queerness is, well, marginalisation, it becomes a sub-culture, a minority, but you know, its not really defined the way other subcultures are and you know, we're more everywhere. But basically what I'm getting is, like you've missed our '68 or '89 or whenever, I just feel like this definition of queerness is really dated now, and not really relevant.

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

My posts are really illegible tonight.

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

i don't think straight people are all heteronormative; i think the idea of MARRIAGE is heteronormative, and therefore is a 'safe' right to argue for with straight people cuz it's very easy for them to be like, "oh they're just like us, mainstream normal straight people!"

of course a lot of straight people don't fit into that mold... but i think that's the political environment in which the argument for gay marriage is made (i.e. from joe biden). which is also why someone like biden can argue for rights w/o marriage. "of course they deserve what we have! who wouldnt want that! but dont forget theyre still kinda freaks."

@ i know right: i think that i am arguing for queerness in a context that is not dated, and is also not limited to queers. i guess i didnt make that really clear. but i think our generation has the potential to choose NOT to participate in institutions that are oppressive. and part of that movement is antiracist and part is feminist and part is queer. & it feels to me like giving in (symbolically) & accepting all the BS that was handed to you as a kid, whether youre straight or not, to get married. & queer people especially are given the clear choice to reject that in a way that often straight people are not.

pterodactyl, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

yep, I have to agree with ptero here. Even if the waning otherness of gay and lesbian as places in social space, and the dawning of a homo-normativity (or what gets called homonationalism by Jasbir Puar) means that increasingly young same-sexors have more options, that is cool and a good thing, but I don't want having a critical relationship to mainstream society to become thereby "dated". Let's not lose the minoritarian self-awareness in a baby/bathwater switcheroo.

Neotropical pygmy squirrel, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

I really didn't say that, I'm pretty sure what I said was mainly summed up by the rest of your post though! ; )

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

In fact I find it a vaguely offensive and dated concept to imply that my sexuality needs to be an impetus. Its this thing where you need to piggy back onto some minority card to be allowed to be radical about things, like if I was straight my voice on this wouldn't be as relevant somehow, and that's pretty fucked.

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

I wish the queer mission weren't to pat ourselves on the back for being so awesomely minoritarian, but rather were to make people who assume they are in the majority realize that they too are minoritarian.

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also you could draw up an argument along the lines of: How can you have an informed critical relationship to a social institution, such as marriage, without entering into it and seeing how it functions? Who's the colonialist in that context, eh?

Or: Rejection of a social institution isn't much of a critical response, now, is it? I mean, you're arguing that queers shouldn't engage in the evolution of the institution, wtf?

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

i dont think that is the queer mission & i dont think that's what i'm arguing. i like queerness as a concept--in opposition to heteronormativity--and i dont think thats limited to people who identify as gay. i think it's about opening up the options that people can imagine--whatever their sexuality, whatever their preference. & then making sure that those options are legally protected.

gay marriage, in that sense, is (to me) a conservative ideal, as most marriage is a conservative ideal. it's a right that i think should be protected & fought for but not one that inspires me in the least.

and i think that sexuality CAN BE and IS for many people the impetus to engage in that struggle or that lifestyle or that imagining or uh whatever.

pterodactyl, Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also, let's put it another way: I think your sense of "straight people" is weirdly prejudiced. Straight people are not homogeneous. To be "just like straight people" means to have the legally and socially recognized right to be yourself. I mean it's more complicated that that, of course, but it's really hard, in 2008, to see straight people as inherently heteronormative -- even if some are, maybe most!

― Casuistry, Friday, October 10, 2008 8:26 PM (28 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is what i was trying to say

joe 40oz (deej), Saturday, 11 October 2008 01:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

ok, so maybe we do disagree cuz i believe that rejection of a social institution is totally a critical response!!!

& i also believe that conflating "being just like straight people" and "having the legally and socially recognized right to be yourself" is seriously problematic!

pterodactyl, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think considering the number of gay people who wish to be married, its really hard to ascribe 'heteronormative' to it any more tbh.

its like opposing marriage on feminist grounds bcuz a ring used to symbolize ownership

joe 40oz (deej), Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

XXXP, pterodactyl, aren't you stigmatizing marriage as a conservative convention? i see it more as value neutral - it can be a radical relationship or a heteronormative relationship. Part of the gay marriage argument for me (as a straight male) is not just about opening it up to non-heterosexuals, but opening it up to a variety of challenges and new meanings. I don't consider my marriage a standard patriarchal relationship (and I don't think my wife does either). Gay marriage isn't just about "giving permission" to homosexuals to marry. It's about suggesting a new dynamic in what could be generally considered a conservative institute.

Mordy, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

+ obviously I recognize that as a married, straight male I have a stake in this position.

Mordy, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

xp exactly

joe 40oz (deej), Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

mordy, that argument is why, in the end, i am for gay marriage. but i think that in the vast majority of cases, marriage is not about suggesting or creating any kind of new dynamic.

also i have trouble with the idea of marriage as a radical relationship--state sanctioned radicalism ? particularly in the current environment where anyone getting married knows that it is a state-sanctioned right that is ACTIVELY DENIED to other groups of people. including but perhaps not limited to the gays.

pterodactyl, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

Well, marriage isn't historically a state sanctioned institute. It is now, but marriages have existed in radical contexts. Certain gnostic anti-establishment traditions for example have marriages, etc. (Not to derail the conversation.) I don't think we disagree tho - I have trouble with the same thing. And certainly it's problematic when you are married and deny others the right. I don't know if my contributing to defeating Prop 8 is just a way of alleviating my guilt over that problem, or in fact an appropriate way to validate my own marriage. Obv it's something on my mind.

Mordy, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

See I have no problem with institutions. I don't see them as something that needs to be, I dunno, railed against, so much as used. Marriage is sortof a contract, on a legal level it really is just about establishing a position in which certain terms and rights become applicable, but it is used to become a declaration of love a very personal thing and a very beautiful thing and is sortof radical when you think about how it subverts this legal institution with private narratives. I don't really see a problem with this really. The same thing for really all institutions, so long as we're free to reject their terms, and really, nobody's forcing you and your gal-pal to get hitched.

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

and is sortof radical when you think about how it subverts this legal institution with private narratives.

I really like this idea.

Mordy, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

i want to know/understand what exactly the grounds are that ppl should be pushing, in terms of federal action/large picture politics, that isn't marriage. whats the better pathway? sullivan's 'politics of homosexuality' made a pretty strong argument i think for marriage being the central platform for the wide view

joe 40oz (deej), Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

xpost

You would, breeder! ; )

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

Tsk. I use birth control. The potentiality of progeny != breeding. :P

Mordy, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

Birth control is not as effective as homosexuality in preventing pregnancy.

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/scanner/2008/junior.jpg

joe 40oz (deej), Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

c'est la vie. so i'm not perfect. :P

Mordy, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

folks we got ourselves a nice spectrum here from reformers to radicals, some want to reorient marriage from within, others want no part of it . . .

I think if you're looking for a case for "why rail against institutions?" you could take a peek at the early Deleuze essay "Instincts and Institutions", which makes a pretty portable ideology-critique case against the ways that institutions legitimize themselves as the best/most inevitable/universal endpoint through which to satisfy our natural instincts. Deleuze's point is that institutions hinge their legitimacy on our instincts in order to survive, but our instincts don't require institutional support in order to be satisfied. This makes the "sooner or later you'll get over your sour grapes and join us" line about marriage all the more maddening and symptomatic of the trouble with institutions. I would also point out that your sense that institutions are there for you to be used is probably not unrelated to who you are/where you live/your demographic. I doubt that, say, a Palestinian living in Israel or an African American in the 50s in the USA would have the same feeling that they could 'take or leave' institutions, that institutions were just something to tip one's hat to or not.

Neotropical pygmy squirrel, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

The thing is, Deleuze is wrong.

also i have trouble with the idea of marriage as a radical relationship--state sanctioned radicalism ?

I have trouble with the idea of the state as something that is always already in an antagonistic relationship to the people who constitute it -- the situation is clearly more nuanced than that. I have trouble with the word "radicalism" being used interchangeably with something like "awesomeness" -- the Bush administration has been wildly radical.

particularly in the current environment where anyone getting married knows that it is a state-sanctioned right that is ACTIVELY DENIED to other groups of people. including but perhaps not limited to the gays.

Do you also reject health insurance, knowing it is actively denied to way more people than gay marriage is?

Anyway this is getting more heated than I really want it to, and I'm not helping. And, I don't disagree with you, but it seems like you're letting your disinterest in marriage as a viable institution to engage in dictate what you think other people should feel is right for them, or how you think society as a whole should go. But you also are ultimately OK with gay marriage. So. La la! It's all fine.

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

For instance, no one here is making that argument about "sooner or later you'll join us", and it's maybe hard to say that there has been pressure on gay people from the straight world to legalize gay marriage so they could get married and be just like straights already.

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

What is the "sooner or later you'll join us" argument?

Mordy, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

yr being too kind imo.

joe 40oz (deej), Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

This makes the "sooner or later you'll get over your sour grapes and join us" line about marriage all the more maddening and symptomatic of the trouble with institutions.

As far as I can tell, this line doesn't plague straight people nearly as much as it did 30 years ago; has the queer movement helped homo-normativize the straight "community"?

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

Deleuze is right. It's just the wrong Deleuze being quoted. A rhizomatic approach to marriage, ala A Thousand Plateaus, could potentially be very useful. There's no one particular entry point or exit point, but a variety that is always changing. No two heterosexual marriages are the same, and there's no reason to believe that a homosexual marriage would be the same either.

Mordy, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's always the wrong Deleuze being quoted! Sigh. But that does seem more sensible. That's the fun thing with Deleuze, I guess, you can mine for sensible quotes.

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

(Also... I am being too kind? Is that... a bad thing? I'm pro-kindness, usually.)

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

i much prefer marginalizing your enemies

joe 40oz (deej), Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

Apropos of something, Deleuze was very interested in a variety of holes. Bataille may be relevant here too... (Sorry! I'm being immature!)

Mordy, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

kindness is hot

Surmounter, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

why is everyone talking about gay people tonight? is it gay week? it's leather weekend in nyc. same thing?

Surmounter, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

Probably cause of Connecticut, I'd imagine?

Mordy, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

some of our best friends are gay, dude

mookieproof, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

some of my best gays are dudes, friend.

Mordy, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm not saying that Deleuze's account is the only account of institutions worth knowing about, or that his account is complete. Obviously if you're really interested in the topic then you read the work of the so-called "New Institutionalists" (a cluster of historians and sociologists I just learned a few weeks ago about, folks like March, Olsen, Peter Hall, Rosemary Taylor, etc. who study the enduring forms of institutions via all sorts of metrics) But institutions qua institutions aren't a great locus for transformation at the hands of particular individuals within them because of their slow metabolism, their very capacity to endure past and across generations, lifespans. They endure because of a glacial sluggishness, and yeah, they still change, duh. But they're not the only game in town.

xpost

Neotropical pygmy squirrel, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

word?

mookieproof, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

i don't really think about getting married that much anymore. i don't remember if i ever did, actually! i'm happy in my relationship as it is, so while the idea that i can't bothers me when it comes up, it doesn't on a daily basis.

Surmounter, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

although you know what sucks, is the money. i have to spend money on weddings too often for me to never have the opportunity to get a cuisinart or a vacuum as a gift.

Surmounter, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

damn i miss having a cuisinart.

Surmounter, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

solution: rob your married friends.

original dixieland jaas band (Curt1s Stephens), Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

geez my one friend, she had like 4 parties to celebrate the whole thing. i was done!

Surmounter, Saturday, 11 October 2008 02:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

so sur, i know you're not a playa, but don't you crush a lot?

mookieproof, Saturday, 11 October 2008 03:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

hmm. ya? crushing is good i guess. glad you know i'm not a playa tho

Surmounter, Saturday, 11 October 2008 03:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

haha sorry xoxo

mookieproof, Saturday, 11 October 2008 03:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol no rly :) no need

Surmounter, Saturday, 11 October 2008 03:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

But institutions qua institutions aren't a great locus for transformation at the hands of particular individuals within them because of their slow metabolism, their very capacity to endure past and across generations, lifespans.

Yeah but... gay marriage seems like an organized thing? Involving many individuals?

It's like people at church: We have this model that it's a top-down sort of thing, where the Pope says jump and the Catholics say "how high", but of course the relationship between the institution and the people within it (and the Church is waaaaay more of a top-down kind of institution than marriage is!) is far more complicated than that, and the church-goers relationship within the church is rarely one of blind obedience, or even of complete definition; but it serves as maybe a set of axes from which we can plot our sense of identity, and we might be able to use it in ways that it doesn't expect to be used. (Compare, say, the entire history of the internet, an institution which has had a magnificent upheaval every few years -- and an institution more dispersed that Catholicism, but perhaps as less dispersed than marriage!)

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 03:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

i am going to my first gay wedding tomorrow!

remy bean, Saturday, 11 October 2008 03:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

I doubt that, say, a Palestinian living in Israel or an African American in the 50s in the USA would have the same feeling that they could 'take or leave' institutions, that institutions were just something to tip one's hat to or not.

Dude, that is just willful misreading of what I actually said right there. The provision is that we are free to accept or reject the institution, and I really don't think an institution like marriage is totalitarian, its just an institution that grants rights and privileges based on restructuring and reforming familial units. I would like to see this become a more homogenous entity, open to everyone, because culturally it is letigitmising. Obviously if you move away from society where institutions bear down upon citizens within that society or on another one, then that is just fucked, but we're not, so it's kindof strawman-ey

But institutions qua institutions aren't a great locus for transformation at the hands of particular individuals within them because of their slow metabolism, their very capacity to endure past and across generations, lifespans.

Pretty much what Casuistry said. I don't really feel like the point here is to transform the institution (I think the institution's "slow metabolism" is a steadying force within society) but an ideology for people to situate themselves within or against, and here there are so many, many shades of grey. That's why I think its more interesting for people, in all their various peopleness, to adopt the institutions and, regardless of changing them, (the introduction of gay marriage is a transformation, btw) for them to use them. Like I doubt Mordy gives a shit about owning his wife like a piece of property, he seems like too nice a guy, I'm pretty sure he and his wife just love one another and used marriage (srsly correct me if I'm wrong) as a way of regrouping their own family unit. But the fact is, this doesn't mean they have to have four kids or that he has to get a job and she'll look after them, there's all sorts of way that that family can work and it doesn't really allow for the prescription of an institution.

The institution becomes a tool, and that's what I figure it's for. It's like any institution: museums, churches, etc. their function can't really be prescribed in the cold theoretical way you're doing because it hinges too much on an individuals, and I would argue especially those who count themselves within that institution, and how they themselves actually behave, with and against the prescription of the institution.

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 11:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

meant to italicise that quote in the middle, sorry.

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 11:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think gay marriage is bullshit--i think all marriage is bullshit. i was walking around christopher st this summer and some woman from fox news with a big camera wanted to interview me about the subject--i assume b/c i was the gayest person she could find in the village, but i declined.

it's a weird issue b/c i think it's so consumed the queer movement in the US that, at this point, if someone says theyre against gay marriage, it means they're homophobic. which made it hard to watch biden sidestep the question in the debate.

but in the end--why would i want to be part of your fucked up, heteronormative, historically misogynist tradition? so i can have my relationships okayed by straight people? whatevz.

― pterodactyl, Friday, October 10, 2008 11:11 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Just because *you* don't want to get married shouldn't mean that you or anyone else prevents my mother from marrying the woman she's been with since the 80s. As a married person, I'll tell you for me marriage is not about religion and it's not about being heteronormative or whatever, it's about becoming part of your partner's family. It's about your partner's parents becoming your parents, about your partner's siblings becoming your siblings. It may just be "in law" but it's more -- it's a feeling [queue "what a feeling"] You join two families. My mom has been with the same woman for so long, but when she said, "we're getting married!" I thought of her girlfriend differently, more like a step-mom. And I felt more secure that they will care for each other as they age. I've always understood that if my mom were to go first that her lady-friend would get the house but now she's her wife, it really sealed the deal, but people in other less tolerant families might not get that with a lesbian couple. There are so many good reasons to allow people to get married. That doesn't mean you have to.

Of course they got married in Oregon and now their marriage is no longer valid - it's just a civil union. It's a disappointment to them and to our family.

Maria :D, Saturday, 11 October 2008 12:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'll also mention that the choice to get married was a very radical one for my mom's wife, because her family is not pro-gay and she had never officially come out to them. It provided a very healthy "good news" moment to finally talk to her mother and legitimize her relationship with my mother. They've lived together for 25 years and share a bedroom, but it's amazing how blind people can be when they don't want to admit that their child is a lesbian.

I'm wondering if more lesbians support gay marriage than gay men do, or if more women want to get married to each other than men do.

Maria :D, Saturday, 11 October 2008 12:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

mordy, that argument is why, in the end, i am for gay marriage. but i think that in the vast majority of cases, marriage is not about suggesting or creating any kind of new dynamic

hooray!

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Saturday, 11 October 2008 12:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

And by the way, do we have (m)any lesbians on this board? Dykes, holla!

Maria :D, Saturday, 11 October 2008 12:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

pterodactyl is our new lesbian pal, I don't know of any others.

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 12:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

Meanwhile there's this nonsense in Florida to deal with. Stick this in your heteronormativeness and smoke it.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Saturday, 11 October 2008 12:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

oh, I assumed pterodactyl was heterogametic

Maria :D, Saturday, 11 October 2008 12:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

sure... it just is disappointing that the whole queer movement focuses around marriage when (it seems to me) there are so many more relevant & important issues. & i recognize it's a PR move, but for who

OK, I'll bite. What's more important?

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Saturday, 11 October 2008 12:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

i like queerness as a concept--in opposition to heteronormativity--and i dont think thats limited to people who identify as gay.

I think that the key to understanding pterodactyl's position is this ^^^. The key value is minority-group-identification, whether that group be "queer", LGBTQA, or what have you. Marriage fundamentally undermines that structure. Hence, marriage is bad.

I'd like to know what institution pterodactyl proposes as a proper replacement for marriage. Because there certainly needs to be some state-sanctioned institution according to which visitation rights, health care benefits, inheritance outside of bloodlines, etc., may be assigned and conferred. Marriage may have an imperfect history, but I think it's still the best vehicle for establishing certain legal rights and responsibilities between unrelated people.

LATIN CAPITAL LETTER LJ (libcrypt), Saturday, 11 October 2008 13:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

1. i have a (successful) policy of ignoring queers that don't live up to my hopes
2. yeah, lesbians would be great at running things. in my experience, they have been really good at organizing softball teams and adopting foreign babies.

― pterodactyl, Friday, October 10, 2008 11:56 PM (Yesterday

I know, right?, Saturday, 11 October 2008 13:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

Well, there are also contracts.

Casuistry, Saturday, 11 October 2008 13:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

The problem is a semantic one. Sure there need to be benefit-related unions recognized by the state -- at least til we get a more mature state in about 2000 years -- but calling any of them "marriage" brings religion into it, mistakenly.

So if "unions" are approved that bring the same benefits, let them have their word.

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 11 October 2008 15:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

Fuck that. Except for all the airy-fairy imaginary crap, I don't think we should let religion try to exercise a monopoly on any word or concept, especially if that concept exists exclusive of religion.

Dow 30,000 by 2008 (Pancakes Hackman), Saturday, 11 October 2008 16:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

The first problem with civil union laws is that they create institutions that are "separate but equal" to marriage, i.e., not equal at all. Marriage is too deeply interwoven into the laws and culture of the US to be mirrored in law without language that makes "civil union" an apparent synonym to "marriage", language that upsets the fundies just as much as "gay marriage" and which would never see the light of day at the federal legislative level. The second problem is that marriage is a civil union already! Nobody's arguing that anyone's church should have to agree (against what the proponents of prop 8 say). There's simply no good reason to have a ludicrous synonym for "marriage" written into federal law just because a bunch of bigots hate gays.

LATIN CAPITAL LETTER LJ (libcrypt), Saturday, 11 October 2008 17:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

No, nobody's arguing that anyone's church should have to agree. But we're up against ppl like McCain's "Obama's an Arab" woman. They'll never get it.

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 11 October 2008 18:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

They'll never get it.

dick?

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Saturday, 11 October 2008 18:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

hay pterodactyl know what u and the thing u like to have sex with have in common? they're both dicks!!!

KOOL-AID MAN, Saturday, 11 October 2008 19:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

I thought someone said that pterodactyl is a lesbian.

LATIN CAPITAL LETTER LJ (libcrypt), Saturday, 11 October 2008 19:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

Not to be openly contradicting you or nothing kool aid.

LATIN CAPITAL LETTER LJ (libcrypt), Saturday, 11 October 2008 19:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

hay pterodactyl know what u and the thing u like to have sex with have in common? they're both cunts!!!

KOOL-AID MAN, Saturday, 11 October 2008 19:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

good save

joe 40oz (deej), Saturday, 11 October 2008 19:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think we need more words that mean basically the same thing as marriage, to make the issue confusing. Right now the positions are all but clear-cut between moderates, liberals and conservatives. That's unhealthy for our discourse and endangers the job security of the bench.

TOMBOT, Saturday, 11 October 2008 20:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

for those who came late, Human Rights Campaign is useless:

"You will notice that the website of the biggest gay rights group in the country has one single mention - it's a blog about a celebrity, of course - of the massive protests that occurred for marriage equality across the country yesterday. (A letter from Joe Solmonese tells us to be nice.) You will also notice that a handful of young non-professionals were able to organize in a few days what HRC has been incapable of doing in months or years.

"You will know from brutal experience that in the two decades of serious struggle for marriage equality, the Human Rights Campaign has been mostly absent, and when present, often passive or reactive. Here's a simple statistic that might help shake us out of complacency: HRC claims to have spent $3.4 million on No On 8. The Mormon church was able to spend over $20 million, by appealing to its members. Why are non-gay Mormons more capable of organizing and fund-raising on a gay rights measure than the biggest national gay rights group? I mean: they claim (absurdly, but bear with me) 725,000 supporters and members. In the summer, the major problem for No On 8 was insufficient early funding. If HRC had led, they could have thrown their money weight behind it. If every supporter had given $20 - chump change for the biggest ever battle yet for civil rights - they could have delivered $14 million overnight. So why didn't they?

"They will argue that this was a state, not a federal, measure. Sure - but its implications were obviously national, as protests in almost every state revealed. They are supposed to have "expertise" - but the ads that ran in No on 8 were the usual fearful, focus-group driven, conviction-free pap. So in the biggest national struggle in the history of gay civil rights, this organization - which has vacuumed money from the gay community for years - were by-standers. Why is that not a scandal?"

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/the-useless-hum.html

Dr Morbius, Monday, 17 November 2008 18:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

The protest in SF on Saturday was a little disorganized but in an almost spontaneous, fun way.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 18:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

Anyone watch Jon Meacham, Dan Savage, my local rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and, er, Ashton Kutcher on Bill Maher's show? Kutcher was pretty effective, and I was reminded of why I voted for Ros-Lehtinen over the Democrat despite her love of war and Israel.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 17 November 2008 19:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

yes, i watched. Kutcher was 'pretty effective,' yes, and also 'kinda crazy,' if you disagree with him. also, not quite as informed as he might appear. were you aware that R-L's district went for Obama and is that consistent with your take on the cuban vote?

gabbneb, Monday, 17 November 2008 19:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

"Pretty effective" in this context means "cut through the bullshit." But he can be Dan Savage's cumboy.

were you aware that R-L's district went for Obama and is that consistent with your take on the cuban vote?

Not only did my district go for Obama, but the Cuban-American vote went overwhelmingly (by forty points in some districts) for McCain.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 17 November 2008 19:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

The speeches at the end of the rally in Seattle (including Balliet) were deadly boring and sucked the energy out of the crowd. The next thing ("Day without a Gay"?) is supposed to be on 12/10, with the idea being 10 months of events on the 10th of each. It was fantastic to see the huge number of people streaming down Pine St. from Capitol Hill though.

Jaq, Monday, 17 November 2008 19:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

The Mormon church was able to spend over $20 million, by appealing to its members.

Why aren't people burning down the Mormon temples right now?

Nicolars (Nicole), Monday, 17 November 2008 19:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

There would be complaints.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 17 November 2008 19:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm proud we (Seattle peeps) were able to get about 6000 people together spontaneously, tho. I make a point to avoid podium protest speeches though.. sorry, Jaq.

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 19:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

A small but spirited bunch at South Coast on Saturday -- around 300 to 500 total, a lot of support from passerby.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 17 November 2008 19:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

There would be complaints.

Not from me!

Nicolars (Nicole), Monday, 17 November 2008 19:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

I used this quote elsewhere, but any entity that spends at least $20 million dollars to help take away rights from people whose presence doesn't affect it at all must, in its inner core, hate itself -- severely. At this point, should people help allow it to implode? Or should it be left alone. /rhetorical.

The Mormons have made history with this, and it's a history they'll* eventually regret.

*"they" in "they'll" being those who stand to benefit most within the church. I'm leaving the pawns out of this.

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 19:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

lolz protests. the time to protest was BEFORE the election guys

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

ppl are saying this (ditto fundraising)

Dr Morbius, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

Shakey, you're right but you're sooo wrong as well

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

protests aint gonna do shit at this stage. now it goes to the courts.

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

I wonder if the missing chapter in the Book of Mormon ordered all residents of Utah to procure catamites.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

we protested by voting no. not enough apparently.

the birdman from the hilarious "alcatraz" prison (get bent), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

I was trying to cast it as a Marriage Equality rally, rather than a protest against Prop 8 - I mean regardless of how much time I've spent in Orange County, I can't vote there. Still, my favorite slogan was "Keep Your Magic Panties Off My Civil Rights".

Jaq, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

I liked the sign that said, "Do You Want ME Marrying Your Daughter?"

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

shakey, if you think the post-election protests aren't doing shit right now, please step up and explain, or step off, seriously.

Enough waiting for the fucking courts.

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think the el coyote protest/boycott is stupid -- one person gave $100 to the "yes" effort and the entire business has to go down with the ship? granted the restaurant sucks, but FIGHT THE REAL ENEMY etc.

the birdman from the hilarious "alcatraz" prison (get bent), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

Enough waiting for the fucking courts.

Well, it looks like the fucking courts will probably deal with it next.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

shakey, if you think the post-election protests aren't doing shit right now, please step up and explain, or step off, seriously. Enough waiting for the fucking courts.

Not sure what course of action you're advocating here, exactly...? what are the protests accomplishing? how will marriage rights be guaranteed without the legal process? Prop 8 has passed. There is no un-passing it (at least not until the next election). The only way it will be struck down is through legal challenges.

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

Look, this is the civil rights challenge of our generation, and it took the Warren court to give steel to the legislation.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

Dan Savage on Colbert was spot on about old people. It's a shame that bigotry has to die out vs. people getting mellow and enlightened in their last decades.

Jaq, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

what are the protests accomplishing?

A whole helluva lot of publicity that's keeping the issue in the news... which is exactly what it needs as long as possible, especially now that we know Obama has been elected.

Yes, nothing can't officially change until the courts or a reverse initiative passes, but you can't just tell people to shut up and be quiet about it, then just wake up before the next call, which was EXACTLY the fucking problem BEFORE Prop 8 passed, right?

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

(Savage has been great on this issue btw)

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

Dan Savage on Colbert was spot on about old people. It's a shame that bigotry has to die out vs. people getting mellow and enlightened in their last decades.

i agree with this. but it's true that every time attitudes change en masse, it's because of one generation dying off and a new generation being born that can think for itself. unless they become born-again xtians. but i think the fundie youth is a vocal minority.

the birdman from the hilarious "alcatraz" prison (get bent), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

and for the record I'm not telling people to "shut up" I'm just noting that protests at this particular juncture aren't going to accomplish anything beyond giving people a forum to vent their anger. which is all well and good. but not exactly crucial to developing and implementing an effective legal strategy.

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

also don't expect anything from Obama on this on a federal level. while I take him at his word that he believes gay couples should have equal marriage rights, his position is to let the states' and the courts fight it out.

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm just noting that protests at this particular juncture aren't going to accomplish anything beyond giving people a forum to vent their anger. which is all well and good. but not exactly crucial to developing and implementing an effective legal strategy.

With that attitude, white males would still be the only ones allowed to vote.

xp - Old people *can* change once they find out their loved ones -- friends, family -- are gay or have close friends who are gay. Not all of them do, but I don't completely buy the "old people have to die out before we get anywhere" meme.

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

*sigh*

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

if you think protests now have the same PR effect as civil rights protests in the late 50s and early 60s you are sadly delusional

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think it's incredibly toxic to label civil rights' protesting as something that has missed its window of opportunity.

Having said that, if your protest does not have focus and organization, I do believe it is less likely to be successful. All of these things should really be linked and, where possible, feed into a larger machine, preferably one using the legal system to cement its case. That lack of organization is precisely what makes protests turn into venting sessions or out-and-out riots.

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

my "favorite" argument among the yes on 8 guys is that being gay is "not natural" -- but all the artificial crap you put in and on your body every day, all the toxic chemicals in your household products, all the synthetics in your clothing and furniture, that you CHOOSE to buy, that's all god's will.

the birdman from the hilarious "alcatraz" prison (get bent), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

HI DERE completely on the money. I'm rarely a pro-protest guy, but the concurrent Saturday protests was definitely a step towards the organized and angry protests that can make a difference, as Dan notes. As far as I know, none of them turned into riots. I might agree that the venting sections are past their prime.

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

As Mark Leno pointed out on Saturday, here in SF, Prop 8 won 52%-48%. Prop 22, in 2000, won 61.4% to 38.6% with the same wording.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

Michael, surely you mean California voted that way, not San Francisco?

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

one of the reasons civil rights protests (and the Gandhi-an tactics they were based on) worked so well was because they provoked an inappropriately violent response on the part of the opposition, and for the first time the mass media was there to document it. It wasn't that a bunch of people showed up in public angry about something - it was the fact that they're showing up resulted in them getting beaten, hosed down, attacked with dogs, etc. and those images went out into the national press, which garnered sympathy for the civil rights movement on a previously unheard of level. That shit is not going to happen this time around. Law enforcement is smarter now. And if anyone is successfully playing the victim card, its the right-wing fundies who are complaining about being "threatened" and "harassed" etc.

I hope its clear that I am entirely supportive of the cause here. I am just concerned about effective tactics. The tactics that are the most emotionally satisfying are not necessarily the ones that will result in the desired outcome.

x-postiness

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

protests can and still do have an effect imo. especially when the other (wrong) side doesn't have a reasonable argument beyond bigotry and some lame shit about how marriage must be preserved. the protests here can and perhaps are working because it's such a one-sided issue.

omar little, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

So, protests need to get to Kent State levels and circumstances to be effective? Please try again. And I'm glad you're trying, but come on.

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

there's no mention of Kent State in his post, Mackro, nor is the analogy apt.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 17 November 2008 20:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

There was some venting on Saturday here, but many of the speeches were more about equality than revenge and were intended to appeal even to religious people by keeping the argument about fairness and equality under the law. As a positive sign of an inclusive movement, I think they're useful for PR and as an opportunity for the aggrieved to bond and feel less hopeless, they're good for the base.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

fair enough - xp

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

Old people *can* change once they find out their loved ones -- friends, family -- are gay or have close friends who are gay. Not all of them do, but I don't completely buy the "old people have to die out before we get anywhere" meme.

Defection at the fringes ain't a trend. People currently under 40 were overwhelmingly against 8; people currently over 60 were overwhlemingly against.

The difference was 300,000 votes. Next year a whole bunch of under 40s will be old enough to vote for the first time, and a whole bunch of over 60s will be dead. You do the math.

xpost and yeah those are Cali numbers SF was 25% for 75% against

Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

wow, 1 in 4 people in SF or SF county voted for Prop 8? (sorry, I guess I can't be happy with any data today.. apologies)

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

xpost and yeah those are Cali numbers SF was 25% for 75% against

sigh, i love SF (even taking what mackro just said into account)

the birdman from the hilarious "alcatraz" prison (get bent), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage1900/a/august_26_wed.htm

oh look, they protested too and no one turned a hose on them, yet their cause was victorious

I think, Shakey, you are conflating "one reason why the Civil Rights Movement protests worked" with "the only reason protests work".

Honestly, I think the more effective thing to do (in terms of making a rhetorical point, not in terms of making an actual legislative change) would be to organize a lobby to completely divorce the legal status associated with marriage from the marriage union itself and make civil unions mandatory for things like property ownership/transferal upon death, medical access rights, etc etc and make all people who want those things to have a civil union, as we are talking about civil rights here and not religious rights.

xp: Scary idiots live everywhere, guys! This is not news!

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

l.a. county was REALLY FUCKING CLOSE -- it ended up being something like 51%/49%, but toward the end there was something like a half percentage point difference.

the birdman from the hilarious "alcatraz" prison (get bent), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

xp: Scary idiots live everywhere, guys! This is not news!

I know I know.. just the idea that 25% of SF is filled with Raymonds (of Raymond & Peter fame). SHUDDER.

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

(granted, I'm avoiding the can of worms labeled "race")

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 20:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

see, the thing is when we all get pissed about conservatives saying we live in a center right country, the reason we get pissed is because they are right and they really shouldn't be

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think what is now "center right" was once "middle left" maybe?

omar little, Monday, 17 November 2008 21:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

HD OTM up there aways. Thoughts I had while walking back home on Saturday: ministers and preachers may perform marriages because the state allows them too, and what definition of marriage works for all, at its most basic level? All I could come up with was "mutually beneficial, non-exploitative legal partnership". Let churches layer an extra dose of sacred bond and sacrament, etc on top of that basis if they want to.

Jaq, Monday, 17 November 2008 21:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

"no" voters in l.a. county were on the westside, santa monica, malibu, hollywood, los feliz, the valley, downtown, pasadena, basically all the educated and somewhat affluent areas. the areas with the "yes" voters are the poor ones with A LOT (seriously a lot) of churches.

the birdman from the hilarious "alcatraz" prison (get bent), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

Jaq and HD, OTM

The can of worms called race has to be faced, though, Mackro. No on 8 didn't even try to talk to some black churches 'cause they figured they wouldn't be interested - self-defeating prophesy. You can't change the minds of people you don't talk to, especially when you're not treating them as ordinary people but as racial stereotypes.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

Oh I agree the can of worms must be opened as a public issue. I just didn't want to open it on ILX today, especially since we opened it two weeks ago.

Back to legalizing gay marriages/unions, it depends on the state, ultimately.

Not sure if it's worth a gamble in 2009, but a pro-gay-marriage/repeal-Defense-Of-Marriage-Act initiative has chances of passing in Washington state -- barely. Washington and Oregon are each different from California in that there are less churches in each overall, the BIG lefty cities in each state makes up a bigger chunk of the population, and among the churches, there's a large percentage of Anglican churches that have states they would honor gay marriages -- which doesn't seem to be the case in California.

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

"that have stated" not "states".

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

The Anglican/Episcopalian churches in SF were among the first and most vocally supportive of the gay community.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

How much of a percentage of California do Anglican churches make (among other churches)?

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

Good grief, I go away for an hour...

If anything I see the protests almost as a sign of gauging things. And I have to say that if you had told me up through recent years that a loud and noticeable pro-gay marriage protest on all four corners of a busy intersection near the biggest mall in all of OC was not only going to happen but that nearly 99% of the reaction to it was loudly positive in turn, then I wouldn't've believed you. And damn if it wasn't nice to be proven wrong.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 17 November 2008 21:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

What was interesting to me on Saturday was that there was less of the anti-Mormon, anti-anything feeling about it all and more of a positive vibe about making this a broad civil rights thing; not specifically pro-gay but anti-enshrining discrimination in the State Constitution. If the appeal is braod and not made with too much finger pointing , I think the goal can be achieved with greater ease and speed than if it looks too 'shrill' and 'special interest'y.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

see, the thing is when we all get pissed about conservatives saying we live in a center right country, the reason we get pissed is because they are right and they really shouldn't be

― Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, November 17, 2008 3:01 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest

its not really any more true than us being 'center left' - it depends on issue to issue

_/(o_o)/¯ (deej), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

i've read that the jewish faith doesn't have an official stance on gay marriage because the orthodox jews are against it and the reform (more liberal) jews are in support of it or don't have a problem with it. most non-religious jews are bleeding-heart lefties.

the birdman from the hilarious "alcatraz" prison (get bent), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

Mackro, not much I assume. It's pretty old school Anglo in its origins and modern immigration has favored the relative growth of the number of Catholics and Evangelicals.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

Having been raised Anglican, I can assure you that we're generally a more freethinking and inclusive bunch out here, and we're also a distinct minority in terms of religion.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 17 November 2008 21:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

ok, lol at Wikipedia, I know, but I grabbed chunks from the Religion section of California, Washington, and Oregon each...

California:


The largest Christian denominations by number of adherents in 2000 were the Roman Catholic Church with 10,079,310; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with 529,575; and the Southern Baptist Convention with 471,119. Jewish congregations had 994,000 adherents.[25]

The state has the most Roman Catholics of any state and a large Protestant population, a large American Jewish community, and an American Muslim population.

With a Jewish population estimated at more than 550,000, Los Angeles has the second-largest Jewish community in North America.

California also has the largest Muslim community population in the United States, an estimated 3.4 percent of the population, mostly residing in Southern California. According to figures, approximately 100,000 Muslims reside in San Diego.[26]

...

Washington:


The religious affiliations of Washington's population are:[13]

Christian – 63%
Protestant – 29%
Lutheran – 6%
Baptist – 6%
Methodist – 4%
Presbyterian – 3%
Other Protestant or general Protestant – 10%
Catholic – 20%
Other Christian – 11%
Latter-day Saint – 3%
Other Religions – 5%
Refused – 6%
No religion – 25%
The largest denominations by number of adherents in 2000 were the Roman Catholic Church with 716,133; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with 178,000; and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America with 127,854.[14]

As with many other Western states, the percentage of Washington's population identifying themselves as "non-religious" is higher than the national average. The percentage of non-religious people in Washington is the highest of any state.[15]

...

Oregon:


The largest denominations by number of adherents in 2000 were the Roman Catholic Church with 348,239; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with 104,312; and the Assemblies of God with 49,357.[60]

Of the U.S. states, Oregon has the fourth largest percentage of people identifying themselves as "non-religious", at 21 percent, after Colorado, Washington, and Vermont.[61] However, 75–79% of Oregonians identify themselves as being Christian [1], and some hold deeply conservative convictions. During much of the 1990s a group of conservative Christians formed the Oregon Citizens Alliance, and unsuccessfully tried to pass legislation to prevent "gay sensitivity training" in public schools and legal benefits for homosexual couples.[62]

Oregon also contains the largest community of Russian Old Believers to be found in the United States.[63] Additionally, Oregon, particularly the Portland metropolitan area, has become known as a center of non-mainstream spirituality.[citation needed] The Northwest Tibetan Cultural Association, reported to be the largest such institution of its kind,[citation needed] is headquartered in Portland, and the popular New Age film What the Bleep Do We Know? was filmed and had its premiere in Portland. There are an estimated 6 to 10 thousand Muslims of various ethnic backgrounds in Oregon.[64]

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

practicing Episcopalians are dying out faster than homophobes

creator of 2008's most successful meme (velko), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

I remember going to Midnight Mass at Grace Cathedral here in SF as teenager (not out of faith but because I liked the spectacle) and being shocked in the early mid-eighties to hear a sermon spoken with sorrow and pity about the nascent AIDS epidemic. When I was a kid in the Sierras, all the Xtians were decidedly anti-gay.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

What does that 63% Christian in Wahsington mean? 63% are Xtian and they break down like this?

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

I go away for 15-minutes... anyway Dan largely OTM. I totally agree about the distinguishing civil rights from religious rites angle

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 21:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

You can't change the minds of people you don't talk to, especially when you're not treating them as ordinary people but as racial stereotypes.

So fucking OTM btw; one thing that pisses me off about every group of people, regardless of whether it is an ethnic group, a political group, a sexual orientation group, or whetever, is the instinctual desire to identify everyone outside of the group as lesser. Every single group out there does it and it really disgusts me. People would be much better off if they realized this.

(btw I am a group of one)

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with 529,575

Jewish congregations had 994,000 adherents.

see, this pisses me off. we could have taken those fuckers by their funny underwear.

the birdman from the hilarious "alcatraz" prison (get bent), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

Those WA numbers are whack and in conflict amongst themselves.

Jaq, Monday, 17 November 2008 21:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

I just think that pointing fingers at poor (and religious) black neighborhoods or Latino neighborhoods is counter-productive. A lot of San Franciscans who voted for 8 did so because the yes on 8 campaign told them that no would mean that homosexuality would have to be taught in schools and other such nonsense and if no on 8 had had the outreach to realize how their opponents message (for lack of calling it outright bullshit) was penetrating those neighborhoods, they might of countered it.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

'have countered', Jesus wept.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

but... homosexuality is already "taught" in schools! this was the funniest part of that yes on 8 campaign to me.

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 21:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

Well, that's certainly where I learned to be gay.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

SB 777 yo

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 21:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

Those WA numbers are whack and in conflict amongst themselves.

The tab characters disappeared in the text paste. :(. Sorry. Most of that list goes under the breakdown of "Christian". I think if you stop the subsection before "other religions" it makes more sense.

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 21:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

The statement that LDS was 2nd largest after Catholic doesn't jive with the 20%/3% numbers.

Jaq, Monday, 17 November 2008 21:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington#Religion

There's a sub-subsection, too. Maybe that makes more sense?

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 22:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

What was interesting to me on Saturday was that there was less of the anti-Mormon, anti-anything feeling about it all and more of a positive vibe about making this a broad civil rights thing; not specifically pro-gay but anti-enshrining discrimination in the State Constitution.

That's way fucking cool and admirable! I wish I could be the same. As an ex-mormon right now, I am even more embarrassed than usual and really want to slap the fucking bitch Mormons all over America who rallied aagainst a thing that was none of their fucking goddamn business (since most do not even live in California).

Fuck those fucking shitpie assfuck dipshits.

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 22:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

Oh, I've felt that way, Abbott, I just don't want this to turn into THAT kind of fight.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 22:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

If WA (or the country as a whole) ever ends up with some sort of civil-union thing that nobody dares call "marriage" even though it is, the wife and I want to get divorced and immediately get civil-unionized. If marriage is only for churches they can have it; just let us file taxes together, visit each other in the hospital, adopt kids, etc.

a better command of the mummy language (joygoat), Monday, 17 November 2008 22:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

Fuck my parents, fuck the church leaders, fuck the people in my old Ward who have 'vote no on Prop 8' facebook campaigns, fuck anyone who paid tithing, fuck the bishops, fuck the stake presidents, fuck the corpse of Gordon B. Hinckley for writing 'A Proclomation on the Family' (a document of epic homophobia), fuck 'love the sinner hate the sin,' fuck hating the sinner, fuck Utah, fuck seagulls, fuck Joseph Smith, fuck prophets of all decades, fuck seminary teachers, fuck institute teachers, fuck fucking salty inland bodies of water, fuck the 2000 Olympics, fuck beehives, fuck Mormon hymns, fuck the Book of Mormon, fuck Moroni, fuck temples, fuck garments, fuck anointments, fuck baptisms for the dead, fuck it all.

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 22:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

Can anyone explain to me why Prop. 8 is such a huge national deal compared to the other 28 state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage? I don't remember anywhere near this level of outcry over any particular one of those. Is California more important because it's considered less socially conservative, or because it has a large population, or because of the out-of-state campaigning, or what?

Maria, Monday, 17 November 2008 22:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

Btw, I think you mean 'vote yes on Prop 8'...

xpost

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 22:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah I do

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

Can anyone explain to me why Prop. 8 is such a huge national deal compared to the other 28 state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage? I don't remember anywhere near this level of outcry over any particular one of those. Is California more important because it's considered less socially conservative, or because it has a large population, or because of the out-of-state campaigning, or what?

For most people, it spoiled the liberal triumph of the Obama election -- oh, and in the case of one of my closest friends, he faces the very real dissolution of an arrangement he gambled on and lost.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

Maria, maybe 'cause it's closer here than in other states and we have little gay oases like SF and West Hollywood. The out-of-state-funding I'm a little ambiguous about since I don't want to feel bad about donating money to campaigns in other states but I do wonder about LDS tax exempt status. Maybe it's just the zeitgeist.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

(Thanks Mackro, I get it now.)

Jaq, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

Is California more important because it's considered less socially conservative, or because it has a large population, or because of the out-of-state campaigning, or what?

All of these, but I think it was chosen not because it was "more important" as much as it was the least expected -- which ties into the less socially conservative thing.

Also "8" works a lot better into signs that want to spell hate "H8".

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

Results 1 - 10 of about 226 for rally "measure 9" oregon 2004. (0.13 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 700,000 for rally "prop 8" california 2008. (0.24 seconds)

Casuistry, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

Can anyone explain to me why Prop. 8 is such a huge national deal compared to the other 28 state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage?

Because California is supposed to be "better than that".

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

Oh, oops, I am misremembering my numbers.

Casuistry, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

Results 1 - 10 of about 588 for 2004 "measure 36" oregon rally. (0.25 seconds)

Casuistry, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

I won't compromise my Christianity
'cause my momma taught me better than that!

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

Because California is supposed to be "better than that".

We are, in some ways, compared to even 2000, but the eastern half of the state is pretty 'red'.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

It is funny to divide so tall a state by east & west. Funny meaning amusing to look at. Like it's a red & blue harlequin hot dog bun.

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

I do wonder about LDS tax exempt status.

I thought donating to propositions was protected as "free speech", no matter who's doing the donating...?

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also, none of the other states that banned gay marriage had legal gay marriage on the books. I think that plays a big part in people's outrage over Prop 8.

The Reverend, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

I have to admit they do like nothing otherwise that wld make them tax-exempt questionable. I mean like no church positions are paid & they don't spend their tithes on anything really but building more churches & assimilating/destroying to a broader mass.

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

they = Mormon Church

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

I totally understand why it's more important if you're actually IN California, it's just that I'm hearing huge levels of anger from people halfway, or all the way, across the country, including in states that have already passed these amendments. Perhaps it seems different than 2004 because people were also so angry about Bush's reelection then?

xpost - I think churches are not allowed to donate to candidates for office because they risk losing their tax-exempt status...don't know what the rule is for propositions, though.

xpost again - yeah, that does make a big difference. Hadn't thought of that.

Maria, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

fwiw, Mark Leno is OTM: the vv narrow margin of asshole victory and expensive and misleading campaign required to achieve it = writing on the wall. The battle may have been lost but in important ways the war is already OVER. Millenials will tip it.

Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

I don't know what the polls were saying about Arizona, but I seem to recall Alfred telling us it was somewhat close in Florida. I think perhaps people thought it stood a real chance in California and also some of the gall may be in proportion to the joy over Obama's victory.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's true. We killed the witch and those fuckers went and poked us in the eye.

Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

the writing is totally on the wall. the fact that legal barriers have had to be erected (where before there were none) is a sign in and of itself. And only 40 years after Stonewall signalled it being (kinda sorta) okay to be out and gay in the country (in certain parts, at least)

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

I am in the Stonewall Queer-Straight Alliance! Man can those peeps bro down. (Magpie-like tangent.)

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

Even the Prop 8 folks were very careful to state that they were all about, like, civil union type rights and stuff.

Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

bullshit

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also, none of the other states that banned gay marriage had legal gay marriage on the books.

This is not true.

Casuistry, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

Bullshit that they said it or bullshit that they meant it?

Because yes it's some horseshit, but the fact that they made it a talking point tells ya which way the wind's blowing.

Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, if they'd meant it, they would have written civil unions into the prop

the dopeman from the hilarious 'n.w.a' albums (The Reverend), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

Bullshit that they meant it, and 77% bullshit that they said it.

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

And civil unions are some Jim Crow shit anyway.

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

^^^disagree

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

Basically, when Oregon passed the measure, it was to prevent lawsuits from being tried. The Att'y General had said, as I recall, that he didn't think the argument (that not allowing gay marriage was a form of sex discrimination, which was prohibited in the state constitution) would be valid; but it's kinda hard to imagine that it wouldn't be, which is one reason why there was the push to put language specifically outlawing it in the state constitution.

Casuistry, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

fair

xp

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

we went over this on the election thread - basically the end-goal should be to separate the religious institution of marriage from the civil rights accorded married people by the government so that EVERYONE gets the same recognition under the law (same visitation rights, same healthcare benefits, etc.)

x-post

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I'm more inclined to go the other way and say the gvmt should keep their nose out of marriage altogether. xxxp

the dopeman from the hilarious 'n.w.a' albums (The Reverend), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

I have even managed to get some Republicans I know to admit that marriage is a religious ceremony and the State should recognize nothing other than civil unions, though they still, sometimes quite sincerely I believe, keep bringing up the polygamy canard.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I'm more inclined to go the other way and say the gvmt should keep their nose out of marriage altogether. xxxp

all well and good except that our government has specific legal mechanisms in place for recognizing marriage - and they ain't about to re-write the entire tax code knowhutimsayin

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

Then why aren't Mormons pro-gay marriage, if it'll lead to legalized polygamy?

Casuistry, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

But if a civil union is the same as marriage but with a different name, that sounds pretty "equal but separate"

I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

As I've said elsewhere, why would a devout Catholic want his/her state to call and recognize as a marriage, a union, even between a man and a woman, where one of them is divorced and therefor, according to the Church, an adulterer?

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

Shakey, couldn't the Feds just define all civil unions as marriages wrt the tax code?

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

all well and good except that our government has specific legal mechanisms in place for recognizing marriage - and they ain't about to re-write the entire tax code knowhutimsayin

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, November 17, 2008 3:32 PM Bookmark

civil unions 4 everyone

the dopeman from the hilarious 'n.w.a' albums (The Reverend), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

Bcz polygamy is a commandment we are not godly enough to follow as it currently stands, and will happen again after Armaggedon. Duh.

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

But if a civil union is the same as marriage but with a different name, that sounds pretty "equal but separate"

its not the same because the law only deals with the former and would basically be disregarding the latter entirely

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

civil unions 4 everyone

exactly

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

but it doesn't
xp

I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

If marriage has public connotations of the legitimate thing, which it does, then civil unions are still second class.

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

that sounds pretty "equal but separate

Weddings I have been to have been widely different but the underlying law remains the same.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

We have to destroy marriage in order to save it.

Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

The right wing no marriage but civil unions are okay position is just about keeping language as a placeholder.

I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

look the LAW is the central thing here, what anybody calls it (marriage, civil union, whatever) doesn't fucking matter. The end-goal is the guarantee of equal legal treatment of everyone who's made a formal commitment to a legally recognized relationship.

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

Not exactly. Leave marriage to religion and civil unions to a secular state that treats people as equal under the law.

xxpost

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

If marriage has public connotations of the legitimate thing,

you cannot legislate "public connotations". It is outside the bounds of civil jurisdiction.

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

I see I hold a minority opinion.

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

you guys know how laws work, right?

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

what about recognition across state lines?

Maria, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

I would like to pass an amendment that states that if a marriage is defined by law as a sacred union between a man and a woman, they must then all occur in churches.

Basically, in their zeal to "protect" marriage, these people are destroying it, and I want to help them reach their logical conclusion so that everyone is fucked (ie, equality in the other direction).

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

haha!

I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

The deal is that EVERY marriage has a civil component. SOME marriages get the special gloss of a religious component, but that is not required for a marriage to be a marriage.

Jaq, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

well put

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's not as if Xtians have not at times been exhorted to render unto Caesar what is his and just do their own shit. They had no huge problem with saying mass in a person's home when Xtianity was illegal under the Romans. If their faith tells them that they are, indeed, married via a sacrament tot heir spouse, what difference does it make whether a majority calls them married or not? In that case, let us have equality for all under the common law and if it requires an amendment that says that religious institutions cannot be forced to wed people who they disapprove of, so be it.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

(One could argue that traditional marriage was destroyed once it become just as easy to divorce, but that's for another thread.)

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

(Oh no, I think that is an excellent point and one I would also like to hammer home; divorce is now illegal and punishable by fines and/or jail time. Possibly stoning.)

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's absolutely the truth, though, mackro.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

to go back to the civil rights analogy - it is possible to legislate against racially discriminatory practices, but it is not possible to outlaw racism. Similarly it is possible to legislate equality before the law for gay couples, but it is not possible to outlaw homophobia.

x-post

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

is that how it would stand legally or is there a definition between the two, because here in europe most countries have Civil Unions but only Spain, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands do they have Marriage.

I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

It is ludicrous to define as protecting marriage an amendment which limits the number of people who can consider it as an option , epecially since they're not 'in the market' for any of the people whose marriage is being protected, or at least only the people in the closet.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

is that how it would stand legally or is there a definition between the two, because here in europe most countries have Civil Unions but only Spain, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands do they have Marriage.

let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that... what M. White and myself and Dan (in a more humorous way) are arguing is that equal treatment is the key thing and that since the government's domain is a CIVIL one, then everyone should have civil unions. "Marriage" would be rendered an essentially ceremonial term.

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

(btw what's the difference between the Euro countries with civil unions and those with marriages? Is there no "Equal Protection" clause in the EU?)

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

Or, if it's too much work to search and replace all the laws and stuff, everyone gets plain old marriage under the law and religious folks get covenant marriage or sacramental marriage or ultraviolet sunbeams of the divine light marriage.

Jaq, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

they don't offer full rights, although in the UK and Sweden they just have a different name, which I find almost more sinister.

I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

xp

I know, right?, Monday, 17 November 2008 23:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

Is it equal protection we're talking about or some equivalent to 'full faith and credit'?

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Monday, 17 November 2008 23:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'd say both the 14th Amendment and the full faith and credit clause are relevant. But I ain't a lawyer, I'm just a backwoods hyperchicken

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 00:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

How they compare to the EU founding docs and whatnot is hard to figure out, especially since they generally have Roman/Napoleonic law and have only one Common Law state.

What's the matter, London, can't you read fish? (Michael White), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 00:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

Well, whatever the case, the whole Boycott Utah thing is really dumb, especially given that California has roughly as many Mormons as Utah does in numbers.

It hasn't been a meme here hardly (thankfully) but it's growing all over the blogosphere. :/

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 03:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

Because California is supposed to be "better than that".

― Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Monday, November 17, 2008 5:05 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

isnt the more obvious answer 'because gay people could actually get married in california'? i dont remember the mayor of ft lauderdale telling str8s to get over it cuz gay marriage was here to stay

_/(o_o)/¯ (deej), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 03:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

Dan, get back to me when California has roughly as many Mormon universities as Utah does.

'Til then, I'm coming around on the Utah boycott. It's silly at worst, has the potential to make a valuable symbolic point for years to come, and maybe most importantly it lets people feel as though they're getting a little of their own back from outside interlopers who reached across the border to mess with California.

Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 03:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

Rogermexico, looks like you may not have to worry about Utah getting damaged in the near future.

There's one person who looks like he's going to fuck up Utah permanently.

George W. Bush

Uproar over federal drilling leases next to parks

SALT LAKE CITY – The view of Delicate Arch natural bridge — an unspoiled landmark so iconic it's on Utah's license plates — could one day include a drilling platform under a proposal that environmentalists call a Bush administration "fire sale" for the oil and gas industry.

Late on Election Day, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management announced a Dec. 19 auction of more than 50,000 acres of oil and gas parcels alongside or within view of Arches National Park and two other redrock national parks in Utah: Dinosaur and Canyonlands.

The National Park Service's top official in the state calls it "shocking and disturbing" and says his agency wasn't properly notified. Environmentalists call it a "fire sale" for the oil and gas industry by a departing administration.

Officials of the BLM, which oversees millions of acres of public land in the West, say the sale is nothing unusual, and one is "puzzled" that the Park Service is upset.

"We find it shocking and disturbing," said Cordell Roy, the chief Park Service administrator in Utah. "They added 51,000 acres of tracts near Arches, Dinosaur and Canyonlands without telling us about it. That's 40 tracts within four miles of these parks."

Top aides to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne stepped into the fray, ordering the sister agencies to make amends. His press secretary, Shane Wolfe, told The Associated Press that deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett "resolved the dispute within 24 hours" last week.

A compromise ordered by the Interior Department requires the BLM to "take quite seriously" the Park Service's objections, said Wolfe.

However, the BLM didn't promise to pull any parcels from the sale, and in an interview after the supposed truce, BLM state director Selma Sierra was defiant, saying she saw nothing wrong with drilling near national parks.

"I'm puzzled the Park Service has been as upset as they are," said Sierra.

"There are already many parcels leased around the parks. It's not like they've never been leased," she said. "I don't see it as something we are doing to undermine the Park Service."

Roy and conservation groups dispute that, saying never before has the bureau bunched drilling parcels on the fence lines of national parks.

"This is the fire sale, the Bush administration's last great gift to the oil and gas industry," said Stephen Bloch, a staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

"The tracts of land offered here, next to Arches National Park or above Desolation Canyon, these are the crown jewels of America's lands that the BLM is offering to the highest bidder," he said.

An examination of the parcels, superimposing low-resolution government graphics onto Google Earth maps, shows that in one case drilling parcels bordering Arches National Park are just 1.3 miles from Delicate Arch.

"If you're standing at Delicate Arch, like thousands of people do every year, and you're looking through the arch, you could see drill pads on the hillside behind it. That's how ridiculous this proposed lease sale is," said Franklin Seal, a spokesman for the environmental group Wildland CPR.

In all, the BLM is moving to open 359,000 more acres in Utah to drilling.

Other Utah leases that are certain to draw objections from conservation groups include high cliffs along whitewater sections of Desolation Canyon, which is little changed since explorer John Wesley Powell remarked in 1896 on "a region of wildest desolation" while boating down the Green River to the Grand Canyon.

Others extend to plateaus populated by big game atop Nine Mile Canyon, site of thousands of ancient rock art panels, Moab's famous Slick Rock Trail and a campground popular with thousands of mountain bikers.

Sierra, the BLM's director for Utah, said the Park Service was consulted on the broad management plans that made the sale of parcels next to national parks permissible, even if it was not given notice on which specific leases were being offered. She apologized for that omission but said notice wasn't legally required.

She said national parks want to keep oil and gas wells five to 10 miles away "but that policy doesn't exist."

Roy said the standard for an eyesore visible from a national park turns on what a "casual" observer might see.

The hostility carried over into an e-mail exchange between Sierra and Mike Snyder, the Denver-based regional Park Service director, who noted his agency's demand that BLM pull 40 to 45 drill parcels from the auction list. "You stated that you were not willing to do this," Snyder wrote Nov. 6.

Within hours, Sierra responded "These decisions and the lands available for leasing should come to no one's surprise," according to copies of the e-mails obtained from her office.

Sierra said she instructed her district and field managers to educate the park superintendents on why drilling is OK "adjacent to and near the park boundaries."

In the e-mail, Sierra boasted of having "a very good working relationship" with Roy, the federal coordinator in Utah for the Park Service, but in an interview he said he had "no idea this sale was coming down the pike."

Roy said that when he asked Sierra what was going on, she replied: "We added some tracts, sorry we didn't notify you. We can take up these concerns when we issue" drilling permits. He said his response was: "Holy cow."

Sierra didn't dispute this account, but said "I don't think I was in a mood that dismissed his concerns lightly." She said she had promised only to review the objections, parcel by parcel, before the auction is held Dec. 19.

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 03:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

this is 2008, not 1958 right? sucks people are still so fucking stupid

Kevin Keller, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 04:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'd snicker that W is God's judgment on Utah for gays and abortion but jesus christ...

Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 04:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

And speaking of God's judgment: lol

http://coloradoindependent.com/15287/after-pumping-money-into-prop-8-focus-on-the-family-announcing-layoffs

UPDATE: Focus on the Family announced this afternoon that 202 jobs will be cut companywide — more than 20 percent of its workforce. Initial reports bring the total number of remaining employees to around 950.

Focus on the Family is poised to announce major layoffs to its Colorado Springs-based ministry and media empire today. The cutbacks come just weeks after the group pumped more than half a million dollars into the successful effort to pass a gay-marriage ban in California.

Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 04:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

Merry Christmas!

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 04:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

hahahaha I am never changing my screen name because of the delicious confusion

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 05:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think at this point worrying about tactics (protests, boycotts, prank phone calls to random mormon households in the middle of the night) is sort of beside the point. making a whole lot of collective noise is the best strategy, and however people do that is going to add to the collective commotion and momentum, even if some individual efforts seem counterproductive or whatever. when you're within a few percentage points of swinging the vote, that's not the time for nuance or finesse. to resort to the inevitable sports metaphor, when it's 3rd and inches, you just bunch everybody together and piledrive on through. the vote sucked, but people being pissed off about is good, and everybody should just stay pissed off and keep banging pots and pans. this will change. everybody knows it'll change. even (the saner) people on the right basically admitted it was a lost fight years ago. so it's just a matter of keeping up the push.

tipsy mothra, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 05:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

the Cali court is already considering overturning this, if the headline I read the other day is to be believed

I mean....this thing should not have even been on the ballot. However it got on there, the entire legality of it is in question. 18,000 marriages have already been performed - they can't just be voided now based on a misguided ballot measure

The court in May ruled that preventing what was done in 2004 was unconstitutional; no ban is legal. People just need to take a deep breath and let this play out...

...protesting seems to be the best, and dare I say it (the peaceful ones as most have been) the most productive way to keep this fresh in the face of the courts and the public; it's reat.

Boycotts otoh are stupid and counterproductive, potentially alienating straight supporters. Especially the El Coyote one, which from the Curbed LA chronicles is turning out to be a hilarious/epic folly

my fave sign from the rally saturday: "SPANDEX IS A PRIVILEGE, MARRIAGE IS A RIGHT"

Vichitravirya_XI, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 08:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

>it's reat

i forgot where this was going :)

Vichitravirya_XI, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 08:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

I also campaigned on behalf of HRC over the summer and Andrew Sullivan needs to pull the dildo out of his orifice and relax. It faces many disadvantages from a fundraising angle, particularly that many of its contributors want to stay anonymous - maybe if he tried calling them, instead of just blogging and taking potshots, he'd realize what a fucking challenge it is..

I'm not saying they're beyond reproach, but they've done a lot over the past few decades when NO ONE dared to do ANYTHING. They were campaigning nationwide against all the states' ballot measures that were anti-gay, including in Tennessee where the legislature was considering passing a law that'd make it illegal to even *talk* about homosexuality prior to 9th grade in public schools (in response to the 8th grader gay Californian getting killed earlier this year).

Does he know any of this, or did he just think vociferously attacking the standard gay rights group in the nation is a productive way to write something attention-worthy today?

Vichitravirya_XI, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 08:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

just more evidence that most "professional bloggers" easily belong to the segment of society-punditry that contributes the least

Vichitravirya_XI, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 08:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

is there a "Prince hates gay marriage" thread?

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 17:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

Covered here: Favorite poster from NR's "The Corner"

Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 17:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

it's probably a few posts on the general purpose "Prince is batshit insane" thread on ILM, otherwise known as that Prince thread. You know, THAT one.

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 17:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

Prince claiming he was misquoted, apparently

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 17:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah I read that on HuffPo, and the main argument from Prince's management was like "*shock horror* the interview wasn't even using a MIC!"

Like Prince would allow anyone to record him in an interview anyway?

HI, YOUR BAND! (Mackro Mackro), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

I was more shocked that Prince wore sandals with socks

*tut tut*

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

and platform sandals at that!

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

come on, no one is shocked about Prince wearing platform sandals

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 18:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

Stephen Baldwin speaks:

"If they legalize gay marriage in all 50 states in my lifetime, I'll get a Billy Ray Cyrus tattoo on my butt to go with the Hannah Montana one."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11192008/photos/p6i.jpg

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 19 November 2008 15:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

someone kick this guy in the nuts plz

Black Seinfeld (HI DERE), Wednesday, 19 November 2008 16:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

ew TMI!

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 19 November 2008 16:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

some actual shit that matters

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 November 2008 00:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

In its May 15 ruling legalizing gay marriage in California, the justices seemed to signal that a ballot initiative like Proposition 8 might not be enough to change the underlying constitutional issues of the case in the court's eyes.

The ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights "so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 November 2008 00:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

Supreme Court of California OTM

Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Thursday, 20 November 2008 06:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

More on the literally batshit-insane tourette's laden "christian" nutjob-tycoon-demon who funded Prop 8 and wants to destroy California weeee:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-03/the-man-behind-proposition-8/?sem=1

Few Americans have heard of Ahmanson—and that's the way he likes it. He donates cash either out of his own pocket or through his unincorporated Fieldstead & Co. to avoid having to report the names of his grantees to the IRS. His Tourette's syndrome only adds to his mysterious persona, as his fear of speaking leads him to shun the media. While Ahmanson once resided in a mental institution in Kansas, he now occupies a position among the Christian right’s power pantheon as one of the movement’s most influential donors. During a 1985 interview with the Orange County Register, Ahmanson summarized his political agenda: “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.”
The campaign to teach “intelligent design” in public school classrooms, the Republican takeover of the California Assembly, and the rollback of affirmative action in California—Ahmanson has been behind them all. He has also taken a special interest in anti-gay crusades. Ahmanson’s most controversial episode related to his funding of the religious empire of Rousas John Rushdoony, a radical evangelical theologian who advocated placing the United States under the control of a Christian theocracy that would mandate the stoning to death of homosexuals.

Vichitravirya_XI, Thursday, 20 November 2008 10:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

the San Francisco of Arkansas!

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 November 2008 18:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

Wait, does that mean it's 'Tenderloin' is in a 'North Beach' district, too?

Uncle Muncle (Michael White), Thursday, 20 November 2008 18:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

only homosexuals love history and relaxation

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 November 2008 18:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

Has anyone posted this amicus brief on the subject?

schwantz, Thursday, 20 November 2008 19:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

Compelling argument.

Uncle Muncle (Michael White), Thursday, 20 November 2008 19:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

Reads like it was ghost-written by Jack Chick.

schwantz, Thursday, 20 November 2008 19:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

I am really surprised to see Newsweek running this article, it's not as lukewarm and middle-of-the-road as I expect from them. It says "cover story" at the top, so that sounds like they're not positioning it as an opinion piece.

Maria, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 03:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

That's cool. I was actually reading the recent obit of Osborne Elliott, who was Newsweek's editor from like 1961-76, and learned that the magazine has a history of taking an editorial stand on contentious issues of the day (esp. in contrast to Time and other newsweeklies) -- like I guess in the '60s they were all like CIVIL RIGHTS: DEAL WITH IT.

jaymc, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 05:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

this is already in the wiki article, lol?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek#Allegations_of_Liberal_Bias

TOMBOT, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 06:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

the comments are another amazing datum supporting poe's law

TOMBOT, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 06:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

that's a really great article. the comments are depressing...a reminder that for all the talk about outreach, so many people just won't be talked to.

lex pretend, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 09:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

This is so poorly written...."was laughable," "according to many," - quite encyclopedic- give it a few hours before it's edited
The article stated that The Bible used vague phrasing when outlining the Judeo-Christian parameters for marriage, and that cleared a pathway for gay marriage. All of this, in spite of the fact that The Bible clearly states that homosexual acts are a sin, and should be punished.
To say that a liberal bias did not exist in the article was laughable, according to many. The article further argued that The Bible was written to apply to a society very unlike American society of 2008, and that the rules of The Bible were open to interpretation. This argument was diametrically opposed to the Orthodox Christian belief that The Bible's rules are to be taken literally. Orthodox Christian belief is a conservative institution in America, and Newsweek's opposition to this ideology puts this article on the liberal end of the political spectrum.
Many readers feel that many of Newsweek's articles have displayed a similar bias, and that articles that "lean to the right" on the political spectrum were few and far between. Readers argued that Newsweek was so biased in its reporting that it was no longer a credible source.

lol

Vichitravirya_XI, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 11:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

we better start stoning our wives then.

Take You Down (I know, right?), Tuesday, 9 December 2008 13:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081209/...Al5ElZYdys0NUE

Calling in 'gay' to work is latest form of protest

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer Mon Dec 8, 9:12 pm ET

SAN FRANCISCO – Some same-sex marriage supporters are urging people to "call in gay" Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians, but others question whether it's wise to encourage skipping work given the nation's economic distress. Organizers of "Day Without a Gay" — scheduled to coincide with International Human Rights Day and modeled after similar work stoppages by Latino immigrants — also are encouraging people to perform volunteer work and refrain from spending money.

Sean Hetherington, a West Hollywood comedian and personal trainer, dreamed up the idea with his boyfriend, Aaron Hartzler, after reading online that a few angry gay-rights activists were calling for a daylong strike to protest California voters' passage last month of Proposition 8, which reversed this year's state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage.

The couple thought it would be more effective and less divisive if people were asked to perform community service instead of staying home with their wallets shut. Dozens of nonprofit agencies, from the National Women's Law Center in Washington to a Methodist church in Fresno collecting food for the homeless, have posted opportunities for volunteers on the couple's Web site.

"We are all for a boycott if that is what brings about a sense of community for people," said Hetherington, 30, who plans to spend Wednesday volunteering at an inner-city school. "You can take away from the economy and give back in other ways."

Hetherington said he's been getting 100 e-mails an hour from people looking for volunteer opportunities, and that his "Day Without a Gay" Web site has gotten 100,000 hits since mid-November.

Despite Hartzler and Hetherington's attempt to fashion a positive approach, some organizers of the street demonstrations that drew massive crowds in many cities last month have been reluctant to embrace the concept, saying that it could be at best impractical and at worst counterproductive to "call in gay."

"It's extra-challenging for people to think about taking off work as a form of protest, given that we are talking about people who may not be out (as gay) at work, and given the current economic situation and job market," said Jules Graves, 38, coordinator of the Colorado Queer Straight Alliance. "There is really not any assurance employers would appreciate it for what it is."

Graves' group nonetheless is arranging for interested participants to volunteer at the local African Community Center in Denver. The agency said it could find projects to keep 20 people busy, but so far only 10 have pledged to show up, said Graves.
___

On the Net:

http://www.daywithoutagay.org/

Vichitravirya_XI, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 17:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

I learned about that from a facebook invitation, but I have a job interview tomorrow in a state where gay marriage actually is legal. Call me selfish but I feel that "calling in gay" to the interview would be a bad idea.

Maria, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 23:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

"...there is a real, unbroken line between the jihadist savagery in Mumbai and the hedonistic, irresponsible, blindly selfish goals and tactics of our homegrown sexual jihadists."

- Pat Boone, December 6, 2008

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82830

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 11 December 2008 17:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

homegrown sexual jihadists!!

a serviceable substitute for wit (Michael White), Thursday, 11 December 2008 17:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

Amy Balliet announced the "Day w/o a Gay" at the end of the marriage equality rally last month here, and the entire crowd went "wha??". The idea is to do 10 actions like this, on the 10th of each month.

Jaq, Thursday, 11 December 2008 17:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

Um, are we really caring about someone who's taking his cue from Webster's on gay marriage?

Take You Down (I know, right?), Thursday, 11 December 2008 18:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

"caring about" no. Waiting for a sequel to his 50-year-old teen advice book, maybe!

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 11 December 2008 18:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

mmmm sexual jihad

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 11 December 2008 18:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

suicide boffers

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 11 December 2008 18:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

sexual crusade, please, that way we can have knights templar discovering the pleasures of saladin's all-male harem. instead of exploding roadside dildos.

the magic length of god (elmo argonaut), Thursday, 11 December 2008 18:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

Seems as if the only mention of Caitlin Flanagan on ilx is on this thread. Which stings cuz of this op ed (I searched but didn't find it posted anywhere on ilx):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/opinion/07flanagan.html?ref=opinion

Gist: Gays, quiet with your marriage quest (aka identity politics) because African-Americans disproportionately hate homosexuality and we all (?) need to fry much bigger fish together, e.g., ending poverty as if identity politics had nothing to do with that.

Kevin John Bozelka, Friday, 12 December 2008 16:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

gay Brit gadfly Mark Simpson:

"If Christians and traditionalists want to preserve the 'sanctity' of marriage as something between a man and a woman, with all the mumbo jumbo that entails, let them. They only hasten the collapse of marriage. Instead of demanding gay marriage, in effect trying to modernise an increasingly moribund institution, maybe lesbian and gay people should push for civil partnerships to be opened to cross-sex couples, as they are in France - where they have proved very popular.

"I suspect civil partnerships, new, secular, literally down-to-earth contracts between two equals, relatively free of the baggage of tradition, ritual and unrealistic expectations, would also prove very popular with cross-sex couples ...Marriage might end up being something left to Mormons.

"Perhaps my scepticism about gay marriage and marriage in general is down to the fact that I’m terminally single. Perhaps it’s all just sour grapes. Or maybe I prefer to burn with passion than marry. After all, St Paul’s violently ascetic world-view which regarded marriage as a poor runner-up to chastity, also ensured that the Christian Church would burn sodomites like kindling for centuries.

"Either way, I think it needs to be mentioned amidst all this shouting about gay domesticity that, important as it is to see lesbian and gay couples recognised and given legal protection, probably most gay men (though probably not most lesbians) are single and probably will be single for most of their lives. With or without civil partnerships/unions. Or even the magical, symbolic power of gay marriage."

http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2008/12/05/lets-be-civil-gay-marriage-isnt-the-end-of-the-rainbow/

Dr Morbius, Friday, 12 December 2008 16:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm actually really behind this - if they ever come up with some sort of US civil partnership deal that's functionally the same as marriage but has a different name, then my wife and I are going to get divorced and enter into one of them.

a better command of the mummy language (joygoat), Friday, 12 December 2008 19:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

>probably most gay men (though probably not most lesbians) are single and probably will be single for most of their lives.

are there any stats on this?

Vichitravirya_XI, Friday, 12 December 2008 21:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

it obv does sound like sour grapes tho, from a guy who's prob never had a bf

Vichitravirya_XI, Friday, 12 December 2008 21:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

I expected to see this stuff more often from the Hitler Youth Pope. Glad to see Joey Ratz is hitting his stride.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7797269.stm

Speaking on Monday, Pope Benedict said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was as important as protecting the environment.

Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 23 December 2008 15:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

three months pass...

And in a word, Iowa.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 3 April 2009 14:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

Vermont might be voting it in too. We'll see.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 3 April 2009 14:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think we should have a legal system based on what animals do and don't do

goaty (harbl), Friday, 3 April 2009 14:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

omg animals don't have capitalism

Dr Morbius, Friday, 3 April 2009 14:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

The Island of Dr. Morbius

Ned Raggett, Friday, 3 April 2009 14:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

Gay marriage legal in Vermont via both houses overriding the governor's veto. NOW let's see where the complaints come from.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 7 April 2009 16:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think we should have a legal system based on what animals do and don't do - Legalize cannibalism!

Imaginary Dead Baseball Players Live in My Cornfield (Pillbox), Tuesday, 7 April 2009 16:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

Nice touch:

Among the celebrants in the lobby were former Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, and his longtime partner, Chuck Kletecka. Dostis recalled efforts to expand gay rights dating to an anti-discrimination law passed in 1992.

"It's been a very long battle. It's been almost 20 years to get to this point," Dostis said. "I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we're a couple like any other couple. We're as good and as bad as any other group of people. And now I think we have a chance to prove ourselves here on forward that we're good members of our community."

Dostis said he and Kletecka will celebrate their 25th year together in September.

"Is that a proposal?" Kletecka asked.

"Yeah," Dostis replied. "Twenty-five years together, I think it's time we finally got married."

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 7 April 2009 16:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

This is going to be a none-issue in 5 years.

Super Cub, Tuesday, 7 April 2009 17:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

make that 'non-issue'

Super Cub, Tuesday, 7 April 2009 17:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

make that "nun-issue"

maybe u should tell that to your laughing vagina (HI DERE), Tuesday, 7 April 2009 17:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

Support gay nun marriage.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 7 April 2009 17:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

I already do!

maybe u should tell that to your laughing vagina (HI DERE), Tuesday, 7 April 2009 17:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

I support it by subscribing to, er, "speciality" websites...

snoball, Tuesday, 7 April 2009 17:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

Now where's yr "judicial activism", wing-nuts?

Monkey Pocket Boob (libcrypt), Tuesday, 7 April 2009 19:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

I predict a Fox commentator will propose removing Vermont from the USA within a day.

Monkey Pocket Boob (libcrypt), Tuesday, 7 April 2009 19:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

You know, I actually kind of love the fact that the right-wingers and running scared and feeling like the country is changing without them in a very frightening way. Welcome to the last 8 years, assholes.

display names have been changed to protect the innocent (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Tuesday, 7 April 2009 19:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

Now where's yr "judicial activism", wing-nuts?

Sounds like the spin is "money bought this one," but doesn't that argument work better in cases like Prop 8?

Nurse Detrius (Eric H.), Tuesday, 7 April 2009 19:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

The only person pushing that money meme is the one guy I've been able to find in all the articles who was working against this in Vermont. Sour grapes laughability -- even Rod Dreher is saying things like "This is how it's supposed to work (even though I hate it and we're all going to hell oh help complain complain etc.)"

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 7 April 2009 20:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 April 2009 21:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

It is to laugh.

Nurse Detrius (Eric H.), Wednesday, 8 April 2009 21:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

honestly the most ridiculous and blood-boiling thing i've ever seen

k3vin k., Wednesday, 8 April 2009 21:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

Those would seem mutually exclusive to me, but I tend to pretend people don't exist.

Nurse Detrius (Eric H.), Wednesday, 8 April 2009 21:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

the "rainbow coalition coming together in love" part is major lols, it's like some kind of Xtian PLUR/rave gone wrong. Somebody link the weather girls parody file already.

Neotropical pygmy squirrel, Thursday, 9 April 2009 22:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

wow that made me really angry

This Board is a Prison on Planet Bullshit (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 April 2009 22:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Thursday, 9 April 2009 22:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

^^^^^LOOOOOL

was coming here to post this.

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Thursday, 9 April 2009 22:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

Just a note here: obviously, most ilxors know that people like me exist, but...

I am a homosexual against gay marriage, for essentially the same reasons I find the cries to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' so sickening: it is evidence that homosexuals, after being consistently oppressed and subjugated by western capitalist democracy, just want into the big ol' club. As if getting married under the state's capitalistic rubric legitimizes love of another person.

There is also the element that is perhaps most important, in my eyes: marriage is a religious term that has been adopted by the state in order to bestow benefits and privileges on certain people. Why not just rid the state's structure of the word 'marriage' and bestow these benefits and privileges to all who have made and committed to official contracts detailing their partnership? All presently-existing and future straight 'church' marriages would be seen as 'civil unions' under such a rubric, and the gays would get the benefits we so RIGHTLY deserve, but without the bullshit of the word 'marriage.'

the table is the table, Thursday, 9 April 2009 22:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

Perhaps what I am arguing, more succinctly, is that people need to change the terms of debate-- make the fight about benefits and equal treatment under the law, not about a word which, whether you agree with it or not, belongs to religious groups and religious groups first.

the table is the table, Thursday, 9 April 2009 22:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

Why not just rid the state's structure of the word 'marriage' and bestow these benefits and privileges to all who have made and committed to official contracts detailing their partnership? All presently-existing and future straight 'church' marriages would be seen as 'civil unions' under such a rubric, and the gays would get the benefits we so RIGHTLY deserve

^^actually i more or less agree with this, but i kind of wonder if it's an even harder sell than gay marriage..

now is the time to winterize your manscape (will), Thursday, 9 April 2009 22:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

It is, but mostly because dumbass motherfuckers STILL don't get the whole 'separation of church and state' thing.

the table is the table, Thursday, 9 April 2009 22:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

As a straight dude who would like to get married someday, I bristle at the idea that the word "marriage" "belongs" to religious groups. There are plenty of practices and ideas that started as religious rites that no longer are strictly religious and have passed into secular culture; for me, marriage is one of them.

Also, it's fine if you yourself do not believe in gay marriage or marriage in general, but does that mean that you will not fight for the rights of other gay couples who feel differently? Kinda weak, imo.

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Thursday, 9 April 2009 22:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

^

Plaxico (I know, right?), Thursday, 9 April 2009 22:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

Perhaps you're missing the point: I reject the idea that getting married under the state's capitalistic rubric legitimizes love of another person. If you believe in that legitimization, gay or straight, fine, but I'm not helping you get down on your knees to suckle at a toxic teat.

the table is the table, Thursday, 9 April 2009 23:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

I mean, I know people here in SF who were screaming stuff like LOVE WILL PREVAIL and LOVE OVERCOMES ALL when Prop 8 was passed, and I was appalled. Love and marriage are not commensurate with one another, as we all know.

the table is the table, Thursday, 9 April 2009 23:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

I agree with the idea that the government should not be in the marriage business and that stripping that language from the law is a good idea, but until that happens, I would rather gay marriage be legalized so that gay spouses can receive medical benefits and see their loved ones in the hospital and be equal under the law and etc.

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Thursday, 9 April 2009 23:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah, practicalities first, semantics second.

This Board is a Prison on Planet Bullshit (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 April 2009 23:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

Table, I get the impression that you're really invested in thinking and living outside of hegemonic American culture (e.g., moving to San Francisco because it's the "most European" city in the US, criticizing Obama for being a slave to capitalism, etc.), which makes me feel like you oppose gay marriage mostly because it would make your own homosexuality somewhat less subversive.

Bianca Jagger (jaymc), Thursday, 9 April 2009 23:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

Perhaps, jaymc, but when so much of gay identity revolves around disgusting consumer culture, it would be a breath of fresh air to not feel so subversive, as it would mean that there are others who find the Castro or most parts of Boystown or most parts of Chelsea (etc etc) kind of sickening.

the table is the table, Thursday, 9 April 2009 23:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

Perhaps, jaymc, but when so much of gay identity revolves around disgusting consumer culture, it would be a breath of fresh air to not feel so subversive, as it would mean that there are others who find the Castro or most parts of Boystown or most parts of Chelsea (etc etc) kind of sickening.

the table is the table, Thursday, 9 April 2009 23:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

Sorry, tabes, but jaymc OTM in this one.

Nurse Detrius (Eric H.), Friday, 10 April 2009 00:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah, he is right, but i don't really feel like wanting 'my own homosexuality' (ie homosexuality coming from an anti-hegemonic point of view) to be less subversive is a bad thing. it raises issues as to how i am any different than some be-Prada'd body fascist queen who wants to get married, but i think that the answer is that my values are different--

the table is the table, Friday, 10 April 2009 00:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

Most of the gay dudes I know who got married did so because they have been with their significant other for a long time, and it was important to them. Not because of Prada or whatever.

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Friday, 10 April 2009 00:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

Anyone who thinks that marriage is about "legitimizing love" has not thought very much about marriage and, if married, has not been married long. Marriage is all about social ties and obligations. That is why it is done in the sight of witnesses, with formal oaths that spell out those obligations.

Couples in love tell one another whatever they want to share, in private. Deciding to get married entails telling everyone outside the confines of that couple - not simply that they love each other, but what their future intentions are, very publically. Because marriage is public business, not just a private feeling.

Aimless, Friday, 10 April 2009 00:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

An op-ed from the NYT today that as a (black and white) biracial queer of sorts I can very closely identify with.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/opinion/09thrasher.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Iowa’s Family Values
By STEVEN W. THRASHER

IF it weren’t for Iowa, my family may never have existed, and this gay, biracial New Yorker might never have been born.

In 1958, when my mother, who was white, and father, who was black, wanted to get married in Nebraska, it was illegal for them to wed. So they decided to go next door to Iowa, a state that was progressive enough to allow interracial marriage. My mom’s brother tried to have the Nebraska state police bar her from leaving the state so she couldn’t marry my dad, which was only the latest legal indignity she had endured. She had been arrested on my parents’ first date, accused of prostitution. (The conventional thought of the time being: Why else would a white woman be seen with a black man?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, the desire to define relational rights and responsibilities with a partner, to have access to the protection that this kind of commitment affords, is rather conservative. But it’s a conservative dream that should be offered to all Americans. Though it takes great courage for gays to marry in a handful of states now, one hopes that someday, throughout the nation, gay marriages, like my parents’ union, will just be seen as marriages.

It’s safe to say that neither the dramas of our family, nor its triumphs, could have been possible without the simultaneously radical and conservative occasion of my parents’ civil marriage in Iowa. And so when the time comes, I hope to be married at the City Hall in Council Bluffs, in the state that not only supports my civil rights now, but which supported my parents’ so many years ago.

The Reverend, Friday, 10 April 2009 01:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah, but guys, the important thing is, I'm not helping you get down on your knees to suckle at a toxic teat.

goole, Friday, 10 April 2009 01:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

no siree

goole, Friday, 10 April 2009 01:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah, he is right, but i don't really feel like wanting 'my own homosexuality' (ie homosexuality coming from an anti-hegemonic point of view) to be less subversive is a bad thing.

But wasn't jaymc saying the opposite--that he feels like you want to be more subversive and that's why you oppose gay marriage?

lou, Friday, 10 April 2009 01:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

the conflict, in some ways, is that i think these rights are obvious and self-evident, and shouldn't even have to be bestowed by the state, as if they were some sort of gift.

yes, the op-ed piece is right. but i just fear that with the advent of these rights finally being bestowed, gays will become as complacent, as zombified as the rest of the population, if they're not already. that is, by accepting the rights given as parcel to this 'conservative dream,' i fear that gays will simply be subsumed (and assumed) into the larger cesspool of the capitalist dream.

so, it is not the right to marry that i am opposed to, really. it is the results of what will happen when these rights are finally given.

the table is the table, Friday, 10 April 2009 01:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

Most gays are already part of the capitalist dream, table -- or want to be. Since gays are as boring, awful, and predictable as our het brethren, there's no reason to project Genet-esque fantasies of subversion on them.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 April 2009 01:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

In my milieu it's subversive enough for an openly gay man to mingle and fuck freely amongst straight society -- and keep my identity.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 April 2009 01:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

tabes i think it's pretty selfish for you to be against gay marriage because you want all gays to be 'rebellious' or 'different' - imo you should want gays who would like to have the same rights as straights to be able to have those rights because of they deserve them, regardless of what the gays will 'turn into' after

the rickey henderson of sbs (J0rdan S.), Friday, 10 April 2009 01:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

just as i would say to a gay marriage opponent who wants to preserve the 'sanctity' of the word 'marriage', i ask you how your life would be personally affected by a couple who wants to get married officially getting married?

the rickey henderson of sbs (J0rdan S.), Friday, 10 April 2009 01:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

take, for example, when i went to a screening of 'Milk' at the Castro Theater. in line with many men (and some women), many of whom were married or had been planning to get married, i was confronted by a cohort of gays wearing matching shirts passing out fliers that warned people of 'dangerous elements' (read: homeless, mostly African-American or hispanic men) in the neighborhood that would 'steal your valuables and holiday gifts' from your car or your person. the racist and classist overtones inherent in this act are disgusting imho-- gays should be working with the downtrodden and indigent, not trying to eliminate such from view for fear that they'll steal the modernist lamp-set in the trunk of the volvo.

the table is the table, Friday, 10 April 2009 01:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

that's a pretty awful reason to be against gay marriage dude, i gotta say

the rickey henderson of sbs (J0rdan S.), Friday, 10 April 2009 01:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

awful anecdote at least

the rickey henderson of sbs (J0rdan S.), Friday, 10 April 2009 01:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

are you blind, j0rdan?

it is not the right to marry that i am opposed to, really. it is the results of what will happen when these rights are finally given.

the table is the table, Friday, 10 April 2009 01:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

and how is it an awful anecdote? you support ignorance?

the table is the table, Friday, 10 April 2009 01:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

I am a homosexual against gay marriage

the rickey henderson of sbs (J0rdan S.), Friday, 10 April 2009 01:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah marriage really ruined straight people too. it caused capitalism, i hear!

goole, Friday, 10 April 2009 01:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

nah i'm saying that projecting the actions of some ppl in a 3 block piece of san francisco out onto the rest of the gay population is idiotic

the rickey henderson of sbs (J0rdan S.), Friday, 10 April 2009 01:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

Most gays are already part of the capitalist dream, table -- or want to be. Since gays are as boring, awful, and predictable as our het brethren, there's no reason to project Genet-esque fantasies of subversion on them.

it seems, alfred, that we know different types of gays.

the table is the table, Friday, 10 April 2009 01:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

j0rdan, the history of gays 'claiming' a neighborhood and then gentrifying it is so long it would make your head spin.

the table is the table, Friday, 10 April 2009 01:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

What's it to you if you don't approve the "results" of another couple marrying? Jordan OTM: you're creating a slippery slope similar in intention to Maggie Gallagher and Ramesh Ponnoru's.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 April 2009 01:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

it seems, alfred, that we know different types of gays

I'm very pleased you know a group of Sidney Poitier-esque Perfect Gays.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 April 2009 01:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

take, for example, when i went to a screening of 'Milk' at the Castro Theater. in line with many men (and some women), many of whom were married or had been planning to get married, i was confronted by a cohort of gays wearing matching shirts passing out fliers that warned people of 'dangerous elements' (read: homeless, mostly African-American or hispanic men) in the neighborhood that would 'steal your valuables and holiday gifts' from your car or your person. the racist and classist overtones inherent in this act are disgusting imho-- gays should be working with the downtrodden and indigent, not trying to eliminate such from view for fear that they'll steal the modernist lamp-set in the trunk of the volvo.

― the table is the table, Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:38 PM (7 minutes ago)

dude, not all gay people are like this just like, as you obviously know, not all black people steal televisions for a living

xpost what jordan said

k3vin k., Friday, 10 April 2009 01:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

table, I guess what you're trying to say is that gay rights people complain a lot about marital rights, but those rights are trivial compared to the injustice that is right in front of their faces -- e.g. starvation, classism, etc. Is that correct?

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Friday, 10 April 2009 01:49 (nine years ago) Permalink

in a way, yes.

the table is the table, Friday, 10 April 2009 01:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

Look, I sympathize with your impulses. I've read my Wilde and Genet. Tension will always exist b/w us and the straight world -- tensions that a repeal of DOMA will never efface. Hooray! But the slippery slope of your subversion lead to "transgressive" acts like fucking indiscriminately enough to get you dead of AIDS, and that's not a fate to which I aspire, bub.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 April 2009 01:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

So does it bother you that instead of feeding from the Chelsea/Castro cesspool, it'll be from the straight cesspool? Either way people are going to buy things they "need"

x-postss

Ivan, Friday, 10 April 2009 01:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

it bothers me gay or straight.

the table is the table, Friday, 10 April 2009 01:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's all good: without them, I don't know, Flaubert wouldn't have written Sentimental Education.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 April 2009 02:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

i mean, i just feel like there is such an intense myopia going on here. the late 80s and early 90s and hell, even the late 90s, were horrific for a great majority of gays living in the US. yes, the supreme court finally gave us the right to fuck each other in the ass in the privacy of our own abodes. yes, there are states where we can get married and where our civil rights of partnership are recognized. yes, we have become a gigantic money-making contingent fueling the culture machine (for better or for worse, whatver).

STILL: the most at-risk group for teen suicide is homosexuals.

STILL: most of us gay men can't TRY to give blood because hey, we all have AIDS in the eyes of the FDA and AMA.

STILL: there are still licensed psychologists and psychiatrists who run 'reparative' practices in 'curing' homosexuality.

STILL: there is insane future-talk among conservative groups of using prospective gene-selection technology to essentially erase gay births from the face of the 1st world.

the table is the table, Friday, 10 April 2009 02:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think my point is that marriage and civil rights are a major issue, but they are not the end of it, and that i worry about some of the attitudes i've heard expressed in SF about everything finally being 'equal.' that's as stupid as saying that because we have a biracial president, racism is gonna magically end.

the table is the table, Friday, 10 April 2009 02:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

xp: And you don't think a world in which more people regard homosexuality as "normal" (so to say) will help to remedy any of those at least in part?

The Reverend, Friday, 10 April 2009 02:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

sure, but i object to the idea that marriage is the major normalizing force!

the table is the table, Friday, 10 April 2009 02:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

Not the, but certainly a, whether you personally like it or not.

The Reverend, Friday, 10 April 2009 02:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

it surely will act like it, yes, but it just saddens me.

the table is the table, Friday, 10 April 2009 02:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

table, I guess what you're trying to say is that gay rights people complain a lot about marital rights, but those rights are trivial compared to the injustice that is right in front of their faces -- e.g. starvation, classism, etc. Is that correct?

― Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Thursday, April 9, 2009 8:49 PM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark

i can sympathize with this, but it veers into some uncomfortable territory, as far as i'm concerned. that is, it sounds perilously close to the "you shouldn't feel bad about your own life's disappointments because, you know, there are people starving in sudan" argument. which, of course, has many elements of truth, but is ultimately kind of bullshit

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Friday, 10 April 2009 02:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

xp to gbx:

well, yeah. i think that my point (at least towards the bottom of this thread) is that there's still majorly awful shit going down against gays both in the US and especially elsewhere, and that a normalizing force such as marriage is not going to just swoop all those problems away. additionally, the oppression and subjugation that gays have faced since...well, since the Protestant Reformation, is also not some sort of societal antique that could never come back.

the table is the table, Friday, 10 April 2009 02:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

no i can appreciate that. btw i'm not sure how to dovetail this with those dancehall threads, but man i can't help but think they're......relevant?

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Friday, 10 April 2009 02:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

i need to eat right now and go to the studio to finish a paper, but i just wanted to say that this thread has helped me rethink and change my opinions on some things, and that it has done so without getting overly insulting. so thanks for engaging.

the table is the table, Friday, 10 April 2009 02:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

the history of gays people with money 'claiming' a neighborhood and then gentrifying it is so long it would make your head spin

Nurse Detrius (Eric H.), Friday, 10 April 2009 05:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

Table has a point though in that it often starts with homosexes and sundry bohemians--who make it a desirable place to live--before the rich people roll in.

HOOS talking about magic & spells & steen dude! (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 10 April 2009 05:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

cf John Leland etc

HOOS talking about magic & spells & steen dude! (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Friday, 10 April 2009 06:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

Have you thought about the fact that the US is not the only country where gay marriage is an issue, there are several countries ie Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa and Sweden. The countries of those I've visited Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands, are really open countries where I did not notice the gated communities of Gays with Lexus'.

Plaxico (I know, right?), Friday, 10 April 2009 10:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also Table, just as I would not like to have rights not permitted to me for the religio-conservative mindset of others, I wouldn't like to be disenfranchised for you to live out you some Dennis Cooper fantasy of subversive fagdom.

Plaxico (I know, right?), Friday, 10 April 2009 10:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

i wonder if i should actually read this thread ever

Surmounter, Friday, 10 April 2009 10:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

xpgay marriage is legal in Sweden, it's just not clear yet whether or not it will be in church.

sonderangerbot, Friday, 10 April 2009 10:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

too zombified to read it :/

FREE DOM AND ETHAN (special guest stars mark bronson), Friday, 10 April 2009 10:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

haha, not that I'm the marryin' kind!

Plaxico (I know, right?), Friday, 10 April 2009 11:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

take, for example, when i went to a screening of 'Milk' at the Castro Theater. in line with many men (and some women), many of whom were married or had been planning to get married, i was confronted by a cohort of gays wearing matching shirts passing out fliers that warned people of 'dangerous elements' (read: homeless, mostly African-American or hispanic men) in the neighborhood that would 'steal your valuables and holiday gifts' from your car or your person. the racist and classist overtones inherent in this act are disgusting imho-- gays should be working with the downtrodden and indigent, not trying to eliminate such from view for fear that they'll steal the modernist lamp-set in the trunk of the volvo.

This has been dealt with sufficiently, right? No need for me to bring up arguments that have already been run? (I skim-read the thread after this.)

maybe u should tell that to your laughing vagina (HI DERE), Friday, 10 April 2009 13:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

pretty much iirc

k3vin k., Friday, 10 April 2009 14:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

gays should be working with the downtrodden and indigent, not trying to eliminate such from view for fear that they'll steal the modernist lamp-set in the trunk of the volvo.

http://cockingasnook.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/medium_umbridge.jpg

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 April 2009 14:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

As far as the idea that gays, as a group, are any more well-to-do than society as a whole, I already spelled it out in the gay thread:

I would assume this is due to the fact that it's much easier, due to cultural factors and a greater economic safety net, for economically advantaged queers to be openly so than for their economically disadvantaged counterparts. Thusly, in a set of openly queer people, the economically advantaged are going to be overrepresented.

The-Reverend (rev), Friday, 10 April 2009 15:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

fwiw, guys, you should attend to table's last comment iirc

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Friday, 10 April 2009 15:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

group hug

This Board is a Prison on Planet Bullshit (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 April 2009 15:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

the conflict, in some ways, is that i think these rights are obvious and self-evident, and shouldn't even have to be bestowed by the state, as if they were some sort of gift.

i've heard far right/libertarian dudes say they were in favor of gay marriage because of this reason...or more specifically they were against the government controlling marriage and charging money for marriage licenses etc, therefore anyone could and should be able to get married.

d20 riot tard (M@tt He1ges0n), Friday, 10 April 2009 15:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

group hug

Nah, I gotta help the poor and indigent first.

JUST KIDDING (hugs, table)

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 April 2009 15:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think its weird to argue that "rights" somehow exist independent of a legal framework.

This Board is a Prison on Planet Bullshit (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 April 2009 16:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

(x-post)

This Board is a Prison on Planet Bullshit (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 April 2009 16:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

I mean the law is the framework that gives the term "rights" meaning - without the ability to appeal to an agreed-upon legal framework, what constitutes a "right" is essentially meaningless.

This Board is a Prison on Planet Bullshit (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 April 2009 16:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

Ah, we're entering Hannah Arendt territiory here.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 10 April 2009 16:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

really? I thought we were just getting started on Derrida.

Plaxico (I know, right?), Friday, 10 April 2009 16:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think our thoughts should turn to gay divorce

velko, Friday, 10 April 2009 16:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol

Plaxico (I know, right?), Friday, 10 April 2009 16:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

we should have the right!

Plaxico (I know, right?), Friday, 10 April 2009 16:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

When Rod met Maggie. How you say, 'odd.'

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 14 April 2009 20:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

Tomorrow's the day for Iowa, right?

Nurse Detrius (Eric H.), Tuesday, 14 April 2009 20:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

Rod Dreher: Maggie, you and I are on the same side of the gay marriage issue, but I am pessimistic about our chances for success. You, however, are optimistic. What am I missing?

Maggie Gallagher: Vaclav Havel mostly. ...

I think no pants is sexy. (Matt P), Tuesday, 14 April 2009 20:10 (nine years ago) Permalink

thank you maggie gallagher for the cool new display name!

Vaclav Havel mostly. (Matt P), Tuesday, 14 April 2009 20:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

Rod Dreher: I don't understand why so few people grasp the religious liberty implications of gay marriage.

Do these people even have a brain? What if my religion happened to believe that straight marriage was illegal? I'd love to hear a logical, rational explanation of what these "implications" are.

Bill Magill, Tuesday, 14 April 2009 20:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

Here's another howler:

But the two most important messages I've been telling people: 1. Marriage matters because children need a mom and dad. And 2. Gay marriage is going to effect a lot of people besides Adam and Steve.

Both wrong. 1. If a kid doesnt have a mother and father, what happens, he spontaneously combusts? And 2 doesn't even need to be addressed it's so stupid.

Bill Magill, Tuesday, 14 April 2009 20:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

People are always posting links from weird websites, why were you reading that in the first place Ned?

Plaxico (I know, right?), Tuesday, 14 April 2009 20:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

Ned is an avid follower of Maggie Gallagher.

I can sit in my car all day, and that doesn't make me a car. (HI DERE), Tuesday, 14 April 2009 20:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

I like it when she smashes watermelons.

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Tuesday, 14 April 2009 20:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

she swings a mean Bible

I can sit in my car all day, and that doesn't make me a car. (HI DERE), Tuesday, 14 April 2009 20:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

She was soooo cute as the baker in that Will Ferrell movie!

display names have been changed to protect the innocent (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Tuesday, 14 April 2009 20:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

In this case, that was linked from Andrew Sullivan's site, not that he can't be any less weird about other things. But Dreher I've kept an irregular eye for a while because he is the self-described 'crunchy con,' a term he invented. (Seems to boil down to: Conservatives, eat organic! Otherwise, steady as she goes.)

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 14 April 2009 20:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

She was brittle and hilarious as the mother of Robin Williams' son in The Birdcage

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 14 April 2009 20:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

wasn't that Christine Baranski, I'm not following this thread

Plaxico (I know, right?), Tuesday, 14 April 2009 20:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

I got so far into that article thinking it was Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Nurse Detrius (Eric H.), Tuesday, 14 April 2009 21:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

And then I stopped reading.

Nurse Detrius (Eric H.), Tuesday, 14 April 2009 21:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

Maggie Gyllenhaal probably has her own stories.

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 14 April 2009 21:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

Moran citied Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, a Mormon Republican who has called for the adoption of civil unions,

??? wtf! can someone explain this to me

shit was shocking as fuck back then (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

Maggie Gyllenhaal probably has her own stories.

― I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

every time i read this woman's name for just a second i think it refers to the other one

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 16 April 2009 22:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

So uh what do you guys think about "opposite marriage"?

Alex in SF, Tuesday, 21 April 2009 02:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

You know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that an opposite marriage should be between a man and a ghost, which is I think I believe an "opposite man." No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised. A ghost is an empty soul, where a man once lived.

asplundh tree expert co. (iiiijjjj), Tuesday, 21 April 2009 02:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other.

Alex in SF, Tuesday, 21 April 2009 02:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 21 April 2009 02:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

oops...reading the headline and getting ahead of myself, but very close

The-Reverend (rev), Thursday, 30 April 2009 00:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, still a touch early but definitely advancing. It's entirely possible that by the end of May the only state in New England without it would be Rhode Island.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 30 April 2009 00:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

Miss California to campaign against gay marriage.

From the comments section:

"A woman with died hair and fake boobs lecturing on what is natural is like unlicensed, tax dodging, food stamp collecting plumber talking about personal responsibility."

Le présent se dégrade, d'abord en histoire, puis en (Michael White), Thursday, 30 April 2009 17:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

McCain (Cindy) / Prejean '12

Vaclav Havel mostly. (Matt P), Thursday, 30 April 2009 17:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

I simply cannot understand why people would be opposed to gay marriage, and it's always the ones who are incessantly paying lip service to "family values."

I'm all for gay marriage, and also for gay divorce.

thirdalternative, Thursday, 30 April 2009 20:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

thanks for taking that bold stand

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Thursday, 30 April 2009 20:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

Carrie Prejean is from Vista, CA, which is a Republican stronghold in northern San Diego County.

I hate that she's my state's representative in the Miss USA Pageant. Hate, hate, hate.

Two Will Get You Three (B.L.A.M.), Thursday, 30 April 2009 21:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

Max is gay for me.

thirdalternative, Friday, 1 May 2009 19:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

I hate that she's my state's representative in the Miss USA Pageant. Hate, hate, hate.

^I wouldn't lose too much sleep over this.

Bill Magill, Friday, 1 May 2009 19:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, c'mon, it's a beauty pageant ffs, hardly a repair of the most progressive sentiments.

Le présent se dégrade, d'abord en histoire, puis en (Michael White), Friday, 1 May 2009 19:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

Maine is in.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 17:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah Maine! I was born in Vermont and have lived in Maine for nine years. Nice to see both states change via the legislature as opposed to the courts. Can't say it isn't "the will of the people" or any of that BS.

EZ Snappin, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 17:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

DC city council voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

Super Cub, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 17:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

Can't say it isn't "the will of the people" or any of that BS

i would love to believe you on this but i fear that conservative campaigns for referenda are just around the corner

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 6 May 2009 17:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

They'll have California's situation as a role model, sadly, but at the same time I think that game-changed things more than the anti-gay marriage folks ever guessed.

Meantime what is interesting about this is that this is the first situation where it was a straight up 'passed the state legislature, signed by the governor' situation without court decisions, overrides or the like, and the governor himself indicated his own change of heart on the matter. New Hampshire could potentially be next.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 17:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

Another thing of interest too -- granted that it's Maine and not, say, New York (yet) but this is NOT turning into a major news story as yet. The Washington Post is highlighting it but the NY Times and LA Times and etc. barely at all. I almost read that as a sign that this is becoming more of a 'well yeah, duh' issue in some corners, obv. not all.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 17:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

more likely it's "lol Maine, who cares"

It sometimes seems like newsmedia doesn't actually care about anything unless it happens in New York/California/DC/Chicago.

I'm gone (HI DERE), Wednesday, 6 May 2009 17:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

AUGUSTA, Maine - Gov. John Baldacci on Wednesday signed a gay marriage bill passed just hours before by the Maine Legislature.

Baldacci made his announcement within an hour of the Maine Senate giving its final approval to LD 1020. The Senate voted 21-13 in favor of the measure after a short debate.

"In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions," Baldacci said in a written 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."

Swat Valley High (goole), Wednesday, 6 May 2009 17:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

A little more from the NYT now:

Gov. John Baldacci of Maine on Wednesday signed the same-sex marriage bill passed by the State Legislature, saying he had reversed his position on such marriages after deciding it was a matter of equal protection under the state’s Constitution.

“It’s not the way I was raised and it’s not the way that I am,” the governor said in a telephone interview. “But at the same time I have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. That’s my job, and you can’t allow discrimination to stand when it’s raised to your level.”

It further discusses the referenda option as elmo has noted, so we'll see how this plays out.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 17:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

Can't say it isn't "the will of the people" or any of that BS

i would love to believe you on this but i fear that conservative campaigns for referenda are just around the corner

Oh, the nutters have been talking about a referendum before this passed, so I'm sure it will be on the ballot this fall. Baldacci hinted at that in his statement as well.

It was nice of him to point out this doesn't affect religions at all, which people don't point out often enough.

EZ Snappin, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 17:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

i would love to believe you on this but i fear that conservative campaigns for referenda are just around the corner

Battles will likely still be lost here and there (or maybe even never attempted at a state-by-state level in some states), but the war definitely feels like it's easily winnable now.

neu hollywood (Eric H.), Wednesday, 6 May 2009 18:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

To further bolster my "lol Maine, who cares" hypothesis, here is the lead story on CNN.com, over coverage of the signing of this bill:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/06/florida.chinese.drywall.family/index.html

...Really? This is the most important story you have today?

I'm gone (HI DERE), Wednesday, 6 May 2009 19:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

haha i love how often the word "chinese" is used in that article

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Wednesday, 6 May 2009 19:12 (nine years ago) Permalink

gotta make sure we remember that the great drywall scare of '09 was caused by the yellow menace

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Wednesday, 6 May 2009 19:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

i'm going to just look at that URL and make up my own story involving florida, chinese food, and drywall

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 19:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

meanwhile, the RI House just passed legislation prohibiting indoor prostitution (not just outdoor solicitation, as was previously the case) in a regressive response to (i'm guessing) the craigslist killer; i know that doesn't have anything to do gay marriage per se but taking that development as a social barometer, my hopes for RI gay marriage are pretty diminished

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 6 May 2009 19:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

Theoretically that would still allow for indoor/outdoor gloryholes.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 19:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

well--fewer prostitutes indoors means fewer deaths from the menace of chinee drywall

rip dom passantino 3/5/09 never forget (max), Wednesday, 6 May 2009 19:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

you can't get married through a gloryhole, ned.

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 6 May 2009 19:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

lol ned

mark cl, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 19:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

Building a bit on what I noted earlier in this almost starting to seem normal -- I had wondered if/when Sullivan would post anything about this, and he did but only after about a couple of hours (which for him and this issue is the equivalent of an eon), and briefly. I'm not surprised to see this as a follow-up with this introduction:

I'm sitting here, after renting a tux and grabbing a sandwich at Starbucks, and realize I just posted a brief note on the fifth state in the US to grant marriage equality. As if this were now routine. As if it were no big deal. As if what was only recently a pipe-dream hasn't become a reality.

Pity about the Starbucks sandwiches though.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 20:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

I love their toffee bars!

I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 6 May 2009 20:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://www.slate.com/id/2218774/

makes sense to me, except for california?

I've never heard of a single one of those blogs. (Matt P), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

the religious right has never been a force in New England (I dunno about Iowa).

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

no on 8 coalition just totally fucked it up/shot themselves in the foot didn't they. lol california

I've never heard of a single one of those blogs. (Matt P), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah they didn't count on the strength of out-of-state organizers (thx Utah! fucking Mormons)

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

beware the west, where people are still crazy and make $$$ from it

I've never heard of a single one of those blogs. (Matt P), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

California gays should pour a bunch of money into fucking with Utah's ridiculous liquor laws and/or prosecuting polygamists

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

lol :/

http://www.youtube.com/v/haVqcPfeqKI

Ømår Littel (Jordan), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

the religious right has never been a force in New England

evangelicals, no. catholics, a little bit (which goes towards explaining RI slow moving on this issue)

roman knockwell (elmo argonaut), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

this is sort of amazing. i can't possibly summarize his argument because i'm not entirely sure what it is, but he says some sort of astounding stuff along the way:

The first is the most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage. This is why marriage between men and women has been necessary in virtually every society ever known. Marriage, whatever its particular manifestation in a particular culture or epoch, is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood--and sexual accessibility--is defined. Again, until quite recently, the woman herself had little or nothing to say about this, while her parents and the community to which they answered had total control. The guardians of a female child or young woman had a duty to protect her virginity until the time came when marriage was permitted or, more frequently, insisted upon. This may seem a grim thing for the young woman--if you think of how the teenaged Natalie Wood was not permitted to go too far with Warren Beatty in Splendor in the Grass. But the duty of virginity can seem like a privilege, even a luxury, if you contrast it with the fate of child-prostitutes in brothels around the world. No wonder that weddings tend to be regarded as religious ceremonies in almost every culture: They celebrate the completion of a difficult task for the community as a whole.
This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage. Virginity until marriage, arranged marriages, the special status of the sexuality of one partner but not the other (and her protection from the other sex)--these motivating forces for marriage do not apply to same-sex lovers.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 01:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

so, basically ... because gay marriage isn't concerned with protecting female virginity, if we make it legal ... all women will become child-prostitutes?

anyway, there's much, much more in there. and it is published in a real actual magazine!

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 01:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

Anything to keep them happy.

I think the California decision tomorrow will likely not overturn 8 but we'll see.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 26 May 2009 03:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

I like how that argument seemingly assumes that there aren't any gay women.

roxyclean (The Reverend), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 03:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

'sexual access' pretty neatly sums it all up.

corps of discovery (schlump), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 03:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

Few men would ever bother to enter into a romantic heterosexual marriage--much less three, as I have done--were it not for the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom.

Garri$on Kilo (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 03:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

I mean

Garri$on Kilo (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 03:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

I like how that argument seemingly assumes that there aren't any gay women.

among many other bizarre assumptions. it's like he gives kind of a history lesson of all the horrible things that have been involved in traditional marriages (and still are some places, obv). and then says, "well, so, we don't do those kinds of things any more. but if we did, none of them would apply to gay marriage. so ...." and then i just lose whatever thread of argument he's trying to make. but it seems like it's part of the current phase of the anti-marriage brigades (which i would characterize as a rear-guard action, if it didn't make me snicker), where they know they're losing traction and they know it's important not to come across as bigots or zealots, so they have to come up for ever more baroque and impenetrable framings for arguments that of course remain bigoted and zealous at their core. it's kind of entertaining, although obviously it would be more entertaining if actual people's real lives and rights weren't at stake.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 03:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

come up with, not for..

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 03:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

xxpost: yeah, that line did make me wonder if the whole thing was a parody. but that's not really the weekly standard's style.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 03:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

that whole guy is a parody

Garri$on Kilo (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 03:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

he's apparently been beating this drum for a while:

Yes, marriage tends to regulate or channel the sexual appetite of men, and this is undoubtedly a good thing for women. But it is not the ultimate good. A husband, no matter how unfaithful, cannot introduce a child who is not his wife's own into a marriage without her knowledge; she alone has the power to do such a thing. For a woman, the fundamental advantage of marriage is thus not to regulate her husband but to empower herself--to regulate who has access to her person, and to marshal the resources of her husband and of the wider community to help her raise her child ren.

Every human relationship can be described as an enslavement, but for women the alternative to marriage is a much worse enslavement--which is why marriage, for women, is often associated as much with sexual freedom as with sexual constraint. In the traditional Roman Catholic cultures of the Mediterranean and South America, where virginity is fiercely protected and adolescent girls are hardly permitted to "date," marriage gives a woman the double luxury of controlling her sexuality and, if she wishes, extending it.

otoh, there's ... this ...

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 03:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

Cal decision is no change -- Prop 8 stands but so do the 18,000 marriages already performed.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 26 May 2009 17:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

That's unfortunate. Hopefully all of San Francisco up and moves to Des Moines.

nu hollywood (Eric H.), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 17:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

It's unfortunate but also utterly unsurprising -- basically the court's said, "Well, stays as is." If anything I wonder what sort of prompt this will add to the rumblings about rewriting the state's constitution, as has started to kick in to high given the current basket case that is California's fiscal situation.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 26 May 2009 17:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

Goddamnit

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 17:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

:(

homage is parody gone sour (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 17:12 (eight years ago) Permalink

My friend in San Fran is bummed, but he looks at it this way: now "middle America" will get a chance to observe how sane and boring the existing gay marriages are.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 17:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

well, it sucks. but otoh i really do think it'll be better to overturn it on another referendum vote -- which i totally think californians can and probably will do -- than for it be done by the court. i think the court did everything it could, really.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 17:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

Yeah, that's sort of how I took this one too. Court was all, you took it out of our hands, so you now have to live with yourselves while all these other states show you up.

nu hollywood (Eric H.), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 17:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

tipsy and Eric OTM

Unclench, y'all, unclench (HI DERE), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 17:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

Yeah - unfortunate, but predictable.

Two Will Get You Three (B.L.A.M.), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 17:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

Here is my friend Steve's report, live from city hall in SF:

it was weird there. all this chanting, then one long-haired dude came out with this thumbs down, all the gays started shouting "shame on you" and the pro-prop 8ers cheered, then the gays crossed the street to chant somewhere else, and it was over.

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 18:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

traffic being blocked now, apparently.

Lame that the courts didn't strike this down, but they didn't really have a legal rationale for doing so. You can't rule constitutional amendments unconstitutional.

back to the ballot box.

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 19:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

it'll happen

blair underwood: "man up" (omar little), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 19:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

the ruling is pretty interesting tho:

Proposition 8 reasonably must be interpreted in a limited fashion as eliminating only the right of same-sex couples to equal access to the designation of marriage, and as not otherwise affecting the constitutional right of those couples to establish an officially recognized family relationship.
Ruling, pg. 37. And:

Accordingly, although Proposition 8 eliminates the ability of same-sex couples to enter into an official relationship designated “marriage,” in all other respects those couples continue to possess, under the state constitutional privacy and due process clauses, “the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage,” including, “most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage.” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 781.) Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples enjoy this protection not as a matter of legislative grace, but of constitutional right. Page 41

so it seems like they're explicitly saying prop. 8 isn't (and can't) take away rights, only the designation of the word "marriage." wonder how that will play out. is there an existing civil unions law in the state?

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 19:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

I... think so?

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 19:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

It's a slippery answer to a tough question. They're talking out of both sides of their judge holes b/c they don't want to be pinned down.

I haven't read the decision (in whole) but this fits w/ the idea that marriages that were performed are still valid but that no new ones can take place. Everyone has the right the constitutional rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, but Prop 8 forbids "official" marriage.

Blech.

you'rine school (Jesse), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 19:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

I finally read Sam Schulman's article and this
Now to live in such a system, in which sexual intercourse can be illicit, is a great nuisance. Many of us feel that licit sexuality loses, moreover, a bit of its oomph.

reminds me a lot of Kirk Cameron's dad's assertion re gay sex

“It’s pure sexuality. It’s almost like pure heroin. It’s such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they’ll take enormous risks, do anything.”

He says that for married men and women, gay sex would be irresistible. “Marital sex tends toward the boring end,” he points out. “Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does”

you'rine school (Jesse), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 19:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

Man, I need to use this line of reasoning on straight buddies.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 19:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

hetero sex is pretty fuckin dope fwiw

blair underwood: "man up" (omar little), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 19:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

reminds me a lot of Kirk Cameron's dad's assertion re gay sex

wait what

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 19:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

Source of the Paul Cameron quote http://www.pflagdetroit.org/Holy_War_OnGays.htm

you'rine school (Jesse), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 19:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

That is not the Kirk Cameron of "Growing Pains" fame, btw. It is a different Kirk Cameron.

Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 19:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

Oh crap. Really?

you'rine school (Jesse), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

too good to be true I guess

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

Haha - I'm embarrassed, but you can probably understand why I thought his son was THE Kirk Cameron.

you'rine school (Jesse), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

Yes. California recognizes the "domestic partner" status for (a) same-sex couples and (b) heterosexual couples where one of the partners is 62 or over. They are afforded the same rights as married couples, but are just not "married."

Two Will Get You Three (B.L.A.M.), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

And neither the 2008 decision or this most recent one (so far as I can tell) affects this.

Two Will Get You Three (B.L.A.M.), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

er... why (b)?

Unclench, y'all, unclench (HI DERE), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

not sure, California doesn't allow common law marriage either ... unless you were common law in a state that recognizes it before you moved to California.

giving a shit when it isn't your turn to give a shit (sarahel), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

(b) is very weird.

you'rine school (Jesse), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

END MAY-DECEMBER DISCRIMINATION NOW

Unclench, y'all, unclench (HI DERE), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

Oh wait, maybe that's a loophole to get elderly relatives onto your health plan? But wouldn't they already be classifiable as dependents, anyway?

Unclench, y'all, unclench (HI DERE), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

Maybe it's a way to make sure that older people who're likely to spend time in the hosp get to have their partner of their waning years qualify as family? It seems like a really weird differentiation, but I guess with the number of "single" retirees, maybe it makes sense?

But not someone who should be dead anyway (Laurel), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

oic, like retirement home repairings where you are not at all likely to get married

Unclench, y'all, unclench (HI DERE), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

Right, exactly.

But not someone who should be dead anyway (Laurel), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

I understand, and who knows what sort of process went on to arrive at this decision, but still, it's not like old folks are forbidden from having an official marriage. No harm in it I guess, still odd.

you'rine school (Jesse), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

there are lots of reasons old folks don't remarry, almost all of them legal/financial. For ex., if you remarry, you may lose pension benefits of dead spouse, etc.

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

I don't think pension benefits work that way. Most death benefits don't have remarriage rules from my understanding, but there are undoubtedly other legal/financial issues.

giving a shit when it isn't your turn to give a shit (sarahel), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

pension benefits from divorce settlements probably have a remarriage clause.

giving a shit when it isn't your turn to give a shit (sarahel), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

could be, I dunno the niceties of the law in these cases - just speaking from personal experience where my divorced dad has no plans to marry his widowed girlfriend because her dead husband stuck some clause about her being cut off financially from his benefits if she remarried

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

into his will

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 20:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

My grandfather's will had a remarriage clause...so my crazy step-grandmother has been living with her much younger ex-con boyfriend for like a decade rather than lose the inheritance that pays for her life (and his).

But not someone who should be dead anyway (Laurel), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 21:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

Oooh, a telling xp.

But not someone who should be dead anyway (Laurel), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 21:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

maybe its just me but having that in your will seems like a sign of collosal assholism

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 21:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

Well, it was old fashioned of him. He married her to provide for her -- his responsibility as the man in her life. If she met and loved and married another man after him, that would be her new husband's responsibility. The end result is that she got all his lifetime of savings to put toward her support as a widow, and his children did not. Now she uses the money to support the man in her life.

My grandpa assumed that she would do the "honest" thing b/c he thought she was a person who shared his worldviews. Unfortunately that turned out not to be the case.

Btw fuck you.

But not someone who should be dead anyway (Laurel), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 21:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

haha sorry didn't mean to offend.

I was just thinking of it in terms of wanting your spouse to continue to be happy and cared for after you're gone. I mean, if I die I want my wife to be happy and if that means marrying someone else then hey, more power to her. I'll be dead, what will I care.

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 21:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

Yah. It's weird, I guess, bc they married late under strange circumstances and she didn't raise his family or endure being young and poor and struggling or anything. She was a younger woman who showed up late and walked off with the cash.

The offspring that would have inherited are all over it, it's been like 15 years. Just the injustice bothers me now.

But not someone who should be dead anyway (Laurel), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 21:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

You can't rule constitutional amendments unconstitutional.

Well, sure you can. e.g., if a simple majority of california voters approved a ballot measure amending the constitution to state that Jews could not own property in certain ZIP codes, that would fail the court's equal protection test.

tipsy mothra otm: the ruling effectively says "the initiative can stand (and we want to stay out of the business of overturning initiatives as much as possible) SO LONG AS there is no difference under the law between "marriage" and "whatever it is we call the legal union of a same-sex couple."

Or, sure, you can pass your no-property-for-Jews amendment so long as they can own "stuff."

A no-drama ruling is frustrating and disappointing but probably the right one for this state right now. The people will resolve it, and when they do the court will have demonstrated it's not in the business of challenging the people's will.

all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Tuesday, 26 May 2009 22:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

Now I've seen everything -- Ted Olson's going to fight against Prop 8 in federal court.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 27 May 2009 18:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

hmm. it seems to me (and a lot of people i've read on the issue) that if/when the supreme court rules on this, the better case to push will be on enforceable contracts, not on a federal "right to marry." i'm not at all confident that the current court is going to establish that right.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 27 May 2009 18:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

(plus i can't get past the sense that olson is looking for a little civil-rights glory in his old age, and this is the last train leaving the station. i can understand not wanting bush v. gore as the only thing in the lead of your obituary.)

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 27 May 2009 18:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

enforceable contracts

what does this mean

Wrinkles, I'll See You On the Other Side (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 27 May 2009 18:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

I wonder what Ann Coultier thinks about Ted Olson now.

Alex in SF, Wednesday, 27 May 2009 18:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

jeez ned the comments thread under that story o_0

all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 27 May 2009 18:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

i'd quote some but they make me too gnaqrr

all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 27 May 2009 18:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

My favorite obtuse comment, and one that I have read more than a few times: "Homosexual men can marry....women. Homosexual women can marry....men. How are they not equal to heterosexuals?"

you'rine school (Jesse), Wednesday, 27 May 2009 19:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

Sorry this isn't about the US but over here in Ireland, did not realise this: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0227/1224241892986.html

A NATIONAL poll commissioned by a group campaigning for gay marriage has found that 62 per cent of respondents would vote Yes in a referendum to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples.

The campaign group MarriagEquality said yesterday the poll results showed the public was ready to accept civil marriage for lesbians and gay men.

Government ministers have ruled out same-sex marriage on the basis that it would require a referendum which, they say, would be the subject of a deeply divisive public debate.

The poll was conducted by Lansdowne Market Research between October 15th and 30th, 2008. A national sample of 1,000 people over 15 years of age were interviewed.

A breakdown of the results shows that support is strongest among younger people and in urban areas. Women were more supportive at 68 per cent compared to 56 per cent of men.

There was slightly less support for same-sex couples being given the right to adopt. A total of 58 per cent of those under 50 believe same-sex couples should be able to adopt, falling to 33 per cent among the over-50s.

A total of 54 per cent believe the definition of the family unit in the Constitution should be changed to include same-sex families.

Gráinne Healy, co-chair of MarriagEquality, said the findings supported the group’s calls for the Government to recognise that equality includes the human and civil rights of lesbian women and gay men to marry.

“There are many different family types in Ireland, including lesbians and gay parents. The Irish public recognise this fact, with seven out of 10 believing that being raised in a loving home is the key determinant in ensuring that children are happy and well.”

A civil partnership Bill is due before the Dáil shortly which will allow lesbian and gay couples to register with the State and avail of privileges in areas such as pensions, inheritance and tax.

Officials say it will stop short of marriage and will not provide any right for same-sex couples to adopt. Groups such as MarriagEquality say this does not go far enough. Moninne Griffith, MarriagEquality’s co-ordinator, said it was within the Government’s power to legislate for civil marriage for same-sex couples.

“Until the Government acts, Ireland is infringing upon the rights of a section of Irish society. There is no time to waste; equality for all people on this island must become a reality,” she said.

❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉Plaxico❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉ (I know, right?), Wednesday, 27 May 2009 23:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

That's great. Also, don't apologize, this is not an American thread, it's a gay marriage thread!

you'rine school (Jesse), Thursday, 28 May 2009 00:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

Read this earlier

Eamon Farrell will marry his partner Steven Mannion this summer as his proud brother, Colin Farrell serves as best man.

The excited groom-to-be says unfortunately, the nuptials cannot take place in his homeland of Ireland. 'We have to get married abroad. It's absolutely terrible," Eamon Farrell says. "We have to go somewhere legal, which narrows it down to about five countries."

(bastard BBCode won't let me make that a link grumblegrumble http://www.gaywired.com/Article.cfm?ID=22895)

you'rine school (Jesse), Thursday, 28 May 2009 00:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

what does this mean

article 4, section 1 of the constitution:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

the thinking basically is that it will be an easier sell that contracts made in one state have to apply in others than that the "right to marry" is a constitutional right. several states have laws or state constitutional amendments specifically exempting same-sex marriages from this, which seems blatantly unconstitutional. if the supreme court said that, then any same-sex marriage in any state would have to be honored everywhere.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

honest question, and not a lawyer: what is blatantly unconstitutional about that? is "Full Faith and Credit..." a power explicitly delegated to the United States? if it isn't, then the 10th amendment would suggest that the states can explicitly excise same-sex marriages from those public acts or records they feel like honoring. right? i mean, i'm in favor of same-sex marriages, but i'm not sure that that thinking is bullet-proof, or an easier sell.

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:07 (eight years ago) Permalink

as a condition of belonging to the union, the states are constitutionally required to recognize each other's "acts, records and judicial proceedings." e.g., wisconsin can't unilaterally decide not to recognize debts incurred in utah. if it did, all the utah debtors would just move to wisconsin. a marriage is a contract (as far as the state is concerned, anyway), and contracts made in one state, under the constitution, have to be enforceable in another. which is exactly why some states have passed laws or amendments carving out same-sex marriages as an exception. there may be a constitutional case for that (i'm not a lawyer either), but the case against it is on the surface pretty straightforward and compelling.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

there's a bit about its specific application to gay marriage on the wikipedia faith-and-credit clause page, noting that scalia identified it as the likely chink in the armor.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

i don't know if it's come up since then but someone tried this in florida a few years ago and it failed. they just said florida can legitimately decide its state policy is not to have gay marriage, and making them recognize it would mean that massachusetts would be determining what the law is for every state (that seems like if you took that to its logical conclusion the FFC means nothing but i think that's what it says). and by passing DOMA congress is within its power to say what effect the laws of other states have. i don't know too much about the FFC but it's not really a magic bullet.

harbl, Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

Which is why when DOMA finally becomes before SCOTUS, a laywer may cite the full faith and credit clause to assert the act's unconstitutionality.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

meanwhile the Ted Olson saga gets stranger: Gay groups: We don't want Olson.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

the case is wilson v. ake. it wasn't appealed to the 11th circuit though so that's just one district in florida.

harbl, Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

it is definitely not a magic bullet, but it's a more hardcore constitutional issue than the "right to marry."

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

(like, it's very easy for me to believe that a 5-member majority including kennedy would decline to rule for a right to marry. but a constitutional contracts argument could sway at least one of them. maybe even scalia, although he'd probably do some kind of jujitsu to get out of it.)

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

On an anecdotal sidenote: Jeffrey Toobin's book on the Court describes most of the justices being ok with homos personally. A clerk was touched by a letter Rehnquist wrote him when his partner died. Clerks brought their partners to the annual cocktail hour with the justices, and were introduced as such.

For the I'm Not Surprised File: Clarence Thomas even kept pictures of a lesbian clerk's partner on his desk (!!)

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

except there is a constitutional right to marry! like you're right the court would definitely decline to extend it to same-sex couples if it came up today but it's not because it doesn't exist. xp

harbl, Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

right, yeah, i mean a right to marry that extends to gay couples.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

sorry what i meant was i don't feel like either one is more likely to succeed because arguments exist both ways, but still...........gays.

harbl, Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

i don't know, i think a ruling on faith-and-credit seems more inevitable, because there are going to start be a kazillion complications from having people married in some states but not in other states.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

in other words, the exact kind of legal nightmare that the clause very explicitly intends to obviate.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 28 May 2009 01:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

Um, what explicitly pissed me off with the Irish one is the government saying in advance that marriage isn't going to happen despite the massive support in its favour.

❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉Plaxico❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉❉ (I know, right?), Thursday, 28 May 2009 09:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

i think at this point the media just assumes everyone north of new haven is in a gay marriage.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 21:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

Dan Savage calls for civil disobedience. I'm almost ready to join him.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 19 June 2009 00:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

Go for broke, I figure.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 19 June 2009 00:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

Still mad at Savage for his scapegoating black people in the wake of Prop 8.

keep your penis out that's hilarious (The Reverend), Friday, 19 June 2009 04:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

Why would gays be pissed off by the Vice-President pledging to push harder on issues that affect them?

get money fuck witches (HI DERE), Friday, 26 June 2009 21:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

cuz they'd been talking for months about how they were going to boycott this event and make a big stink at it about Obama's lack of action?

And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 June 2009 21:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

from all the talk previously this was shaping up to be a PR nightmare for Obama, but now its completely buried

And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 June 2009 21:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

50 of them did protest and called gay representatives "gay Uncle Toms" (which kind of points up how ppl should really read source material and not just be lazy parrots but that's another argument)

get money fuck witches (HI DERE), Friday, 26 June 2009 21:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

called gay representatives "gay Uncle Toms"

wow, I'm sure these people have the best of intentions but they really can go fuck themselves

im white beyonce (The Reverend), Friday, 26 June 2009 22:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

right there with you on that

get money fuck witches (HI DERE), Friday, 26 June 2009 22:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

ppl should really read source material

I know, right? Uncle Tom was totally gay.

bad crack (Eric H.), Friday, 26 June 2009 23:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

called gay representatives "gay Uncle Toms"

lolz was "house homos" already taken

And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 June 2009 23:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

just view it like the 100% wrong use of "immaculate conception" for "virgin birth"

Dr Morbius, Saturday, 27 June 2009 01:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

DADT to be taken up by Senate committees this fall

girlish in the worst sense of that term (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 27 July 2009 23:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

Maggie Gallagher, I love you:

The Borg Blinks [Maggie Gallagher]

In "The Carrie Effect," I point out that gay-marriage advocates are like the Borg. Resistance is futile.

Heric E. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 27 July 2009 23:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

LA Times interviews Ted Olson about gay marriage.

Heric E. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 3 August 2009 14:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

Clinton has "changed his mind" about gay marriage and is now no longer against it. Gee thanks a lot douchebag.

man, motherfuck a paddington bear (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 25 September 2009 21:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

Way to put your figer to the wind, there, Bill.

l'homme moderne: il forniquait et lisait des journaux (Michael White), Friday, 25 September 2009 21:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20091104/pl_cq_politics/politics3239042

really, really disheartening

k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 November 2009 16:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

On the other hand, it wasn't exactly a landslide.

I yanked that sucker hard, and work it did. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 16:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

I feel a sense of regional shame that New England is viewed as the most receptive area of the country to gay couples and not, oh, CALIFORNIA. wtf

I forgot my mantra (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 16:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

wtf is wrong with people?

carne asada, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 16:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

This one's been making the rounds and is very good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2nsGtd7y3c

cough syrup in coke cans (Eric H.), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 16:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

I feel a sense of regional shame that New England is viewed as the most receptive area of the country to gay couples and not, oh, CALIFORNIA. wtf

I think this is really a misnomer, as disappointed as I was by the results on Prop 8.

The Bay Area - alright, probably pretty receptive to gay rights.

But where else? Los Angeles, with its HUGE conservative Latino population? San Diego? The Central Valley? The Central Coast? Up North?

None of these areas are very politically liberal when it comes to social issues.

Ultraviolet Thunder (B.L.A.M.), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 16:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

really surprised by this...

feed them to the (Linden Ave) lions (will), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 16:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

Yes! You and your god have won! Hooray!

http://i.imgur.com/FDFx2.jpg

Fucking retards.

StanM, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

smh

k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

So that old lady who's kneeling in thanksgiving, we're pretty much just waiting for her and her kind to die, right?

I would feel confident if I dated her because I am older than (Laurel), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

I realize she's someone's mother, sister, but personally, I hope that day is soon.

So angry.

I would feel confident if I dated her because I am older than (Laurel), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

However!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/us/04washington.html

jaymc, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

the maine vote by far the most disappointing result of yesterday's elections. the other big races were party politics, take 'em or leave 'em. but this one, i just really hoped some of that supposed hardheaded maine decency would come through.

what's most dispiriting is just the sense that you can't win this fight and keep it won. even in a state where the legislature passed it and the governor signed it.

STRATE IN2 DAKRNESS (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

and the washington vote is good (assuming it holds up), but it's still depressing they had to call it "everything but marriage."

STRATE IN2 DAKRNESS (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

Fucking retards.

― StanM, Wednesday, November 4, 2009 12:04 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

carne asada, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

If segregation legislation had to be passed by/could be overturned by referenda in the states many people would still be drinking out of different water fountains. ARGH.

Also I do wonder if it isn't psychologically easier to get people to vote yes to something rather than no - so perhaps YES to marriage/civil partnerships on a ballot would be more passable than NO don't repeal the shiny new law.

fake plastic butts (suzy), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'd like the numbers for how many people would have opposed the Voting Rights Act had it gone to state referenda.

I yanked that sucker hard, and work it did. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

So that old lady who's kneeling in thanksgiving, we're pretty much just waiting for her and her kind to die, right?

That is correct. And as you know from the polling numbers it really won't be long. I take a weird comfort from knowing that these folks are burning up their children's inheritances just to defer the inevitable for a couple of years.

"I will stop gay marriage or die trying" gallows lulz

all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

the other people in that photo don't exactly look decrepit though :(

lex pretend, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

can we estimate the years since last getting laid for each person in that photo plz

I forgot my mantra (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

xpost fortunately that's not the way this generational cohort stuff works when the margins are so narrow

all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

VIRGINS ALL

TGAAPQ (Mr. Que), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

would put money on the denim-jacketed mouth-breathing dude being a virgin

xps

lex pretend, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

The woman in the black vest in the middle of the shot is clearly undercover with the "Yes on 1" campaign and her rictus grin only hides her sorrow that she and her softball-playing girlfriend will have to postpone their honeymoon to Montana.

I would feel confident if I dated her because I am older than (Laurel), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 17:55 (eight years ago) Permalink

the ad is a copy of an irish one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ

sinéad >>> megan imo

plaks (I know, right?), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

Part of it is that there will always be people who let their ease of disgust co-mingle with their lazy political beliefs, and since there is a great amount of people who view marriage as legitimizing sex and are thus squicked out by the thought of male gay sex, this aspect will never go away. Mix that with people views on identity and trad gender roles, and you've an uphill climb to make.

Still, the horrid aspects of many state's initiative/referenda process seem to be laid bare every election cycle, as there's no shortage of well-funded reactionaries who always manage to get bullshit on the ballot.

kingfish, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

kingfish otm that this is never really about "marriage" per se but about legitimacy.

goole, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

interesting that in Maine as in California, the polls don't quite reflect the vote. apparently the christian bigots don't see anything wrong with lying to poll-takers.

what I heard from people canvassing in Maine is that there were plenty of young people willing to take away other people's rights.

question: do people tend to become socially more conservative as they get older? are all of these teenagers who say they have no problem with same-sex marriage going to feel the same way in 10 or 20 years? I hope so, but I'm not so sure...

Dan S, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

look at it like this: how would a vote have gone down 20-30 years ago? 80-20 against or something? let them celebrate for now, they just don't know their history and how it's all going to turn out in the end. it sucks at this moment but it's gonna happen.

jØrdån (omar little), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

p.s. from the coates link: are you fuckin kidding me?

It's quite clear to me that Jim Crow in the South could not have been struck down by a majority vote; interracial marriage was banned in Alabama until 2000, and even then, some 40 percent of Alabamans voted to keep it.

jØrdån (omar little), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

look at it like this: how would a vote have gone down 20-30 years ago? 80-20 against or something? let them celebrate for now, they just don't know their history and how it's all going to turn out in the end. it sucks at this moment but it's gonna happen.

Agree, but with that said we should make sure we are pushing forward on this issue; complacency leads to entropy and equal rights issues are not something that should be allowed to fade into the background.

Also I'm not at all surprised by that info re: Alabama; I actually think most of the country feels that way.

The Dance at the Crossroads (HI DERE), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

Well, no person is actually WITHOUT prejudice of some kind. But you don't have to vote with your comfort level, do you?? It ought to be possible to vote against what you, yourself, would do because it's NOT ABOUT YOU, OKAY?

I would feel confident if I dated her because I am older than (Laurel), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

There's already a lot of fatalism out there on the anti-marriage front about exactly what Omar is talking about. Example via Dreher, quoted by Coates:

...gay marriage has been a loser. Do I think it always will be? No, I do not, in part because homosexuality is far more accepted by young Americans, and in part because heterosexual America has already conceded the philosophical grounds on which traditional marriage was based (which is why younger Americans are more comfortable with gay marriage). Nor do I believe that the voters are always right.

And there's been similar points made elsewhere -- things DO change, though the frustrations are obvious, and Dan's OTM re: keeping the pressure on. If anything, the anti side seem increasingly wearied.

Keep an eye on the Ted Olson/David Boies action too -- likely this was already linked upthread but it's a good reminder.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

Keep an eye on the Ted Olson/David Boies action too

okay lol at slash

The Dance at the Crossroads (HI DERE), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

basically i think the best strategy is to maintain good cheer and gaiety in the face of this prejudice, which is weakening. much like yankee haters should take heart in the fact that the average age of derek jeter, mariano rivera, andy pettitte, jorge posada, hideki matsui, johnny damon, and alex rodriguez is 37 and rising.

jØrdån (omar little), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

gaiety

o rlly

I yanked that sucker hard, and work it did. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

okay lol at slash

Hahah oh dear.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

A rictus of pleasure.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

Olson looks like he eats a bowl of Quaker Oats every morning.

I yanked that sucker hard, and work it did. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 18:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

A rictus of pleasure.

if it lasts more than 4 hours, call a mortician.

STRATE IN2 DAKRNESS (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

call leticia, your mortician...

lex pretend, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

BAN MARRIAGE

Your Favorite Saturday Night Thing (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

if gay marriage is illegal, only gay outlaws will have marriages.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080928/obit-newman/images/81b14fe7-8c1f-4d7f-a6f9-9d4dfaae19d3.jpg

STRATE IN2 DAKRNESS (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

question: do people tend to become socially more conservative as they get older? are all of these teenagers who say they have no problem with same-sex marriage going to feel the same way in 10 or 20 years? I hope so, but I'm not so sure...

The answer is no. People do not tend to get more socially conservative as they get older. They tend to hold on to a core worldview from cradle to grave. Older people present as more socially conservative because they reflect the dominant paradigm of 30-50 years ago.

all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:27 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://www.standformarriagemaine.com/?p=525
...
http://www.otsd.org/Directories/directories.htm
Assistant Principle of Leonard Middle School?
jenni✧✧✧.c✧✧@rs✧✧✧.o✧✧

owl city's cover of "such great heights" (Tape Store), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

It really does seem like it's up to Olson and Boies now. The state-by-state strategy does seem to have played out. we now have an anti-gay governor of New Jersey who has stated that he will veto any same-sex marriage legislation and work toward an amendment to keep it down. The NY legislature couldn't be more cowardly, and will likely use the win in Maine as an excuse for inaction. What's left, DC? Maybe Washington state will take the next step if referndum 71 is approved. Other than that it doesn't look too hopeful in the short-term.

"look at it like this: how would a vote have gone down 20-30 years ago? 80-20 against or something? let them celebrate for now, they just don't know their history and how it's all going to turn out in the end. it sucks at this moment but it's gonna happen."

I agree with this, but I don't feel like I have 20-30 years. Are you satisfied with waiting that long? MA approved same-sex marriage 5 years ago and the sky hasn't fallen. The time is now. I'm just not sure what we can do about it except not shut up or let go, ever.

Dan S, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

I am, yes, a terrible person but what about starting a website called thebigotlist.com

owl city's cover of "such great heights" (Tape Store), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:39 (eight years ago) Permalink

question: do people tend to become socially more conservative as they get older? are all of these teenagers who say they have no problem with same-sex marriage going to feel the same way in 10 or 20 years? I hope so, but I'm not so sure...

The answer is no. People do not tend to get more socially conservative as they get older. They tend to hold on to a core worldview from cradle to grave. Older people present as more socially conservative because they reflect the dominant paradigm of 30-50 years ago.

― all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Wednesday, November 4, 2009 7:27 PM (11 minutes ago)

my sister's first yr psychology textbook kinda said the opposite, i don't want to dig it out but what you said is not necc true maybe(?)

plaks (I know, right?), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

i don't think people change as much as the world changes around them, and since they don't move from their positions they're more conservative contextually. they may have been incredibly liberal thirty years previously.

jØrdån (omar little), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

i think what happens is that people's personalities don't change all that much after 30, it's just that cranky people tend to die earlier

owl city's cover of "such great heights" (Tape Store), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:42 (eight years ago) Permalink

guys there was a snappy new yorkerish cartoon that made it memorable

plaks (I know, right?), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

Dan S., I'd suggest this: say what you want about Sullivan, I think he put it best last night:

In Washington State, another referendum on gay couples' equality was also a squeaker. But in this one, gay couples won. The state's domestic partnership law grants gay couples all the rights of married couples at a state level. The usual forces tried to reverse it, as they tried in Maine. But in Washington, the gay side won by 51.1 to 48.9 percent. Again, it's such a slender margin, it's stupid to draw any vast conclusions.

But I do want to point out that, from the perspective of just a decade ago, to have an even split on this question in a voter referendum is a huge shift in the culture. In Maine, where the Catholic church did all it could to prevent gays from having civil rights in a very Catholic and rural state, gays do have equality but may now merely be denied the name. The process itself has helped educate and enlighten and deepen the debate about gay people in ways that never happened before the marriage issue came up.

I am heart-broken tonight by Maine, and I'd be lying if I said otherwise.

Somehow losing by this tiny margin is brutalizing. And because this is a vote on my dignity as a human being, it is hard not to take it personally or emotionally. But I also know that the history of civil rights movements has many steps backward as forward, and some of those reversals actually catalyze the convictions that lead to victories. A decade ago, the marriage issue was toxic. Now it divides evenly. Soon, it will win everywhere.

The trick is *not to stop* -- and not to pin hopes on one sole approach.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

No one's going to have to wait 30 years. These measures are barely passing today.

Shit the mere fact that you can say you don't want to wait 30 years is a sort of astonishing measure of how close this is to happen. 30 years ago the mere question of marriage would have been incoherent to even the fringiest fringe of activism. 30 ago Liberace was afraid to COME OUT!

all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

Hell I remember reading through Virtually Normal back whenever it was released in the mid-nineties and thinking, "Can't happen, can it?"

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

Sullivan OTM. The dispirited handwringing at every setback is sorta not helpful. Time, demographics, and the equaninimity of the law are on our side.

I forgot my mantra (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah but we could all be dead tomorrow. fuck this noize, i'm getting some lions, gonna persecute me some christians.

feed them to the (Linden Ave) lions (will), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

Yum!

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

This is like one of the few areas where it's helpful to view the political cycle like a sports season. This round of matches is done, now it's time to dust off and begin gearing up for the next round.

More proactive pro-equality legislation would be a good idea for the next set of contests, IMO.

The Dance at the Crossroads (HI DERE), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

why all the eggs are in the marriage basket, I ... well, I do know. Boring.

Your Favorite Saturday Night Thing (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

I anticipate Prop 8 is gonna get reversed in CA

I forgot my mantra (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

i think that is an awesome contribution morbz, huggles!

plaks (I know, right?), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 19:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

"Sullivan OTM. The dispirited handwringing at every setback is sorta not helpful. Time, demographics, and the equaninimity of the law are on our side."

not sure I agree with this. it seems to me it would be in our best interest to make it clear to the public just how hurtful and cruel these kinds of votes are, how they isolate one group of people and declare them less than equal.

Dan S, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

i think the folks who best recognize this/don't care about it will be of voting age more and more over the next decade. history will show maggie gallagher and her ilk to be the "anti-irish/anti-black" political cartoonists of the 21st century.

jØrdån (omar little), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

it seems to me it would be in our best interest to make it clear to the public just how hurtful and cruel these kinds of votes are, how they isolate one group of people and declare them less than equal.

that's part and parcel with moving forward and continuing to launch ballot initiatives and legal challenges afaict

I forgot my mantra (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm just saying there's gonna be a lot of defeats. It isn't productive to moan about them. Learn from them, yes.

I forgot my mantra (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

also lolz look at the people in that photo - do you really think they can be shamed/reasoned with. They need to be defeated by sheer numbers and by the due application of the law. You aren't going to change their votes by loudly declaiming how hurtful and discriminatory they're being.

I forgot my mantra (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

true, but I think there is a much bigger group of people who vote for these things who really haven't thought much about it, who maybe don't even realize what they're doing to other people. these are the people we need to have discussions with.

Dan S, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

it seems to me it would be in our best interest to make it clear to the public just how hurtful and cruel these kinds of votes are, how they isolate one group of people and declare them less than equal.

wait do you really think they don't know this? imho it would be more useful to point out that the more the gays get married the less they'll be out there recruiting for their lifestyle!

all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

i think a lot of the voters are like some older relatives who just think, "well that sort of thing sounds awfully strange, i dunno about that..." and they're the types who may eventually come around and calling them bigots doesn't do much good imo. the right-wingers who are stridently anti-gay, let alone anti-gay marriage, you might as well just forget about them and not even bother to attack nor argue with their position.

jØrdån (omar little), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

well that plus a pre-election tv blitz promizing that "they will teach teh ghey to our children in the schools!!!"

which tbf i'd be fine with that so, y'know, let the slippery slope commence

all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

i'm just saying look how well the whole "hath not a jew eyes" thing worked

all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:26 (eight years ago) Permalink

Well, everyone reads The Merchant of Venice now.

I yanked that sucker hard, and work it did. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

Meanwhile, roffle.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

herd gays don't always bleed if they get pricked tho

plaks (I know, right?), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:38 (eight years ago) Permalink

omar's assessment of the opposition very OTM, I think

I forgot my mantra (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

on the upside, Maine did pass Question 5, allowing Maine gays to more effectively manage their grief and rage with marijuana!

all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:41 (eight years ago) Permalink

if you prick them, gays will BLEED ON YOUR CHILDREN

goole, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 20:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

hey yall,

say i wanted to organize something to donate money to the pro marriage movement, what would be the best org to donate to? i imagine some are more productive & effective than others

heart goin ham (deej), Thursday, 5 November 2009 02:43 (eight years ago) Permalink

good question. I've been giving money regularly to the HRC and Equality California, but I'm not sure either one of those organizations has been particularly effective. I think Jesse Connolly ran an excellent campaign in Maine despite the bad outcome, so I look forward with interest to any campaign he signs on to in the future.

Dan S, Thursday, 5 November 2009 03:08 (eight years ago) Permalink

From Savage Love a few months ago:

My fiancé and I—we're a straight couple—are getting married in July. We've lived together for four years, and as such we don't need any more then we already have. We're asking friends and family to make donations to nonprofits that are dear to us in lieu of traditional gifts. We're both grade-school teachers, so the bulk of our requests are related to the needs of our students. (Shameless plug: Refugee Women's Alliance and New Futures are two amazing programs that specifically serve students where we live.) We're including Planned Parenthood on our list, and we would like to include a nonprofit that advocates for marriage equality. Which one would you suggest?

Soon To Be Married

Thanks for thinking of us, STBM, which is more than President Obama is willing to do: I would recommend that you put Lambda Legal (they're lawyers, they sue) and Freedom to Marry (they're advocates, they woo) on your list. Unlike most national gay organizations, Lambda Legal and Freedom to Marry do good work and get results. Thanks and congratulations!

jaymc, Thursday, 5 November 2009 04:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

If segregation legislation had to be passed by/could be overturned by referenda in the states many people would still be drinking out of different water fountains. ARGH.

Is this really a direct parallel? or is this again more of a federal vs. state situation?

cough syrup in coke cans (Eric H.), Thursday, 5 November 2009 13:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

HRC is a fucking waste of your $. Clueless "insiders" all the way.

Your Favorite Saturday Night Thing (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 November 2009 14:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah i gave to them once in a fit of protest at something or other, and then read enough about them to keep me from giving again.

STRATE IN2 DAKRNESS (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 5 November 2009 15:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

Sullivan's been pretty good over the years of listing examples of HRC's sycophancy.

I yanked that sucker hard, and work it did. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 November 2009 15:06 (eight years ago) Permalink

John Cole droppin' a truth bomb:

I honestly don’t know where the gay rights movement goes from here. There have been some recent successes- there seems to be some movement on DADT, an openly gay mayor was elected in North Carolina, Washington state passed a gay rights bill, Obama signed the Shephard legislation, the HIV ban was lifted, and some other victories in other states in recent years. At the same time, I understand (as much as I can) the anger and the frustration. They did the right things- they had bills passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, followed the legitimate political process, and unlike any other civil rights issue, laws are only temporary for gays and a year later it gets overturned in referendums. It has to be maddening, and I have no answers. About the only thing I can do is to stop being a jerk and openly taunting gay bloggers when I think they are doing something stupid or flailing pointlessly at the administration, because at this point I can’t think anything other than that they have every right to be pissed. I don’t know if it will work, but maybe the only recourse left for the gay rights movement is legitimate anger. Nothing else seems to be working.

Bears Are Alive! (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 5 November 2009 16:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

The next step is to challenge the Maine referendum as being unconstitutional, IMO. (don't know if it will work but that's the avenue I'd try)

The Dance at the Crossroads (HI DERE), Thursday, 5 November 2009 16:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

I also wonder if there is some type of organized boycott/protest re: refusing to pay state and federal taxes until this issue is resolved that could be organized.

The Dance at the Crossroads (HI DERE), Thursday, 5 November 2009 16:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

Overall, 51 percent of voters said same-sex couples should be allowed to become legally married in the state, and 43% were opposed. But by nearly twice as large a margin, 56 to 41 percent, voters did not want the issue to appear on the ballot again in 2010.

squarefair (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 November 2009 00:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

^^^er that's in California, poll released today

squarefair (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 November 2009 00:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

i think marriage is pointless aside from legal issues but that's possibly more because i am without love than an atheist although both are true ;_;

or something, Tuesday, 10 November 2009 00:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

It feels like once this gets settled and dragged through the courts and gay marriage or gender neutral civil unions are standardized everyone's going to be so tired of hearing about marriage that a lot of people won't see it as any sort of big deal in general. If all the anti gay marriage people had sucked it up and encouraged it but asked for church-by-church exceptions it would have a lot more of the mystique or whatever intact ten years from now.

joygoat, Tuesday, 10 November 2009 03:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

Frank sez DADT to be repealed next year as part of Defense Authorization Bill

squarefair (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

thought it said 2011

plaxico (I know, right?), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

read it here, confused now tbh

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=28029

plaxico (I know, right?), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:44 (eight years ago) Permalink

well, the bill passed in 2010 is for the next year, i.e. 2011. Gov't doesn't exactly work on a pay-as-you-go scheme.

squarefair (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

wait what? not from ur country btw jus so u kno

plaxico (I know, right?), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

like getting snarky abt me not being 100% on how ur govt works seems pretty silly but then mayb that is how u roll

plaxico (I know, right?), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:50 (eight years ago) Permalink

that's not really snarky though

jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

But as an amendment, it could be made effective whenever they choose, Shakey, no?

l'homme moderne: il forniquait et lisait des journaux (Michael White), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:53 (eight years ago) Permalink

not trying to be snarky! sorry.

Appropriations/funding bills are passed for each fiscal year, not on a week-by-week or month-by-month basis. After all, the gov't only collects income taxes once a year. So in 2009 congress approves all the funding for 2010, in 2010 they approve all the funding for 2011, etc. This is kinda a standard budgeting practice for governments, isn't it? And since the DADT repeal is being included in an appropriations bill that will pass next year, that means it will go into effect in 2011. But the bill will have passed and the law will have been repealed in 2010. Make sense?

x-post

squarefair (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

But as an amendment, it could be made effective whenever they choose, Shakey, no?

well this is kinda true but what else would they amend it to? The defense budget is a bill that is guaranteed passage, no one's going to filibuster or vote it down based on this one amendment. Whereas if they amended it to some other random bill it might be more difficult to get through.

squarefair (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah i can see how in a large country like the US this would be a cumbersome move that would take up to a year to implement but living in a country with 4 million ppl I tend not to think of things like this, sorry for interpreting snark and thereby forcing this thread into digressions abt fiscal years :-/

plaxico (I know, right?), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 21:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

If they do pass it as an amendment, they probably won't tie it to any appropriations schedule but set out a timetable to amend the Title 10 of the US Code.

l'homme moderne: il forniquait et lisait des journaux (Michael White), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 21:09 (eight years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

That's good news. If you don't care about gay marriage. Which you don't.

really senile old crap shit (Eric H.), Saturday, 12 December 2009 17:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/prop-8-backers-seek-to-block-federal-trial-broadcast.html

"Many supporters of Proposition 8 who are being dragged into this case are fearful about being questioned about their personal, political and religious beliefs on the stand and having that televised," Pugno said.

I kinda have a hard time generating sympathy for these folks..

mayor jingleberries, Friday, 8 January 2010 22:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

fuck 'em

larry craig memorial gloryhole (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 January 2010 22:45 (eight years ago) Permalink

agreed

richie aprile (rockapads), Friday, 8 January 2010 22:51 (eight years ago) Permalink

Are they going to call that poor lady who runs El Coyote as a witness?

mayor jingleberries, Friday, 8 January 2010 22:59 (eight years ago) Permalink

fuck 'em

― larry craig memorial gloryhole (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, January 8, 2010 4:45 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

into the young coconuts (gbx), Saturday, 9 January 2010 01:36 (eight years ago) Permalink

wonderful piece by ted olson in newsweek

k3vin k., Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:25 (eight years ago) Permalink

I wonder if Ted Olson has a gay family member. Hes so passionate about it.

I also dont understand how this thing going on now is a 'trial'. Is some couple suing the state civilly for discrimination?

mayor jingleberries, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 20:21 (eight years ago) Permalink

Olson's a fascinating guy. For all his wingnut roots he gives the impression of a guy who's spent a lifetime carving out principles only to have them challenged recently, and he's sensitive enough to find a connection between "classic" conservatism and the support of gay marrriage.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 20:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

this might be old news but divorce rates lower in states that don't ban gay marriage

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html

plaxico (I know, right?), Friday, 15 January 2010 17:40 (eight years ago) Permalink

Is some couple suing the state civilly for discrimination?

yes gay couples are suing the state for violating their civil rights under the Constitution - no matter what happens this is the case that will go to the Supreme Court

shake hands with Gongo? (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 January 2010 17:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

Can't wait for embittered Scalia dissent.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 January 2010 17:52 (eight years ago) Permalink

maybe he'll get so bent-out-of-shape he'll just, you know, die already.

Prospective Liberal Troll (will), Friday, 15 January 2010 17:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

"So am I to understand that homosexualists, you know, what to stick penile objects yay big into their anuses? They're not the only ones who'll be asking for protection."

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2009/10/scalia.jpg

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 January 2010 17:56 (eight years ago) Permalink

I imagine he finds gays about as confusing as non-Christians (cf. his whole "the cross is not a religious symbol" argument)

shake hands with Gongo? (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 January 2010 17:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

"the penis goes WHERE?"

shake hands with Gongo? (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:00 (eight years ago) Permalink

^^^^ this would be a question to a lesbian couple

Jay Leno's Pony Vivisection Hour (HI DERE), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

btw this is a good book.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

Nino Scalia can probably imagine lots of positions for lesbians.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

Ha ha, I read the most apopleptic review of that book not long ago.

Enfonce bien tes ongles et tes doigts délicats dans la jungle de (Michael White), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

the title's the worst part.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

My post is a little misleading. The reviewer basically said that she outed him as a highly partisan judge in very bad faith.

Enfonce bien tes ongles et tes doigts délicats dans la jungle de (Michael White), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

i think people who read that book and don't think scalia is a highly partisan judge are only fooling themselves

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:17 (eight years ago) Permalink

Yeah, um, if anyone's been hoodwinked it's readers. I mean, Scalia doesn't equivocate or "clarify" public statements. He doesn't give a damn.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

http://cbs2.com/local/cindy.mccain.gay.2.1439011.html

('_') (omar little), Thursday, 21 January 2010 02:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

cindy.mccain.gay

max, Thursday, 21 January 2010 02:33 (eight years ago) Permalink

;)

mage pit laceration (gbx), Thursday, 21 January 2010 03:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

two months pass...

Defection at the fringes ain't a trend. People currently under 40 were overwhelmingly against 8; people currently over 60 were overwhlemingly against.

The difference was 300,000 votes. Next year a whole bunch of under 40s will be old enough to vote for the first time, and a whole bunch of over 60s will be dead. You do the math.

― Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, November 17, 2008

The math is gettin' done: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/50-of-californians-now-support-gay-marriage-poll-finds.html

all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Thursday, 25 March 2010 16:48 (eight years ago) Permalink

yeah this is gonna get overturned

"Say I Do" is a great slogan btw

Whats with all the littering? (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 25 March 2010 16:58 (eight years ago) Permalink

some friends are getting married in dc this weekend <3

mookieproof, Thursday, 25 March 2010 17:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

one month passes...

from Laura Bush's memoir:

"In 2004 the social question that animated the campaign was gay marriage. Before the election season had unfolded, I had talked to George about not making gay marriage a significant issue. We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay or whose children are gay. But at that moment I could never have imagined what path this issue would take and where it would lead."

cool and remote like dancing girls (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 28 April 2010 18:13 (eight years ago) Permalink

We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay

lindsey graham?

ibaka flocka flame (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 28 April 2010 18:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

Charlie Crist.

cool and remote like dancing girls (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 28 April 2010 18:15 (eight years ago) Permalink

Worrying about hurting people is so like a woman. GWB had his eyes on the REAL prize: the power to fuck over everyone you don't like.

Aimless, Wednesday, 28 April 2010 18:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

whereas Bill Clinton had his eyes on a different prize: the power to fuck everyone

Marriage, that's where I'm a Viking! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 28 April 2010 18:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

Obama, thankfully, has his eyes on what really counts: scaring the shit out of white people.

cool and remote like dancing girls (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 28 April 2010 18:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

two months pass...

YES

Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 July 2010 23:26 (seven years ago) Permalink

The article is weird, the comments...weirder.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 16 July 2010 19:57 (seven years ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

And here we go, it seems.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 20:36 (seven years ago) Permalink

so how many more appeals before this gets to the SC...? just the 9th Circuit?

Party Car! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 20:42 (seven years ago) Permalink

Yup.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 20:46 (seven years ago) Permalink

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.

oh man that second sentence

Mayor Hickenlooper and the liberal agenda (HI DERE), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 20:49 (seven years ago) Permalink

Some more language here

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 20:50 (seven years ago) Permalink

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 20:50 (seven years ago) Permalink

awe man :)

Pissed off our Weingarten (Stevie D), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 20:52 (seven years ago) Permalink

IT IS SO ORDERED <3

لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 20:52 (seven years ago) Permalink

ENGAGE

Party Car! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 20:55 (seven years ago) Permalink

Can't wait for Maggie Gallagher's response.

Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:07 (seven years ago) Permalink

I'd be fine if it was alcohol poisoning.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:09 (seven years ago) Permalink

Ted Olson is probably not a popular man at the Heritage Foundation right now.

Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:14 (seven years ago) Permalink

In deciding the case, Walker offered a variety of findings that may be as important as the ruling itself. Among them were the following:

* "Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

* "Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

* "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex."

* "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

* "Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."

* "The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

* "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

prolego, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:31 (seven years ago) Permalink

Similarly via Ambinder:

Walker, in his decision, writes that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gays and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." He evaluates as credible witnesses the panel of experts who testified against Proposition 8, and finds fault with the credentials of several witnesses who testified against same-sex marriage, including David Blankenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values.

"Blankenhorn's testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight," Walker writes. "Blankenhorn gave absolutely no explanation why
manifestations of the deinstitutionalization of marriage would be exacerbated (and not, for example, ameliorated) by the presence of marriage for same-sex couples. His opinion lacks reliability, as there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion Blankenhorn proffered."

Here are the relevant facts he finds:

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.
2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate
3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.
4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender
5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human
history."
6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.
7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence"
8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.
9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population
10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."
11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."
12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."
13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages."

Remember, these are the FACTS that Walker has determined from the testimony and evidence. These facts will serve as the grounding for the legal arguments yet to come.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:33 (seven years ago) Permalink

yeah, but, see, none of those things are in the Constitution, therefore homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right.

Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:33 (seven years ago) Permalink

strike one for heteronormativity u guys!

plax (ico), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:34 (seven years ago) Permalink

yeah, but, see, none of those things are in the Constitution, therefore homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right

Holy shit, they don't say anything about my owning a CD collection in the Constitution either. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:35 (seven years ago) Permalink

lol I went to the AFA site to see if they'd thrown a fit yet - not yet, but they're pretty busy boycotting EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:37 (seven years ago) Permalink

:)

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:40 (seven years ago) Permalink

I do like how Walker basically said Blankenhorn was a useless dumbass.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:43 (seven years ago) Permalink

those 13 FACTS! bam, bam, bam.

لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:45 (seven years ago) Permalink

yeah like this kicker:

"6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being."

plax (ico), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:47 (seven years ago) Permalink

Off-topic, but the censoring on the AFA's website makes me LOL

Sears is currently offering giant posters of total nud**y on its website.

next person tries to teach me about JOY IN LIFE gets a tubgirl in return (Jesse), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:47 (seven years ago) Permalink

strike one for heteronormativity u guys!

was sorta waiting for this

pies. (gbx), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:48 (seven years ago) Permalink

yeah like this kicker:

"6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being."

I agree that this is deeply problematic

pies. (gbx), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:49 (seven years ago) Permalink

like, whether or not sexual orientation is a choice or in born or whatever should have zero bearing on how it is legally addressed.

moreover, "answering" that question wont change the minds of haters---if its something essential to a person ("genetic"), it can be made pathological. if its a choice, its a bad one. etc

pies. (gbx), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:53 (seven years ago) Permalink

also ur enshrining a really problematic idea in law

plax (ico), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:55 (seven years ago) Permalink

Not shocked of course, but lol @ the AFA definition of "graphic total nudity".

he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:56 (seven years ago) Permalink

I'm sorry "graphic total nud**y".

he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:56 (seven years ago) Permalink

like, whether or not sexual orientation is a choice or in born or whatever should have zero bearing on how it is legally addressed.

While I am inclined to agree w/you, most people I know did not choose their orientation.

Un peu d'Eire, ça fait toujours Dublin (Michael White), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:57 (seven years ago) Permalink

The judge is specifically refuting testimony by pro-Prop 8 lawyers, one of whose claims was the inviolability of heterosexual marriage vs the protean nature of homosexual relationships.

Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:58 (seven years ago) Permalink

in other words, Walker wasn't composing aphorisms, plax.

Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:59 (seven years ago) Permalink

sorta---not a lawyer, but note that it doesn't localize a persons sexuality (its in the genes!), nor does it render it immutable. it states that it is fundamental, which could be interpreted as "important enough to someones life/lifestyle to be given legal consideration"

good thing imo

pies. (gbx), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 21:59 (seven years ago) Permalink

Finding gbx wholly OTM.

next person tries to teach me about JOY IN LIFE gets a tubgirl in return (Jesse), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:01 (seven years ago) Permalink

From the AFA's condemnation of Sears:

"Some of them depict groups of people, lesbians and others engaged in ***ual activities."

First off, "people, lesbians and others"???

Secondly, "***ual activities"? Casual? Actual? What?

Un peu d'Eire, ça fait toujours Dublin (Michael White), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:04 (seven years ago) Permalink

sexual

no gut busting joke can change history (polyphonic), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:05 (seven years ago) Permalink

Searsual

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:05 (seven years ago) Permalink

ritual

elephant rob, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:06 (seven years ago) Permalink

holy shit: "Rejecting several requests by AFA to remain neutral in the culture war, The Home Depot has..."

Vasco da Gama, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:07 (seven years ago) Permalink

sorta---not a lawyer, but note that it doesn't localize a persons sexuality (its in the genes!), nor does it render it immutable. it states that it is fundamental, which could be interpreted as "important enough to someones life/lifestyle to be given legal consideration"

good thing imo

― pies. (gbx), Wednesday, August 4, 2010 9:59 PM (2 minutes ago)

idk if you rephrase that as "race is a fundamental characteristic of a human being" then it immediately complicates things. I think the more you essentialise as internal what are really external social characteristics, the more you objectify in the name of some sort of humanism. Like I think there's a kind of implicit heteronormative bias in saying something like this, you turn sexuality (which is what exactly? is there a definition of that because that might appease me) into something that essentially differentiates and characterises.

plax (ico), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:08 (seven years ago) Permalink

I remember my (gay) cousin being totally depressed by the Prop 8 vote, but by way of reassurance I suggested it was a mislaid strategy on the part of gay marriage opponents that would just fast track the issue to the Supreme Court. And I can't imagine the Supreme Court as it stands (sits?) today coming up with a circuitous way to deny rights. Well, I mean, sure, I can imagine them trying, but I think even the more conservative members would have to work hard.

I think I've asked this before, but where do the right wing libertarians like Rand Paul land on this issue?

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:10 (seven years ago) Permalink

I'm not being flippant, plax (I hope), when I say that in law winning a case is not like writing a successful essay for a gender studies course. The outcomes are different!

Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:11 (seven years ago) Permalink

"graphic total nud**y"

should be iltmi board description imo

gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:11 (seven years ago) Permalink

plax, I'll still take it since it makes the ruling (on the Defendants' assertions) more easily defensible at the 9th circuit.

Un peu d'Eire, ça fait toujours Dublin (Michael White), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:12 (seven years ago) Permalink

it does because they made that "fundamental characteristic" crap up a long time ago

the girl with the butt tattoo (harbl), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:13 (seven years ago) Permalink

i'm for real excited about it, as are most of my friends, but I'm already sighing in anticipation of the 'older' folk I know forwarding me mass emails against my will talking about the "tyrannical court system". but still, this is a reassuring sign that reason is possible in 'Merica.

San Te, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:14 (seven years ago) Permalink

I think I've asked this before, but where do the right wing libertarians like Rand Paul land on this issue?

if you are talking about Paul specifically it's a robotic "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states"

TN's only candidate for Governor with a handgun carry permit, so... → (will), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:15 (seven years ago) Permalink

hmmmm

I get what yr saying I think, insofar as making something like race or sexuality "fundamental" serves to prop up and solidify what are basically liquid social constructs (is that what yr saying?)----but, as we have hashed out here before, those constructs are believed to be real and ~acted upon~ by members of society all the g-d time, often along a pitched power gradient.

given the choice between affording equal rights/protections to ppl lacking them (for whatever reason), or waiting for the law to catch up with philosophy, I'm gonna be a pragmatist

xp

pies. (gbx), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:15 (seven years ago) Permalink

srsly tho when the revolution comes none of this will matter

plax (ico), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:16 (seven years ago) Permalink

when we start the revolution all Tuomas will probably do is snitch

San Te, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:17 (seven years ago) Permalink

no he just wont understand what all the fuss is about

pies. (gbx), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:18 (seven years ago) Permalink

oops I was talking about daddy Ron. I would imagine Rand is towing the party line pretty hard in KY on social issues, when he isn't avoiding them altogether.

xxposts

TN's only candidate for Governor with a handgun carry permit, so... → (will), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:18 (seven years ago) Permalink

The "tyrannical court system" which looks narrowly at the law as written and hears the evidence presented and judges thereby? I thought that was a conservative approach to jurisprudence. The biggest problem here was that the Prop 8 backers presented such shitty and tautalogical evidence.

Un peu d'Eire, ça fait toujours Dublin (Michael White), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:21 (seven years ago) Permalink

I used that quote because of some unironic comment some tosser posted in a message board debate I had around the Kerry election as the debate was really getting legs. his logic was that the courts were "tyrannical" for forcing them to accept the existence of homosexual marriage.

there are few arguments where the argument itself disarms itself better than any retort could, but this is one of them....fortunately my friends are mostly all progressive folk who are cheering about this decision so I just have to worry about the old shits at my business.

San Te, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:24 (seven years ago) Permalink

srsly tho when the revolution comes none of this will matter

― plax (ico), Wednesday, August 4, 2010 5:16 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

this edges into a lot of what i was trying to say on the feminist blogs thread, but, i have srs probs with this.

i think we ought to behave and act and struggle with the certainty that no revolution will ever come. forget heaven, man...

goole, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:25 (seven years ago) Permalink

he biggest problem here was that the Prop 8 backers presented such shitty and tautalogical evidence.

real surprise here

Party Car! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:25 (seven years ago) Permalink

Just as tyrannical as they are for forcing pious Catholics to accept, say, Gingrich's latest marriage.

x-post

Un peu d'Eire, ça fait toujours Dublin (Michael White), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:25 (seven years ago) Permalink

Michael White OTM. All the Prop 8 backers are like, no way, we voted you off the island, the will of the people is not being heeded.

All 10 songs permeate the organs (Dan Peterson), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:26 (seven years ago) Permalink

the next person who lectures me on the roots of marriage makes me wonder how far to them people wanna go back...like to the passing on the wife to teh brother after you die days?

"roots of marriage"=statement that means ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING

San Te, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:26 (seven years ago) Permalink

idk if you rephrase that as "race is a fundamental characteristic of a human being" then it immediately complicates things. I think the more you essentialise as internal what are really external social characteristics

don't think it does this, can external social characteristics not be "fundamental"? in the sense that, historically, they have been pretty fundamental to how people of certain races and sexualities have been treated, legally & otherwise

لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:27 (seven years ago) Permalink

Re: Paul, I don't see how someone can be a self-professed libertarian then at the same time be such a roll-over pussy when it comes to social issues. As long as the government is not using tax payer money to force gay people to get married, why should he give a shit?*

*Rhetorical question ignoring Realpolitik.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:28 (seven years ago) Permalink

no way, we voted you off the island, the will of the people is not being heeded.

I'm as wary about this being decided by a court as I am about Roe vs. Wade instead of a law or constituional amendment, but there are things that we cannot vote on w/o changing the Constitution and that IS what the judiciary is there for and if they write stupid laws and then defend them fecklessly, this is exactly what happens.

Un peu d'Eire, ça fait toujours Dublin (Michael White), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:31 (seven years ago) Permalink

American Libertarians are never sure where they fall in the debate between individual liberties and the 'reserved to the States or the people' right of more local governments to fuck w/people for any reason whatsoever.

Un peu d'Eire, ça fait toujours Dublin (Michael White), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:32 (seven years ago) Permalink

Sexual orientation isn't a defining characteristic of a human being until puberty hits yo.

Beach Pomade (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:32 (seven years ago) Permalink

not sure what puberty has to do with it

Party Car! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:34 (seven years ago) Permalink

I know PLENTY of people whose sexual orientation was well established prior to puberty

Party Car! (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:34 (seven years ago) Permalink

It didn't happen with me until I turned twenty-three, read a Rufus Wainwright interview, and thought, "Tools like this can't keep chumming the water. I'm coming out."

Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:35 (seven years ago) Permalink

:-O wait I mean :-|

dyao, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:36 (seven years ago) Permalink

I was a total flirt with the ladies well before puberty.

Un peu d'Eire, ça fait toujours Dublin (Michael White), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:37 (seven years ago) Permalink

lol @ alfred!!

TN's only candidate for Governor with a handgun carry permit, so... → (will), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:37 (seven years ago) Permalink

wait WTF? that post was supposed to go in the ilxor sexuality thread. zing done messed up. xp

dyao, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:37 (seven years ago) Permalink

i didn't meet my first openly gay person until college BUT that's coz I lived in a part of town where homosexuality, while not a death sentence, would subject the outed person to unbearable amounts of ridicule. so I suspect I knew many more who just were too afraid

San Te, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:38 (seven years ago) Permalink

William Duncan, from an altogether delightful post:

The second, more fundamental problem stems from the reality that marriage has always been understood, with very few exceptions, as the union of a man and a woman. This is true across time, across cultures, across religious traditions, etc. Does it really seem likely that this remarkable consensus is nothing but a nasty desire of one group to flaunt its privileged position over a minority? Is it really feasible that the world’s cultures all consulted about how to put down gay people and came up with marriage as the solution? Judge Walker seems to think gender and children have nothing to do with marriage; the facts suggest precisely the opposite. All of this just to say that the idea that marriage is a homophobic conspiracy is a conclusion not anchored in reality.

Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:42 (seven years ago) Permalink

The second, more fundamental problem stems from the reality that marriage has always been understood, with very few exceptions, as the union of a man and a woman

seriously how many more times does this have to be refuted before people stop trying to argue it

لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:43 (seven years ago) Permalink

i didn't meet my first openly gay person until college BUT that's coz I lived in a part of town where homosexuality, while not a death sentence, would subject the outed person to unbearable amounts of ridicule.

A "part of town"? I didn't meet my first openly gay person until college, either, but I assumed that was just because I went to high school in the early '90s.

jaymc, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:44 (seven years ago) Permalink

as the union of a man and a woman.

Tell that to Genghis Khan or Mohammed or Solomon...

Un peu d'Eire, ça fait toujours Dublin (Michael White), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:46 (seven years ago) Permalink

or those penguins

plax (ico), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:48 (seven years ago) Permalink

Fornicating penguins! Penguin lust!

Un peu d'Eire, ça fait toujours Dublin (Michael White), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:48 (seven years ago) Permalink

yeah im working on legalising bestial marriage so this is progress imo.

plax (ico), Wednesday, 4 August 2010 22:50 (seven years ago) Permalink

Bestial polygamy is what we need, though!

Un peu d'Eire, ça fait toujours