Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Homo Gay Marriage Does Not Threaten Joe Scarborough's Marriage...
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:18 AM
...so long as it's safely contained to Vermont.
A gay couple that gets married in Vermont doesn't threaten Joe's marriage. Good to know. But if gay couples were to start getting legally married in Florida—say Charlie Crist married for love one day—that would pose a threat. It's just a little "too close to home," says Joe. So it looks like the vague and undefined threat that gay marriage poses to married straight couples grows the closer legally married gay couples get to legally married straight couples.... or something. All of this is complicated for Joe by the fact that his wife and kids live in Washington D.C. while he lives in New York City. So to protect Joe's straight marriage from gay married cooties it looks like we're going to have to keep three states gaymarriagefrei.
And all you straight couples in Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa? You're on your own.
Share via
1
The conservatives are so confused, I'm not sure they know what they're in favor of or against anymore.
2
How do they find they time to be so concerned with what other people do? Why do they even care? I don't get it.
3
Dan, I know this isn't a cause of yours, but let me reiterate that DC IS NOT A STATE. Please do not refer to it as a state until we get some friggin' representation around here. Referring to DC as a state lets people forget that, while we live in the shadow of the government, have a larger population than Wyoming, pay huge sums of taxes, work for or with the government, and have all our laws approved by Congress, we got no one pulling for us.
DC has very developed domestic partnership laws, is on the verge of recognizing other state's same-sex marriages, and some of our council members have said they will introduce same-sex marriage legislation before year end. Not to mention that DC is overflowing with gay people, and those gay people tend to live in the nicest neighborhoods. Sounds like he needs to find a new home for his family, lest his kids be molested into gayness and his wife catch the gay.
DC has very developed domestic partnership laws, is on the verge of recognizing other state's same-sex marriages, and some of our council members have said they will introduce same-sex marriage legislation before year end. Not to mention that DC is overflowing with gay people, and those gay people tend to live in the nicest neighborhoods. Sounds like he needs to find a new home for his family, lest his kids be molested into gayness and his wife catch the gay.
5
No Mr Savage as usual you don't understand. We are a nation of states that's why we have them so that they can regulate based on their own particular needs. The federal government does not have a right to dictate to Florida who they recognize as being married just as they don't have the right to tel Vermont who just legalized gay marriage. VT values should not be imposed on the rest of the country through the federal government.
6
Is New England even a part of America? I mean, it has "England" right there in the name. Obviously a gay couple getting married there isn't going to threaten his marriage, because it's a whole separate country. Or it's a part of Canada. Or something.
7
@5 - but that's bull-ish. States should regulate or deregulate LOCAL ISSUES, issues that are special to that state. States do not and should not have the right to deny minority groups rights that majority groups enjoy.
8
@5 the states ratified the us constitution which says the acts of one state -- like marriage, such as maybe yours one day -- are fiven full faith and credit in another state. So in fact the federal government has already "dictated to Florida" that Florida has to recognize the official acts of Vermont.
@3 thank you.
In general people outside DC don't give a shit about the denial of rights to DC residents. It's too bad because obviously DC would supply two more Democratic senators which would help pass things like gay rights nationally.
But you know, people mainly just think of themselves and their own grievances, including the denial of gay rights nationwide.
So that DC thing doesn't bug them out here very much. People don't really give a shit about the denial of rights to DC residents and they seem to think it's perfectly okay to have second class citizens in the USA (as long as it's someone else!)
@3 thank you.
In general people outside DC don't give a shit about the denial of rights to DC residents. It's too bad because obviously DC would supply two more Democratic senators which would help pass things like gay rights nationally.
But you know, people mainly just think of themselves and their own grievances, including the denial of gay rights nationwide.
So that DC thing doesn't bug them out here very much. People don't really give a shit about the denial of rights to DC residents and they seem to think it's perfectly okay to have second class citizens in the USA (as long as it's someone else!)
9
@5 the states ratified the us constitution which says the acts of one state -- like marriage, such as maybe yours one day -- are given full faith and credit in another state. So in fact the federal government has already "dictated to Florida" that Florida has to recognize the official acts of Vermont.
@3 thank you.
In general people outside DC don't give a shit about the denial of rights to DC residents. The feeling seems to be well who cares, that's someone else's problem, why should we be concerned out here ? You'll rarely hear anyone outside DC give a hoot about DC residents' lack of voting rights. It's too bad because obviously DC would supply two more Democratic senators which would help pass things like gay rights nationally 'n' other good stuff.
@3 thank you.
In general people outside DC don't give a shit about the denial of rights to DC residents. The feeling seems to be well who cares, that's someone else's problem, why should we be concerned out here ? You'll rarely hear anyone outside DC give a hoot about DC residents' lack of voting rights. It's too bad because obviously DC would supply two more Democratic senators which would help pass things like gay rights nationally 'n' other good stuff.
10
Did Loveschild just essentually make the same arguement that the south did durning the civil war?? Its a states right to decide if you count as fully human, dont impose your yankee vaules on us, etc? Cause damn thats a parallel thats going to end poorly...
11
Loveschild, do you realize you are using the same arguments used to defend things like slavery and Jim Crow laws?
12
@tina and Rob,
Do you really think Loveschild actually has a brain and uses it to actually think about what she spouts out of her ignorant racist bigoted mouth?
Do you really think Loveschild actually has a brain and uses it to actually think about what she spouts out of her ignorant racist bigoted mouth?
13
The same bullshit was said for interracial marriage. It's fine in X state as long as it's not close to me in my state.
Hardly anyone makes a hard push to correlate gay marriage with interracial marriage anymore. If a study was done to see if people still held the same feelings for interracial marriages as they do for gay marriages, you'll find a strong correlation between the two.
Hardly anyone makes a hard push to correlate gay marriage with interracial marriage anymore. If a study was done to see if people still held the same feelings for interracial marriages as they do for gay marriages, you'll find a strong correlation between the two.
14
7 Don't you think that an institution like marriage is something that would be classified as per use of your own words as a local issue since it regulates a contract between two consenting local adults and in turn of the whole community that surrounds them?
I did not celebrate when I saw VT legalize gay marriage but now that its done and the people of VT seem to be fine with it I would not support the federal government coming in and saying to VT that they cannot issue marriage licences to gays. Likewise I wouldn't like the federal government to do the reverse to other states. Marriage is not a right, it is a contract regulated by local communities, in our case states, and as such it is them (the states) that through a democratic process in which their populations have a say the ones that should define such contracts and not Washington DC.
I did not celebrate when I saw VT legalize gay marriage but now that its done and the people of VT seem to be fine with it I would not support the federal government coming in and saying to VT that they cannot issue marriage licences to gays. Likewise I wouldn't like the federal government to do the reverse to other states. Marriage is not a right, it is a contract regulated by local communities, in our case states, and as such it is them (the states) that through a democratic process in which their populations have a say the ones that should define such contracts and not Washington DC.
15
@5 - YOU don't understand. Civil rights have nothing to do with values. And it is the federal government's obligation to ensure those rights are granted to everyone.
16
Lovechild- question for you? what are you feelings and sentiment towards interracial marriage? how would you feel if your brother or son married a white woman? btw, before you try to belittle me for asking such a question, i'm black and originally from charleston, sc FYI.
17
So you support the repeal of DOMA then, Loveschild? It denies federal recognition to certain legal marriages performed in Vermont; essentially "the federal government [is] coming in and saying to VT" that the marriage licenses it issues are invalid at the federal level and in other states.
18
Loveschild, here is the 14th Constitutional Amendment, section one:
Ask someone to explain it to you. Again, your exact arguments were used to defend slavery and Jim Crow laws.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Ask someone to explain it to you. Again, your exact arguments were used to defend slavery and Jim Crow laws.
19
Guys, you're going to break Loveschild's brain. Quit talking about the "constitution" and "making sense" - God said no and it's icky, that's all we need to know about marriage equality! It all seems so simple now...
20
17 I want the federal government out of this issue. DOMA protects states that define marriage as between one woman and one man from being forced to recognize gay marriages and that seems fair. If a gay pairing in FL for example wants to get gay married all they have to do is move to VT or MA or IA or CT where they can get one but if the federal government imposes gay marriage all throughout the states where are people who don't agree with it and who want to have families and raise their kids in a traditional community and environment going to go? There's not gonna be any place left for them to. And that's what DOMA protects against, Mr Savage.
21
18 Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults (traditionally one man and one woman but now with other meanings in some states) and the community (state) in which they reside..
22
17, Should we add to DOMA protection for states that want to ban interracial marriage, so they won't have to recognize interracial marriages from other states? Maybe a state should be able to role back the federal civil rights laws for the sake of the protection of states rights?
DOMA targets gay people and gay people alone. While federal laws require states to recognize hetero marriages, DOMA targets gay people simply for who they are. That is not equal protection guaranteed by The Constitution, and the 14th Amendment says that States are not allowed to offer anything less than the rights given by The Constitution.
P.S. I love pointing out the fatal flaws in your arguments.
DOMA targets gay people and gay people alone. While federal laws require states to recognize hetero marriages, DOMA targets gay people simply for who they are. That is not equal protection guaranteed by The Constitution, and the 14th Amendment says that States are not allowed to offer anything less than the rights given by The Constitution.
P.S. I love pointing out the fatal flaws in your arguments.
23
21, According to the Supreme Court, in the case of Loving Vs. Virginia, it is. Do you ever tire of being wrong?
24
keep spouting that ignorance Loveschild.
You continue to amaze me with how sad and pitiful your life is.
I am sure black people 50 years ago would have been more than happy to move to a non-segregated state if they wanted to. I mean, what was stopping them?
You continue to amaze me with how sad and pitiful your life is.
I am sure black people 50 years ago would have been more than happy to move to a non-segregated state if they wanted to. I mean, what was stopping them?
25
Gay Marriage is kryptonite to heterosexual couples. Pink kryptonite that turns married super-straight men into cock craving whores and married super-straight women to pussy crazed nymphomaniacs.
Joe is simply stating a well known fact that the effects of kryptonite diminish with distance. So Vermont is far enough away from Florida that it has no effect, but if Georgia was to allow same sex marriage, for example, Joe might get a little tingly inside when he sees young shirtless male joggers pass by on the street... I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?
Joe is simply stating a well known fact that the effects of kryptonite diminish with distance. So Vermont is far enough away from Florida that it has no effect, but if Georgia was to allow same sex marriage, for example, Joe might get a little tingly inside when he sees young shirtless male joggers pass by on the street... I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?
26
i'm actually beginning to think that loveschild isn't a person at all. she, she's so all over the place bizarre it's staring to feel like she's a combination of people writing under that rubric.
like the borg ..or something..
like the borg ..or something..
27
Loveschild @21: Please re-read @18.
It's obvious you're intentionally stupid, but it's also clear that you can read. The 14th amendment, which @18 helpfully inserted for you, talks about laws, which, wonder of wonders, cover contracts. A contract signed in Colorado between two consenting adults must, by law, be recognized in Wyoming. So ignoring that you are incorrect about marriage being a right (see @23), you are missing the point of the 14th amendment - I doubt that's an accident, of course, but it must be pointed out.
It's obvious you're intentionally stupid, but it's also clear that you can read. The 14th amendment, which @18 helpfully inserted for you, talks about laws, which, wonder of wonders, cover contracts. A contract signed in Colorado between two consenting adults must, by law, be recognized in Wyoming. So ignoring that you are incorrect about marriage being a right (see @23), you are missing the point of the 14th amendment - I doubt that's an accident, of course, but it must be pointed out.
29
Hey, if anyone wants to get gay married in Iowa, I'll totally be your witness for the license application (you need one) and witness at the ceremony (but you'll need a second witness).
My own straight marriage isn't threatened by Iowa gay marriage. South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Illinois straight marriages don't seem to be bothered by Iowa gay marriages, either.
Does Scarborough's argument remind anyone else of a two year old who refuses to eat things because "they're touching!" on the plate?
My own straight marriage isn't threatened by Iowa gay marriage. South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Illinois straight marriages don't seem to be bothered by Iowa gay marriages, either.
Does Scarborough's argument remind anyone else of a two year old who refuses to eat things because "they're touching!" on the plate?
30
I want to see Joe Scarborough and Sean Hannity have a smug-off. Points will be awarded based on douchiness of smile and number of yacht club membership pins (among other catergories), with deductions for hairs out of place and associations with mysterious dead women.
33
re 3
DC definitely needs real representation in Congress and the Electoral College. It's why the license plates there actually have "Taxation Without Representation" on them.
DC definitely needs real representation in Congress and the Electoral College. It's why the license plates there actually have "Taxation Without Representation" on them.
34
@Loveschild:
Either marriage is a contract or marriage is an ancient institution that is made holy by God and meant only for men and women and for the benefit of children produced in that marriage (which is what is claimed by most anti-gay-marriage people I've talked to and read). You just said it was a contract.
If it's just a contract, there is no reason to restrict a contract between two consenting adults on the basis of gender. This "contract" is a shorthand type of contract which gives those two consenting adults certain - in fact over 1000 - rights and privileges with respect to each other, not just children who may or may not be part of that family unit. Such restrictions do appear to defy the 14th Amendment, which is about equal protection under the law, and currently there is no way for any couple to obtain --all-- of those rights and privileges without getting married.
Why do you hate freedom, Loveschild? Why do you hate justice? Equal protection under the law? Separation of church and state? The right to privacy? Life, liberty and the pursuit of -- dare I say it -- happiness? We're just patriots. We believe in American values. What's *your* problem?
Either marriage is a contract or marriage is an ancient institution that is made holy by God and meant only for men and women and for the benefit of children produced in that marriage (which is what is claimed by most anti-gay-marriage people I've talked to and read). You just said it was a contract.
If it's just a contract, there is no reason to restrict a contract between two consenting adults on the basis of gender. This "contract" is a shorthand type of contract which gives those two consenting adults certain - in fact over 1000 - rights and privileges with respect to each other, not just children who may or may not be part of that family unit. Such restrictions do appear to defy the 14th Amendment, which is about equal protection under the law, and currently there is no way for any couple to obtain --all-- of those rights and privileges without getting married.
Why do you hate freedom, Loveschild? Why do you hate justice? Equal protection under the law? Separation of church and state? The right to privacy? Life, liberty and the pursuit of -- dare I say it -- happiness? We're just patriots. We believe in American values. What's *your* problem?
35
16/28 Hi, apres_moi, haven't seen you here for a while, sorry for the tardy response, I was busy =)
You must already know a couple of things, that is that,
1 our skin color and our ethnicity cannot be hidden, its something that's immediately seen by both people who think less of us and people who don't.
2 you know that only those who think of themselves as superior to us cite interracial marriage to make their arguments as if us marrying a white person makes us legitimate or of more value in their eyes. It's a very poor example and will never hold water cause we don't get our legitimacy and value through our relationships with whites, we have our own values and history that goes well beyond any european reached the coasts of the Motherland. Allow me to respectfully suggest to you to not do as they do.
We are not below them apres_moi, we're just as good as them sugar, if not better.
You must already know a couple of things, that is that,
1 our skin color and our ethnicity cannot be hidden, its something that's immediately seen by both people who think less of us and people who don't.
2 you know that only those who think of themselves as superior to us cite interracial marriage to make their arguments as if us marrying a white person makes us legitimate or of more value in their eyes. It's a very poor example and will never hold water cause we don't get our legitimacy and value through our relationships with whites, we have our own values and history that goes well beyond any european reached the coasts of the Motherland. Allow me to respectfully suggest to you to not do as they do.
We are not below them apres_moi, we're just as good as them sugar, if not better.
36
Loveschild @ 35,
Are you really suggesting that "Loving vs. Virgina" was about making Mrs. Loving more legitimate? So, my uncle married my aunt (who is African American) to make her more legitimate? And, my brother in law married my sister=in-law (who is Chinese) to make her more legitimate? That my great grandfather married my great grandmother (who was Onongdowagag (or Seneca) of the Haudenosaunee (or Iroquois) Confederation) to make her more legitimate? Funny, to read my great grandfathers grave stone, or to talk to either my uncle or brother-in-law, you'd hear them say they married the person they couldn't live without, they married for love. And, to hear both my aunt and sister-in-law speak, you'd get the distinct impression that they married for love, too. Apparently, being made legitimate wasn't a concern for them. Now, I have never spoke to Mrs. Loving, but it appears that she married for love as well, and that Mr. Loving loved her very much.
I think your presumptions are incorrect and offensive.
Are you really suggesting that "Loving vs. Virgina" was about making Mrs. Loving more legitimate? So, my uncle married my aunt (who is African American) to make her more legitimate? And, my brother in law married my sister=in-law (who is Chinese) to make her more legitimate? That my great grandfather married my great grandmother (who was Onongdowagag (or Seneca) of the Haudenosaunee (or Iroquois) Confederation) to make her more legitimate? Funny, to read my great grandfathers grave stone, or to talk to either my uncle or brother-in-law, you'd hear them say they married the person they couldn't live without, they married for love. And, to hear both my aunt and sister-in-law speak, you'd get the distinct impression that they married for love, too. Apparently, being made legitimate wasn't a concern for them. Now, I have never spoke to Mrs. Loving, but it appears that she married for love as well, and that Mr. Loving loved her very much.
I think your presumptions are incorrect and offensive.
37
36 Excuse me, you are the one who's inferring an incorrect assumption sweety, I was clearly talking about people like you and Rob who love to bring up interracial marriage to make your arguments for gay marriage as if interracial marriage was the greatest achievement of the Civil Rights Movement. Mrs. Loving's marriage to a man who happened to be white was just that, justice was made and another grain towards racial justice deposited. In no way did I inferred anything else. But people like you need to check yourselves before you go around placing it above everything else accomplished by the African American struggles for justice in this country because otherwise that's how you come of as. Interracial marriage is no different than a marriage between marriages of the same race but what is not right is for you to use it in the way that you do, boasting about all the non-caucasian races in your white family, as some sort of eccentricity or exoticism. Now, let me be clear, maybe that's not the way you see it but that's the way it comes off as Kim and it's really offensive to be honest.
38
Loveschild @ 37- The poster brought up Loving v. Virginia because in that case, the Supreme Court declared that marriage is a right, not a "privilege" or a "law" or whatever. So, when you were asking who said marriage is a right and that homosexuals deserved it... the Supreme Court did. The specifics of the case do not matter, our government declared that something is a right, and is now denying that right to many Americans.
Also, Amendment 14 talks about "privileges and immunities," not rights. BUT, even if it did, there's still no logical argument against gay marriage.
Also, Amendment 14 talks about "privileges and immunities," not rights. BUT, even if it did, there's still no logical argument against gay marriage.
39
Furthermore Loveschild, your contract argument crumbles in the face of the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, which all states have ratified, in that a contract made in one state is valid and enforceable in all states. DOMA is unconstitutional.
40
38 Which is the state in this nation that's depriving gays of their life, liberty, or property, where? If you tell me of one I'll join you in fighting against it, boycotts, whatever it takes, just name the state and I'm there with you and even with some gay racist like Rob. I'll join you even if you despise people like me, I will.
41
37,
PLEASE, find a thread where I used interacial marriage as an argument for gay marriage, or where I said it that it was the greatest achievement since the Civil Rights movement. I think your confusing me with someone else.
FYI. You presume wrong, I'm not all white.
You're correct I'm proud of my family, but not because "boasting about all the non-caucasian races in your white family, as some sort of eccentricity or exoticism." Like you so insultingly put it, but because we seem to have been able to move beyond seeing people only for their skin color, ancestory, or ethnicity. We actually see and value people for who they are. So, if that is offensive to you than sorry, but it isn't my problem it's yours. There was no offense intended.
Yes, your forgiven.
PLEASE, find a thread where I used interacial marriage as an argument for gay marriage, or where I said it that it was the greatest achievement since the Civil Rights movement. I think your confusing me with someone else.
FYI. You presume wrong, I'm not all white.
You're correct I'm proud of my family, but not because "boasting about all the non-caucasian races in your white family, as some sort of eccentricity or exoticism." Like you so insultingly put it, but because we seem to have been able to move beyond seeing people only for their skin color, ancestory, or ethnicity. We actually see and value people for who they are. So, if that is offensive to you than sorry, but it isn't my problem it's yours. There was no offense intended.
Yes, your forgiven.
42
Loveschild @ 40:
At the moment, 44 states are denying gay people their "liberty." (Though I think there are more to rights and equality than just life, liberty, and property.). People are not free to marry who they want, and as such are denied thousands of rights provided to other citizens in the state. Where is the liberty when, if your partner of 40 years gets sick, you are not allowed to visit them in the hospital? Where is the liberty when people are forced to file separate tax returns? (It can be argued that this violates people's right to "property," as they are being taxed twice unncessarily.) Yes, they are not being killed or anything, but they are not being treated as equals and that is something that we should not stand for in this country.
And of course, I do not hate you. I don't even know you and I wouldn't hate someone just for disagreeing with me.
At the moment, 44 states are denying gay people their "liberty." (Though I think there are more to rights and equality than just life, liberty, and property.). People are not free to marry who they want, and as such are denied thousands of rights provided to other citizens in the state. Where is the liberty when, if your partner of 40 years gets sick, you are not allowed to visit them in the hospital? Where is the liberty when people are forced to file separate tax returns? (It can be argued that this violates people's right to "property," as they are being taxed twice unncessarily.) Yes, they are not being killed or anything, but they are not being treated as equals and that is something that we should not stand for in this country.
And of course, I do not hate you. I don't even know you and I wouldn't hate someone just for disagreeing with me.
43
@42 and 40
Not to mention the countries (I know, we are talking about USA, but its a point) where you can be jailed and put to death for gay marriage.
At what point does it become wrong to step on others' freedoms or rights? Where is the cutoff point?
2nd class citizenship?
Loss of Property?
Jail?
Murder?
How does two people getting married infringe upon anyone's anythings?
Not to mention the countries (I know, we are talking about USA, but its a point) where you can be jailed and put to death for gay marriage.
At what point does it become wrong to step on others' freedoms or rights? Where is the cutoff point?
2nd class citizenship?
Loss of Property?
Jail?
Murder?
How does two people getting married infringe upon anyone's anythings?
44
Twice in the last month I've had otherwise intelligent, quite well educated people tell me that when they hear "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" they immediately think of disgusting sexual behaviors and it's off-putting. I want to know if straight people in general jump to that or if this is a local aberration? I certainly don't immediately think of (what I would mentally qualify as) disgusting sexual behaviors when I see a straight couple getting married -- I think about love and family ties and sharing and happiness. I actually don't start thinking about disgusting sexual behaviors until they begin slamming them into my ears: "Oh, we're trying to get pregnant." "This is such an exciting time for us." "Yes, it's a little girl, we saw the pictures last night." And then the enormous bellies that they're so proud of. And even then, I try to avoid thinking about their disgusting sexual behaviors. But when they first get married? Not so much. If I delve into the matter at all, it's to critique the wedding dress or the buffet, or the drunken cousin. Do I get my gay card taken away for not instantly jumping to disgusting-sex conclusions every time I hear the word "wedding"? Help me out here, Dan.
45
Calpete @44 it's actually some of the baser (and more successful) propaganda out there that has gay marriage associated with guys bumping uglies with each other, or two bears in bridal outfits deep kissing each other, or whatever. It's like the dead-fetus anti-abortion pics, simply a device to gross people out in the name of a cause.
One could just as easily get some skanky hets together and film them engaged in licentious activities in order to demonize straight relationships. I think it'd make a great social commentary, or a good student project in marketing.
After all the dead babies that keep surfacing on SLOG, I've considered posting links to war carnage from Afghanistan and Iraq just as a reminder that abortion is not the only issue that has distasteful elements.
Of course, when it comes to Gay relationships, I know different than most: Some folks are adorably cute. Some are butt-ugly. Most public displays of affection are tasteful and endearing. Sometimes a couple gets carried away, and while that doesn't stain my desensitized sensibilities, it might bother others. All this can be said about het PDAs as well.
One could just as easily get some skanky hets together and film them engaged in licentious activities in order to demonize straight relationships. I think it'd make a great social commentary, or a good student project in marketing.
After all the dead babies that keep surfacing on SLOG, I've considered posting links to war carnage from Afghanistan and Iraq just as a reminder that abortion is not the only issue that has distasteful elements.
Of course, when it comes to Gay relationships, I know different than most: Some folks are adorably cute. Some are butt-ugly. Most public displays of affection are tasteful and endearing. Sometimes a couple gets carried away, and while that doesn't stain my desensitized sensibilities, it might bother others. All this can be said about het PDAs as well.
46
@40
I'm convinced that you are a really good spokesperson for the deranged bigotry presented by the right, like you're an aggregator for the most ludicrous notions put forth in popular conservative media, and I do appreciate it. Keeps me informed. I do wish you'd answer more of the questions posed, though, since I'm sure there's some twisted framework of logic beneath all the hostility.
I know you're not just ignoring the questions that stump you. That would be fucked up.
I'm convinced that you are a really good spokesperson for the deranged bigotry presented by the right, like you're an aggregator for the most ludicrous notions put forth in popular conservative media, and I do appreciate it. Keeps me informed. I do wish you'd answer more of the questions posed, though, since I'm sure there's some twisted framework of logic beneath all the hostility.
I know you're not just ignoring the questions that stump you. That would be fucked up.
47
40, You may want to go back and looks at what is bolded, and what isn't. Do you really not understand what it says, or are you just playing dumb?
48
Don't gays have enough problems without wanting to add to them by getting married? Frankly I don't care who engages in any sexual practice with another consenting adult and how many are entwined in the practice but I do not believe that gays should be allowed to be "married". I believe that gays should be allowed to enter into civil unions and I also believe that no state should perform marriages. I think that all couples homo or hetero should enter into civil unions and that if they want to enter into a religious arrangement called marriage they should be allowed to. Marriage is a quasi religious institution and should not be a state provided union.
49
@26 - I said this a long time ago (well a couple of months anyway). The more I read the more convinced I am.
50
48
I agree with you. There's so much blurring of the lines between the religious, social and legal components of marriage that we would be well served by separating and clarifying them. My wife and I eloped a couple of months ago in a religion-free ceremony. Neither of us are devoutly religious or Christian, so when we hear Christian conservatives getting all exercised about how marriage is sacred to God it just falls on deaf ears. Let the religious wackos have their "marriage" and the rest of us (gay and straight) can have unions that confer all the rights and responsibilities that marriage does now. After all, my wife and I only got married (after being together for six years) because I got laid off and lost my health insurance.
I agree with you. There's so much blurring of the lines between the religious, social and legal components of marriage that we would be well served by separating and clarifying them. My wife and I eloped a couple of months ago in a religion-free ceremony. Neither of us are devoutly religious or Christian, so when we hear Christian conservatives getting all exercised about how marriage is sacred to God it just falls on deaf ears. Let the religious wackos have their "marriage" and the rest of us (gay and straight) can have unions that confer all the rights and responsibilities that marriage does now. After all, my wife and I only got married (after being together for six years) because I got laid off and lost my health insurance.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
-
Real Salt Lake vs. Galaxy Open Thread by Christopher Frizzelle
-
The Panic Over Mammograms by Audrey Van Buskirk
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (50) RSS