Slog - Comments on Belated Slogging http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging Things I've been meaning to Slog, but haven't: 1) A while ago, I finished reading Matrimony, a well-executed but otherwise ordinary novel by Joshua Henkin. It reads like a first novel even though it isn't: It's about two friends in a creative writing course at a liberal arts college, and their respective girlfriends, and what happens after they all graduate. The most interesting thread has to do with the relationship between the two boys, but Henkin basically abandons that midway through, in favor of death, relationship drama, and Jewish breast cancer genes. Kind of a bummer. 2) Metro Classics screened... Copyright 2008 Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:57:22 -0800 Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:57:49 -0800 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Comment by Dawgson Thank G-d for Annie Wagner.

]]> Dawgson http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995142 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995142 Life Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:18:13 -0800 Comment by Will in Seattle Once again the LGBT crowd gets "triangulated" by Clinton.

]]> Will in Seattle http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995154 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995154 Life Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:25:11 -0800 Comment by chicagogaydude Oh Obama is triangulating on gay rights as surely as Clinton is, he just draws his triangle differently. But the effect is the same: no marriage for us.

]]> chicagogaydude http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995173 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995173 Life Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:33:29 -0800 Comment by kim yes, but states have ALWAYS held marriage rights. is overturning DOMA and making marriage controllable at the federal level really doable? is it really a good idea to bring marriage under federal control? i'm totally with clinton on this, even though i think it'll make the path to us calling ourselves "married" a little longer. it'll be the most copasetic-with-the-constitution way to do it.

the thing about obama is that change from the federal government just doesn't happen that fast. he can't just whip the states rights away from them to make something the way we want it, because we're too impatient to work on the nation-wide culture shift that's going to have to come in order for gay marriage to really pass and be protected--no president should have that kind of power. not even an idealist president whose ideals i agree with.

]]> kim http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995187 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995187 Life Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:50:23 -0800 Comment by Cook ummmmm Erica DOES mention the Advocate article. It's the first paragraph of the quoted section. In fact, the paragraph could've been deleted to make the quote look even more anti-obama, but it wasn't. I think you're being a little to harsh on ECB, Annie.

]]> Cook http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995207 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995207 Life Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:04:54 -0800 Comment by annie @4: Uh, overturning the federal DOMA would in no way "put marriage rights under federal control." They weren't under federal control before DOMA, remember? And lots of states, including Washington, have their own DOMAs to deal with. All retaining the states' rights provision does is provide a rock-solid excuse protecting states that, in the hypothetical future, refuse to recognize gay marriages that other states have already recognized. In my opinion, marriage should not be a condition you pass into and out of as you move from state to state. States will go ahead and refuse to recognize gay marriages anyway (as they currently do for same-sex marriages in MA), but at least they won't have the federal government's explicit blessing to do so.

You're confused.

]]> annie http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995210 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995210 Life Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:06:47 -0800 Comment by annie @5: "Met with" is quite vague (and doesn't include a link); and the Politico article was published before the Advocate interview even went up online. I think it's reasonable that people might not have known about the Advocate interview, but maybe all Slog readers have your eagle eyes.

]]> annie http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995223 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995223 Life Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:16:21 -0800 Comment by tsm It's also, we should note, his second Advocate interview. I'd guess the original post referred to the first one.

]]> tsm http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995313 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995313 Life Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:03:29 -0800 Comment by Will in Seattle @3 - not according to the AP wire story I sent to the Stranger today with the subject SlogTip ...

Face it, a vote for Clinton is a vote for DOMA and do-nothing "oh it's not convenient I'll get to it in a few terms" more of the same behavior.

Real Presidents don't "ask" the military, they ORDER the military to implement a change. Any ex-military person knows that.

]]> Will in Seattle http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995562 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/belated_slogging#c995562 Life Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:57:49 -0800