Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

sexual crusade, please, that way we can have knights templar discovering the pleasures of saladin's all-male harem. instead of exploding roadside dildos.

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.

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/

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.

>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?

it obv does sound like sour grapes tho, from a guy who's prob never had a bf

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.

And in a word, Iowa.

Vermont might be voting it in too. We'll see.

loving this
http://cmsimg.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=D2&Date=20090403&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=90403010&Ref=V2&MaxW=318&Border=0

i think we should have a legal system based on what animals do and don't do

omg animals don't have capitalism

The Island of Dr. Morbius

Gay marriage legal in Vermont via both houses overriding the governor's veto. NOW let's see where the complaints come from.

i think we should have a legal system based on what animals do and don't do - Legalize cannibalism!

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."

This is going to be a none-issue in 5 years.

make that 'non-issue'

make that "nun-issue"

Support gay nun marriage.

I already do!

I support it by subscribing to, er, "speciality" websites...

Now where's yr "judicial activism", wing-nuts?

I predict a Fox commentator will propose removing Vermont from the USA within a day.

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.

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?

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.)"

It is to laugh.

honestly the most ridiculous and blood-boiling thing i've ever seen

Those would seem mutually exclusive to me, but I tend to pretend people don't exist.

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.

wow that made me really angry

^^^^^LOOOOOL

was coming here to post this.

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.'

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.

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..

It is, but mostly because dumbass motherfuckers STILL don't get the whole 'separation of church and state' thing.

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.

^

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.

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.

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.

yeah, practicalities first, semantics second.

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.

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.

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.

Sorry, tabes, but jaymc OTM in this one.

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--