Comments

  1. kujhawker says

    Well when you have to fight for something so hard you tend to cherish it a little more. Also remember when a state finally gets marriage equality who do you usually see getting married first? It is that couple that has already been together 10, 15, 20 years and just now can make it legal. Which means there relationship already withstood the test of time.

    I have a feeling that once we have a generation of gays being born where marriage equality is the norm, they will be just as casual about marriage as straights.

  2. <3 for all says

    As much as I support gay marriage, I must point out that correlation does not imply causation, which is the first thing you learn in statistics. We can’t jump to conclusions like those right-wing crackheads…

  3. says

    the nightly 1-2 punch of Olbermann and Maddow is the best thing on TV. period. now if my old fellow Vassar grad Phil Griffin, president of MSNBC would just give the boot to Scarborough and his sycophant sidekick Mika, we’d all be better off.

  4. Gus says

    The stats on divorce alone are meaningless. Have out of wedlock births increased? Cohabitation? Single parenthood? Multiple fathers, same mother? The gangsters against us will use the whole picture to blame us for stuff that is not our fault.

  5. Gregus says

    @<3 for all

    I don’t believe any one was SERIOUSLY claiming that gay marriage was the CAUSE of the lower divorce rate, only that the sky didn’t fall in and people didn’t start marrying goats as organizations like NOM claimed it would.

  6. Rick says

    In the 1970s, feminists cheerily told everyone that women can raise kids without men. It took decades before adequate statistics began to show that kids raised by single mothers are more prone to every kind of social problem. It’s something like 75 or 80% of male prisoners were raised by single mothers. Young men need fathers….and mothers. Girls need mothers and fathers.

    Divorces are down in Massachussets? Great. But how many people in Massachusetts got married in 2008? Is the marriage rate holding steady? Is the birth rate holding steady? No. These figures are DECLINING in Massachussets, and they are declining faster than in other places in the country. Less and less people are marrying and less and less are having kids. Where will these figures be in ten years?

    Rachel’s gleeful verdict is premature and she used a false metric to declare victory.

  7. Gregus says

    @Rick

    Yep, because gay marriage *makes* people gay. Also, if gay people can marry, straight people will clearly just stop getting married, stop fucking, and stop making babies.

    That makes *total* sense.

  8. Graham Anderson says

    I’d just like to point out that the received wisdom on social problems being caused by single mothers is not so cut-and-dry. The OECD has just published a report:

    “Overall, the general thrust of these more focused methodologies is that the causal effects of being raised in a single-parent family are smaller than hitherto believed, or even zero.”

    The report quotes research which states that:

    “[T]here is currently no unambiguous proof that growing up in a lone-parent family has adverse effects for later-life outcomes”.

    http://www.oecd.org/document/12/0,3343,en_2649_34819_43545036_1_1_1_37419,00.html“>

  9. Rick says

    Gregus:

    My point is that we won’t know for a long time what the effect of gay marriage will be.

    For the past fifteen years gay men have achieved more and more visibility. Gay culture and the gay aesthetic are everywhere. Will and Grace, Queer Eye, Sex and the City (Michael Patrick King, Darren Star), Abercrombie ads, fashion ads in general, and generally favorable reporting from MSM news outlets.

    Has this had an effect on straight people? Absolutely, “Knocked Up”, “Role Models”, “My Name Is Earl”, “Wedding Crashers”… almost everywhere in the culture you see men rejecting anything gayish and putting up slobby, homophobic, ne’er-do-well as the male archetype.

    You needn’t be against gay marraige to worry that it might adversely affect the broader culture. A straight man may very well look at a gay married couple and have a less positive view of marriage. However bigoted he may be, that would be bad for us all.

    I doubt it will have no effect.

  10. Dave says

    Rachel is a joke. She is a completely biased, smug left wing lunatic who could use a strong dose of humility.

    Don’t get me wrong ladies, I’m sure that she is very bright, but the far left is just as bad as the far right.

  11. Rick says

    Graham Anderson: Will look at that article, but with a high degree of skepticism.

    I’ve never heaerd of the OECD. It looks like a liberally-minded organization. The mission statement on its website seems strangely broad:

    OECD brings together the governments of countries committed to democracy and the market economy from around the world to:

    “OECD brings together the governments of countries committed to democracy and the market economy from around the world to:

    Support sustainable economic growth
    Boost employment
    Raise living standards
    Maintain financial stability
    Assist other countries’ economic development
    Contribute to growth in world trade”

  12. says

    Dave, she has a point of view. So does almost everyone on cable. Listen to her interviews of right-wing conservatives, though. She’s tough in ways that Tim Russert never would have been – beyond the “gotcha” games. That’s good. She’s also highly respectful, won’t talk over her guests and will let them say whatever they’ve come onto the show to say. In essence, she let’s them hang themselves.

    Whatever her point of view, she’s a brilliant interviewer who’s extremely intelligent and tough on everyone. We haven’t had that on paid TV for years. The only place you could get that was PBS. She’s very different from the right wing shows, though, because she DOES let her guests speak, she DOES respect them (even the worst of them) and she DOES let them get their points across, without trying to sidetrack them or make them look bad. If they’re to look bad, it’s because they made themselves look bad. That’s the genius of her show and that’s why it’s so incredibly different than anything on the right wing (and even the left… I love her show a helluva lot more than I like Olberman, for example).

  13. Matt says

    @ Rick

    I think you made a ridiculous statistical claim… I’d like you to verify it.

    Also, just because you have never heard of something is not a reason to invalidate something.

    And also, Maddow may have a left-leaning point of view but what others say is true. She puts on a great show and she’ll go far for it. I saw her interview Tom Ridge and she didn’t pull any punches yet also remained very respectful and professional, allowing him to say his points and have opportunities for rebuttal.

  14. Dave says

    Ryan,
    Your comments are very thoughtful. I disagree with you though. Her show is nothing like the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, for example, because it is completely biased. She mocks Republicans or people with a conservative perspective and she delivers her news in a sarcastic manner. If you watch the News Hour on PBS, you will see thoughtful and intelligent debate – not a judgment made by the moderators. Her show is entertainment, not news.

  15. says

    “She is a completely biased, smug left wing lunatic who could use a strong dose of humility.”

    And Rachel is a lunatic how? And how is the “far left . . . just as bad as the far right” for gay people? (Assuming you’re one of us “ladies,” DAVE.)

    “A straight man may very well look at a gay married couple and have a less positive view of marriage. However bigoted he may be, that would be bad for us all.”

    And, RICK, how exactly would that be bad for us all? If some straight guy–or bigot, by your description–can’t handle seeing a happily married gay couple then he’s probably not really suited to marriage. He’d be better off on the down low or covering his eyes and hiding under his bed. It’s true we don’t know what effect gay couples marrying will ultimately have on the institution of marriage, but it is clear who is responsible for the current high divorce rate, and it ain’t us gay folks.

  16. John says

    I don’t think anyone watching PBS has any illusions about the politics of Bill Moyers, Charile Rose, or Ken Burns. Humans are biased. And all reporters are human. Even the ones who work for PBS. The difference between them and the cable talking heads is that they’re not considered “insufferable” to the other side.

    Cable networks hire anchors and hosts based on their ability to enrage the opposition. It creates a lot of false conflict. In the same way putting the “racist hick” and “black nationalist” together obviously does on reality television. There’s nothing spontaneous about the feud between O’Reilly and Olbermann. That goes for most the feuds between CNN, FOX, NBC, HBO, Comedy Central, and so forth. They are as scripted as anything else on television. And that’s why they’re entertainment and not journalism.

  17. Gregus says

    @ Rick

    Yes gay marriage will have consequences for society. It will tell society that gay or straight, pair bonding is important and valid. It will possibly lower promiscuity in the gay community, lower STD transmission rates, increase self-esteem. We have a generation of young gay people who will increasingly see themselves as equal…not less than.

    So far as the straight community goes, you cannot seriously believe that because gay couples can marry it would in any way diminish marriage for straight people! If it did, then they were clearly getting married for the wrong reason. If they can’t be happy for the gay couple down the street and want the same happiness and security for them, then that’s their problem. Again, gay people marrying will not CAUSE people to be gay, will not STOP straight couples coming together to make babies, and will not stop straight couples marrying. To try to say it will is just nonsense.

  18. says

    “Her show is nothing like the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, for example, because it is completely biased.”

    I don’t think Rachel herself would claim to be anything like Jim Lehrer or the News Hour. She is paid to have an opinion and to express that opinion as articulately as possible. There’s not pretense of being unbiased. (As there is with Bill O’Reilly, for instance–who claims to be fair and balanced when obviously he is neither.) Her style and viewpoints may not be to some people’s taste, but that hardly makes her a “lunatic.” I can’t think of many people–left or right–who are better at doing their homework and clearly expressing their viewpoint.

  19. Attmay says

    “almost everywhere in the culture you see men rejecting anything gayish and putting up slobby, homophobic, ne’er-do-well as the male archetype.”

    Just like in real life? Seriously, white heterosexual teenage boys have held this culture hostage for 50 years. It’s time for adults to take it back.

Leave A Reply