A bit bitter, are we?

Ah, the truth!!! Gerard: You'd best put a treatment together for Gay Divorce Court now and start shopping it so you can reap the rewards tomorrow of your efforts today.

It's a nasty business. I always wanted a career woman with her own life that didn't have the need to procreate so we would live in luxury and with the freedom to enjoy it. Instead, I fell in love, compromised and now am the sometimes happy husband of a sexless wife and father of a loving, handicapped son. My sense of duty, a belief in the vows I took and committment to finish what I started keeps our family together, but I have learned two big lessons that all hapless people under the intoxicant of lust should heed: 1. Stick to you ideals and don't let "love" cloud your thinking, because 2., you're responsible for for your own happiness and your spouse theirs. The moment you rely on someone else to provide your happiness and make your day full (or your spouse does), you're screwed.

This is but Step #1 in the ultra-secret Democratic Party hidden agenda of Mandatory Gay Marriage for all Americans. And you, of all people, fell for it.

So let me get this straight Gerard, you're in favor of hearing even MORE from these folks that make up just 4% of the population? They are already insufferable, let alone having to see and hear more from them by even giving them this "right to suffer" like the hetero population? I think not....I'm so tired of their whining and complaining, let alone their "specialness" I could throw up. Gerard, do you honestly think that if the gays were given the "church wedding" their whining would stop???? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.......

Several gay guys of social aquaintance have taken me to task, at great length, about the unfairness of no gay marriage down here.
I told them that most straight guys of their age WISH there was a legal reason they couldn't get married.

Moondog, I don't think Gerard is offering marriage rights to gays so they will feel even more special. He's offering to let them suffer and be heartbroken, then bankrupted by the divorce industry, the same as us straight folks. Instead of indulged pets for the glitterati, they'd be normal people with standard issue complaints.

Personally, I'm in favor of marriage rights as punishment for gays going mainstream. Encouraging the social darlings into matrimony may bring proper attention at last to the injustices of divorce and hasten the day when the dysfunctional, criminal and just plain greedy can't use the legal system to torture the healthy and loyal among us.

If Gerard can peddle the idea for Gay Divorce Court, I want to be the script consultant for "impact on the children." Their sufferings may be different in the aftermath of gay marriages, but suffer they will. If politically correct politicians and celebrity bigmouths gave some of their attention to the 50% of kids who end up missing a parent, things might change for the better. Sadly, we must conclude that is not their real mission.

Gerard, you really screwed the pooch on this one. The idea that marriage is about love is probably the stupidest view of all. Get a grip, take a breath and repeat the mantra, "Society is for the sake of children, not adults and not sex." We are social for the benefit of offspring otherwise we might as well be bears.

The belief that homosexuals are suffering because society won't applaud their anal, oral sex, and otherwise perverse acts and bless them with marriage certificates is just plain absurdity. Boo hoo. You might as well start insisting that pedophiles have been unfairly treated, too, and if they find a place or pass a law making thir "love" legal, what's your problem with that?

Really, use your head.

Mark,
Have you ever noticed that whenever a politician says "It's for the sake of the children" something truly terrible is afoot?

Ah reverse-psychology! Nothing like the downside of the upside to get everybody on board. I suppose in the end that this is what we wish the Iraqis: freedom to vote so that at long last instead of tyranny they can suffer the inevitabilities of K Street scandals. I suppose in that spirit the wealthy should give away their money so that the poor can experience the devastation of probate.

As for myself, I prefer good old-fashioned opposition to disingenuous brotherhood.

On the other hand, none of us really suffer much of the indignities of arranged marriages. It's not a serious business or a social contract even between families any longer. It's all about the couple - so long as a couple is happy then it's all to the good of society right? That sounds to me merely inches away from nihilism. Gay marriage is nothing more than the revenge of the screen kiss manquee, the lost Oscar for Too Wong Foo made legal at last. All that politicization of eloping, as if parents don't matter - as if nothing matters but the wedding at the end. It's like the ending of 'My Man Godfrey'. Forget the madness, nothing remains ridiculous if you marry it off.

No today marriage is all about the semiotics of modern romance and the duplicity of the public celebration of private coupling - all vicarious and weepy. No, there isn't much to be lost by the standardless marriage. After all, the only public honor left among Americans is in military service, n'est-ce pas?

All is fair in love and war, and anything done in service of those notions should be equally rewarded and respected, no matter what. So long as the public and legal celebrations are done appropriately what difference does ones' orientation make? None over here at the Digest apparently. Why? Well because in the end it's all shit, and we might as well put lipstick on it all. Nothing's sacred, therefore everything might as well be.

At this point, were I not educated in the sciences, I would have a nicely devastating quote dripping with irony that would show my expression of contempt for the endorsement of show-weddings has a long and illustrious history. But all I can do is hope they decide for a different finger ring lest I be mistaken for a bride.

Okay. That's it.

When you start dissin' the 2nd Ave. Deli amigo, you have crossed the line.

GOD would be pleased to have them cater HIS wake.

YOU would KILL for a corned beef on rye RIGHT now and you know it.

I'll say this, Katz's has better matzo ball soup, but that's it.

The 2nd Ave. Deli is one of THE best places to get grub on this here planet.

Take it back Gerard.

Say you're sorry.

What were you thinking man?

Lettin' them metaphors run away with your brain?

Sheesh.

BTW. Out there on the back way to Everett, on Aurora, is a place called Bill's. Can't miss it. Right hand side. They got a hamburger that is bigger than the plate. Hand-pressed and Angus beef.

It rocks.

Stop there on the way to that 'flea market' in Lynnwood on a Saturday. At the old Lynnwood Drive-In Theater.

You'll have to double back a bit.

But you'll be glad for the digestion time.

Okay, I'm Sorry .

Sure. But with either two men or no men, how would the Divorce Court know who to screw?

Gerard, don't worry about polygamy. Having three wives is bad enough, paying alimony to three x-wives simultaneously is even worse.

Alan, I'm only surprised that you haven't vaporized to Belize so as to avoid being a life support system for three leeches. It just amazes me that when judges award alimony to make up for the financial support women have come to expect, they don't order the women to go around to the man's house, make dinner, do the laundry and give him a blow job twice a week to make up for what HE has come to expect. Perhaps it's because judges know men don't actually get or expect that from their wives........

In a previous life I tried to slap some sense into the heads of "legislators" who were making laws that were all about money and never about kids having the right to a DAD. The worst case ever is THREE men paying child support for a child who was never allowed to have any contact with any of them.

That boy's idiot mother and the bound-for-hell lawyers who helped her destroy her own son are the ultimate poster children for our foolishness. Gay marriage isn't the issue. Tenacity, courage, loyalty and love - in the sense of work and respect - are the issues. I doubt gays will do any better or worse in these regards than any other humans, whether we call their unions marriage, or sin, or something between.

AskMom,
Many hours later.............
the difference, for the most part, is that we heteros have learned to suffer in silence with a minimum of public displays (the child support when you are not the father, etc. being the exception) the "flamboyant" crowd will not only make public their suffering to assure us of their "normalcy" but will increase the volume so that we can share their suffering....hell, they do it now for their diseases...................
"I have to pay because you just had to put your what in some disease ridden where?"
Please, spare me the agony let alone the next group up the discrimination pole...
"I love my dog....REALLY love my dog"............
A pox on you Gerard for introduucing the concept of making money on my pain...............treatment shmeatment, rob a bank, run for congress, sell me amway...anything but more of Queer Guyths are the Married Guyths (that was a lisp)

"Twice disappointed"? Please tell me that this only means twice-married and not actually twice-divorced...

If the latter, then both Bill Clinton and I feel your pain. And I'm even serious about it!

Brilliant.

To Vanderleun:

I disagree. The idea of "gay marriage", or rather the blithe, breezy acceptance you give to it, repulses me in a visceral way that I cannot deny. The attitude you've expressed is to be challenged in every possible way. This issue is serious, and hits at the core of human life.

On what basis is gay-marriage an 'equal-rights' issue? Under the definition of marriage as a heterosexual I cannot marry same-sex either.

Back when I was 20 yrs of age (I'm now 44) I was once seduced by orthodox feminisms cause for equalization, blindly believing the cause was just. Now that I have aged I now can see I was bombarded back in my 20's by emotional blackmail(ex., if you are against abortion this ipso facto means you want to send females back to the oppressive kitchen suffering from the dark ages of patriarchy parasitic pregancy) I was led to believe in a cause which I later learned was built upon manipulative lies (it's just a clump of cells, no meaning, no big deal. Further, She was never raped!)

I'm not going to be emotionally blackmailed again into supporting a cause which manipulates the definition of words and their meanings in order to impose a Collectivist secular Marxist agenda.

The one who opened my eyes to the destructive collectivist agenda happened to be a homosexual who abhors the Gay movement, hates the word Gay, is over the rainbow because he saw that the real agenda by these socialist activists was not equality but to strip away homosexual identity much like same activists stripped away the identity of womenhood.

As a women I can relate to his experience of being used by the collectivist cause.

There can be no Liberation under the constraints of Equalization.

Gay marriage? I believe that all marriages should be performed in an atmosphere of joy and gayness. The kind of thing gay meant before homosexual deviants hijacked the word to soften the ugliness of what it is that they do. Yea, it is not "who they are" but "what they do" that is important. And no matter how many propagandists try to convince people that it "isn't a choice...", it damn sure is.

You don't reward disgusting and sick sexual deviants by trying to make them acceptable. They need something to help unscramble their addled psyches, not underwrite their perversions.

Somehow I doubt that mothers in law would permit such a union. Who wants to have to deal with suich a "daughter in law. You underestimate the power of mothers.

Gerard--

Where did you find all these paleohomos anyway? For every one of these clowns despising homosexuality, you just know they've got some hideous undivulged kink that makes coprophagia look like a church picnic.

The state has no legitimate interest in regulating sexual pair-bonds. It has a very critical interest in the creation of stable households that pool their assets, produce a surplus income for capital formation, invest prudently, create demand for goods and services, and provide for the care of minor issue, if any. All the rest is superstitious nonsense.

The notion that the only socially acceptable household is a male/female pair-bond animated by sexual attraction (or worse, for the sole purpose of procreation) is neanderthal. Successful households can be formed from any number (including more than 2)or relationship of consenting adults, for purposes that have nothing to do with romantic attachment or breeding.

Polygamy? The more the merrier! Incest? The family that plays together stays together! Bestiality? Hey, it's a dog eat dog world!

Seriously; an it harm none, do what thou wilt should be the whole of the law.

That;s my view of the matter.

There's no trend like a big, gay trend, and like you I have been wondering how long it will take for many of these newly married couples to realize that all they really wanted was the excitement of saying they were one of the first. That's a lot of gay divorces on the way, especially when the gay trend-machine realizes how hip it is going to sound to say they were one of the first gay divorces.

"So the Maples formed a union and demanded equal rights/'the Oaks are just to greedy, we will make them give us light'/Now there's no more Oak oppression, for they passed a noble law/And the trees are all kept equal/by hatchet, axe and saw."
"The Trees" Hemispheres, Rush 1978

I'm sure there must be some kind of compelling argument for gay marriage out there somewhere that might interest me. However the one you offer---I want you too to have this right, so you can suffer the way I do---simply doesn't cut it for me.

There's more, but I'll stop there.

No cigar.

Who knew gay marriage was really all about more employment for divorce lawyers? But of course; nearly all laws are crafted by lawyers and judges. Just a way to channel more legal fees their way.

Hmmmm, could it be that most laws have that intent?

Egad, I think I've just had an epiphany!

My personal one-liner on this:

It shouldn't be any of the government's business what you eat in bed.

Borrowing a phrase from one who is wiser and a verse from One who discerns the truth: The Cult of Malevolent Mendacity ... calling that which is good, evil; and that which is evil, good.

Oh, if it were only that easy. The law of unintended consequences will out, and I fear it will be litigious. Regards Keith

Let us all marry a barnyard animal and be done with it. Human nature a ship of fools

What do a Tennessee divorce and a tornado have in common?

Someone's gonna lose a trailer.

I'm laughing out loud! Wicked! Totally wicked! (Thanks ;0)

Great joke but wrong state...should have read 'Alabama divorce'

Of course polygamy is next. There is now no rational basis for maintaining the prohibition on it.

Soon thereafter, of course, incestuous marriages are quite forseeable, if only as an estate planning device. For example, currently, mega-taxes are imposed on transfers of wealth following death (estate taxes and inheritance taxes), including inter-generational transfers. However, federal and state death tax laws also recognize a marital exemption, allowing the estate to pass to a spouse tax-free.

As such, it would be legal malpractice for a lawyer to not advise widowed spouses to marry their children. By marrying their children, they obtain the benefit of a tax-free transfer via the marital exemption upon the death of the parent/spouse. By not marrying their children, such transfer at death gets taxed.

The fact that they never live together or never have sex is, of course, within the couple’s right to privacy, i.e., none of the government’s business.

I can't wait until the child support "fun" starts...

Here is just one example of some of the fun we will see on "Gay Divorce Court".

Two lesbians have a "turkey baster baby" and get divorced. The one who did not carry the child refuses to pay child support because she is "not the father" nor is she in any way related to the child genetically thus not responsible for the upkeep of the child. The mother of the child then turns around and sues one of their mutual friends who donated the sperm for child support because he is technically the father.

The only good thing that will come out of all of this will be the many entertaining hours of television it will generate.

I couldn't agree more, Gerard.

The notions that gay marriage will cause the complete downfall of society or create a mockery of traditional marriage is silly nonsense. We straight folks have already done a pretty fine job of ruining society and treating marriage as a joke.

Let the gay folks get married if the choose. What's the big damn deal?

Same-sex marriage isn't marriage.

And marriage is too important an institution to play around with, just to annoy your gay friends with legal bills.

Marriage is considerably older, as an institution, than the US Constitution and is older than recorded history. We simply don't know what we're doing if we mess around with it.

And do you really have a bright and shining legal line to separate polygamy from gayness?

Oh, Irony... whither goest thou? Thou must surely avoid the Webs of the Wide World, lest thou fall and ensnare thyself, debasing thyself and deluding the delusional...

ROFL. Gerard!

They don't want to get married. They want the right to get married. But they already do, just not to each other.

I had a similar problem when I was eight years old and my parents bought the sister a doll for no good reason. And they didn't last 36 months, either. Hey, what about me? Course, they didn't forget. I got a silver .45 pearl handled revolver cap gun.

Can't we just get them a gun?

From what I've seen in fay marriage, the aftermath doesn't last 36 hours.

As Hoffer noted, a dissenting minority can only feel free when imposing its will on the majority.

Come to think of it, Gerard, I suddenly realize I am denied right to be married to you. Now I'm starting to feel their pain.

I don't think your grandparents would have been better or stronger people had they agreed to address you as Gerard, or blessed fay marriage. They would have been different people, and they would have raised different people.

That is what fay activists want. We should all be more careful about what we wish for.

moneyrunner--

"Of course, polygamy is next...soon after, incestuous marriages are quite foreseeable."
The preferred marriage along the path of the old Islamic Caliphate is by first cousin, and represent one-half of all marriages. Marrying out consists of marrying your mothers side, marrying in, the fathers. Marrying the fathers side has the advantage of keeping the name and better controlling the property.
There is a reason Muslims are so insular.

Gerard,

Ba-da-BOOM. It's hard to decide which is funnier, this piece or your apology - although I note you wrote them before the denouement of Carol Ann Burger's marriage.

Further, it's astonishing to me how many people, even responding to a site like yours, seem to be imperviously, ah, irony-deficient.

Always remember, folks, Good Taste is the Last Refuge of People With No Sense of Humor. In, of course, my opinion....

Same sex marriage is the effect of a profound shift in what people perceive as the function of marriage in society, not a cause. For better or worse it's role as providing an institutional grounding for child rearing is now secondary to its role in achieving "personal fulfillment." And no, there's isn't any logical or coherent way to exclude either gays or plural marriage under those terms. Once we've taken that leap the consequences will follow as surely as the sun rises.

By the way, the classical Greeks certainly weren't prejudiced toward male homosexuality, but they didn't even consider homosexual marriage as on option... suggesting that they considered marriage as fulfilling a role that would make homosexual "marriage" simply silly.

But having said that, I think it's entirely valid to deny the "right" to a group that's so overwhelmingly committed to denying Second Amendment rights to everyone. Maybe it's quid pro quo, but it makes sense as an individual reaction. I'm guessing pro-SSM advocates won't see things that way, though.

I doubt if the push for gay 'marriage' today, (and whatever's next tomorrow) will stop until/if the sexual genie is put back in the bottle. For a stable, properly-constituted society we as a nation need to return to this model as the standard for adult life:

Get married
Stay married
Have children

Considering the allure of the contraceptive/ abortive sexual ethic of the modern West, I don’t see it happening, though.

Sow the wind. Reap the whirlwind.

Am I the only one who thinks homosexuals seem totalitarian? Do you really think they'll just stop at forcing the marriage issue?

I fear anyone who has no moral restraint AND who imposes his own immorality.

As we get farther and farther away from the necessary moral underpinnings of our form of government, it will become more and more necessary for one to become a law unto himself. The law is a joke and cannot be depended upon for protection.

It is a sad day when one takes consolation in the fact that he is more willing to die for what he stands for than those who control our rotten government institutions. Like so many in our society today, homosexuals may fight, but they will not die for what they stand for.

I don't think Karl Marx was ever challenged on this point. In fact, he probably never met those of us who come out of the heart land periodically to pull your American asses out of the fire.

Homosexuals are a threat. You had better wise up pretty quickly.

Mr. Kurtz explains here why gay marriage is a bad idea http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp

There sure are a lot of naive people on this site. Messing with language and calling things what they're not, is the stock in trade of totalitarians. You can call a fish a bird and try to convince everyone that it flies--but that doesn't make it so. Marriage IS a male-female union. Male-male unions and female-female unions are not and can never BE marriage, even if you call them that.

The primary motive behind the push for "gay marriage" is NOT "equal rights" for gay people. The true impetus is a desire to DESTROY marriage and the family altogether. The foundational documents of the "gay marriage" movement state this explicitly. They're very clear about using this issue as a way to wreck the family once and for all, and to usher in an age of sex absolutely free of the slightest trace of loyalty or lasting ties. Responsibility and commitment are anathema, and are to be abolished.

In my mind, this is an ideology that may be even more toxic than Communism. Civilization is simply not possible without responsibility and commitment. Promiscuity and fecklessness have been around forever--but they were not held up as IDEALS. They were judged harshly, precisely because they endanger and harm children; injure adults; destroy the trust, respect and consideration that make community possible; and eventually unravel the social fabric.

The state DOES have a stake in marriage, because no society survives without families--and that is precisely what the "gay marriage" movement is out to destroy.

I don't doubt that there are many gay couples who sincerely desire marriage--I know some personally--but they are being used as pawns by deranged and/or wicked people who feel the need to destroy everything they can't possess--and if they bring the whole society crashing down into smithereens on top of them, so much the better. It's called nihilism.

My name is Umar Saeed Shah I am Male from Pakistan. I am looking to meet the rigkt match for me,some one who is very similar to me,some one who understand me and love me.I don,t need time waster. I would like an Girl who is Trustworthy,Caring,Loving,Hardworking, Responsible and Faithful. I would like some one who is between the Age of 17 To 22 Email me with Pictures My Email Adress:umarshah777@yahoo.com My Cell Number:+923086981690

Okay, two links:

First, my 2004 Wall Street Journal op-ed, "Save Marriage? It's Too Late."

And, "What makes marriage, marriage?" Hint: Marriage is the way children get grandchildren.

And a bonus: What Chinese ideograms tell us about polygamy.

"A pragmatist is one who's ideology/theology has failed."- Herbert Schlossberg

Gerard, I love you, but your blithe disregard for the seriousness of this debate is disheartening. I'm sure it is one of the last vestiges of your libertine past and liberalism to go- funny how this one is so difficult to let go of. So many of the things you rail against are so deeply connected to the acceptance of gay marriage, I'm surprised you haven't given your own observations more scrutiny. It makes sense though; a failed marriage or two, kids grown, what's the harm anyway- there's seemingly little at stake for you. Who are you to sit in judgement on this one and all that.

Futhermore- to resist this tide- does it not seem impossible? The costs too high? And don't forget the benefit of being able so say "well at least I'm not a homophobe". IF that's what you might do- in the quiet of your heart at least, not at loud, for you are if nothing else, loyal and reluctant to play such cards. But I wonder.

Rev. Sensing had a link to an old commentary,I would love to see you dialogue with that.

This gay attitude is beneath you though I think. You can do better.

The destruction of the nuclear family is a central tenet of communism.

It is the stable nuclear family that is the nemesis of tyranny. That, and a strong church.

Undermine either and communism rushes more easily in.

A stable nuclear family rears productive, sane, hard working, self sufficient, responsible adults.

Without it we are much more easily made serfs.

To treat the all out attack on true marriage as a joke is really clueless of you.

Gay marriage is just another (not the only) symptom of a civilization in decline. Anything goes sexuality is not a modern invention; but something ancient societies seemed to believe in and practice (temple prostitutes). The gods were associated with sex in contrast to the God of Israel and Christianity.

Some authors credit the Jewish/Christian mandate of one man/woman emphasis on the family as a major factor in the rise of Western Civilization.

Not every plea for the good of the children is to be made fun of. Of all the things kids want, I would suspect it is for a mom and dad that live together and like each other..divorce makes kids wards of the state.

When a couple without kids gets divorced, everyone says that at least they didn't have kids, or thank god they didn't have any kids.

I agree it is probably a done deal, but still don't like it.

Look deeper Marie.

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper

Somehow, I just can't put 'gay' with 'marriage'. It's always been the gay divorcée, and now I suppose it will be more so.

Wait until your church or synagogue comes under fire for refusing to submit. Have you thought of that, Mr. V.? Do you really think they can hold out? Religious freedom will be dead the day homosexual marriage takes root.

Very glib.

I say let them marry in the new GZM.

Gerard,

I agree with those commenters who think you are missing the likely consequences of the disparition of stable families, churches, and the other social institutions that the radical left seeks to replace with organs of the State. Many of the ideologues who demand that same-sex couples be accorded the status of marriage were formerly enthusiastic proponents of the end of marriage, the end of the family, and a polymorphously perverse world where there are no permanently defined social relationships. They are still seeking that socially entropic chaos.

They are seeking to do to white America what they succeeded in doing to black America.

The black family in America survived the chaos and cruelty slavery. The black family in America survived the chaos of reconstruction and the cruelty of Jim Crow. The black family in America survived two world wars and the depression. But the black family in America could not survive "The Great Society." The Democrat Party created an enormous social mechanism designed to make fatherhood irrelevant and traditional family ties meaningless. And look at the results.

In 1970 Daniel Moynihan wrote that black Americans faced an epochal existential crisis, because at that time about 25% of black children were born out of wedlock. And today, almost 75% of black children are born out of wedlock.

Today, 25% of white children are born out of wedlock. All Americans are facing an existential crisis. Our society can survive an economic depression, a world war, or a natural catastrophe.

Our society will not survive the disintegration of the basic institutions that provide the structure of its social life -- the non-governmental institutions such as marriages, stable families, churches, and other free associations.

The invention of "gay marriage," the recently revealed programs to prevent children from having "best friends," the provision of fully paid-for abortion-on-demand -- these are all part and parcel of a coherent program to bring about the sort of social universe that Lenin and his cohorts enacted during the period of "War Communism." In fact, from Plato's Republic, destruction of the family and its replacement by state-controlled apparatuses for procreation and child-rearing has been a prominent feature of all full-blown socialist societies. Including of course the Lebensborn Program.

This process may still be forestalled, and in any event, you and I are probably too old to be certain of living to see America become a world that will make the mean streets of the urban jungle or the nadsat gangs of Kubrick's Clockwork Orange seem gentle by comparison. I am confident that I will not survive the first winter in the Labor Camp. But it will be an awful future that your grandchildren will inherit because you once joined a dream for such a brave new world.

Punditarian

OK, but only if it's mandatory. Affirmative action marriage.

As I followed a link to this The Top 12 Reasons To Burn A Quran On 9/11 article my first thought was American Digest's visitors truly should be able to pass judgment on this! http://hubpages.com/hub/The-12-Top-Reasons-To-Burn-A-Quran-On-911

I'm not into futile gestures such as burning Korans.

And, punditarian, you like so many others mistake me.

I remember not a while back, there was a "Koran paper plate and eat a pulled pork sandwich off'n it day", and there was a "Beer Coaster Koran" day, and after that, guess what....the Koran is still useless, since it doesn't specifically address gay marriage.

Sad when even the simplest of rhetorical devices goes over the heads of the supposedly educated. But don't stop placing the pearls, somewhere near the barnyard there may be a raven watching.

I cannot express my view on this matter better than Kathy from Kansas (November 25, 2008). Thank you, Kathy.

The "gay marriage" issue is not about live and let live, brotherhood of man or equality. These are the imitation appeals of the used car salesman.

The aim of these political activists is the dismantling of that which allegedly oppresses them *as homosexuals* (rather than as human beings or citizens) and the assertion of power over others to choose freely by means of the state apparatus. Without the state they are powerless.

Theirs is not a quest for harmony. It is a quest for nihilism and it is a celebration of that which moves society away from life and nurturing.

Tell me where is the irony in that?

Dear Gerard,

My apologies for mistaking you. I will re-read your article. But how is it that "so many others" mistake a writer as clear and powerful as Vanderleun?

In my neo-marxist-Reichian days, I would have said that this mistaking is a contradiction that needs to be analyzed . . .

Punditarian

I don't give a darn about who people marry or fornicate as long as no animals or children are used. People can get married with a vacuum cleaner for all I care.

Gerard, I'm in awe of your..is it cynicism? or twisted humor? or both? Whatever it is, I love it! As a hetero stay-at-home mom trying to navigate my way out of an 18yr mistake, gambling my youth, my faith, not to mention my reproductive organs, to a man-child who apparently didn't understand the concept of love and commitment until AFTER the humiliating affair he had with our son's best friend's mom, I am seriously considering some Lesbo gold digging as a transitional marriage! LOL. Only one problem: I can't stand other women.

As long as no one by word, thought, or deed including policy or commercial transaction must act against their morals to pretend that 'gay marriage' is okay with them, I have no problem. Is that so, or has the government legislated (actually judicialized) morality?

LOL! When I came in to read the comments there were 69...back to reading them....

In the case of my marriage, that photograph would be just a little different. One ring would have a right-hand thread and the other would have a left-hand thread.

Don't think "rereading" is going to do it.

"Tell all the Truth but tell it slant —
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise

As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind — "

-- Emily Dickinson

Gerard,

Actually I do get it. It is impossible to speak in a way that you cannot be misunderstood, but it is also possible to be understood. It has been a while since someone claimed to understand me better than I udnerstand myself.

On re-reading, your article is funny. Sardonic. Cynical. But funny. Although I think James Thurber did the war between men and women just as well, and with a lighter touch. But Thurber is admittedly too high a standard. Your work, in our contemporary context, is brilliant, witty, and dare I say, gay. Gay the way Yeats in 'Lapis Lazuli' understood what it is to be gay.

I have not achieved that Nietzschean insouciance. Despite the evident pain that accompanies so many aspects of everyday life for so many people, the prospect of the unraveling of our civilization distresses me.

The development of a human soul (or psyche if you must) through childhood, through the physical and emotional trauma of puberty, through the discovery of sickness, old age, death, lies, betrayals, and disappointments -- this is the basic subject of the hero's quest. Going through life requires an heroic temperament, does it not? The price we pay for awareness is self-awareness. It is not cheap.

But the destruction of private property, the family, and the church is going to bring with it a toll of misery for millions of people that is beyond our current ability to understand.

I regret everything that I have done to contribute to the degradation of our civilization, and everything that I have not done to help save it. "Decadent" used to sound nice to me. It doesn't anymore.

Punditarian

PS If homosexual individuals comprise no more than 2-4% of the population, it is doubtful that their business will have the sort of impact on the catering and apparel industries that you envision.

Homosexuals want official sanction for the purpose of convincing themselves that there is nothing wrong with what they do. Legality will not absolve them of their inner guilt, but it will allow them to gleefully shove their defiance into the faces of the people who disagree.

I for one will not accept any proclamations from any source that "find" a right to gay marriage in Our laws or traditions. This is no different from "finding" a right to abortion in the 14th amendment, and being unable to see the clear language in the 2nd for the last half century.

You might as well tell me that Freedom is Slavery, and we have always been at war with Oceana

You mean we haven't?

Now that was tasty, it made my day. Conragtulations on a fine piece of work.

I would love to join in the merriment but I do think children will suffer if gay marriage becomes the norm.

It's a statistical fact that more men than women sexually abuse children. It is probably due to a stronger sex drive than women, but that's a fact we already know. And gay men are FAR more likely than heterosexual men to sexually abuse children.

Now we are going to drop babies and children, boys included, into male gay marriages and pretend that everything will work out fine?

In some cases the kids will survive to adulthood without major damage other than a life-long wistfulness or an aching heart about the mother they never had. That's bad enough.

In many other cases they will end up child rape victims -- that's not alarmism, it's predictable based on the frequency of gay sexual abuse of minors.

You can't screen out the gay pedophiles based on prior offenses because every pedophile starts out with a clean record.

Many divorced dads do well when taking care of their own biological chlidren. But they are (a) heterosexual (b) clearly capable of finding and wooing adult female companionship and (c) taking care of their own biological offspring, in most cases.

Start having gay men care for offspring that aren't even theirs biologically, especially after the inevitable divorces, and you are playing with fire.

If we try out this experiment at our kids' expense, not only will many innocent lives be damaged and destroyed, but the social experiment will be very hard to unwind.

Sometimes longstanding societal conventions exist for good reasons that are not obvious until you start to unwind them.

Even Glenn Beck has come out and said he doesn't care either way.

I think the argument on this is over.

Regarding polygamy, I think our poor Mormon friends got shafted some time back. Some of them still practice. It's about time they be allowed to come out of the closet. I know some Christians will cite certain Bible verses as condemning polygamy, but none of them seem clear-cut to me. And those same Mormon's (even the women) can tell you about the benefits.

If there is going to be such a thing as "gay marriage", I say let's put all of the options on the table.

It may be over but it's just another step in the long march against the rest of us we're going to concede because those with the loudest shrieks insist it's a done deal already.

Sorry, Gerard, you've been exposed to more life than I have, but while I may not care what body parts goes where for others, I do care about traditional values and marriage is one of them.

Gays already adopt children. And gay sex is not anymore perverted than what is acceptable in kinky hetero sex, except that it's shared between two consenting adults of the same gender. I wish we could at least first admit we are all screwed up before we start picking homosexuality apart, morally. Having said that, I like the idea of being free to simply opt out of marriage altogether. And, sorry, polygamy is a stupid idea. I'd rather be a single mom than live with other women. No easy answers here, regarding what to do with this overrated tradition called "marriage". But let's NOT hold up hetero marriage as a great ideal.

I have seen several Lesbian couples raising children. It is not a pretty sight. It is ugly. No one seems happy in such relationships. We won't really know how bad this is until the fartlings of such marriages are raised and out of therapy. Then we can survey the damage of allowing the slide.

Oooh, pictures! Gay fambly pictures!

http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/cache/2009/05/strange-family-e1304629244282.jpg/560_0_resize_watermarked_lt_5.jpg

"Gay marriage" will be marriage on the very same day that semen mixed with feces produces a child.

JWM

jwm at June 25, 2011 8:55 PM wins the thread. Homosexuality in any form is nauseating and contrary to the order of the universe.

Our host is being ironic.

Nevertheless, today represents one more step down the road to societal collapse. And I say, let it come. Once the artificial force field that protects Liberal Democracy from reality shuts down, reality will once again assert itself.

Mankind has gone mad. His worship of individual liberty has driven him over the brink. In his madness, he now believes that he can define reality by the vote of a legislature. The only thing left for us now is to hang on until the Gods of the Copybook Headings limp up and explain it again.

Ah! A classic! Homosexuality has always existed. I don't think it is the most dangerous thing we have going in our society. What is more important is how gay marriage becomes defined by our laws, how it changes the definition of traditional marriage and family. But most important is how the definition comes to be - if by an activist judge or federal mandate, I'm not okay with that. That is far more perverse than gay sex. It's like I tell my kids, gay kids are just trying to be like other kids - they just have mixed up wiring but they basically want the same things straight kids want. The real divide is philosophical and political. The feds, activist judges need to stay out of the marriage issues as well as the bedroom. But repealing DADT... now that was a direct hit meant to weaken our military. And a strong military is one of the few things our federal government should do and do well. Marriage should be a state issue and DADT was working - but leave it to the federal government to do the opposite of what it should do. The U.S. military is quickly becoming just another entitlement program. Only in America.. Only in Leftist America.

@ Jewel:

"I have seen several Lesbian couples raising children. It is not a pretty sight. It is ugly."

Yep. If we are writing about ugly, then we must be also referring to Rosie O'Donnell.

*sigh*

Homosexuality. Ah yes... the blurring of the lines between the definitions of the terms 'affection' and 'attraction'.

This kinda reminds me of Confucius' Rectification of Names:

“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.

“When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.

“Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.”

Ugly, messy.. and definitely not kosher (though there are modern Jews who would beg to differ).

I just wonder where we are going (and why am I in this handbasket)?

10The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

11For by me thy days shall be multiplied, and the years of thy life shall be increased. -

Proverbs 9:10-11

We're a mortally sick society, and I believe that our descent into moral abyss at even more exponential pace under the guise of secular humanistic "pride", brings grief to God.

Here's a wrench, thrown by a Lesbian Monkey into the whole knot tying thingy:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/former-lesbian-turned-evangelical-christian-kidnaps-daughter-vanishes-amid-custody-battle/

You make some good points, but...

Would YOU want to be the child growing up in a household with two "daddys!" copulating in the next room?? I'm sure they wouldn't try to influence your 'sexual preference' in any way.

How about a household with two "mommys!"?? You would be a much different person, Gerard, and all of us readers who so love you would be the poorer for it.

No. History is screaming at us: "NO!!".

Love you, Gerard---but

1) Having known many wonderful gay men for the last 40 years, I will still never agree that it is a good thing to permit gay couples to adopt children. You can count the number of monogamous gay relationships on the fingers on one maimed hand. No way.

2) I don't care if they have a civil "union." They're entitled to the same legal rights as everyone else. I just don't want the government to force the church to marry them. "Marriage" is a specifically technical term in the church and also a sacrament, and it will never apply to homosexuals. And that's the end of it.

Gerard, face it. Some of those drugs you did in the sixties? Well, there's a residual effect. Now go read Kipling's Gods of the Copybook Headings, and repent.

I've always wondered why the religiously moral get so outraged over the idea of or mention of 'gay marriage". If you believe that marriage is between a Man and a Woman in the eyes of God, then you must also believe that a Gay marriage wouldnt be valid in the eyes of God. So it's a win win. The gays get to seal their deals and the morally upstanding can rest easy in the knowledge that God doesn't recognize the union. I live in Kansas City, not far from the Phelps clan. It's striking how otherwise reasonable people can sound much like the Phelps bunch when it comes to who is sticking what in whom. You can't tell gubmint to stay out of YOUR business, while demanding they cock block anyones business you dont agree with on "religious /moral" grounds.

This is a "So what". If a couple of (fill in the blank) want to ruin a perfectly good friendship, who am I to stop them. It is a symptom of their condition that they will never be happy. Now they will legally be able to suffer with the rest of us.

The gays get to seal their deals and the morally upstanding can rest easy in the knowledge that God doesn't recognize the union.

mark: It would be nice if that were as far as it went. Unfortunately, leftist governments always insist on forcing the church to conform to secular law, essentially making certain ideas of the church illegal, and thus assuring the end of the church.

Gerard, you've got to re-think this one.

Now that you have evolved into supporting gay marriage, Mr. President, as a Christian, is God still in the marriage mix, like you told Reverend Rick Warren in 2008? Just asking.

Ann Barnhardt.biz

caution graphic language

As a great man once said: "Never give up. Never surrender!".

Same sex marriage - come on - let's get a reality check.

Gays and lesbians can pretend all they want, but the truth remains simply - one man and one woman are the perfect married couple.

Biologically speaking, sperm seeking sperm will not contribute to the human species.

Just saying the cold truth.

WHAT an UGLY frown poor Barry wears!!! He would frighten any poor child!!

[Another verse from Queen], "another one bites the dust"!

Et tu Gerard?

Geo

If gays want all the petit-bourgeoise crap that goes along with marraige, then let them have it.

The first gay couple that got married in MA already got divorced.

There's that old saying about being careful what you wish for.

Lots of people are about to experience that.

All this fuss over 4% of the population, i.e. about a million people, or 500,000 couples. With all the noise you would think least half the country was whining.

Ummm...NO.
The attempt to "norm" this deviancy will not stand.

Alternatively: name *one* long-lasting culture of note/substance in which such perversion was a norm.

Greece
Rome
Egypt
Crete
Poland
Brazil
China (various dynasties)
Communist China after Mao
Medieval Russia
Japan....

I've been saying the same thing!! Gay Divorce Court is going to make the best Reality TV EVER!!

"Gay Divorce Court"! You heard it here first, fledgling reality-TV producers.

Or as a grizzled, graying lesbian once told me, "Skorp, you haven't seen a 'couple fight,' until you've seen a dyke couple fight!"

You are still right, Gerard.

Bravo, Bravo, Bravo!!!!!!

iri- Yes, but not as much as they hate themselves. I suspect if you could dig deep enough you would find that the grotesque forms of public behavior (think San Francisco), desperate seeking of respect from society, contentious demands for access to social mores etc. are driven by self hate.

You cannot redefine a word to suit your personal requirements. Marriage is what marriage is, what it always has been from its inception and across all societies. This is the essence and content of rational resistance to "gay marriage". It's not about a person's social or biological or religious views on homosexuality.

This error reminds me of those who speak of the United States as a "proposition nation", as though the U.S. can signify whatever anyone wants it to signify. This is wrong. It is a defined sovereign state and territory peopled by specific individuals and to reduce it to some libertarian "freedomfest" is a corruption of the intellect.

Where truth and accuracy are discarded, so is everything else.

I can't wait to see the gay break ups on Maury Povitch. Waiting for the DNA tests to see who's going to be the father excites me.

One must first define and understand what a "right" is. Next is understanding what a "civil right" is and isn't. Next is understanding the contract that established our government. Next is actually looking at this contract or Constitution. Should judges amend it or should there be a Constitutional or contractual amendment that 2/3 of the states/voters must approve? Should people in black robes decide ?? Should nine people decide a state issue for 313 million ?
Is our contract establishing our government be dull and void since it is disregarded ? These are the questions, not sex.

Expect 'legalization' of polyandry and polygamy to follow.
Expect animal husbandry and wifery to take on new meaning to serve the satyrists. Expect polyfroggery to become a fad [Don't you remember the frog-into-prince story?].

In the decline of cohesive traditional Judeo-Christian-Buddhistic family and behavior standards expect the regress to mass perversity.
Remember those ancient lines, 'Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.'

Eh, you could've left it alone but you had to grab the third rail. 114 comments, that must be a record!

The Great One, Mark Levin, is on the air now explaining why the left created this issue and the damage done. It really never had anything to do with anything other than drawing power from the people to the leftists.

But you're right that now its all over but the crying. When I say my prayers tonight they will include a prayer that Caitlyn Obama gets venereal warts on the inner labia of his prolapsed post-constitutional rectum and that they hurt like hell. I know that sounds Draconian but I say "let the punishment fit the crime."

You're a good man, Gerard, I hope you and your mom are still doing well in thirsty California. I'm going to throw a couple of skins in the tip jar, please use it to buy yourself a frosty beer.

Gerald,

If this is any consolation, my hubby and I just bought lots of popcorn today at Costco. And the box was quite heavy.

We'll be sitting right next to you, buddy!

P.S. We already told our children to forget about Disney World for the next... well, forever.

I always thought prescience was a sign of intelligence. The IQ tests ignore it altogether...

Jesus weeps, so I don't know why I'm laughing about this ssm insanity, except that, like Mr. V., twice divorced, I'm enjoying a certain schadenfreude, mixed with nostalgia and bitterness.

As a fellow lover of vicarious entertainment I'm out there on the lawn with you, Gerard. I've packed a lunch and am ready to stay the day.

I have a story you might enjoy.

My niece is a lesbian and has been a very vocal proponent of gay rights and marriage. This caused a 10 year rift between her and her parents who are very Christian and her father is a minister. Needless to say they got tired of her strident proselytizing and just stopped talking to her. When they cut off communication with her she and I had many discussions about it and I finally told her "You keep complaining about people like your parents 'staying out of your bedroom'. They'd love to but every time they talk to you it is YOU who are one dragging them into it...dragging them into it just to watch you do the equivalent of five year old jumping up and down on the bed while screaming "LOOK AT MEEEEE! You want people to stay out of your bedroom then do them and yourself a favor and quit dragging them into it." She got the clue and toned it down. Her parents reconciled with her and things are much better.

In our discussions on marriage I told her that it is called a contract for a reason. Marriage is basically an economic contract and always has been. If she wanted to get married she best look the financial ramifications before doing so. (She is very talented and makes a LOT of money) I also told her the first rule of shacking up with anyone is keep the money separate.

I told her this back in 1998 and my words came back to haunt her.

About four years ago her and her partner wanted to get married. They bought $10,000 engagement rings for each other and had the big wedding planned in Boston (the state where we live does not allow gay marriage...at least not until yesterday). They got all carried away with the wedding planning stuff until her accountant told her the financial ramifications of doing so...the big one being the $38,000 marriage penalty they'd be paying Uncle Sugar every year. That put a halt to the wedding plans for both of them decided that marriage wasn't such a great idea after all.

Fast forward to last December...

On a dark and stormy night (yes, it actually was) my niece and her partner got into a huge argument and her partner became physically violent. The police were called, my niece had to get stitches, etc. That was the straw that broke the camel's back for my niece so she moved out. They were done.

As I pointed out above my niece makes a lot of money and her annual income is about ten times what her partner's is. Her partner filed a lawsuit demanding half of my niece's assets because they had been in a domestic and business partnership for 10 years. There were a lot of assets-brand new 8,000 sq ft. house with pool and summer kitchen they had built as a 'wedding present' to themselves, two rental houses and a beach house plus all the other stuff. My niece, needles to say, didn't want to give up half her assets so she went to her attorney. Her attorney told her that seeing as everything they owned (with the exception of my nieces 401k) was owned jointly and they had a joint bank and credit card accounts that basically they were in a business partnership (if nothing else) and, yes, she would have to cough it up. The lawyer said she could try to fight it but all she'd be doing is paying a lot of attorney fees to achieve the same result. The fighting over the money and the houses has been ugly but the end is in sight.

Last Saturday I was over at her new house and my niece told me "You warned me about this and I didn't listen. I wish I had." I smiled at her and said "Sometimes people have to learn things the hard way. I did with my first marriage. Everyone warned me and I didn't listen. In fact I reacted to their advice about the same way you did to mine. Now you understand I wasn't trying to be mean or anything else, I was trying to protect you."

Why be concerned with morality or right and wrong? Who cares if some bloke rapes a woman, isn't all the same after all? And if a man beats a dumb beast isn't it no worse than being intimate with it? Its all the same to me goes the siren call.

Its the theme song of the ninth ring.

Its all the same to me.

Hmmm. You'd think this was a setup by the ATLA{American Trial Lawyers Association} to guarantee a rich and fulfilling career. More contracts, more divorces, and more fees. "Billable hours are good..."
The lawyers must be licking their chops.
tom

I can't wait until Granny, on her death bed, marries her favorite granddaughter, and the IRS watches all that Estate Tax money just drifting away into the sunset - instead of into the IRS coffers.

Two same-sex anyones even when not sexually connected can marry and same thing - there goes all that Estate Tax money.

Same with SS spousal benefits, health care insurance, military pension spousal benefits, and I'm sure we can all think of other scams that will now become perfectly legal.

Oh, the divorce lawyers and the tax lawyers are going to have a field day!

Brilliant.

Birkenstock Sandals xwlkkguge Mens Birkenstock Sandals mfszjelx Birkenstock Sandals Outlet sjchipefs Birkenstock Sandals Sale cewzqfvvh Discount Birkenstock Sandals
Buy Birkenstock Sandals http://www.birkenstocksandals.ca