Comments

  1. uffda says

    Little Kiwi hurry up over here and say things. After you flattened Mary yesterday I went to bed laughing. When you blow your top it’s like watching Kiluaha.

  2. says

    Mary thinks that allowing gay couples to marry “makes a new law”

    Mary doesn’t consider it an extension of a previously-existing law.

    Her comparison is to say “what if we allow ten year olds to vote because voting already exists?”

    Mary ignores that extending voting rights to women was also an extension of a previously-existing law.

    Mary, thus, is exactly what all anti-Equality people are: fools who pick up soundbites that resonate in the echo-chambers that are their intellectually-feeble plebeian minds. they have baseless and indefensible excuses for everything, and intelligent and justifiable reasons for NOTHING.

    werk!

  3. Matt says

    Why isn’t Romney, who has essentially the same position on same-sex marriage, getting booed? And why isn’t he being demonized by this blog as much as Santorum? Yes, I will grant Santorum seems more emotionally committed to the issue, but both Santorum and Romney have the same destructive positions.

    As a reminder, Romney and Santorum signed the SAME NOM PLEDGE.

  4. johnny says

    “It’s not discrimination not to grant privileges. It’s discrimination to deny rights…”

    WTF????

    I guess it gets down to this:

    Is marriage a right or is it a privilege?

    And even THAT is splitting hairs.

  5. says

    Romney, who is worth around 200 million dollars, also opposes the “death tax” because he realizes that 110 million dollars just isn’t enough to be divided as inheritance amongst his brood of mormon offspring, none of whom are gay. 😉

    right.

    90 million dollars of his going to taxes? that’s not fair! that would mean his kids only get TENS of millions when he dies!

    *eye roll*

  6. B says

    Just wait until Lil Ricky learns about Lady Gaga’s intentions to “Marry The Night,” his head will explode! Who could have predicted someone wanting to marry an intangible? What a slippery slope.

  7. Paul B. says

    @ KIWI…not to exhault you too much…but how do you get it right all the time? I have yet to see a post of yours that I don’t fully agree with and wish I had said myself.
    Question…what are we going to do about santorum? I have lots of ideas but don’t want to end up serving time. Any suggestions that are legal…but barely…would work for me.

  8. TJ says

    Just exactly how do the benefits that accrue to married couples (stability, increased intimacy, greater satisfaction, better health), which in turn benefit society (happy citizens making for a happier, more productive society; happier children) NOT apply to same-sex couples? Conversely, how does denying “privilege” benefit society?

    F**K YOU, Frothy.

    Excuse me whilst I go burn my sweater vests.

  9. Jay says

    Hey Paul B. – Why do you think anything should be done about Mr. “Surged from [a] Behind”???

    We are all caught up in the moment watching the never ending news cycle play this out with pundits left and right making predictions, etc.

    Seriously, do you really think any of these folks have a heartbeat’s chance in hell? McCain WAS scary in 2008…until he went CRAZY…and brought the chief loon down from Alaska. And that is when the Grand Ol’ Party became the Goofy Ol’ Party. And since they have been vying for top Goof for the past 8 months, they have had to out crazy each other all along the way. Since the Dems are not involved in their infighting, it’s just a giant echo chamber right now.

    Wait until they find their Chief Loon for 2012…and then go up against reason. Perhaps then will be a good time to develop some strategy…but until then, sit back, grab some popcorn, and watch the show. It’s entertaining as hell….

    Oh, and in between mouthfuls of popcorn, spend some time working for projects that help to counteract the stigmatization that this political race is causing for our younger (and even older) brothers and sisters. We can’t shut up their hateful rhetoric, but we can drown it out!

  10. Paul B. says

    @Jay…I know you’re right…and popcorn is really what I should be thinking of when watching these fools but sometimes my skin gets crawly and I can’t scratch. Those moments make me nutty and I look for something to do about it.
    You’re suggestion is well taken. I know in my heart that they can’t go anywhere with this “hate agenda” but it’s hard to watch.
    I’ll get my knitting out…in this mood I should have a whole sweater done by tonight.

  11. Pdxblueys says

    What about that medical procedure his wife had – which DID save her life, but also terminated her pregnancy? I’m so tired of this hypocritical pandering. This ass hat is dangerous to all people, because once he takes our rights away, he will go after yours… Are you prepared for that?

  12. Mary says

    Kiwi, it may be a question of the wording. How about this: “marriage equality” is changing the law in order to extend marital rights to couples who didn’t previously have them. But however you word it we have something now in 6 U.S. states that we didn’t have as recently as early 2003 -legal marriage between people of the same gender.

    And what is your point about people who opposed giving women voting rights? Am I supposed to be responsible for what people in the 1920’s thought? I wasn’t even alive then. Obviously, SOME social experiments DO work out…..but some don’t. Womenn voting worked out well, no-fault divorce didn’t. The sexual revolution itself was a mixed bag, depending on how you define a good life. In other words, social change may end up being progress….or it may be a long trip to hell and back which ends up being paid for not by those who advocated it, but those who came after them.

    I don’t see why you think you scored some point here.

  13. LiamB says

    I’m still waiting for those who keep crying “social experiment” to provide any evidence what-so-ever that gays being allowed to marry could have any effect on straight marriages, period. Gays will still be gay if they are allowed to marry or not, as straights will still be straight. No one magically changes sexual orientation for any reason, and no straight person is going to decide they’d rather become gay just because.

    Also, I have yet to hear a single straight person claim they don’t want to get married because the gay couple they don’t know on the other side of town did. Hell, most people don’t decide to get married or not based on what someone else did. And if a married couple actual decided to divorce because gays could marry (and I have never seen evidence this has happened)then that says more about how little they genuinely wanted to married in the first place.

    Seriously, instead of just screaming “you could destroy civilization!!” why not provide a detailed theory on what could happen, and why it would. And try to make the points rational. People don’t just look at their neighbors and say, “oh well, it was a good run, but I guess we have to divorce.” Insulting people’s intelligence with shear stupidity is never a good way to win an argument.

  14. says

    “Why isn’t Romney, who has essentially the same position on same-sex marriage, getting booed?”

    Romney’s position on marriage equality should also be booed (and, since he will be the nominee unless something drastic happens, his position is the more important), but Santorum has made bashing gay families the centerpiece of his campaign, and, when he’s been asked questions about marriage equality, his arguments are so weak and irrational, that it would be nearly impossible for sane people not to boo him. Furthermore, Santorum has taken it one step further. Not only would he prevent marriage equality in the future, he would seek to barge into states that have passed marriage equality and invalidate the legal marriages of same-sex couples. That’s extreme (not to mention, unconstitutional) stuff and should be called out as such. (If he tried it in my state, he might get tarred and feathered.)

    Mary, you need to come up with a better argument. Opposing equality because of paranoia over some social change doesn’t cut it. Civil rights progress comes with social change. That is the point. And there is zero evidence that including same-sex couples in civil marriage would bring about any change whatsoever, aside from positive change to those families who are now better protected and to young gay people who will understand that they need not be discriminated against solely because of their sexuality. Support for equality has only increased as more places enact it (however much the anti-gay dinosaurs pretend otherwise); the odds that that protecting gay couples and families will have disastrous or even negative consequences are preposterously slim. Anyone making such a claim needs to elaborate–how would this possibly adversely affect you? (Good luck with that!) If you want to be anti-gay on a gay site, you need to up your game, or else you seem as out of your league as Frothy.

  15. Mary says

    LLamb, how can we provide any evidence if the experiment is on-going? Experiments take time to reach their conclusion. And here’s one big problem I have with this change. It won’t be treated like an experiement. Does anyone seriously believe that if gay marriage turns out to have an adverse affect on society Americans will ever admit it was a mistake and go back to the pre-2003 definition of marriage as only man-woman? Would the academic/intellectual world, dominated by cultural liiberals, ever allow serious attention to be paid to any studies that showed gay marriage to be harmful? Anyone who’se lived in the US in the past 50 years knows that the answer is no. Look at how long it took them to finally admit the ill effects of divorce on children.

    I would be much more inclined to support gay marriage if I truly thought the country was experiementing with it. As I’ve said before, gays in the military is the more interesting experiment whose outcome we’ll know within a decade. I’m more optimistic on this issue. If gays in the miliary were put to a national vote I think at this point I’d vote to let it stand. So I guess I’ve become liberal on at least one gay issue!

  16. says

    Mary, I’m still not sure why you think protecting gay couples and families with civil marriage equality is some big experiment that could have any outcome? What on earth do you think will happen? Marriage helps families stay together securely. That’s known. There is no reason to believe that married gay couples will flip that obvious result. (Comparing marriage equality to no-fault divorce is simply bizarre.) If we waited to see the outcome of justice before establishing justice, there would be no justice, ever. I don’t have much more patience to give you on your irrational argument, but, really, think about what you’re saying, it doesn’t make sense.

  17. George M says

    What a waste
    The good part is that we’ll continue to advance with or with out conservitives. They don’t have to want us to have it, makes it better when we get it. Im losing all respect for people who don’t think I deserve the right. That includes family, I have an uncle over xmass who said he’s not in to gay marriage “but I love you” BS
    Their will be people in my life and then their will be people who I invite to sit at my dinner table. He’s not one who will sit at my table

  18. SearchCz says

    So, according to Rick, we recognize certain things as “marriages” because they pass his specific criteria. Wonder how same-sex marriage measures up to these criteria? Does it:

    1) Provide some societal good – yep. Studies enumerate the financial impact, the health benefits (to married same sex couples), increased social stability for same-sex families, and the addition of welcoming home to parentless children.

    2) Reflect nature and nature’s God. – yep. Same-sex pairing has been observed in almost every species, so that would be God’s nature, yes?

    3) Be the best thing for children – check. Studies show that same-sex couples are AT LEAST as good at raising kids as straights.

    Sounds like an endorsement for equal marriage to me! ( He does seem to be kind of anti-adoption though )

    And since he doesn’t want to deny anyone rights, why not start with our 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law … legal protections that marriage equality provide.

  19. Mary says

    George M, I’m sorry that your uncle hurt your feelings. He should have refrained from saying anything on the topic that he knew would upset you. I can assure you that if we were relatives this would not have happened. If we were related I probably would have offered to join the Gay-Straight Alliance just to show loyalty to you.

  20. Mary says

    Thank you for trying to be patient with me(no sarcasm intended.) Obviously we don’t need to see the outcome of justice. Justice by definition is something worthwhile. My arguments against gay marriage have been reiterated on Towleroad many times so I won’t go into them again and bore everyone. I don’t expect to change any minds here. I’m just trying to show that some of us are against gay marriage but not anti-gay in the sense that we’d take things back to the pre-Stonewall era.
    I fully expect that the Right will lose the marriage equality fight – and I’m preparing myself psychologically for the time when that happens.

  21. George M says

    Mary joining the GSA is something you should have done anyway. You and I would not have a relationship because although you have a right to you’re opinion I wouldnt tolerate it. I can’t wait for the day gay marriage is legal in all states or at the least legal in the eyes of the government. As far as conservitives being ready for the change thats not my concern or something I’m worried about
    I’m sorry but no more compromising, lines everyday are drawn

  22. says

    Mary, perhaps you will evolve further but currently you are anti-gay. If you want to be honest, own it. If you want to be dishonest, and on a level with the Rick Santorums of the world, keep kidding yourself.

  23. says

    @Mary: if there is ever any evidence that marriage equality is harmful for anyone, it is precisely in the academy that that evidence will get a fair trial. NOT in right-wing think tanks that fake their evidence.

    Your arguments remind me of one that came up in the 2003 Goodrich dissent: the claim that there are NO studies of children of same sex couples, that we just don’t have any evidence yet, and therefore we should wait. That argument ignored the many many studies that HAD been done, because ALL of them found that gay parents were just as good OR EVEN BETTER at raising children than straight couples. Please do some research before speculating.

    MARRIAGE IS A RIGHT: Loving v. Virginia, for example, found that

    The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

    Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.

    CASE CLOSED.

Leave A Reply