Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Waiting for Mike

1

Make fun of his fat kids.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 15, 2008 10:50 AM
2

Human beings are weird - so full of contradictions.

Posted by COMTE | January 15, 2008 10:55 AM
3

If you find yourself in Easley, I'll give you directions to my parents' house. They believe in the gays!

Posted by StotheL | January 15, 2008 11:04 AM
4

Jesus. Some Christians make it so difficult to hate them!

Posted by Michigan Matt | January 15, 2008 11:06 AM
5


Just wait till they find out that Obama has two black children, then they'll really lose it.

I sure hope they don't lynch anyone, which is what Southerners usually do when they get all confused.

Posted by Original Andrew | January 15, 2008 11:14 AM
6

I lived in SC about 10 years ago - looks like nothing has changed.

Posted by JMR | January 15, 2008 11:16 AM
7

heís worried about Obama getting the Democratic nomination because he doesnít trust him.

Let's see, a honkey ass cracker, from SC, saying he doesn't "trust" Obama. I doubt it has anything to do with any Moslem rumors; this dude just doesn't want to see the good ol' USA headed up by a filthy nigger.

He seems like a nice enough guy, but do you think he would have tossed his keys to Charles Mudede? Even if Charles had his nappy head picked perfectly?

Posted by Mike in MO | January 15, 2008 11:20 AM
8

There are intelligent people here in SC....we're just grossly outnumbered.

Posted by nean | January 15, 2008 11:24 AM
9

He also doesnít think I should be allowed to adopt or marry

I can't tell by the way this comment is phrased: is he even aware you're gay?

Posted by shub-negrorath | January 15, 2008 11:24 AM
10

Somebody remind me: if you like the ideas of Gays raising kids, or being married [or you hate the idea], why the fuck is this a national, federal question? This is clearly a state-level matter. With so many more-important things going down the fucking tubes, this is just smokescreen, divisive, demagogic crap.

Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber | January 15, 2008 11:26 AM
11

Funny how that works, my seriously abusive ex was just as sweet as could be at times, then when you least expected it. Now he's some other guys problem, and I'm sure he still is. Have fun with your monster.

Posted by Jersey | January 15, 2008 11:33 AM
12

Sav, you should share your gay love with the exterminator! Just tell him you'll put the tip in...

ug...and I fucking hate Rock Hill, I'm so sorry you're stuck there.

Posted by put it in!! | January 15, 2008 11:45 AM
13

Oh jesus.... an exterminator in SC? His brain is probably rotted from all the chemicals he pours into the slab foundations of those ranch-style homes every day. I'm from SC (as I think I've said before) and the folks can be very sweet, very dumb and very dangerous when two or more are gathered together. Be careful Dan!

Posted by M | January 15, 2008 12:02 PM
14

@10:
Gay marriage should be a national matter, in my mind at least, because in a democracy, the majority have a responsibility to protect the rights of the minority. Not allowing gays to marry and raise kids is to deny them basic rights others take for granted. The national government's duty is to protect all of its citizens equally and to offer them all the "pursuit of happiness," not to throw unpopular minorities to backwater states and leave them there to be chewed apart.

Posted by lymerae | January 15, 2008 12:05 PM
15

Dan,

I'm so sorry you're in Rock Hill. But you'll see why I left SC when I was 18 and don't want to live there again. Take a trip to Charleston, and go visit the hot closeted military boys at the Citadel. I'm sure you'll enjoy the eye candy there as well as the College of Charleston (University of Charleston).

Posted by apres_mois | January 15, 2008 12:11 PM
16

just how many SC refugees are on SLOG? Maybe a support group is in order...

Posted by M | January 15, 2008 12:14 PM
17

the beaches are beautiful.. except for Myrtle Beach.... Pawley's Island is sheer heaven....

Posted by M | January 15, 2008 12:15 PM
18

@14 - I understand your reasoning, and in principle I agree with you, but it's not necessarily in line with the 10th Amendment. While one of the general intentions of democracy is to prevent the tyranny of the majority, the specific intention of the 10th Amendment is to limit the power of the federal government relative to the states and the people. The power to regulate the institution of marriage is not one of the powers granted to the federal government, therefore it is reserved to the states, and unfortunately we as a nation have yet to collectively accept this as a 14th Amendment issue.

Posted by Hernandez | January 15, 2008 12:23 PM
19

#6 I was dragged to SC in '78 and nothing's changed since then either!
I escaped in '87 to Hotlanta where all southern queer boys and girls go eventually.

Hope Dan flew into Charlotte vs. Columbia - way too fewer flights and way less to do. There are gay bars in both cities however.

Posted by AtlSea | January 15, 2008 12:25 PM
20

sounds like standard "love the sinner, hate the sin" behavior. To them your soul is not gay. They want your soul!

Posted by LMSW | January 15, 2008 12:40 PM
21

@10, 14 & 18:

I would add that this particular issue becomes rather complicated whan addressing it in the context of "States Rights", because it creates an imbalance in terms of individual rights which are (or theoretically should be) protected under the U.S. Constitution.

For example, what happens if/when all the states around S.C. legalize gay marriage? Suddenly a situation arises where individual citizens have certain rights in adjoining states that they are not granted in S.C. What happens then if a gay married couple from, say, Georgia, gets into a traffic accident in Charleston, and the legal spouse is denied hospital visitation rights and/or power of attorney? It creates a HUGE legal, logistical, and even economic quandry (for instance, would their insurance company be exempt from paying certain benefits, because S.C. law does not recognize their married status?).

The only proper venue for resolving an issue that spans states, and supercedes individual state legislative authority is at the Federal level. Just as the Federal government has the power to regulate the movement of goods and services across state lines, it makes sense, logically at least, that the freedom of individuals to be secure in their persons, and in their personal relationships, when similarly travelling between states, should likewise be codified under Federal statute.

Posted by COMTE | January 15, 2008 12:41 PM
22

Dan,

Why don't you EVER report on the fact that many Gay couples disagree with the whole gay marriage thing? The community is not near as homogeneous as you portray it as.

I support it, but I know a few people who don't for a whole variety of reasons.

Why don't you report about that?! It could be a hell of a lot more interesting than your globe trotting BS.

BTW, doesn't your kid miss you when you have been gone for almost 2 weeks on "assignment"? You couldn't have done this exact same crap from home?

Posted by ecce homo | January 15, 2008 1:21 PM
23

1. Property used to be a state thingy.

2. Many states considered slaves property.

3. Civil War; 14th and 15th. Amenments; Jim Crow; federal legislation to ensure voting rights and nondiscrimination, etc.

It kinda all became a federal thingy then.

4. States define voting rights. Would you be cool with states denying women the right to vote?

Posted by unPC | January 15, 2008 1:31 PM
24

@22 I do believe it's kind of hard to provide coverage of an event in SC from Seattle.

Posted by Gitai | January 15, 2008 1:33 PM
25

@23 Wrong again! The US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, grants women the right to vote through the 19th Amendment:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Further, based on the 14th Amendment, the Federal government has the right to regulate the procedures the states set up for voting and elections through the Voting Rights Act, at least when it comes to racial barriers to voter participation.

States get to set various other restrictions, such as those on felons, though, so voting is a shared responsibility of the federal and state governments.

Posted by Gitai | January 15, 2008 1:41 PM
26

What's remarkable about pre-War Germany is the extent to which Jews and non-Jews were integrated, so that people were literally sending their friends and neighbors away based on some abstract bullshit ideology that they could "believe" in. I don't think we're on the verge of a Holocaust or anything, but clearly the impulse still reverberates in alarming ways, and moreover in very mundane encounters. (Which is what this post made me think.)

Posted by thegayrecluse | January 15, 2008 1:53 PM
27

i'd prefer the government got out of the business of marriage entirely, and left it to churches.

that way NO ONE GETS MARRIED, and the gays & wack christians can shut the fuck up about gay marriage & start dealing with the fact that the planet is dying.

Posted by max solomon | January 15, 2008 2:06 PM
28

Oh for fuck's sake ecce, many STRAIGHT couples disagree with the whole marriage thing too - does that mean they should get equal time along with the gay marriage proponents and gay anti-marriage proponents?

People who don't want to get married already have that right, regardless of their orientation. It's non-news, and not worth wasting ink or electrons on reporting, sheesh!

As for the kid, one can only presume that his needs are suitably attended to by the other parent - isn't that the whole point of having TWO parent household?

I swear, your IQ must drop with every word you type...

Posted by COMTE | January 15, 2008 4:08 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).