Comments on Best Defense of Gay Marriage I've Heard All Year

Loose legislation that would allow people to marry their pets *is* a threat to marriage, as well -- which *is* why marriage is a threat to marriage. That's why this lady lost.

of course the year only started yesterday. . .

I see that she left "men" out of "all men are created equal."

@1: Yes, because animals can sign contracts. So can kids, and plants, and water. Yes. Those things can all sign their name to a legal contract. How silly of me. Marriage really is a threat to marriage.

Yeesh! Get out of here you troll.

My lover is not a dog, Frederick. Marrying him is nothing at all akin to marrying my "pet". I really doubt you could have said anything more insulting.

@ #1 - I believe we all EQUALLY do not have the right to marry dogs. so what's your point, dip shit? This is about un-equal rights.

Damn, i hate feeding trolls, but that was so braindead stupid i couldn't help it.

Comment one: Come on folks, live up to your new year's resolutions and starve that troll.

Comment two:
I've heard Angie Paccione speak several times on the campaign trail, and met her in person at a fund raiser. She is wildly charismatic. Part African-American, and a srong supporter of gay rights, she came really close to beating dragon lady Marilyn Musgrave in a congressional district that is white as the driven on the snow on the eastern plains and politically to the right of Orange County, in a state that just reaffirmed its homophobia in two state-wide ballot initiatives this November. All in all, she impresses the heck out of me. Angie has a great future in politics.

@5:

I love it when you Homosexuals refer to your bed buddy as "lover." It reminds me of a Will Ferrell sketch.

Angie is cool but she didn't run her campaign that well. She had some financial trouble 15-20 years ago. Muskrat (as we like to call Musgrave) made an issue of it and Angie did a poor job of fighting it off and focusing on the issues (e.g. Muskrat's support of CAFTA, the fact that she's not accomplished anything in Congress other than sponsoring her hate amendment, etc).

The best outcome was that the national GOP had to spend millions of dollars protecting a seat that should always be a slam dunk for them. The rumor is that they're trying to get her to retire after this term.

Eric @ 7 - while the "defense of marriage" amendment passed by a good margin, the domestic partnership fell by only 6 points - meaning that a measly 3+ % of the voters need to change their mind to make it a reality. I think we're going to have at least that here in a few years. Marriage equality is further off, but that's true in most of the country.

I guess I don't feel my marriage is super threatened if someone married a dog. I don't see how it could be. Would someone come to my front door and demand I trade in my husband for a sheltie? How would the threat play itself out??

Given the way most people treat their pets vs. their spouses, dogs might want to start a movement against these kind of marriages. It might take their status in the home down a notch.

Then again, that's really not the issue that is being discussed so why talk about human/animal unions in the same space as human/human unions? Perhaps we should have a separate discussion area for that burning issue of human/animal unions, but what Savage posted about was something different. Let's not get off topic.

Aside from personally supporting gay marriage, I have a very selfish professional reason for favoring it. I sell real estate and committed gay couples with blended finances and lives take title to a property differently from committed straight couples with blended finances and lives. This difference can result in very unequal treatment in the event of a death of a partner and I am not comfortable with that on a human level. Professionally, I am told that sexual preference is not covered under the Fair Housing Act, but real estate agents are human, if you prick them they bleed and so forth, so uneasiness about this is inevitable for me.

Personally, I think this whole "argument" is a waste of time. None of the opponents care about your argument.

The only thing that matters is the gay Canadian couple that are denied services and sue under NAFTA for the US to give them their maritally-derived rights.

The rest is a waste of space. Won't happen.

Funny thing - in 2040 this whole debate will seem silly, just as the interracial marriage debate is/was.