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.

There are a thousand good reasons to deny homosexuals the respectability of a state sanctioned marriage but the best is simply pure spite.

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