Slog - Comments on California's Biggest Conservative Daily Paper...

Comment by David Schmader

David Schmader — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:46:24 -0800

Oh my God this is awesome.

Comment by dan

dan — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:54:18 -0800

And all you gay ropin' rodeo-drive lovin slump bumpin' lolly-pop livin' desert streaming Thelma's out there can be assurred that your young blond one allready posted his reasons for his official official.

So take that to the bank.

Comment by Mike

Mike — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:03:55 -0800

It blows my mind that someone truly expected there to be some kind of affect on heterosexual marriage. I can't fathom what that would be. A 30 percent raise in divorce rates among straight people? A rash of teenage marriages? The wedding photo albums from the past 50 years all being replaced by satanic gay pornography?

Comment by whatevernevermind

whatevernevermind — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:08:13 -0800

I've only read the first sentence and this has already made my day.

Comment by dan

dan — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:13:11 -0800

So take that to the bank.

Comment by whatevernevermind

whatevernevermind — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:15:24 -0800

@3 Okay, I've read more -- yes, are these people insane?!?

Were straight marriages supposed to evaporate overnight once Joanie and June next door got hitched? Did they think the state would run out of marriage licenses? Were gay couples becoming legally committed supposed to mean that your straight spouse was now going to ditch you for a shiney new homo one?

It's utterly mind-boggling. And this era of unbridled stupidity is the one we get to live in. Oh, joy.

Comment by Hernandez

Hernandez — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:23:28 -0800

For the life of me, I could never figure out what kind of "damage" gay marriages were supposed to inflict on heterosexual marriages. This is a great article - it shows that people's minds can change and are changing for the better.

Comment by josh

josh — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:31:48 -0800

this is a great editorial, but the problem with the WA supreme court's decision was that they decided that the case warranted rational review, which does not ask the justices to be rational just for them to imagine that the legislature could have had a reason.

Comment by David

David — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:32:08 -0800

I still remember that interview you all had with Alexander just after the WA marriage decision. One of the Stranger's finest moments. I hope his heart has shriveled up by now from the shame he ought to feel for his intellectual and moral cowardice, but I doubt it.

Comment by rob

rob — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:37:06 -0800

David Copley, scion of the Copley newspaper family that ran the San Diego paper and at the helm of the paper since the death of his mother Helen Copley and stepfather James Copley, is an out gay.

Comment by Charm

Charm — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:03:07 -0800

My mother and I once argued about this. "Why should gays have the right to marry?" she asked me. I replied that they were human beings and deserved to have the same rights as everyone else. I asked her why they shouldn't have the right to marry. She said they would make a mockery of the institution of marriage.

At the time, my mother was on divorce number three.

I'm just saying.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:42:52 -0800

Barbara Madsen and Gerry Alexander have no consciences. They barely qualify as sentient beings.

Comment by Original Monique

Original Monique — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:46:10 -0800

Uhhh, jeeez. I don't know about you guys but my marriage totally ended because of gay marriage.

Wait. No. It just didn't work out.

Carry on.

Comment by The Gay Curmudgeon

The Gay Curmudgeon — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:55:14 -0800

To Dan's point on children, here are the statistics from the Williams Institute (UCLA) that I recently posted to the Facebook "Causes" page for the entirely appalling and misnamed Families Northwest:

"Children are already being raised by 18% of same-sex couples in Washington State and on average couples are raising 2 children per household. 8% of Washington�s adopted children live with a lesbian or gay parent. As of 2005, an estimated 7,249 of Washington�s children were living in households headed by same-sex couples."

"All these children are denied the protections and stability of having married parents by Families Northwest opposition to marriage equality and legal protections in Washington State."

"If Families Northwest really wanted to foster the expansion of marriage and support all families with children it would support marriage quality. This would provide equal protection to the children being raised by same-sex couples and lead to an expansion in marriages in Washington State."

Taking care of the kids is supposed to be at the heart of conservative values. On that basis, I don't get why conservatives aren't overwhelmingly for marriage equality.

Comment by Sir Vic

Sir Vic — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:56:10 -0800

Dan,
Please promise me that if you get a chance to ask McCain a question during the campaign season, it will be of this nature:

"How did the prospect of gay marriage break-up your first marriage, and how does it threaten your second marriage?"

How a non-churchgoer & well-know adulterer can claim the "family values" mantle is amazing.

Comment by Sargon Bighorn

Sargon Bighorn — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:14:43 -0800

And what if Prop 8 does pass, what then? Gay-Americans tend to roll over and fad away when laws are passed that treat them as non-citizens. Like here in WA state. The Cowards in the court ruled against equality, Gay citizens lost. Was there any visible anger, any visible outrage, did anything outside of weeping and nashing of teeth happen? No. Why did nothing happen? Because it's not that bad for Gay-Americans. We can't get married. Okay. It's wrong, it's un-American, it's not good for kids. And how angry are you about that? Not angry enough apparently.

Comment by banjoboy

banjoboy — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:35:32 -0800

@3, @6: I think it's quite Freudian. Deeply closeted Focus on the Family type guys imagining every straight marriage is as big a sham as their own. "Whoa, imagine if it was legal and respectable for a guy to marry another guy! No-one would have to make do with pussy for the sake of appearances! The divorce rate would go through the roof!"

Comment by Vince

Vince — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:08:48 -0800

The "Christian" gay haters have never...never had truth on their sides. They are motivated simply by hate. They use fear to push their lies in every case. They have used it effectively in the debate on gays in the military argument as well. Fear is what they use expertly. News papers and the media in general have let them get away with it "in the interest of fairness." But you don't hear the media giving "equal" time to Nazis. Or skinheads. Or the KKK. No, that would be wrong. That would be incendiary. But if it's lies these fucks want to spread about gay people, then let's hear it. And for the fucking assholes on the Supreme Court... Ever hear about equal justice you barking assholes?

Comment by whatevernevermind

whatevernevermind — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:11:10 -0800

@17 Gay comedian Jason Stuart has a great line: "If you allow us to marry each other, we promise to stop marrying you."

Comment by crazycatguy

crazycatguy — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:20:24 -0800

@16
It was a calculated risk to bring the marriage case before the Supreme Court, a risk the clients were willing to take. Unfortunately, Madsen and Alexander betrayed their ideals for the opportunity to be re-elected and ruled in error. However, because the community did not give up, we elected candidates who support marriage equality. They worked (and are working) to pass legislation guaranteeing same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. So it is not accurate to say "nothing happened" after the decision. Sometimes plain old hard work is better than visible outrage.

Comment by nightlifejitters

nightlifejitters — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:22:21 -0800

Polls indicate there's hope to defeat prop 8 in Cali, but I'm skeptical that Arizona's 6.5 million residents will do the same for our prop 102. Arizona was the first state to defeat a gay marriage constitutional ban, but that one also took away benefits from unmarried straight couples. Prop 102 just says "ONLY A UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED AS A MARRIAGE IN THIS STATE". Gay marriage is already banned here by statute, but this would be, you know, the constitution, and that sucks a little extra hard.