Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this marriage

More like Shit Romney and he albacored this maki.

four hours and no cunnilingus joke?

beneath these cunning linguists

Richard Socarides: Why Clinton signed DOMA.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/why-clinton-signed-the-defense-of-marriage-act.html

I look forward to Clinton's apologies for the Telecommunications Act, failing to sign the Kyoto Protocol, etc.

Socarides' piece is basically "Bubba was scared... of BOB DOLE"

There's a certain toe-sucking bounty hunter that helped secure Clinton's election, and he's not mentioned.

that's the weirdest description of Ross Perot I've ever heard

Dick Morris, iirc

i haven't done any proposing iirc but in the aftermath of a very scary car accident my bf & i have decided to have durable power of attorney & health care proxy papers drawn up.

Baby steps

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politics/portman-gay-marriage/index.html

Order66 thinker • 23 minutes ago −

Homosexuality is just as deviant and perverted, now, as it was when Portman was too busy to have a catch with his boy. That has not changed. The laws of nature have not changed. Holding homosexual relationships in the same regard as heterosexual relationships - establishing some twisted and rationalized form of parity - is just as ridiculous as it has ever been. Marriage is and always will be defined as one man and one woman, regardless the extent to which we let or encourage various pretenders play house.

The coward surrendered, plain and simple. Next up is his daughter getting knocked up and Portman joining NARAL as a result.

Brian Brown just trolls comment sections now?

I hate humanity.
I have hope for humanity.
I hate humanity.
I have hope for humanity.
repeat

Well given that there's time to go I AM going to like the increasing frustration of those kinds of folks realizing that they're losing both major parties now, the GOP way more slowly obv. but...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/14/cpac_diary_showdown_on_gay_street.html

(I saw photos from the other panel -- barely anyone there.)

Because what, ultimately, are the straight marriage irredentists going to do anyway -- form a third party? Good luck with that.

Anyway I liked Yglesias on this via Twitter:

Did Rob Portman used to think that gay people didn’t have dads?

Portman's reversal makes him the only Senate Republican to back gay marriage.

rmde

is that actually true, because if so that's ludicrous

Totally true.

(Sadly, obv, but totally true.)

how many of them support interracial marriage

my congresswoman is the only Republican in the House who does.

how many of them support interracial marriage

Sensenbrenner probably thinks the entire populace of the United States are white males.

100 bucks says will portman is a libertarian

i thought about turning gay when my dad wouldn't play catch with me, but i decided i'd really piss him off and be liberal instead.

Homosexuality is just as deviant and perverted, now, as it was when Portman was too busy to have a catch with his boy. That has not changed. The laws of nature have not changed.

this 'order66' character knows how easily a cock slips into a bum, right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1NVw7xnIMY4

Boehner told Raddatz that he could not envision a situation where his views would shift on same-sex marriage - even if one of his children came out as gay.

"Rob's a great friend and a long-time ally. And I appreciate that he's decided to change his views on this," Boehner said. "I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman…It's- it's what I grew up with. It's what I believe. It's what my church teaches me. And I can't imagine that position would ever change."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/charles-murrays-gay-marriage-surprise.html

chief phrenologist tells the right to give up on gay marriage and abortion

that fucking dude

Mayer misspelled Jonathan Rauch's name, surprisingly.

haha, stopped clock moment for real

But since then, Murray said, “we have acquired a number of gay and lesbian friends,” and to what he jokingly called his “dismay” as a “confident” social scientist, he learned he’d been wrong. He’d been especially influenced by the pro-gay-marriage arguments made by Jonathan Rausch, an openly gay writer for the National Journal and the Atlantic. Further, Murray said, he had discovered that the gay couples he knew with children were not just responsible parents; they were “excruciatingly responsible parents.”

'like jeez ease up a bit'

more reality-based than Ratzinger?

Argentina was on the verge of approving gay marriage, and the Roman Catholic Church was desperate to stop that from happening. It would lead tens of thousands of its followers in protest on the streets of Buenos Aires and publicly condemn the proposed law, a direct threat to church teaching, as the work of the devil.

But behind the scenes, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who led the public charge against the measure, spoke out in a heated meeting of bishops in 2010 and advocated a highly unorthodox solution: that the church in Argentina support the idea of civil unions for gay couples....

Faced with the near certain passage of the gay marriage bill, Cardinal Bergoglio offered the civil union compromise as the “lesser of two evils,” said Sergio Rubin, his authorized biographer. “He wagered on a position of greater dialogue with society.”

In the end, though, a majority of the bishops voted to overrule him, his only such loss in his six-year tenure as head of Argentina’s bishops’ conference. But throughout the contentious political debate, he acted as both the public face of the opposition to the law and as a bridge-builder, sometimes reaching out to his critics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/world/americas/pope-francis-old-colleagues-recall-pragmatic-streak.html

You'd think a bunch of young closeted right-wingers wouldn't have been so open about their needs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/politics/young-opponents-of-gay-marriage-remain-undaunted.html

“In redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, what you’re doing is you’re excluding the norm of sexual complementarity,” said Mr. Anderson, the Heritage Foundation fellow. “Once you exclude that norm, the three other norms — which are monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanency — become optional as well.”

this is like white-belt rhetorical judo. the three other norms aren't norms at all in any legal sense...but let's just pretend they are for a sec, because why not

because he has shit-all argument otherwise

I find it fascinating how all these people are like ten years younger than I am but look like they're already in their mid 40s

welcome to DC!

can't wait

for gay marriage to alfred, that is

:P

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/worldisnotenough/2013/03/25/anti-gay-forces-not-giving-up/

If your picture of heterosexual marriage is one where it basically serves the husband’s interests, where he is in charge and wife and children are his subordinates, and where controlling the wife’s sexual behavior is fundamental to it in a way that controlling the husband’s is not – and this is still the ruling picture in much of America (not to mention the rest of the world) – then same-sex marriage really is a threat, because it shows that marriage need not be a union of unequals and can be non-hierarchical.

i loved the onion article

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

oh and donna rouge's post in the gays thread:

i'll admit it's not a super-huge priority to *me* personally but it means a lot to people i love and i will be very happy to see both these things overturned because state-sponsored discrimination is some bullshit. otoh i would also like to live in a world where, say, the golden girls would get the same benefits my married pals (gay or otherwise) get. i don't think there's a huge gulf between supporting gays being able to marry *and* also being skeptical of marriage as an institutional thing. and i think there's a lot of pressing issues that gay marriage doesn't totally address and i don't want to see them get swept under the rug if GM does become the law of the land. and i think it's NAGL to shit on qu]eer people who do want to get married. looking over this big glarble of text i don't think any of these stances are especially egregiously contradictory but you know, large, multitiudes, etc.

that post confused me until I realized that what was meant was "adults sharing a living space as an analogous family unit" and not literally "the fictional characters of Dorothy, Blanche, Rose and Sophia and/or the actresses who portrayed these characters"

thinking maybe I should have eaten lunch

if only that onion article were not satire xxp