gay marriage

Poor, poor, nostalgic Garrison Keillor. He appoints himself the spokesperson for monogamy, and then spouts stupid, outdated gay stereotypes (Stating the Obvious):

Under the old monogamous system, we didn’t have the problem of apportioning Thanksgiving and Christmas among your mother and stepdad, your dad and his third wife, your mother-in-law and her boyfriend Hal, and your father-in-law and his boyfriend Chuck. Today, serial monogamy has stretched the extended family to the breaking point. A child can now grow up with eight or nine or 10 grandparents — Gampa, Gammy, Goopa, Gumby, Papa, Poopsy, Goofy, Gaga and Chuck — and need a program to keep track of the actors.

And now gay marriage will produce a whole new string of hyphenated relatives. In addition to the ex-stepson and ex-in-laws and your wife’s first husband’s second wife, there now will be Bruce and Kevin’s in-laws and Bruce’s ex, Mark, and Mark’s current partner, and I suppose we’ll get used to it.

The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men — sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts. That’s for the kids. It’s their show.

Yeah, I know it’s a parody of some sort, but still.

Dan Savage has steam comin’ out of his ears (Fuck Garrison Keillor):

Ultimately gay parents aren’t interested in being “accepted as couples and daddies” by withered old adulterers. We exist irrespective of your “acceptance.” And if I seem angry, you fucking motherfucker, it’s because I am. Angered and shocked. I’m used to being attacked by right-wingers obsessed with gay sex and fixated on anti-gay stereotypes. It’s a new and different sensation to be attacked so crudely by a man of the left—particularly when that man’s fat ass squats in a large glass house.

Cameron Scott asks, Why is Salon Running a Bigoted Anti-Gay Column by Garrison Keillor?:

Does Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva who fought and was wounded in Iraq fit this stereotype? Does John Amaechi, a retired NBA player? Keillor is just vomiting up his own homophobic impressions.

Write Salon and ask why they’re giving bigotry a platform.

Feministing gives Yet another reason to hate Garrison Keillor

Twisty tells Garrison Keillor to take his lutefisk and shove it.

Tell you what Garrison, how about tea with manly Matt Sanchez, mmmkay?

Update: Lolita made a good point at dinner tonight. If’ you’re going to complain, it should be to National Public Radio. which broadcasts Prairie Home Companion or American Public Media, home of of the show:

  • Jay Kernis, Senior Vice President for Programming (email: jkernis@npr.org)
  • Kevin Klose, President (kklose@npr.org)
  • Walt Swanston, Director of Diversity Management(email: wswanston@npr.org)
  • William H. Kling, President & CEO, Minnesota Public Radio, American Public Media Group, American Public Media (email: bkling@mpr.org)

More on Lewis vs. Harris

by Viviane on 10/26/2006

in sex

Leonard Link (Prof. Arthur Leonard):
“Nowhere does Justice Albin mention the important point, recently established by two federal appeals courts, that same-sex couples who have entered into civil unions or domestic partnerships do not have standing to contest the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, since they are not “married” in the eyes of their state and thus could not claim to have been deprived by the federal government of the rights provided to persons who are “married.”

Half A Loaf: The New Jersey Ruling On Gay Marriage (Doug Ireland):
“No one has specifically polled attitudes toward homosexuality since the Foley scandal broke. But if there is a new backlash, the New Jersey court decision, coming just 13 days before the midterm elections, may well unintentionally have helped deliver November victories to the most vigorous opponents of gay rights—without even having given gays a second state free of second-class citizenship for their loving couples. One step forward, two steps back?”

Neighbor’s Same-Sex Ruling May Affect New York Debate (New York Law Journal)
“The key difference in the Lewis decision is New Jersey’s approach to equal-protection analysis. In New York, the analysis resembled the federal structure, in which the burden is on the party challenging the government action by demonstrating that the legislature had no rational basis for creating the law, real or even hypothetical. In New Jersey, the government had to establish that the law in fact did have a rational basis.”

law
gay

“It’s vile. It’s more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction.” — Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach, September 12, 1998, referring to Bill Clinton in the St. Petersburg Times.

Another one-two punch of karmic irony for Republicans. First, there was James West, Republican Mayor of Spokane, Washington, noted for vigorously opposing gay rights measures until he was caught exchanging messages with someone he thought was a 17-year-old boy on a gay website.

Then Virginia Representative Edward Schrock, a staunch Republican backed by the Christian Coalition, left a message on a gay phone dating service looking for a partner to “get together with a guy from time to time just to — just to play… get naked, play, and see what happens.” Nothing wrong with that, unless by day you are a howling, vitriolic advocate for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. (more…)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Senate voted down a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, but Republicans planned a vote in the House of Representatives to keep a national spotlight on the hot-button issue.

The 49 to 48 Senate vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to clear a procedural hurdle, thwarting President Bush and the mostly Republican lawmakers who said the Constitution must be amended to prevent judges from striking down existing state bans on gay marriage.

Democrats accused Republicans of exploiting a divisive issue they knew would fail in order to shore up conservative support before November congressional elections and divert attention from topics like the war in Iraq that reflect poorly on the party in control of the White House and Congress.

“It is a cynical attempt to score political points by overriding state courts and intruding into individuals’ private lives,” Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts said in floor debate on Tuesday.

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to take up the marriage amendment in July, though Republican leaders do not expect it to pass there either.

“This is a big issue for lots of our members and frankly for lots of Americans,” House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio told reporters on Tuesday.

Constitutional amendments must win approval from two-thirds of each house of the U.S. Congress and three-quarters of state legislatures before taking effect.

Colorado Republican Sen. Wayne Allard, the bill’s sponsor, did not expect the gay-marriage ban to pass but hoped to demonstrate increased support since 2004, when 48 senators voted for a similar bill.

NOT DISAPPOINTED

Allard and other backers said they were not disappointed that the measure only won 49 votes this time.

“Clearly as time goes on there will be more votes in favor of this,” said South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune. “We make a little headway each time this is debated.”

Seven Republicans voted against Allard’s bill on Wednesday, including two — Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg — who supported it in 2004.

Specter said he opposes same-sex marriage but would vote against the measure because it tramples on states’ rights.

Two Democrats, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson and West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, voted for the gay-marriage ban.

According to a March 2006 poll by the Pew Research Center, 51 percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, down from 63 percent in February 2004.

Forty-five states have passed laws or amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage, and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act allows states to refuse to recognize marriages performed elsewhere.

Allard said a constitutional ban is necessary to protect these laws, which in many cases were enacted with overwhelming public support.

State judges have struck down several state gay-marriage bans and court challenges are pending in nine states.

Since 2004, about 8,000 gay couples have married in Massachusetts, the only state to fully recognize same-sex marriages. Six other states and the District of Columbia offer same-sex couples some legal protections.

The Weekly Standard’s anti-polyamory cover story (see previous entry) is getting taken apart on various blogs. Right off the mark, The New Republic‘s Rob Anderson weighed in:

The latest Weekly Standard cover story, “HERE COME THE BRIDES: PLURAL MARRIAGE IS WAITING IN THE WINGS,” proves something that its author, Stanley Kurtz, most certainly did not intend it to: The conservative case against gay marriage is growing weaker by the day. Opponents of same-sex marriage have traditionally relied on two strategies to drum up support for their cause: the “ick” factor and the slippery-slope argument. But now, even the staunchest of conservatives must admit that America is becoming more tolerant of homosexuality…. With the “ick” factor heading towards irrelevancy, the slippery-slope argument against gay marriage is all they have left.

Enter Stanley Kurtz and his near-obsession with what he calls “group marriages”….

Anderson, however, bases his argument partly on the fact that polyamory is too small, disorganized, and unpopular to constitute any sort of a “menace.” He writes, “There is no meaningful leadership, no agenda, no broad-based organizational structure, no PAC, no lobbyists, no fundraising.” Unfortunately this is true! Read the whole article. (You’ll need to register for free with The New Republic.)

(more…)

By LARRY DAVID

SOMEBODY had to write this, and it might as well be me. I haven’t seen “Brokeback Mountain,” nor do I have any intention of seeing it. In fact, cowboys would have to lasso me, drag me into the theater and tie me to the seat, and even then I would make every effort to close my eyes and cover my ears.

And I love gay people. Hey, I’ve got gay acquaintances. Good acquaintances, who know they can call me anytime if they had my phone number. I’m for gay marriage, gay divorce, gay this and gay that. I just don’t want to watch two straight men, alone on the prairie, fall in love and kiss and hug and hold hands and whatnot. That’s all.

Is that so terrible? Does that mean I’m homophobic? And if I am, well, then that’s too bad. Because you can call me any name you want, but I’m still not going to that movie.

To my surprise, I have some straight friends who’ve not only seen the movie but liked it. “One of the best love stories ever,” one gushed. Another went on, “Oh, my God, you completely forget that it’s two men. You in particular will love it.”

“Why me?”

“You just will, trust me.”

But I don’t trust him. If two cowboys, male icons who are 100 percent all-man, can succumb, what chance to do I have, half- to a quarter of a man, depending on whom I’m with at the time? I’m a very susceptible person, easily influenced, a natural-born follower with no sales-resistance. When I walk into a store, clerks wrestle one another trying to get to me first. My wife won’t let me watch infomercials because of all the junk I’ve ordered that’s now piled up in the garage. My medicine cabinet is filled with vitamins and bald cures.

So who’s to say I won’t become enamored with the whole gay business? Let’s face it, there is some appeal there. I know I’ve always gotten along great with men. I never once paced in my room rehearsing what to say before asking a guy if he wanted to go to the movies. And I generally don’t pay for men, which of course is their most appealing attribute.

And gay guys always seem like they’re having a great time. At the Christmas party I went to, they were the only ones who sang. Boy that looked like fun. I would love to sing, but this weighty, self-conscious heterosexuality I’m saddled with won’t permit it.

I just know if I saw that movie, the voice inside my head that delights in torturing me would have a field day. “You like those cowboys, don’t you? They’re kind of cute. Go ahead, admit it, they’re cute. You can’t fool me, gay man. Go ahead, stop fighting it. You’re gay! You’re gay!”

Not that there’s anything wrong with it.

Larry David appears in the HBO series “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”

Link

Josey Vogels

Another year, another sex scandal. Wait a minute. 2005 was decidedly lacking in sex scandals. No interns smoking the president’s “cigar,” no Tommy and Pam or Paris and, er, who was that guy again? Not even a measly exposed nipple to get us into a flap.

But that doesn’t mean 2005 was lacking in sexual high. and lowlights. So here they are: MMB’s 2005 awards for the best and worst in sex.

Greatest legal victory that moves gay people closer to being almost as boring as straights: the legalization of gay marriage. Don’t get me wrong, from a human rights perspective, of course, homosexuals should have just as much right to marry as heterosexuals. That’s a no-brainer. But I still have to wonder why gay people, usually so ahead of the fashion curve, would want so badly to get in on such an increasingly unfashionable institution.

Best social trend that moves heterosexuals closer to being almost as fun as homosexuals: the changing face of monogamy. Former Nerve columnists Em & Lo describe how complicated “living happily ever after” has become in last month’s New York Magazine cover story: “The new monogamy: Until death do us part – except every other Friday.” According to the story, more and more couples are custom designing monogamy to fit their own needs, maturely negotiating everything from open relationships to maybe a lap dance for your partner here or a threesome there. Is this a sign of a more permanent evolution, or is it only a matter of time before the pendulum swings back and good old-fashioned monogamy, and cheating, is once again de rigueur?

Most telling statement made by an American television network executive in a meeting to discuss the development of a new TV show about sex: “Sex is out, relationships are in.”

Best porn that isn’t really porn: Made in Secret: The Story of the East Van Porn Collective is a “documentary” about an anarcho-feminist porn collective that wanted to make porn they actually liked. Only the collective didn’t really exist until they started making the documentary and realized they needed a collective to document, and there was no porn except for the porn they had to make in order to make the documentary about them making porn. Yes, it’s a complicated, brilliant, multilayered piece of film that has you questioning your beliefs about sex, porn, representation and whether one can really make such a thing as “smart” porn. Check out more at www.eastvanporncollective.org.

(more…)

,

It was sheer coincidence that I happened to be visiting South Africa’s constitutional court in Johannesburg on the morning its judges were announcing a decision of profound social importance. It was equally coincidental that it happened within a few days of an equally significant change in the law in this country, on the same subject: how to give gay and lesbian couples rights approximating to those of marriage.

Our solution was to offer the uneasy British compromise of civil partnerships, much welcomed but falling short of full-blooded marriage (though the media have had no compunctions about referring to gay marriages, and I’m sure that, in spite of its legal inaccuracy, people will speak in the same terms).

The top South African court’s decision had no truck with such halfway houses. A law which insisted that a marriage can only be between a husband and a wife was, quite simply, unconstitutional and had to be amended, it ruled. The exclusion of gays and lesbians, Judge Albie Sachs said, “represents a harsh, if oblique, statement by the law that same sex couples are outsiders, and that their need for affirmation and protection of their intimate relations as human beings is somehow less than that of heterosexual couples”.

(more. . .)

————————-

Now, wait a minute. While the home of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is busy banning gay marriage, the land of apartheid is doing better.

Gay couples seeking to marry in New York had their hopes crushed yesterday by a Manhattan panel of judges that said homosexuals have no “fundamental right” to get hitched unless the Legislature changes the law.

In a 4-to-1 ruling, the Appellate Division said Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan was wrong last February when she ruled that state law was unconstitutional because it did not permit gay marriages.

“We find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right,” the court said.

“The power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not the judiciary,” they wrote.

(more…)

George Takei, who as helmsman Sulu steered the Starship Enterprise through three television seasons and six movies, has come out as a homosexual in the current issue of Frontiers, a biweekly Los Angeles magazine covering the gay and lesbian community.

Takei told The Associated Press on Thursday that his new onstage role as psychologist Martin Dysart in “Equus,” helped inspire him to publicly discuss his sexuality. He described the character as a “very contained but turbulently frustrated man.” The play opened Wednesday at the David Henry Hwang Theater in Los Angeles, the same day that Frontiers magazine featured a story on Takei’s coming out.

The current social and political climate also motivated Takei’s disclosure, he said.

“The world has changed from when I was a young teen feeling ashamed for being gay,” he said. “The issue of gay marriage is now a political issue. That would have been unthinkable when I was young.”

The 68-year-old actor said he considers himself as “having been out for quite some time.” Takei and his partner, Brad Altman, have been together for 18 years.

Takei, a Japanese-American who lived in a U.S. internment camp from age 4 to 8, said he grew up feeling shameful about his ethnicity and sexuality. He likened prejudice against gays to racial segregation.

“It’s against basic decency and what American values stand for,” he said.

Takei began his acting career in 1959, appearing in “Ice House” with Richard Burton. He joined the “Star Trek” cast in 1966 as Lt. Hikaru Sulu, a character he played for three seasons on television and in six subsequent films. Takei has appeared in scores of movies and television shows. He received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 1986.

A community activist, Takei ran for the Los Angeles City Council in 1973. He serves on the advisory committee of the California Civil Liberties Public Education Program and is chairman of East West Players, the theater company producing “Equus.” The play closes Dec. 4.

Link

,

BOSTON –Two gay activists are promising to post on the Internet the names and addresses of anyone who signs a petition that could lead to a statewide ban on gay marriage.

The move by Thomas Lang and Alexander Westerhoff, one of the first gay couples married in the state, came after state Attorney General Thomas Reilly on Wednesday certified a ballot question that bans gay marriage and civil unions.

Now, the question’s supporters must collect 65,825 signatures from registered voters, and approval from 25 percent of state lawmakers to get the question on the 2008 ballot.

Lang, 42, said the name, street address, hometown and ZIP code of everyone who signs the petition will be posted on the Web site KnowThyNeighbor.org. (more…)

[via BoingBoing]

Alexander Panetta
Canadian Press
Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Canada becomes the third country to legalize gay marriage after its Parliament approved landmark legislation late Tuesday despite strong opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders.

OTTAWA — It was fought in courtrooms, in legislatures, in street protests, and one of the most turbulent debates in Canadian history was settled Tuesday with a vote in Parliament. The House of Commons voted 158 to 133 to adopt controversial legislation that will make Canada the third country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage.

The Friend by Alan Bray · Chicago, 380 pp, £28.00
reviewed by James Davidson

In 1913, Turkish workmen restoring the Mosque of the Arabs in Istanbul uncovered the floor of a Dominican church. Among the gravestones was a particularly striking one in grey-white marble with pink and blue veins. Two helmets with slits for eyes faced each other, like a pair of beaky dolphins about, clangingly, to kiss: ‘Tomb Slab of an English Couple’, the label in Istanbul’s Archaeological Museum says.

With its unprovocative title, its brass-rubbings and its frequent dippings into the nitty-gritty of Christian rites, Alan Bray’s last book, The Friend, might not seem terribly exciting at first glance. And yet it is written in part as a defence of John Boswell’s Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, which came out a decade ago, and in part as sequel to his own Homosexuality in Renaissance England, which came out a decade before that. Both were considered exciting events at the time.

Boswell’s book, which I reviewed in the LRB (18 February 1996), centred on the liturgy of ‘brother-making’ or adelphopoiesis (‘bilateral – same-sex – sibling-making’) described in handbooks of Eastern Orthodox rites, which Boswell compared to heterosexual marriage ceremonies. It was headline-grabbing and old-fashioned looking, making much of primary documents ‘discovered’ in the archives, in proper Rankean manner. Reviewers, myself included, generally gave it a fairly hard time, and its central claim – that these same-sex unions sanctioned by the Church were analogous to heterosexual marriage rituals – had few takers among churchmen, historians or students of sexuality. Bray’s much shorter book had focused on the claim that ‘the sodomite’ was such a grotesque figure in Renaissance discourse that many men were quite surprised to discover it was a term that might apply to them for the kind of bum-fun they got up to with their bedmates on chilly winter nights. Full of subtlety and much admired, it has attained the status of a modern classic.

There is irony, therefore, in the late, cool Alan Bray riding, not without risk to his own reputation, to defend the late, uncool John Boswell. Or perhaps we had better view it as a gift, an expenditure of the symbolic capital Bray had accrued to breathe new life into a project considered dead in the water, a lavishing of his subtlety on a topic which had seemed in desperate need of some.

Which is a way of saying that I have changed my mind about Boswell’s thesis, and that it is Bray’s subtlety that converted me. Boswell, it’s beginning to seem, was on the right track; his overly gay interpretation of same-sex unions is less misleading than the loveless ‘anti-gay’ alternatives offered by his critics. For a very long period, formal amatory unions, conjugal, elective and indissoluble, between two members of the same sex were made in Europe, publicly recognised and consecrated in churches through Christian ritual.

They were never identical to heterosexual marriages – in societies in which gender differences were so significant, how could they have been? – but were often implicitly or explicitly compared to and contrasted with heterosexual marriages, and were by no means considered to come off the worse for the comparison. Indeed, as partnerships entered into by individuals acting as autonomous agents out of love for each other, same-sex weddings are much closer to modern companionate marriages than the heir-centred, family-allying and often family-arranged marriages of former times. In historical perspective, a love for someone greater than love for life itself, a love that obliterates the mundane world, wife, property, nation, children, is most typically a feature of the discourse of a same-sex lover. Which is why ‘would that all the Trojans died and all the Greeks as well, and you and I, Patroclus, alone survived to demolish Troy’s holy crenellations’ were considered by ancient commentators just about the gayest lines in the Iliad.

Bray was concerned that his book be seen not merely or not at all as an argument in favour of (the antiquity of) ‘gay marriage’, but The Friend is not merely about friendship either, and by the end of it I found my thoughts turning to some topics I had not anticipated: the traditionalism of the English, the British social security system, the origins of the state, and the manicure of an Egyptian pharaoh of the middle of the third millennium bce.

Technorati Tags: , , ,