Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on What He Said


I'm all for gay marriage, but not sure I see the logic in the following statement.

"America needs more marriages, not fewer"


Posted by J | June 24, 2008 1:15 PM

So we can employ more lawyers in gay divorces, J.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 24, 2008 1:24 PM


Marriage is, above all, an economic instituation.

Posted by Jaime-Leigh | June 24, 2008 1:55 PM

News item today says the Mormons are going to actively try to ban gay marriage in California by supporting the constitutional amendment. I suggest we subvert them by making an openhearted effort to widen state-sanctioned marriage to plural wives (even tho the LDS church banned polygamy, we all know they really want it). Hell, we could even throw a little "man on dog" action into the marriage revision just to gratify the secret desires of 'ol what's-his-name.

Posted by rob | June 24, 2008 1:57 PM

Ah, for the days when all this country needed was a good $0.05 cigar.

Why does America need more marriages? Aside from direct impact on certain economic sectors I suppose some people think it a benefit all of those whacky behavioral changes associated with getting married.

Posted by umvue | June 24, 2008 2:07 PM

@4 - or they could just go move to a state that thinks like them ... maybe Utah?

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 24, 2008 2:10 PM
Conservatives who object to redefining marriage risk redefining it themselves, as a civil-rights violation.


Uhhh try "already have". It IS a civil-rights violation and always has been. Fucking conservative scumbags.

Posted by Original Monique | June 24, 2008 2:36 PM

@5 It seemed pretty clear to me upon reading the full article that the author highly values those whacky behavioral changes.

Posted by Hernandez | June 24, 2008 2:41 PM

"...(even tho the LDS church banned polygamy, we all know they really want it)."

Technically the church only banned polygamy in THIS life, simply to keep the government off their backs. However, Mormon men, while legally obligated to divorce, may spiritually bind as many women to themselves as they wish and will be with them all eternally, while a woman has to obtain both a legal and spiritual divorce before they can remarry. No polygamy for women, even in the celestial kingdom.

Posted by LDSexpert | June 24, 2008 2:50 PM

Therefore I doubt they will support allowing a form of polygamy that seeks to redefine the time-honored definition of one man, many women.

Posted by LDSexpert | June 24, 2008 2:57 PM

more marriage is needed, not to honor the relationship, but so that the rules are clear for the end of the relationship...death, divorce, deadbeat dads (or moms), etc. And oh yeah, let's not forget not having to testify against your beloved and being clear about who can pull the plug.

Posted by Andrew | June 24, 2008 3:06 PM

Has Murdock fired Mr. Rauch yet? Can't believe he let that opinion be aired...

Posted by Ayden | June 24, 2008 3:15 PM

Good editorial. The comments page is full of stupid bullshit from right-wing douchebags, too, which is always a nice bonus.

Posted by AMB | June 24, 2008 3:27 PM

@10 - originally, before that, it was one woman, many men.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 24, 2008 4:08 PM

says who, will?

Posted by mintygreen | June 25, 2008 6:27 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.