Nice piece. I hope he's right about winning the war in our lifetime. I have not yet found that kind of optimism.

Maybe if the gay community in Seattle paid Miss Savage as much as the New York Times no doubt pays him then he would give his time to making a difference for this community, and not just making a buck for himsellf.

dan never misses an opportunity to use his kid as a career prop.

David, we will win. Trolls, go jump in a lake.

Dan was offered a reality show about his family life. Cameras would follow him around at work, at home, and when he speaks at colleges. He turned it down to protect his child's privacy, Maggie, even though he was offered hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the show.

He writes about his family when and where it is appropriate and when it's called for. Gay parents are an issue right now. Not only would it be strange were Dan to avoid writing about being a parent at this moment in time, if he did people like Maggie and Not Impressed would accuse Dan of neglecting his duty to speak up in defense gay parents.

Dan's earned every bit of his success. Only a loser would begrudge him that.

Dan, congrats on a well written article. Wish I could be as optimistic, but personally, I think the gay marriage issue will ultimately be subsumed by more pressing concerns, like the utter collapse civilization.

These bitchy comments about Dan are typical of the crap in our "community", where anyone who has any success or happiness is considered suspect and/or held to impossible standards. It's this attitude that finally made me give up on any sort of gay-oriented volunteer work. Life's too short for bitchy queens and bitter dykes.

Before Dan Savage and the Stranger, all we had for a gay voice in this town was that shitty SGN, which is an embarassment for everyone involved.

I don't always agree with what Dan says, but at least he gets people talking - and that's why he's such a target for all the wannabes.

As much as I disagree with Dan on, o, just about *everything*, two good friends of mine got their kid through the open adoption process.

If it weren't for Dan's book, they probably wouldn't have.

Great article. The New York Times is lucky to have Savage's work as is Seattle.
Maggie and Not Impressed, we're lucky to have trolls like you to remind us how little people can be. Back in the day, Savage's writing on AIDS inc pissed me off to no end. I still think he was wrong on some aspects and right on others but those articles were a necessary jolt. Next time I see you at the M.P. I'll screw up the courage to by you a beer.

It was beautiful and it was smart, and exactly what I needed to read on this Sunday morning. Hope is a good thing. Thanks, Dan

Do I have this right? Dan gets your issue onto the NYT op-ed page, and you're bitching about it? Tough crowd.

Nice article, Dan.

Savage was a no-show at today's meeting. Why am I not surprised?

Not Impressed and Maggie: Jealous much?

Happy to see that article, Dan.

It is common knowledge that the couples who sued the state for Equal Marriage lost.

It is not common knowledge that they have the right to file a motion to reconsider.

I spoke to one of the plantiffs in the case and she didn't even know that this was an option. This blew me away. She hadn't even been informed that this was an option! She said she had not ever heard of it. She told me to ask Jamie Pederson, who was one of the lawyers involved in the case.

So, I spoke to Jamie Pederson face to face and he told me that they (the lawyers involved in the case) were not likely to file a motion to reconsider because they (the lawyers) don't think it will change the outcome. That just doesn't sit right with me. There was no guarantee that they would win when they went into this suit and there's no guarantee that it won't change the outcome. The lawyers still have approximately 20 days left to file. Apparently, the lawyers are not asking the LGBT community what it wants to do and they are not asking the couples if they would like to file for reconsideration with the court. Outrageous! Where is the conviction, the principle?

In the Stranger (online) there is an MP3 file where Justice Alexander says at least 4 times that the plantiffs have 30 days to file for reconsideration of the ruling.

If they don't file I want to know WHY?

I told Mr. Pederesen that if they don't file that the lawyers on the case would be remiss in their duties to their clients and to the broader community. If this is the case, I will be writing letters to the
editors of every paper in Washington State in order to let the LGBT community know that 2nd best is just fine with Democrats and that 2nd class is just fine with the couples' lawyers. Even if the outcome is the same they would at least get more exposure and continue to stand on principle. That is, afterall, the whole point.

The opinion of the Washington State Supreme Justices who sided with the 'right wingnuts' out of fear sided on the wrong side of the constitution and we have to fight them on their decision with a motion to reconsider! They need to understand that their ruling was not happily received.

Not impressed: what do you think the impact of an NYT op-ed is compared to your little meeting in the park?

Clearly, Dan's refusal to use his magic wand to make gay marriage legal means that he's the real enemy here. Not suprised, indeed.

http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/webtemp2.cfm?dept=31&id=945
Single Parents Resource Network, Suffolk County, NY, provides the following:
"Single parents are no longer in the minority in our society. Single parent households make up more than 52% of families in the United States. Ironically, many feel isolated and alone to cope with the difficulties of raising children, building a career and creating a healthy place for their children to live and grow."

So why the bias on the court for (as per Dan Savage's article in Sunday's NYT)

At least the New York court acknowledged that many same-sex couples have children. Washington’s judges went out of their way to make ours disappear, finding that “limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.” Children, the decision continues, “tend to thrive in families consisting of a father, mother and their biological children.’’

A concurring opinion gave the knife a few leisurely twists: due to the “binary biological nature of marriage,” it read,
only opposite-sex couples are capable of “responsible child rearing.”

These stunning statements fly in the face of the evidence about gay and lesbian parents presented to the court.
Similar evidence persuaded the high court in Arkansas to overturn that state’s ban on gay and lesbian foster parents.
************************************
Here's to hoping the plaintiffs in the Washington court take the opportunity to appeal this appallingly biased and utterly illogical ruling by the Supreme Court: their current ruling is without merit.

Great piece. It's difficult to face up to the fact that more time will have to pass before the law changes. Eventually it will, sadly, time was not on our side last week.

I agree, it was a great day for the M's.

Mozel Tov Dan! Great article. You deserve some national recognition for all you've done for us here in Seattle. You've gone out on a limb for the local Jewish community supporting the war, and speaking the truth against conventional Seattle wisdom. Here's to a regular column in the NYT!

Great piece, indeed.

You know what I wish? I wish the opponents of gay marriage would drop all of the phoney arguments and be ballsy enough to just say, "Gay marriage is cree-eee-eepy! Ew-www-www! Make it illeee-eee-gal!" Because that's the heart of it, isn't it? Everything else is just sophistry.